The Sizewell C Project

Representations received regarding The Sizewell C Project

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on The Sizewell C Project and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Binita Walia
"I am writing as a regular tourist to Suffolk and a member of the public who cares about our environment. I have grave concerns about the environmental impact of Sizewell C and from my in depth research I can see that there are many issues on the land and coast that need resolving concerning birds, nature reserves, wildlife. What I am very concerned about however, is the omission of the Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD) as the third fish deterrent system for the cooling tunnels from EDF’s consultation. Without an AFD, fish are at risk of being sucked into the cooling tunnels in vast quantities. This is both dangerous and environmentally catastrophic. Not using rigorous fish deterrents and the AFD is a direct threat to REAF - The Renaissance of the East Anglia Fisheries. ‘The REAF group have launched the UK’s first regional fishing strategy, presenting a template for revitalising East Anglia’s fishing industry. The strategy spells out the opportunities presented across all sectors of the industry. It is born of a unique community-led partnership between three local authorities, the local fishing industry, government agencies and a major port operator.’ Therefore, at the same time as trying to nurture and grow a fishing industry in the local area, the power plant will be suctioning in millions of fish to die in the cooling tunnels over its lifetime. The most common fish in the area are herring and sprat of 88 known species and there is also Dover Sole, sand gobies and Flounder present, which can also be deterred by an AFD. The removal of the AFD from the Consultation shows that EDF are trying to cut their costs and are not willing to address this hugely threatening environmental issue that will seriously affect the UK’s fishing potential post-Brexit. It is imperative EDF work towards solving all the environmental issues associated with the Sizewell site and that the Environment Agency and Planning Inspectorate hold EDF to account on ALL these issues because they will affect Britain’s ecology and biodiversity irreversibly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Yeo
"I wish to lodge my strong objection to the location of the lorry park in Felixstowe Road (the Seven Hills lorry park). Its proposed location will be danger to road users with slow moving large vehicles crossing a 60 mph road only a few yards before vehicles come off a 70 mph dual carriageway. Felixstowe Road is also a national cycle route so the massive increase in HGVs will add to the risk of serious accidents or death to vulnerable cyclists. the ability for HGVs to leave via the right turn onto the A1156 which is a 60 mph road and then negotiate the Seven Hills roundabout increases the risk in what is an accident black spot with 60 accidents in the last 10 years. Alternatively they may travel east along the Felixstowe Road and join the A14 Westbound on what is a very short run-on lane with these slow moving vehicles joining an already congested A14 . It is hard enough to negotiate in a car let alone in an HGV. No account has been taken of the fact that this section of the Felixstowe Road is also a Stack Area for the Port of Felixstowe. The proposed site will also be an environmental eyesore bordering on an AONB and will have an impact of the tourism that the area relies on. A recent application for a significant lorry park slightly further east along the A14 at Innocence Farm was recently rejected by the planning inspector who stated that not only should this development not be allowed as it was not needed nor was there any need for an alternative to substitute it. The proper location for a staging park such as this would be along the A12 north of Seven Hills which would these risks and conflicting issues."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dawn Lacey
"EDF - SIZEWELL C SUFFOLK IS AN OUTDATED COSTLY DESIGN - EDF HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN CONSULTATIONS 1,2,3 AND 4. APPARANT TO ALL CONSULTEES, INC. COUNCILS, LOCAL HOMEOWNERS AND BUSINESSES. SCIENTIFICALLY IT IS TOO CLOSE TO THE NORTH SEA TO BE SAFE FROM FUTURE SEA DAMAGE AND POTENTIALLY BECOMING AN ISLAND. NUCLEAR WASTE BEING A HUGE CONCERN. SMALL REACTORS FOR SUFFOLK ARE LESS DAMAGING FOR THE AONB, SSSI'S AND THE ALREADY ERODING COASTLINE. AS ARE WIND FARMS (AS RECENTLY GRANTED IN NOROLK). BATTERY POWER BEING ABLE TO STORE EXCESS POWER. REASON NOT TO PROMOTE RAB FUNDING: THE UK PUBLIC IN THE CLIMATE OF COVID 19 CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO PICK UP THE COSTS TO FUND EDF WHO ARE STRUGGLING FINANCIALLY, WITHOUT EXTERNAL FINANCIAL BACKING. EDF ARE PREPARING TO CUT COSTS BY UP TO 3 BILLION EUROS FOR 2020 - 2021, ALTHOUGH THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT HAVE AN 85% SHARE IN EDF, THEY HAVE CONFIRMED CANNOT FURTHER FUND EDF DUE TO NEED TO BOOST FRENCH ECONOMY POST COVID. REASON NOT TO USE CGN FOR EXTERNAL FINANCIAL BACKING: THE UK GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN WARNED FROM MANY RELAIBLE SOURCES NOT TO GET INVOLVED WITH CHINA FOR NUCLEAR BUILDS, TO PROTECT UK SECURITY. The Sizewell Link Road will severely affect both my husband and myself. My husband and I are key stake holders. I am [Redacted], and specifically chose to live in a location surrounded by open farmland, with clean air and with no vehicle emissions to worry about. EDF’s current planning application shows the Sizewell Link Road being extremely close to our property. (At the Stage 4 Consultation, we had requested numerous times for measurements showing exactly where the link road is being proposed, but EDF failed to provide this information). EDF are aware of my [Redacted], and have not taken it into consideration, with the planning application proposed link road being even closer to our property. Due to EDF’s proposals we will have to have whole house ventilation installed, to try and help cut the proposed vehicle emissions to try and control [Redacted]. The emissions from vehicles using the proposed Sizewell link road and being so close to our property remains a huge health hazard for myself and a huge worry. We also have the financial worry that we are forced to spend money on our property to be able to control [Redacted], only to get confirmation that our property will be reduced in value directly due to the proposed link road because of vehicle noise, visual disturbance, and emmissions. Currently Fordley Road remains a single track country lane with minimal traffic flow, cutting into fields, with high banks either side of the road in certain areas, causing rainwater run-off and historical floods, with the Minsmere Cut statutory river running parallel to the road edge. The Environmental Agency are aware of this. The Minsmere Cut runs directly from Minsmere and was cut into the land as an overflow system. Due to EDF’s proposed layout for Fordley Road, at peak traffic times it will easily become a rat run, allowing traffic not to queue at the proposed Yoxford roundabout. THIS WILL CAUSE ACCIDENTS AND FURTHER CONGESTION ON THE SINGLE TRACK ROAD POTENTIALLY STOPPING FARM MACHINERY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ACCESS. THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN – PLEASE STIPULATE THIS IN YOUR COMMENTS TO EDF. EDF’s proposed largest detention pond close to the junction of Fordley Road and the B1122 is at the top of a hill looking down towards Fordley Road. Please confirm what benefit the location of this detention pond will have to an area renowned for flooding. Taking the above into consideration, and to help eliminate all of the above, we strongly request the road is to be re-located closer to the existing B1122. Our location currently benefits from regular sightings of Red Deer, Red Kites, Buzzards, barn owls, badgers, hares, bats, partridges, pheasants skylarks and swifts, and is close to protected natural habitats. It is a very quiet, and unspoilt location, allowing nature to thrive, all would be affected by the Sizewell Link Road, that’s just in our location! We strongly request to see all of EDF’s Fordley Road wildlife reports which have been submitted with their current planning application. The B1122 was used for the construction of Sizewell B, affecting far less homes than if the proposed Sizewell Link Road were to go ahead. It was also previously agreed that the D2 route would be a far more direct route if a link road was ever deemed necessary. As we all are very much aware, it is a huge UK security risk if China invests further into the UK infrastructure, The RAB model is not viable as the UK public cannot be expected to fund the build of Sizewell C particularly post Covid, by paying inflated prices for electricity for years to come. EDF’s French Audit Report predictions for 2020 – 2021 have been reduced by 2-3 billion euro’s due to the knock on effect of Covid 19. EDF are renowned for nuclear power station technical failings. Nuclear waste being a global concern , with no proven adequate way of disposing with the waste, particularly with global warming and sea levels rising. The Chinese only recently wanted to compromise health and safety at Hinkley by wanting to use a crane above the workers carrying a vast concrete floor slab. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW FURTHER TECHNICAL FAILINGS, AND WASTE DISPOSAL WORRIES FOR EAST SUFFOLK. With all the above in mind please therefore consider the safety of the UK public now and for future generations to come. Wind Farms backed by green battery power, being a cheaper, less invasive, quicker to build and healthier option, without putting the UK security at risk. East Suffolk residents livelihoods including farming and tourism, WILL SUFFER, including East Suffolk’s AONB, SSSI’s and RSPB Minsmere, EDF ARE FINANCIALLY STRUGGLING, CGN IS A UK SECURITY RISK, HINKLEY IS BECOMING CLOSER TO BEING THE UK’S MOST EXPENSIVE WHITE ELEPHANT. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW EDF TO CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING JOBS FOR EAST SUFFOLK, AS THEY ARE HOPING TO BRING THE MAJORITY OF THEIR WORK FORCE FROM HINKLEY TO SIZEWELL TO ‘HOPEFULLY SAVE 20%’? ANY SIZEWELL C JOBS ADVERTISED ARE DUE TO BE TEMPORARY JOBS LASTING PERIODS OF THE BUILD TIME, BUT IN THE MEANTIME HUNDREDS OF LOCAL RESIDENTS LIVELIHOODS WILL SUFFER WHERE EDF HAVE CRIPPLED FARMERS, TOURISM AND LOCAL BUSINESSES. CONCLUSION Please say NO to EDF’s Planning Application for Sizewelll C which is on a piece of land on the Suffolk Heritage Coast, linked to AONB with SSSI’s. The land in question has been confirmed as too small for what EDF want to try and squeeze onto it. EDF’s proposals of 2 village bypass at Stratford St Mary and 2 Park and Rides at Wickham Market and Darsham will be completely inadequate. The A12 will become one long congestion from Ipswich to Lowestoft. The Orwell Bridge closes due to high winds causing vehicles to then congest in the heart of Ipswich which it’s infrastructure cannot cope with. Emergency Services will severely struggle to utilise the A12 in vital circumstances. ---------------------------------------------------- I fully endorse both East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council's viewpoint regarding EDF's proposal for a Sizewell C Link Road. * It is not necessary to divide and ruin communities and businesses for the proposed Sizewell Link Road to be built. There is no benefit, as the proposed Link Road as per Council's comments, would run parallel to the existing B1122. There is no legacy benefit, with the Council's not wishing to have ongoing maintenance costs, therefore the road after Sizewell C is built, would become redundant, having ruined the local landscape and wildlife, and which would have the cost to be re-instated. Who would pay for this? * East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council, also have mentioned and are proposing, which I also endorse, that the previously discussed D2 route south of Saxmundham is the most favourable and straight forward route for a Link Road. It is a more direct route going into Leiston and Sizewell, meaning less Sizewell traffic travelling unnecessarily north on the A12 to Yoxford. (With the majority of Sizewell lorries coming from the South) The D2 route would offer a direct route for the public, for public transport and for emergency services also, whilst allowing direct access to Sizewell C, and providing a legacy. EDF have continually throughout Stage 2, 3 and 4, ignored and failed requests to provide the D2 route option. The Council's and myself continue to propose this route as the best Sizewell Link Road option. *Separately, the A12 is not built to take the amount of lorries through Suffolk for the build of Sizewell. The majority of existing haulage lorries using the A12 through Suffolk drive to the Port of Felixstowe. The Orwell Bridge closures due to high winds cause stacking procedures, for the haulage lorries, and also causes gridlocks in Ipswich."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathon Foster on behalf of Dr Daniel Poulter MP
"Dr Poulter has noted various concerns with the current proposals, including: • Extensive damage to Suffolk’s coastline and protected landscapes and habitats • Due to the change from sea-based to land-based delivery of construction materials, existing infrastructure is insufficient to support the volume and weight of construction traffic Dr Poulter will also likely note other local implications of the project as well as the updgrade needed to infrastructure to support such a large development in the region."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Natural England
"As per your email dated the 8th July 2020 Natural England will provide relevant representation by the 30th September 2020. Please see attached"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Sutton
"As a member of the engineering community involved with systems (electrical, electronic and programmable electronic systems) used for process control and safety I intend to provide meaningful questioning and commentary where appropriate on the suitability of the design and engineering practices to be followed as part of the necessary process safety review for the plant design. My interest lies in understanding the measures to be followed to ensure that the plant can be shown to be sufficiently low risk and managed through it's operational life so as to pose no concern to the location, the environment and society in general above recognisable tolerable limits."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Costain
"The application is in the interests it the local comMunity and the country in general and should be approved"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Henrietta Palmer
"I wish to register that I protest against the proposed Sizewell C development . 1) Devestation to local environment 2) whatever attempts are made by EDFs to deal with the traffic it will nonetheless be utterly overwhelming for the local population; the dust and noise from the lorry traffic will be dreadful for many years; Sizewell Gap is already very busy and that will double at least, with the noise from pile driving 24/7 for 2 years 3) a lot of projects are planned for the area at pretty much the same time 4) the design of the plans are outdated; there isn't any need to have a nuclear power station like that now when there are smaller more mobile alternatives 5) I am storing the waste at Sizewell I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C Henrietta Palmer"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynda Whitbread
"I have concerns on all aspects of the plan to build a nuclear power station at Sizewell. The following bullet points are only a brief synopsis of my views. 1. We have concerns over the construction of such a large development over such a long period of time in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and on a Heritage Coastline, next to RSPB Minsmere. No mitigation can guarantee to protect these areas from pollution, noise, negative impacts for wildlife, tourism, quality of life for local people. 2. The B1122 is not fit for purpose for the volume of traffic that uses it today. With SZC under construction, even with a relief road, traffic will increase considerably due to SZC and the wind farm developments running concurrently. We have been told there will be no relief road until two years into the construction period. This is not acceptable. Some residents in Middleton Moor have front doors that are 2m from the B1122. EDF have not listened to local people, their proposed route is in the wrong place. Famers will be left with pockets of land that they cannot farm. 3. The proposed relief road will cut communities off, closing country lanes used by locals to get to shops, GPs, schools etc. This will result in diverting local traffic onto roads that will already be overloaded with construction traffic and transportation for the work force. If a relief road is constructed, country lanes should remain open by being bridged. 4. The holiday trade will be seriously affected reducing visitor numbers and the financial benefits they bring to this area. We have seen the negative effect Hinkley has had on tourism in Somerset. 5. Reports indicate Sizewell will be under water within 50 years (or less) as sea levels rise due to global warming. This information came from government led studies. 6. This area of Suffolk is rural, it does not have the facilities to support a large workforce that will be imported from other areas of the country during the construction period. The infrastructure is already stretched in schools and with local health providers. 7. The increased amount of traffic using the A12 will cause chaos all around this area and beyond. The A12 is a busy road now, classed as one of the most dangerous roads in the UK and is not fit for the volume of traffic using it. High winds close the Orwell bridge, causing more chaos around Ipswich. The projected numbers of HGVs, buses, workers vehicles and vans will lead to increased levels of noise and air pollution, affecting the quality of life for local people and wildlife. 8. The cost of this project is immense for a nuclear system that is out of date. Without correct funding, it could be left to the British tax payer to cover costs over a long period of time. 9. The construction of this power station will not be carbon free. There is still an issue on where spent fuels will be stored safely."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martyn Bishop
"My wife and I [Redacted] and close to the proposed green rail link. As a result we intend to fully review and understand the details of the works and how the works will impact on our day to day lives. We would like to make comment on the works as a whole and in particular relation to those in our adjacent and local area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Jeffrey Paul Hallett
"Our village of Pettistree will be adversely affected by the development of Sizewell C especially during the construction phase. The plans submitted do not mitigate the problems we have identified, despite the problems (especially ‘rat runs’) being highlighted from the outset in the EDF community forums. 1. Congestion of road traffic using the B1078 into Wickham Market, caused by traffic accessing the Park-and-Ride at Hacheston, will limit our access to this important service-centre for surrounding villages. 2. Road traffic trying to avoid the above congestion and access the A12 will lead to 'rat runs' forming through the narrow lanes of Pettistree causing damage to road surfaces and verges. The traffic will be a hazard to pedestrians as we have no lighting or pavements. 3. The tracking of Sizewell-bound HGVs is welcomed but this needs to be applied to all goods vehicles and small vans supplying Sizewell to stop them using unsuitable routes. 4. Non-Sizewell traffic of all kinds will be forced on the 'rat runs' by the congestion on the approved route. 5. Damage to listed and other buildings (such as my own) in the village from vibration, and subsidence of verges, will result from the increased unsuitable traffic. 6. The overall feeling of the participants in the meeting of local parish councils on 7.9.19 was that the debate (on congestion in Wickham Market) was no further on than it was at stage 3. 7. The A12 is already congested at several points between Ipswich and Sizewell and the increased traffic from Sizewell C construction will aggravate this, causing delays to ordinary users and emergency services into and out of Ipswich. 8. The failure to use sea transport for heavy materials, and only small use of rail transport, places intolerable loads on the road system that will cause the problems in many other small villages that we anticipate in Pettistree. 9. EDF have failed to justify the use of new large pylons at the Sizewell C site that will damage the enjoyment of the local environment. 10. None of the stages of consultation has looked at the effect of Sizewell C construction on other areas due to initiatives by local companies providing building or haulage services. An example is the probable use of the Bentwaters Airfield site for storage or transfer of very bulky materials. This will require large HGVs to use the narrow lanes such as those from the A12 to Bentwaters via Campsea Ashe or via Eyke and Woodbridge. 11. Participation in local forums such as the EDF Community Forum, JLAG and the AEPAS has failed to convince me that there will be real economic benefits to Suffolk. Few new long-term jobs will be provided, and tourism will decline due to the local environment being downgraded by Sizewell C construction and infrastructure. 12. EDF have not demonstrated co-operation with the other energy providers who want to establish their infrastructure across Suffolk. An opportunity has been missed to develop a co-ordinated, and preferably offshore, energy transfer network."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Alexandra Adams
"I oppose the Sizewell C southern park and ride site at Wickham Market and believe it should be sited further south on the A12 away from residential areas and near the A14 for the following reasons: - 21-24% increase in traffic is expected along roads to the site. A higher proportion from the A12. This will drive traffic through the bottleneck of Woodbridge and Martlesham where single lanes exist in part and new and significant housing developments at Martlesham and Woodbridge will add to already problematic traffic. For this reason, it makes sense for the park and ride to be built south of Woodbridge and Martlesham, not to the North. - Noise and light pollution will be considerable and adverse for local communities in what is a very quiet rural area; the site is operational 20 hours a day 7 days a week for at least 10 years -The proposal to divert traffic from the B1078 down Valley Road and up Easton Road and reconfigure these roads would have significant and damaging effects to the landscape and character of this area. These are currently tiny, rural lanes, bordered by beautiful, historic water meadows, and used only by local villages to gain access to the A12; in addition, they include a single lane listed bridge. 1100 cars would be expected to cross this bridge and move up and down the lanes every day, fundamentally changing the local area and severely restricting residents vital access to the A12. In addition, several livery businesses in the area will be significantly affected. The joint councils response to both Stage 1 and Stage 2 consultations asked you to consider sites further south on the A12. I do not see evidence that you have considered this in any detail. In conclusion I oppose the Sizewell C southern park and ride site at Wickham Market and believe it should be sited further south on the A12 away from residential areas and near the A14."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Southwold and Reydon Society
"We share the reservations and concerns of many local organisations. These have been lodged by the Society during the Consultation process. The Society is not convinced by the currently proposed mitigations of the effects of the construction period and the completed project upon the AONB and its residents. The area is heavily dependent upon year-round tourism, which will be adversely affected by the inevitable clogging of the road system for the delivery of goods and personnel. In this connection the Society supports the pressing need for a four-village bypass remains convinced that the opportunity still exists for heavier use of rail and sea as prime resources."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steven Teeder
"I can give a valued insite on the build at Hinckley point in respect of the greater good that has been achived fot the environment and wild life im a wild life photographer and nature lover and i can seeaclear up turn in wildlife in abundance happning at hinkley there is a clear care foe all wild life and the environment taken place here the numbers in what ive seen in over 2 yeas wagtails foxes rabbits redkite rought leged buzzars and sparrow hawk Peregrine Falcon the tree planting scem and care and detail to attention in all the bundes boundrys and tree planting and watering treatments thought the projects has had a great positive effect on both wildlife and environmental and when people say to me ow but sizwell is close to Minsmere nature reserve and will upset the balances in wildlife and i say in responce its amazibe how the wildlife has not been affected inface benefits are clear in all aspects and the actual contrustion invites wildlife in the movment of mud ans soil pile they thrive on this also working alongside the plant movement so i belive this is proof that the care and attention to this detail shows that in fact Minsmere and surrounding areas will infact benefit form this the tree planting prosses provids cover and co2 in befafits alone i cant wait to be apart ot it suffolk is my home and i love the cuntryside and its wildlife"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Stichting Greenpeace Nederland
"Stichting Greenpeace Nederland is an environmental NGO with seat in the Netherlands. It wants to focus on the following issues: - sufficiency of comparison with alternatives, including viable zero-options; - sufficiency of description of economic, social and societal factors related to environmental impacts; - sufficiency of justification in that relation; - sufficiency of analysis of nuclear safety and risk, including concerning risks on large potential accidents and their impacts; - sufficiency of description of radioactive waste production and management; - sufficiency of description of potential transboundary environmental impacts on the Netherlands and beyond."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Suffolk Chamber of Commerce
"Suffolk Chamber supports the building of new nuclear to facilitate economic growth within Suffolk, boost job creation, investment and supply-chain benefits. --------------------------------------------------------------- EDF NNB must be held to account to honour the promises and pledges regarding the use of the local and regional supply chain to deliver the project. Recognising the importance of Intelligent Replication to drive down costs and create efficiencies, this replication must avoid simply bringing all contractors from HPC to East Anglia. Local and regional supply chain should be used in accordance with the metrics and KPIs of the EDF Environmental and Social Governance Policy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Martin
"No to park and ride at wickham market. Cut through traffic via Easton will be dreadful."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Brigitte Artmann
"Dear Madam and Sir. I'm the communicant of ACCC/C/2013/92 Germany. [Redacted] I wish to participate as a member of the public concerned under the Espoo Convention and under the Aarhus Convention. My hometown will be concerned from a possible fall out of the planned Sizewell C project. Relevant is the nuclear material inside the containment that possibly could be set free in a beyond design accident as already explained in HPC project and C92. Kind regards, Brigitte Artmann"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Corporation of Trinity House
"Dear Sir / Madam We refer to the above application for development consent. 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 its area of jurisdiction. Trinity House wishes to be a registered interested party due to the impact the development would have on navigation within Trinity House's area of jurisdiction. It is likely that we will have further comments to make on the application and the draft Order throughout the application process. Please address all correspondence regarding this matter to myself at [Redacted] and to [Redacted] Yours faithfully, Russell Dunham ACII Legal Advisor"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Beavan
"I believe that this development would harm our economy and environment for no perceptable gain when nuclear energy costs so much more than offshore wind energy. The build period will severely impact our tourist economy in Southwold and Walberswick. I am also worried about the long terrm effects of sea level rise on the nuclear plant and its subsequent waste."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Cocker
"I am representing myself. I oppose the Sizewell C southern park and ride site at Wickham Market and believe it should be sited further south on the A12 away from residential areas and near the A14."
Parish Councils
Bredfield Parish Council
"1. Traffic levels on southern part of A12: The A12 immediately to the North of Woodbridge is a single-carriageway road. Sizewell Stage 3 Consultation Document acknowledged that this part of the road would be significantly affected by Sizewell bound traffic, (cf. para 6.2.6), but then fails to offer any mitigation, and appears to put the remit for any improvements on the County Council (para. 6.4.14). This fails to take responsibility for the impact the increased Sizewell traffic will have on vehicles attempting to join or cross the A12 from adjoining settlements. Gaining access onto the A12 from is already difficult. Although minor roads, they are vital access routes, not just for people in Bredfield, but for the villages further to the west, travelling to sites in Martlesham and Ipswich, as well as by school buses and local businesses. This traffic is boosted y holiday traffic from several holiday sites within the parish. It is feared that that this already considerable amount of traffic will be joined by Sizewell-C workers bound for the Southern Park and Ride facility, who may leave the designated route (B.1078), if a problem arises on the route, and will use the smaller roads from Debach or Charsfield, which are narrow with tight blind bends and no pavements, to gain access to the A12. 2. Air Quality: The increase in traffic to the levels forecast will inevitably result in a deterioration in air quality along the A12, and is a cause for concern for those communities like Bredfield, which adjoin the road. 3. Tourism: No consideration has been taken of the impact of increased traffic levels on the tourist industry locally. Bredfield hosts a range of facilities all of which generate traffic which relies on access to the A12; if it becomes problematic to reach or leave these sites, then they will undoubtedly suffer. 4. Environment: The Landscape Character Assessment (Alison Farmer Associates; 2018) notes that in this area “…The road network contrasts from the busy A12 trunk road to tiny lanes,... The rural area is served by a winding network of small, hedged interconnecting lanes…They are key to the character of this area and how it is experienced…” (cf. LCA p.127). The forecast levels of traffic which will use the A12, and the threat of displacing traffic onto the narrow roads that abut the main road, as outlined above, will inevitably have an impact on this picture 5. Mitigation: Some form of mitigation in the form of improvements to the single carriageway section of the A12 and junction of the Bredfield exit is needed to offset the cumulative negative impact of high levels of traffic, the restricted access to the A12 and degradation of air quality. There is scope for alleviation measures, such as wider exit/entry lanes and traffic islands and the Parish Council would welcome any such mitigation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Solomons
"I live locally, on [Redacted] that is threatened by the construction of Sizewell. I am also a volunteer with the RSPB and a keen nature watcher. I believe the size of the project, the excavation of large amounts of earth, the bypass and heavier traffic via road and sea will seriously damage the environment, affect the water levels in the lakes and meres on the reserve which in turn will damage the ecosystem and destroy habitats that encourage the breeding and therefore survival of several threatened and endangered species. These include flora and fauna from birds such as the bittern and marsh harrier to mammals including the water vole and otters and several species of plants, invertebrates - particularly butterflies, dragonflies and solitary mining bees. This is not about protecting my own property. I do not think the value will be affected nor the view but the reason we moved here was to be close to the nature that is here and that will be affected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Bailie
"The proposed southern park and ride for the construction of Sizewell C is just off the A12 at Wickham Market. I think this is a totally inappropriate site. This is a vast site; 1250 cars is a huge number for a rural area (and a rise in number since the earlier consultations) There will be significant residual effects on the character of the landscape within and immediately around the site. There will be significant effects local residents, especially those who have a view of the site - which will be far reaching. There will be significant effects for users of footpaths and bridleways that cross or immediately adjoin the site Terrestrial ecology and ornithology will be affected by the site. A substantial quantity of Romano-British artefactual material have been reported in this area . It is clear that this settlement was of considerable importance and extent, and that well-preserved archaeological remains are likely to survive. Any archaeological remains within the site would be substantially disturbed. This would give rise to a medium magnitude of change which would be significant. An expected 21-24% increase in traffic is expected along roads to the site. A higher proportion from the A12. This will drive traffic through the bottleneck of Woodbridge and Martlesham where single lanes exist in part and new and significant housing developments at Martlesham and Woodbridge will add to already problematic traffic. Noise and light pollution will be considerable and adverse; the site is operational 20 hours a day 7 days a week for at least 10 years The proposals to remove on-street parking spaces on the B1078 between Border Cot Lane and River Deben bridge is a gross inconvenience to residents of Wickham Market and will severely affect disabled and elderly residents in particular. The proposal to divert traffic from the B1078 down Valley Road and up Easton Road and reconfigure these roads would have significant and damaging effects to the landscape and character of this area; 1100 cars are expected to cross a single lane listed bridge every day. Several livery businesses in the area will be significantly affected. The joint councils response to both Stage 1 and Stage 2 consultations asked you to consider sites further south on the A12 I do not see evidence that you have considered this in any detail. In conclusion I oppose the Sizewell C southern park and ride site at Wickham Market and believe it should be sited further south on the A12 away from residential areas and near the A14. Martlesham is a perfect location with light industrial developments already. Stop ruining the countryside!! I strongly disagree with the use of roads to build this overpriced vanity project. If large power stations are essential then use the sea for transporting in as low carbon a manner as possible! This project is creating no real jobs locally and is threatening Suffolk’s tourist industry for years to come through trucks and pollution.. Focus on renewables and small reactors not monsters that use road transportation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
British Telecommunications plc
"I represent British Telecom and their property department. I wish to be kept informed of any updates on the planning for Sizewell C so as to ensure any BT property interests are protected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Haviland Webster
"The argument against using a sea delivery facility is extremely weak and unjustified, in my opinion. The impact Of the development on the road network will be irrevocable and have an adverse impact on the wildlife networks in the county. I am unclear about the legal safeguards in place for prohibiting permanent villages being constructed on the sites where employee campuses are being built. The environmental statement was not available for scrutiny during the consultation process. The application for the DCO was submitted during lockdown, for reasons of the pandemic, which has the potential to reduce accessibility for many people to review the documents submitted. It is unclear how the technology for the reactors will be not be obsolete by the time it is constructed. How will the project be affordable. The National position on nuclear high level radioactive waste has not been resolved. - the disadvantages of the project continue to outweigh the advantages, for example with regard to the East Suffolk Climate Emergency and statement by the sizewell c developer that despite the “urgency” for net zero emissions they will not be able to make a positive contribution to reducing net carbon until 2040. - The application lacks detail of carbon emissions during the life of the project, the quantity of concrete that is proposed, (concrete being one of the highest contributors of carbon emissions), mining uranium, processing and transportation of it to site, decommissioning of the development. - The increase in train traffic particularly at night, causing additional noise and vibration through Woodbridge and Melton with no compensation for structural issues and diminishing house values."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mill Hill Farm Caravan & campsite
"I own and manage a caravan and camping park at Mill Hill Farm , Darsham. The Northern Park and Ride proposal is less than two miles from our site. I am concerned about noise, traffic , light pollution , roadworks and security affecting our site and clientele. I am also concerned with the damage that the construction will cause to the local environment , and its effects on the tourism industry in the area . I wish to make a representation based on the likely damage to the desirability of our holiday destination and the effect this would have on our profitability and the viability of the business."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Marston
"Dear Sirs Living on the side to the A12 at the top of[Redacted] the traffic flow is already at absolutely maximum levels. To add another 100 bus movements and many 1,000s of additional car movements will serve to make life almost unbearable as a resident, by means of the increased noise 24 hours a day, the increased pollution. The noise impact alone is unacceptable however this is doubled when teamed with the environmental impact. The negative impact to the quality of life all all residents living along this stretch of road will simply be unimaginable. Furthermore there are a number of livery businesses that are will be put out of business."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Royal Yachting Association
"RYA (Royal Yachting Association) desires to be involved in this application on behalf of leisure boating interests in the area --------------------------- RYA thinks there will be no affects on sailors however wishes to be kept up to date with the project with the interest of it's sailors in mind."
Local Authorities
Saxmundham Town Council
"Saxmundham Town Council's position on the development of the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Saxmundham Town Council notes that EDF submitted application for the Sizewell C nuclear power plant for planning consent on May 26th, and that the UK Planning Inspectorate on 24th June accepted for examination the planning application for the Sizewell C nuclear power plant. Council is concerned about pursuing the application at a time when community engagement and consultation are difficult, and notes that: 1) The Town Council has taken part in all stages of the EDF consultation; at each stage we have raised significant issues about the unacceptable environmental and social costs to the town and area, but very little about the development proposals has changed, and there have been significant gaps of information in the documentation provided. 2) Other Councils and local stakeholders have raised similar concerns in respect of the environmental and social costs and risks, the huge disruption and burden on local services, the importance of preserving our unique heritage coast, the detrimental impact on wildlife and ecology particularly in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, and the potential damage to our existing local economy including tourism. 3) The national debate on energy has also moved on significantly since the project was first announced in 2009/10 with greater focus on the potential of renewable energy sources; this is also relevant given the long life-cycle of the project (projected completion and first generation dates of Sizewell C now being in the early to mid 2030s). Saxmundham Town Council is therefore opposed to the development of the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station as presently proposed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham K. Lacey
"My Wife & I our key stakeholders in respect of EDF's proposed development at Sizewell C. Many issues raised by ourselves at Stage 4 pre-submission of the DCO remain inadequately answered. We have still not seen EDF's full Environmental Statement nor the more critical & impacting documents including for example the Transport Strategy. I must strongly insist that an extension of the Section 56 period be granted as a direct result of the Covid-19 emergency governance. Regards Graham K. Lacey"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Robin Leonard Sanders
"As a retired chartered geotechnical engineering and geological expert I shall be examining the documentation to determine if sound geotechnical and geological principles have been applied in developing the proposals. I thus will be examining issues to do with ground and groundwater conditions, drainage conditions and, through my detailed experience in working with coastal engineers on coastal defence schemes along the Suffolk and Norfolk Coast and on major litigation on aspects of the coastal engineering design."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Hatt
"Traffic/ I am a Theberton resident living adjacent B1122. I reject EDF's road led strategy. The link road cuts of Pretty road a vital link to Saxmundham,s Tesco and Waitrose. Villages access to Saxmundham is kettled between going through Yoxford,s new roundabout or going to Leiston via B1122 across intersection of link road and Leiston traffic. The link road/ will be constructed at the same time as SZC not before as will the park and rides, Scottish Powers sub stations and pylons, two village bypass ancillary traffic and possibly a european interconector. 500 lorry movements a day for link road construct over 2-3 years plus huge lorry number for SZC ground work plus possible euro interconnector traffic. The A12 single track road in many areas, and a B road B1122. No Suffolk motorways. My wife is an asthmatic and air pollution will far exceed uk and euro allowable levels. Also noise and dust and serious accidents and incidents. The Heritage Coast now called the Energy Coast but soon to be called Chaos Coast. EDF Inadequate traffic survey Birds/environmental survey. I am a member of the RSPB Minsmere also part of the Minsmere Levels group. No mitigation will protect Minsmere birds the RSPB flagship. Harriers, Bitterns, Avocets, Stone Curlews, Sand Martins from noise, light pollution, ground water interference. These birds will go over the 14 or more years of the lifetime of the build. The AONB and the SSSI land disappearing under the construct cannot be mitigated or justified. It was envisaged this would be a buffer to SZ A and B. It contains rare flora fauna and invertibrates an environment that is scarce, grown and developed over 100,s of years. Irreplaceable. The environmental impact studies are inadequate, incomplete and frankly done to mislead. One instance. Coronation wood.. Professional bat survey "bats found some not identified" !!! I have an app on my phone I could lend them.!!! Coastal Processes./ The Minsmere levels are sensitive water areas. No adequate measures can predict the effects of this build. An EDF pumping station at the sluice, a late addition, appears to be an after thought just in case of sea ingression. The vast water intakes and outtakes with possible huge amounts of fish kill and as yet no fish deterants (see Hinkley) pose problems for sea bed erosion. Coastal Erosion/ This is possibly the worst possible place to build two reactors producing and storing high burn, much higher radioactive waste, than even A and B stations. Even if a deep geological storage facility were constructed (doubtful) such is the radioactivity levels, the containers cannot be moved for 100 years. If the build runs for 60 years then the waste sits at Sizewell for 160 years. By this time the sea level predictions are Sizewell will be an island. The laughable suggestion that EDF build an ever higher curtain wall is nonsense because its not over topping that is the major concern but flooding underneath the wall and round the back. Two years ago just three miles south a cliff collapsed killing a dog walker on the beach. ITS THE WRONG PLACE."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kendrick Barry Denison
"i am worried about the disruption that this will cause ( based on the pervious 2 projects )to the community's and business in the surrounding areas any compensation has been to little and to late and very short lived"
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Marine Management Organisation
"Good morning, Due to the word limit in this section, the Marine Management Organisation will submit our relevant representation via email to [email protected] on 29 September 2020. Should you have any questions please let me know. Kind regards, Ellen Mackenzie Marine Licensing Case Officer Marine Management Organisation Please see attached"
Other Statutory Consultees
Office for Nuclear Regulation
"Office for Nuclear Regulation The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) is the principal regulator of the safety and civil nuclear security of the UK nuclear industry, and licenses and regulates a broad range of nuclear facilities and activities. ONR is also responsible for the regulation of nuclear safeguards and the regulation of transport of radioactive materials. In June 2020, NNB Generation Company (SZC) Ltd applied for a nuclear site licence to allow it to install and operate two EPR™ reactors at the Sizewell C site; ONR is currently assessing this application. The standard nuclear site licence comes with 36 licence conditions and ONR will not grant a licence to NNB Generation Company (SZC) Ltd until it is satisfied that the company has adequate, fit-for-purpose arrangements that address all of these licence conditions. The grant of a nuclear site licence will not give NNB Generation Company (SZC) Ltd permission to proceed with nuclear-related construction on the site. The licence conditions allow ONR to exercise a number of controls throughout the construction or installation, commissioning and operation of the station. In particular, commencement of nuclear related construction on the site, which ONR defines as the placement of the first structural concrete for buildings with nuclear safety significance, will require a separate permission by ONR granted under one of the licence conditions. ONR may also elect to permission other stages of construction or installation and commissioning. ONR’s licensing work will also take into account the consequences for and hazards posed by the adjacent Sizewell A and B nuclear power stations. The design of the proposed twin reactor development at Sizewell C is closely based on that for the power station that is currently under construction at Hinkley Point C. Details of ONR’s work on assessing the Hinkley Point C nuclear site licence application and subsequent permissioning of the station’s construction, are available on the relevant ONR webpage [Redacted]. ONR carried out an assessment of the generic EPR design in 2012 and concluded that it could be safely constructed and operated in the United Kingdom. The detail design of the EPRs under construction at Hinkley Point C has continued to develop since 2012 and ONR has maintained its regulatory oversight as that design has developed. ONR has undertaken an initial examination of relevant parts of the Sizewell C Development Consent Order (DCO) application and its supporting documents. At this stage, we have no substantive comments. However, we will provide a more detailed representation at the start of the DCO examination phase that will highlight any issues that arise from our further examination of the DCO application, as well as providing an update on our work on assessing NNB Generation Company (SZC) Ltd’s application for a nuclear site licence. ONR will also 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 that may arise during the Examining Authority’s consideration of the DCO application."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Danish Emergency Management Agency
"I want to gain sufficioent insigth into the safety systems of the power plants to be able to comment on them --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sirs My main points of interest are the safety measures to prevent and mitigate accidents that might cause a release of radioactive matter to the environment, as such releases might have a considerable impact on the environment, even inside Denmark and the Danish economic zone. Best regards"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Georgina Paske
"My interest in the captioned project relates to Beveriche Manor Farm IP17 3LJ that my farming enterprise owns and farms Commercially. Within the proposed plans there is a desire to purchase some of the farm land for route development. Further the additional traffic will have a significant bearing on a number of factors not least access, Safety and property valuations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Brock
"I have serious concerns about whether the views of local residents have been properly considered in the consultation and preliminary processes in respect of the proposed power stations and associated infrastructure. The proposed location of the power stations near the shore at Sizewell will do enormous and permanent damage to the local environment and the costs to the already fragile local economy will be huge. Natural sea defences will be disturbed and wildlife will be displaced. I am not opposed to the principal of nuclear power replacing outdated generation techniques and I recognise that the country needs to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, but the route to power sustainability seems to ignore the lasting damage and I question whether the rush to find alternative means of generating electricity should, in these times, be at "any cost". The number of workmen needed to build the power stations will put intolerable strain on local resources and infrastructure. The alternative of floating accommodation blocks rather than shore-based facilities at Eastbridge has not been considered at all. Finally the traffic plan is ill-considered: The additional load on roads surrounding the site will be intolerable during the many years of construction. The existing roads are simply not designed for such traffic and there is little evidence of due consideration given to the confluence of traffic serving other major infrastructure projects currently planned for this fragile part of East Suffolk."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jo Hannon
"I am extremely concerned about the impact that Sizewell C will have upon the local environment. Both in respect of the immediate construction area and the wider locality. Many hectares of treasured flora and fauna will be destroyed in an age when we can not afford to lose what little we have left. This will effect the mental and physical health of the local population as well as having a massive effect on the local economy, which relies upon this environment to an enormous level. Please, please consider this very seriously. We can’t lose this precious area for ever."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim Hannon
"Concerns over traffic management, social and environmental impact during and post construction, long term impact on the local economy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Clive Tickner
"1) POOR RECORD. EDF's record with EPR reactors is dreadful. Finland and France, are still both facing costly construction delays. Flamanville, is 7 years behind schedule, still not online, and currently 50 billion Euros over budget. 2)RESPONSIBILITY. Failures and delays will be paid for by UK residents whilst any money earned will go out of the country. 3) DEBTS. EDF is grappling with huge existing debts, whilst still needing to spend 55 billion Euros upgrading other (non-EPR) existing domestic reactors. Should EDF go into liquidation, a half finished plant in the UK will have the British taxpayer faced with completion costs. 4) COMPLIANCE. The model for Sizewell C and Hinckley C, don’t comply with the ‘independence principle’ for safety, following the French Atomic Energy Commission's (CEA) conclusion that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation. 5) FAULTS. The French nuclear safety agency reported that cracks had been found in the concrete base at Flamville and the regulator, ASN, reported further welding problems on the secondary containment steel liner. 6) DISASTERS.Globally, there have been at least 99 recorded nuclear power plant accidents from 1952 to 2009 totaling US$20.5 billion in property damages. Since then we have; Fukushima, 2011, Chernobyl 1986; and the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island 1979, where 140,000 people were evacuated after a partial nuclear meltdown, 7) ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. This now accounts for 40% of UK electricity. Alternative energy prices for the generation of electricity are cheaper than nuclear. Alternative energy prices for electricity are falling, Nuclear prices are rising. The low carbon emission in the building of an EPR are vast next to those emissions resulting from the construction of alternative technology apparatus. 8) EMPLOYMENT. The burgeoning wind-farm and photovoltaic industries are demanding thousands of workers. 9) A EPR reactor is soft target for terrorism. 10) ENVIRONMENT. The Sizewell C plan will decimate thousands of acres of AON, SPA and SSSI land. 11) TRAFFIC. The planned road and parking areas throughout Suffolk are horrendous, ugly and damaging to the environment. 12) NOISE. Like Hinckley there will be enormous construction and traffic noise and light pollution for twelve plus years. (in the unlikely event of the plan keeping to schedule) 13) WASTE If the plan goes ahead there will be 3 power stations in Suffolk producing waste that we currently have no plan for storing. Nuclear high-level waste threatens the future of generations to come. The claim that nuclear power is a low-carbon method of generating electricity ignores the hugely negative affect of this waste product storage. 14) The Joint County and District Councils at Stage 2, were convinced that the impact of this project outweighed any possible advantages. 15) With rising sea levels the location of Sizewell C is unintelligent."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Collins
"My submission will be that it is unwise to extend a nuclear power station on an increasingly eroding coastline. It will bring added blight to an area of outstanding natural beauty with a network of internationally important nature reserves. The environmental case against Sizewell C was always strong, but now the economic case against it is equally compelling."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lindsay Dann
"Projected traffic volumes on roads within a 25 mile radius during construction will seriously impact on the road infrastructure and unreasonably affect the quality of life of an unacceptable number of people. Common sense tells us that few new jobs will be created locally but that thousands of workers will be brought in from Hinckley and elsewhere, causing social problems The site and all the supporting hinterland installations will not be restored to their original state for many years, if ever, thus the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would be damaged to the extent that 'AONB' will hardly apply As a taxpayer and energy consumer, I do not wish to subsidise a deal like the Hinckley one between UK Gov and EDF"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Walker
"As a resident of East Suffolk, I am writing to express my views on the EDF planning proposals for Sizewell C. The effect on this wonderful area of “Outstanding Natural Beauty” it’s wildlife as well as businesses and residents, I consider to be of deep and rising concern. The damage Sizewell C will cause will be irreversible and its impact on the local environment will be ruinous. I hope you will take the following matters into account when making your decision about the go ahead for this project and reject it wholeheartedly. Firstly, the impact of the traffic congestion and pollution will go on for at least ten years, affecting the local population and congesting our roads, especially the A12 and other local roads for a lengthy period. This will impact our beautiful coastline and countryside and will present a serious threat to our local economy, affecting tourism, house values, small businesses, quality of life, health and natural habitats. The coastal defences of Sizewell C may well worsen coastal erosion elsewhere in the area. Dangerous radioactive waste will stay on our coastline to affect future generations for two centuries. Secondly, the plan will be a massive cost to our economy. At an estimated £20 billion,( plus the proposed taxes to be imposed on all electricity bills and our liability for any overruns) it really could be considered an excessive demand at a time when our economy is struggling to recover. Thirdly, I am extremely concerned about the partners involved in this project, for example China General Nuclear as well as the poor record associated with the EPRs. Malfunctioning safety valves on an unfinished nuclear reactor of this type in Finland is surely enough to give us all serious nightmares. Many of my friends and neighbours share this concern as well as major national and local groups such as the RSPB, The National Trust, Suffolk Wildlife Trust to name but three. I believe that Sizewell C could even be obsolete by the time it is built, whereas electricity from renewable (solar, wind, tidal) sources are not only environmentally friendly, but quicker, cheaper and save more CO2. Climate change is an issue none of us can afford to ignore any more. I would rather funding was addressed to provide sustainable means of preserving power production, through such measures as improved home insulation, heat pumps etc."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Hunter
"I propose, once I have fully digested the contents of the applicant's Environmental Statements to make comments on the following matters: - Temporary rail infrastructure - Temporary park and ride facilities - Beach landing facility - Causeway to cross the Sizewell Marshes SSSI - Bypass of Farnham and Stratford St Andrew on the A12 - Water resources required for construction purposes - Water supply for temporary workforce - Waste water management/disposal requirements and sewerage infrastructure for, among other things, the temporary workforce. - Article 23(5) of the draft DCO in relation to the broad ranging provision on the exemption for any works that drainage interfere with the bed or banks of watercourses and the apparent exemption from any offences under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991. - Article 79 of the draft DCO which provides wide ranging advantage to the Sizewell C operator from land use benefiting from Permitted Development - Flood risk both to the development and offsite flood risk from the development platform taking into account climate change - Landscape impacts of the development proposal on the Suffolk Coasts and Heath AONB and the Suffolk Heritage Coast and the duty to have regard to Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 - Disposal of waste radioactive material in the absence of an approved national geological depositary."
Local Authorities
East Suffolk Council on behalf of Green, Lib Democrat & Independent (GLI)Grp East Suffolk Council (Green, Lib Democrat & Independent (GLI)Grp East Suffolk Council)
"The Members of the GLI Group as individual Ward Members believe that; Use of Nuclear Power • Nuclear Power should not be supported as a primary source of energy in the UK because it is; o Outdated, extremely expensive and unsuitable technology the cost of which will add significantly to energy users bills o Slow to build out and will not help us meet CO2 reduction target deadlines as a result ? 66g of CO2 per KW hour compared with only 7g for wind power. So 10 times as carbon intensive because of the BUILD (source: Energising the East, Dr Karen Barrass, Dr Andrew Boswell, Jonathan Essex 2020) o On a vulnerable coastline with sea level rise o Associated with well documented problems of dangerous nuclear waste disposal o A build programme irrevocably damaging to wildlife and the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB generally but also tourism, air quality and quality of life for local residents o Responsible for killing thousands of fish everyday in its seawater intakes for cooling purposes. • Alternative sources of renewable power generation such as wind, solar and tidal must be prioritised. o Battery storage costs are down 85% • Energy generated through renewables provides a quicker and cleaner solution Site Selection • Site selection is unsuitable and chosen only on the fact that Sizewell has existing nuclear facilities on site – this does not make it the most appropriate site for further development Mitigation • The impact of any additional build at Sizewell must be properly weighted, in particular due to the site siting within the National Landscape of a protected area; the Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, SSSI land and other areas of ecological importance • It is important that the impacts of any new infrastructure associated with Sizewell is fairly and properly mitigated against and that we should be bold in demanding adequate compensation, should the development progress • As any new development will serve national needs, and have a significant long-term impact on the area, investment in larger scale, strategic improvements for East Suffolk and beyond should be pressed for."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrea Roehm
"I'm deeply concerned about the building of a third nuclear power station in Sizewell. To my mind, nuclear power is not at all environmentally friendly and poses a number of serious health hazards. In the event of unforeseeable accidents nuclear power means death and destruction of enormous extent to humans as well as to flora and fauna."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elliot Chart
"I'd prefer a renewable solution to a nuclear one. Furthermore I oppose Sizewell C."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nucléaire Stop Kernenergie
"* The EPR nuclear power plants are a new kind of NPP's that already encounter numerous important technical problems. *The financial structure of EDF is a well known problem. EDF might be tempted to bypass technical norms as it has done in the past, to avoid expenses. *The powerplant will be at 100 miles of the Belgian coast, an important national symbol and tourist attraction. Since there are no obstacles a radioactive cloud would reach this coast in an hour by strong nothwestern wind.A dangerous installation of this kind should be positioned as far away gfrom the borders as possible. *Great Brittain has numerous opportunities to exploit sustainable maritime and windsources to produce electrical current without exposing neighbour countries to important risks."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Belgian State
"Belgium candidates to be considered as an ‘interested party’, for the following reasons: - In emergency situations, in case of atmospheric – and to a lesser extent also liquid – discharges, an impact on the terrestrial and the marine environment in Belgium cannot be excluded; - During routine operations we should be able to forecast and evaluate what the Belgian nuclear authority will monitor across our networks, peculiarly as regards the monitoring in the North Sea. This is important for the nuclear authority, but also pertains to the Belgian OSPAR and EU duties. Therefore, we are asking to enquire the following elements with due punctiliousness: - The radiological consequences for Belgium of the discharges as a result of design accidents have to be calculated. These reference accidents need to be addressed in the environmental impact report (EIR) and the choice for the references needs to be motivated. In case no radiological accidents with an impact on Belgium have been selected, this should also be motivated in the EIR; - The impact on the cooperation with the Belgian authorities with respect to nuclear emergency planning shall be described, with specific attention for: o The exchange of information in emergency cases; o The coordination of contingency plans."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Belinda Agar
"I write to object to the planning application which will destroy the area of outstanding natural Beauty in which we live due to the amount of traffic congestion and people and buildings involved which is clearly inapproriate for this heritage coast. Your plan With its light pollution and overpopulation will destroy tourism, as well as the surrounding wildlife and the plans for dealing with the traffic are clearly inadequate as there is no motorway to this area, only the two lane A12. As a resident I strongly object ! Yours faithfully Belinda Agar"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Hoult
"I want to protest in the strongest possible terms about the location of the proposed lorry interchange on the old A45 At Levington. The Planning Inspectorate recently rejected an application for a lorry park at Innocence farm. The location of this ‘temporary’ interchange on the old A 45 is even less appropriate. No provision has been made to improve the junction of the A1156 with the old A45, and there will be a considerable danger to traffic over the period of operation of the site. I also consider it is likely the proposal stems from a desire by East Suffolk council to develop the currently Greenfield strip of land between Ipswich and Felixstowe running along the path of the A 14. It will clearly be easier to obtain planning permission on a brownfield site as regards the current Greenfield. The location of this lorry interchange at This site is unsuitable and should be refused. More appropriate sites are available on the A 12 northbound. Location on the A 12 northbound would be much more appropriate because it would result in far fewer overall lorry movements, reversals etc."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Gorry
"I do not believe the Sizewell C project should go ahead for the following reasons: 1) unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and pollution for 10-12 years 2) link road has no long-term use, and merely destroys more countryside 3) unacceptable damage to the local environment and wildlfe(Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) 4) noise, light and air pollution will threaten our health and wildlife habitats 5) irreparable damage to tourism, landscapes and our quality of life 6) ever-escalating estimated costs (original proposal £6 billion, now £20 billion 7) EDF has proposed a tax to consumers in advance, as well as consumers paying for overruns. This is wholly unethical for a private company to propose, and they should either increase their proposed costs or take less profit. 8) There are faster and more sustainable ways to kick-start the economy (and produce electricity) post-COVID-19 9) Sizewell C will have two of the trouble-prone European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs), ie. the one in France is 11 years late with numerous faults and cost overruns, at another in Finland malfunctioning safety valves have been found 10) China General Nuclear's involvement is highly controversial 11) By the time the new plant is completed the technology will be obsolete 12) Rising sea levels could make the site an island, with worsening coastal erosion 13) Most of the workers will be imported from Hinkley, and in reality there will be few jobs for local people, and the tourism jobs already held by many will be lost"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharron Jarvis
"I work locally as a [Redacted] seeing may people who live in the area and feel a great sense of peace by seeing the countryside, wildlife and the sea. If the proposed building of Sizewell C takes place, these people will then place a bigger burden upon the already overstretched NHS by needing to take medication. Indeed there is much talk in the media at the moment, for the need to see open countryside and the health benefits it gives. I remember when Sizewell B was built it was mayhem. There were traffic accidents, pile ups and many, many people working in the area. I feel this alone poses a great risk to local people because of Covid 19. Many people have told me they feel insecure and afraid of seeing lots of strangers in the area. The threat to the local tourist trade and the fishermen is huge. When I have spoken to them they have told me it will completely wipe out their livelyhood. I understand the need as a nation to look at our carbon footprint and use nuclear power as well as windfarms, but this area is such a beauty spot, it provides many people with peace and tranquility as well as a livelyhood. Therefor I ask you to reconsider the location of this proposed nuclear power station and place it in an area where it will not cause fear and disruption. Thank you for taking the time to read this e mail. Sharron Jarvis."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Palmer
"Although an Aldeburgh Town Councillor this registration is my own personal contribution and should not be taken as representing the views of the Town Council. The consultation process has been long, frustrating and significant issues with the DCO submission remain. I limit this registration submission to those remaining matters which affect Aldeburgh. There are others. DCO itself I urge the inspectorate NOT to proceed with Virtual Hearings as, unless the inspectorate can guarantee the same level of technology interface as the developers for all participants, this will surely disadvantage many. Transport HGV: HGV movement proposals say almost nothing about movements away from the main site. It is not apparent how the proposed freight facility in the south will interact with HGV movements from the northern A12. “Local” deliveries are not controlled. “Local” is not defined. LGV: Small vans and cars have been an on-going concern. Until now these have not been addressed and even now the submission barely acknowledges their existence. For Aldeburgh this is a major issue. It is known that there will be overlapping NSIPs projects where the effects are cumulative. Socioeconomics The Development: The economic assessment essentially just covers the periods of construction and operation. The development will exist in the landscape for much much longer. An assessment that covers the entire life of the development is overdue. The Supply Chain: The developer insists that the Hinkley supply chain will not simply move over to “C”. Why this would not happen is hard to imagine if the costs of “C” are to be significantly less. Other benefits: The developer promotes the skills involved and up-skilling of the local workforce. Much of the money that could be spent locally to do this has already been spent at Hinkley and will not be repeated. Workforce: This number seems to be increasingly elastic. The increase will impact essentially ALL the socioeconomic areas mentioned in previous consultation stages. Re-calibrated compensations for this increase are required in all areas Main Development Site The site’s main issue is that is too small and has led to unacceptable compromises: Pylons: Originally the grid connection cables were underground. This was found to be impossible. The pylons were introduced at added detriment to the visual amenity of the AONB. Coronation Wood: Removal of “B” facilities resulted in the proposed felling of Coronation wood which overturns previous application conditions in which they were used as screening, specifically the “B” dry fuel store. Other issues Potable water and other water supplies. The 25 year decommissioning time is optimistic- there are no prior examples. Other NSIPs projects and the cumulative Traffic and socioeconomic impacts. Euro 5 compliance on HGVs not Euro 6. Flood defences might impact surrounding areas. No mechanism for auditing the “promises” that the developer makes and holding them to account for failing to deliver, except those covered by section 106 agreements."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Garry Booth
"This project is a short and long term blight on the local environment and the technology is questionable, even risky. The jobs benefit to local people will be offset by the degradation of the coast line as a tourist attraction. In terms of climate change it would be far better from an overall environmental impact point of view to spend on renewables - and still create local jobs. Climate change and projected sea level rise along with coastal erosion make the operational risk unacceptable. Finally, this project will leave a toxic legacy to future generations. I'm writing to ask you to please oppose the building of Sizewell C. This project now looks crazy on so many different levels. It is a short and long term blight on the local environment and the technology is questionable, even risky. The jobs benefit to local people will be offset by the degradation of the coast line as a tourist attraction. In terms of climate change it would be far better from an overall environmental impact point of view to spend on renewables - and still create local jobs. Finally, do you really want to leave this toxic legacy to future generations? I feel depressed to think my children and grandchildren will live under the cloud of uncertainty of a Fukushima type disaster as sea levels rise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Cliff
"I am a regular visitor to East Suffolk where I was brought up. I am a member of the East Suffolk Travel Association, although I am not presenting the views of that organisation in this Representation. I am concerned that the proposed transport arrangements for construction materials, site workers and the removal of waste materials are more environmentally damaging than is necessary because of a failure to make full use of the East Suffolk railway line and its branch from Saxmundham to Leiston/Sizewell. The line already has capacity for more than the proposed two overnight freight trains of construction materials: a test run using the daytime timetable path previously allocated to freight trains carrying nuclear waste from Sizewell A was successfully made on 5 August 2020. Furthermore, if a passing loop were installed at Wickham Market For Campsea Ashe station, as originally proposed by EDF, capacity on the East Suffolk line would be enhanced to permit the operation of additional freight trains transporting construction materials, and possibly also passenger trains to carry workers to the site. A greater focus on the rail transport options would reduce environmentally damaging lorry and car traffic on the roads of East Suffolk and obviate the need for so much costly and damaging road construction in environmentally sensitive areas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jackie Catterwell
"I live facing the Woodbridge to Sizewell rail track. I object vehemently to trains coming past this residential area throughout the night. I was here the last time it happened and the intense vibrations and noise shook the whole house and woke everybody every morning at 5am. I have cracks in the house and probable subsidence which was probably due to that, though I have not taken this further. You need fencing or new track to absorb the hoise and vibrations."
Parish Councils
response has attachments
Pettistree Parish Council
"Our village of Pettistree will be adversely affected by the development of Sizewell C especially during the construction phase. The plans submitted do not mitigate the problems we have identified, despite the problems (especially ‘rat runs’) being highlighted from the outset in the EDF community forums. 1. Congestion of road traffic using the B1078 into Wickham Market, caused by traffic accessing the Park-and-Ride at Hacheston, will limit our access to this important service-centre for surrounding villages. 2. Road traffic trying to avoid the above congestion and access the A12 will lead to 'rat runs' forming through the narrow lanes of Pettistree causing damage to road surfaces and verges. The traffic will be a hazard to pedestrians as we have no lighting or pavements. 3. The tracking of Sizewell-bound HGVs is welcomed but this needs to be applied to all goods vehicles and small vans supplying Sizewell to stop them using unsuitable routes. 4. Non-Sizewell traffic of all kinds will be forced on the 'rat runs' by the congestion on the approved route. 5. Damage to listed and other buildings (such as my own) in the village from vibration, and subsidence of verges, will result from the increased unsuitable traffic. 6. The overall feeling of the participants in the meeting of local parish councils on 7.9.19 was that the debate (on congestion in Wickham Market) was no further on than it was at stage 3. 7. The A12 is already congested at several points between Ipswich and Sizewell and the increased traffic from Sizewell C construction will aggravate this, causing delays to ordinary users and emergency services into and out of Ipswich. 8. The failure to use sea transport for heavy materials, and only small use of rail transport, places intolerable loads on the road system that will cause the problems in many other small villages that we anticipate in Pettistree. 9. EDF have failed to justify the use of new large pylons at the Sizewell C site that will damage the enjoyment of the local environment. 10. None of the stages of consultation has looked at the effect of Sizewell C construction on other areas due to initiatives by local companies providing building or haulage services. An example is the probable use of the Bentwaters Airfield site for storage or transfer of very bulky materials. This will require large HGVs to use the narrow lanes such as those from the A12 to Bentwaters via Campsea Ashe or via Eyke and Woodbridge. 11. Participation in local forums such as the EDF Community Forum, JLAG and the AEPAS has failed to convince me that there will be real economic benefits to Suffolk. Few new long-term jobs will be provided, and tourism will decline due to the local environment being downgraded by Sizewell C construction and infrastructure. 12. EDF have not demonstrated co-operation with the other energy providers who want to establish their infrastructure across Suffolk. An opportunity has been missed to develop a co-ordinated, and preferably offshore, energy transfer network. Please see attached"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carla Hall
"My name is Carla hall I live at [Redacted] We have lived here two years and enjoy the remote peaceful location. I live [Redacted] away from Location: Bratts Black No1, grid ref:TM 399 639. I looked after my grandparents for many years and they left me the money which I brought the house with I am devastated that it will be ruined by trains using this line throughout the night for several years! This is a very old house and we can here everything. As I write trains have been going up and down the line since 8.30 am this morning they woke my sons up, earlier in the year my husband and I were woken at 2am by a train using the line, I hate to think what it will be like when they use it from midnight to 6am! My sons have [Redacted] ahead of them and I will not have them suffer because they have not slept properly this is not acceptable. There is no chance of moving as no one will want to buy my house with all the disruption of the railroad and what Sitwell C are planning so I am stuck. I would appreciate if you could get back to me as soon as possible. I have emailed and written before with no response! Mrs C Halll"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terence Jeffrey
"I put it the examine body that the Sizewell C proposals will if allowed have an adverse impact on the holiday and visitor numbers which will result in a economic collapse costing the local economy far more than the amount estimated for the region to gain as put forward by EDF. Pollution from the build will be immense and the noise will be unbearable for those living on or near the A12. Also the cost is unacceptable when compared to other green power sources and is likely to be outdated by completion. Location is poor being in a heritage coast area. Having one redundant reactor and one active reactor sited At Sizewell should not be a reason for more development. Link road building over farm land will affect the well being of five families living within a few hundred metres of the construct site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Malcolm Rowe
"The issue is the use of heavy goods trains at night from 11pm to 6am every night for up to ten years, hundreds of people are living along side this track some within 20ft, the resulting sleep deprivation and disruption to there lives needs to considered, it must be possible to run all trains during the day, say from 7am to 9pm simple changes to the track would allow trains to run in parallel to each other. My direct interest is a residential Park in Benhall, it is adjacent to the track with elderly residents all of which require to be protected. The people in Campsea Ashe, Melton, Woodbridge will be effect most others in Saxmundham, Benhall, martlesham and Little Bealings. Regards Malcolm Rowe. Director Whitearch Ltd."
Non-Statutory Organisations
UK & Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) (UK & Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA))
"NFLA has made detailed comments in all four rounds of local consultation by EDF Energy on Sizewell C (see our website [Redacted]. We would be concentrating our comments on the following: - The National Policy Statement for new nuclear is out of date and needs renewing before Sizewell C can be approved. - The concerns of NFLA that a major impact of building Sizewell C would be the production of nuclear waste with a radioactive content equivalent to 80% of the UK’s existing radioactive waste inventory. This could require anywhere between 20% and 35% of the underground space required by existing waste in a deep geological disposal facility. - Unlike spent fuel generated by existing UK nuclear reactors, it is not the intention of future reactor operators to reprocess spent fuel from new nuclear reactors. As a result, spent fuel will almost certainly remain on-site for decades, perhaps for as long as 160 - 200 years. - According to the UK Government’s Article 37 submission to the European Commission on Hinkley Point C, a severe accident would only release 0.0447TBq of radioactivecaesium-137. In contrast a modelling exercise by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland suggested showed that a 10,000TBq of Cs-137 was possible. An analysis for the Austrian Environment Agency shows that a possible severe accident in the spent fuel pool could result in a release of 1,780,000 TBq of Cs137. Superimposing maps of radioactive fallout from Chernobyl, which released around 85,000TBq of Cs-137 show that a severe accident could require large areas of southern England to be evacuated depending on the wind direction. - Concerns around the financing of the new nuclear reactors planned for Sizewell C. - Construction issue problems with the EPR technology in France and Finland. - Proposed extensions to the site boundary requiring the destruction of a number of sensitive habitats. - Transport issues and nuclear emergency planning issues."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Whitearch Residential Park
"We have concerns about the use of heavy goods trains being used to transport materials to Sizewell C at night from eleven pm to six am every night over a period of time lasting up to ten years, we have a residential park beside the track in Benhall, this is home to elderly people who will suffer sleep deprivation along will other problems associated with the lack of sleep, others living in Campsea Ashe, Melton and Woodbridge live within twenty ft of the track and as a result will also suffer. [Redacted], on behalf of the residents at Whitearch, Main Rd, Benhall, Saxmundham, Suffolk, IP17 I NA."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Rutherford
"I am against the Sizewell C proposals. I am convinced that the way forward is with Green Energies: Solar, Wind and Tidal. It is important to think ahead and not make a massive blunder. It is not a matter of opinion that Solar, Wind and Tidal energies can be made to work. I quote, now, from the leaflet "What Sizewell C would mean for you": "1) Electricity from renewables - wind, solar and tidal power - is green and clean. New storage technologies using batteries and hydrogen mean that a 'caseload' of nuclear power generation will not be necessary in the future. 2) The nuclear industry admits renewables are quicker, cheaper and save more CO2 than nuclear, meaning that more can be done to fight climate change for the same budget. 3) It will be 20 years before Sizewell C is built and starts paying back the CO2 which has been generated during its construction. 4) Improving house insulation and replacing gas/oil heating with heat pumps will help 2050 net-zero targets and provide immediate and sustainable local employment.""
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Wilford Family
"We live on the A1120 which is already inundated with traffic and are concerned about the environmental impact on Peasenhall village and more importantly the mental well-being of its residents combined with the effects of heavy pollution on their physical health. We feel that all aspects of the general infrastructure of the proposed location of Sizewell C is inadequate to deal with ten to fifteen years of heavy construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Lewis
"The consultation process The size of the site Environmental damage The future prospects of Sizewell C The future damage to the area's prospects"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fiona Hay
"I wish to voice my concerns about the above project. I am astounded at the estimated number of lorries and buses this project will demand and bring onto quiet, local roads. I believe this traffic is likely to continue every day for the duration of the building project which is anticipated to take many, many years. Added to this, there will be significant increases in the levels of pollution - something we are supposed to be reducing in the face of the climate emergency. I am astounded at the number of people who will be brought onto the site. I believe the large majority of these people will be brought from the Hinkley site although up to 2,500 people will be local commuting from as far as a 90 minute drive away again adding to congestion and pollution. I am astounded that this project is seriously being contemplated when one considers the impact on the local environment. Noise, light and air pollution threatens our health and also wildlife habitats. The damage to the Suffolk Coast and areas of outstanding natural beauty will be significant in terms of the landscape and quality of life to say nothing of the possible impact on the tourist industry. I am astounded that EDF want us, the tax payer to pay for this project the cost of which is running out of control and is significantly higher than originally proposed, running into billions. They seriously want us to have a new tax on electricity bills and to also pay for any overruns? I am also astounded that China is involved in this project. The Government moved away from China in providing 5G network equipment and yet we are allowing them to be involved in the building of a nuclear power station? I am astounded that this project is going to be using European Pressurised Reactors the track record of which is not very impressive (one in France which is 11 years late with numerous faults and overruns and another in Finland which has malfunctioning safety valves). In the face of climate change we need to be producing electricity from renewables which given the length of the Suffolk coastline there is little excuse for not taking advantage of be this by wind, solar and tidal power. Even those involved in the nuclear industry acknowledge that renewables are quicker, cheaper and save more CO2 than nuclear energy. This means we can do more to fight climate change for the same money. Sizewell C is anticipated to take at least 20 years to build and, therefore, it will be at least 20 years before the CO2 generated by the project can begin to be offset. I am astounded that the mere idea of this project is continuing despite all the very well known arguments outlined above. I would also be slightly perturbed if the leaders of our community (e.g. MP, Council) were supporting such an ill-conceived project which is destined to seriously impact on the lives of the people they serve."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Guy Renn
"I urge you to support the planning application for the Sizewell C project in order that Suffolk benefits from the investment and long-term employment that it will bring. Regrettably, well-paid, secure jobs are a rarity at the moment and even a successful tourist sector will only provide inconsistent, seasonal and low paid work. There is a silent majority in Suffolk’s working population who want proper jobs and the ability to live a prosperous life in their home county. More than ever Suffolk residents, particularly the young people of Suffolk deserve an opportunity to have good quality work, to allow them to afford to live in Suffolk and to raise their families here. The recent crowds at Sizewell beach car park show that people are comfortable with the presence of well run nuclear power plants, remembering that there has been at least one nuclear power plant at Sizewell for more than fifty years. The tourists who throng to Aldeburgh, Thorpness and Southwold further support the view that our tourism is largely unaffected by the presence of nuclear development on the coast. Sizewell provides considerable business for local hoteliers, restaurateurs and hospitality providers and helps smooth out the peaks and troughs of the tourist season. I do understand the concerns about traffic. However having experienced the traffic around our seaside towns in recent weeks I can assure you that Sizewell would not be alone in causing an increase in traffic volumes. We promote our county’s tourism despite the fact that it creates a huge influx of traffic along the routes to the coast and countryside. This is because we recognise the balance of cost and benefit. A similar argument exists for Sizewell C if the facts are examined constructively and objectively. Uniquely, EDF have made meaningful proposals to mitigate the impact of their activities, not least the long overdue Stratford St Andrew/Farnham bypass. Jobs at the Sizewell site are well-paid and secure; this is not just in the technical and operational grades but all of the support roles such as administration, security, scaffolders, cleaners and painters. The workers live in Suffolk, pay local taxes and spend their wages in the county. They provide financial and practical support to local clubs, charities and other voluntary organisations. In doing this they are strongly supported by EDF. At this difficult time Suffolk should consider itself fortunate to have this fantastic opportunity to secure huge investment, hundreds of well-paid jobs and an economic boost for decades to come. I hope that you will support Sizewell C."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Michael Cusack
"I wish to object to the siting of a new nuclear power station at the proposed site of Sizewell C. The primary grounds of my objection are environmental, incljuding damage to important wildlife habitat and landscapes that cannot be effectively mitigated. I also object on the grounds that the development, including intrusions during the lengthy construction period will be damaging to my well being and that of my local community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Scarr
"I wish to raise concerns about the following issues within NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Development Consent Order Application: * NNB's flood risk assessments and modelling for the main nuclear site * NNB's claim of coastal stability at the Sizewell site * NNB's assessment of climate change and potential for sea level rise * NNB's geomorphological shoreline assessment * The adequacy of NNB's approach, methodology and data to the above I have prepared a document explaining these concerns in full which will be made available to the examination at the appropriate time."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Malcolm Watson
"I am concerned about the economic and environmental feasibility of the Sizewell C project. In economic terms I am aware of reports about the precarious financial situation of EDF and the issues it is facing in France. I am also concerned that the electricity produced by the proposed power station would be massively expensive AFTER the massively expensive construction project was finished. In the time since the planning process started we have become aware of the environmental necessity of changing to sustainable, less-polluting energy sources and these sources have become way cheaper and more efficient. Would the money for the proposed power station not be better spent on research and implementation of technology that must provide the power of the future? As a local inhabitant, I feel distressed at the disruption to the local environment that is part of the plan, even when the suggested attempts at mitigation are taken into consideration. This is the wrong place, wrong time, wrong stage of our history as inhabitants of the earth to be undertaking this project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alice Bull
"There is no evidence that Sizewell C will aid the UK's economic recovery: a third of construction value and up to half of investment revenue is predicted to leave the UK. Large infrastructure projects are not sustainable and do not create lasting wealth. The project will damage Suffolk’s resilient SME-based local economy for only 900 long-term jobs. Post COVID there is increasing public support for a Green Recovery, in which new nuclear power generation has no place. Sizewell C is not a solution for net zero carbon emissions By 2035 when SZC may be completed at a cost of £20bn the UK’s energy landscape will be very different, favouring cheaper renewables and green hydrogen. Sizewell C is not competitive and is dependent on a “nuclear tax” We urgently need a revised UK energy long term policy. Every pound invested on new nuclear could be spent on cheaper, faster renewables, investment in energy efficiency, storage, CCS, tidal and vital flexibility adaptations to the grid plus efficiency adaptations to our homes. Like Comms giant Huawei, EDF's controversial partner China General Nuclear is blacklisted by the US military. Following the government's U-turn on Huawei the same arguments surely apply to our UK energy security and safety - there are very serious and far reaching concerns about putting our critical national infrastructure in the hands of a Chinese state-owned company. Sizewell C threatens Internationally-renowned wildlife reserves. Habitats for rare birds, animals and plants will be lost forever. The RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust are opposed to the project. In addition the Sizewell site is at risk from flooding and coastal erosion, exacerbated by the effects of climate change. New analysis raises serious questions about the security of the site, undermining EDF’s claims that the offshore banks provide “micro-stability” for the Sizewell coast. Sea level rises could fully or partially “island” the power stations. Sizewell C will damage Suffolk’s local economy including tourism. The Suffolk Coast has a thriving employment economy based on tourism. There is huge potential for this to grow, especially post-COVID. But 10-12 years of construction will drive visitors away, destroying existing jobs and preventing real and sustainable local jobs being created Traffic will become a major problem. EDF has abandoned a jetty and extensive use of rail, meaning over 1,000 lorries/day at peak, plus thousands of vans, buses and cars on Suffolk’s A12 and inadequate road network. There is no solution in sight for nuclear waste.The spent fuel from an EPR would have to stay on Suffolk’s eroding coastal site for 140 years. The UK has made no progress on building a “permanent” waste facility. I ask you to reconsider the government's commitment to nuclear energy generation, to produce a comprehensive UK energy plan based around investment in renewables and non polluting technologies,and in particular to pull out of the Sizewell C project. I am writing to you to express my profound concern about and opposition to the construction of the Sizewell C nuclear EPR reactor for the following reasons: There is no evidence that Sizewell C will aid the UK's economic recovery: a third of construction value and up to half of investment revenue is predicted to leave the UK. Large infrastructure projects are not sustainable and do not create lasting wealth. The project will damage Suffolk’s resilient SME-based local economy for only 900 long-term jobs. Post COVID there is increasing public support for a Green Recovery, in which new nuclear power generation has no place. Sizewell C is not a solution for net zero carbon emissions By 2035 when SZC may be completed at a cost of £20bn the UK’s energy landscape will be very different, favouring cheaper renewables and green hydrogen. Sizewell C is not competitive and is dependent on a “nuclear tax” We urgently need a revised UK energy long term policy. Every pound invested on new nuclear could be spent on cheaper, faster renewables, investment in energy efficiency, storage, CCS, tidal and vital flexibility adaptations to the grid plus efficiency adaptations to our homes. Like Comms giant Huawei, EDF's controversial partner China General Nuclear is blacklisted by the US military. Following the government's U-turn on Huawei the same arguments surely apply to our UK energy security and safety - there are very serious and far reaching concerns about putting our critical national infrastructure in the hands of a Chinese state-owned company. Sizewell C threatens Internationally-renowned wildlife reserves. Habitats for rare birds, animals and plants will be lost forever. The RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust are opposed to the project. In addition the Sizewell site is at risk from flooding and coastal erosion, exacerbated by the effects of climate change. New analysis raises serious questions about the security of the site, undermining EDF’s claims that the offshore banks provide “micro-stability” for the Sizewell coast. Sea level rises could fully or partially “island” the power stations. Sizewell C will damage Suffolk’s local economy including tourism. The Suffolk Coast has a thriving employment economy based on tourism. There is huge potential for this to grow, especially post-COVID. But 10-12 years of construction will drive visitors away, destroying existing jobs and preventing real and sustainable local jobs being created Traffic will become a major problem. EDF has abandoned a jetty and extensive use of rail, meaning over 1,000 lorries/day at peak, plus thousands of vans, buses and cars on Suffolk’s A12 and inadequate road network. There is no solution in sight for nuclear waste.The spent fuel from an EPR would have to stay on Suffolk’s eroding coastal site for 140 years. The UK has made no progress on building a “permanent” waste facility. I ask you to reconsider the government's commitment to nuclear energy generation, to produce a comprehensive UK energy plan based around investment in renewables and non polluting technologies,and in particular to pull out of the Sizewell C project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Hare
"I grew up with Sizewell 'A' visible from my Southwold schoolroom in the early '60 and I accepted 'B'. I reject 'C' as there are so many better, cheaper alternatives. Sizewell 'C' is immensely expensive, and this is at a time when the UK economy can least afford wasteful expense. As sea levels rise and the east coast tips into the sea you are fully aware that Sizewell is a baddest place in the country to locate a nuclear power station. I don't believe we were aware of these two vital factors previously. The decision to store nuclear waste on the Suffolk coast is incomprehensible. It is as blinkered as the storage of explosives in Beirut's central harbour. Lebanese politicians and decision makers were warned of this too. Consider Brexit: How does the dependence on the French state owned company and Chinese financial investment square with 'taking back control'? It doesn't. EDF is in huge debt and the British electricity consumer and taxpayer will have no choice other than to mitigate this situation in favour of the French taxpayer. If the British are going to be such a push-over on this I don't blame the French for trying. Taking any investment from Chinese is very inadvisable, particularly as the best Britain can hope from China is 'junior' status. The current application shows no awareness of alternatives like small-scale nuclear reactors. These can be build by British engineering companies and they offer much needed flexibility to encourage the continued investment in much cheaper, safer, and more sensible renewable sources of energy. And then there's Thorium, the 'safe nuclear' . Why is it that the French energy industry is pioneering this while ours buries its head in the sand in its drive to invest in expensive, outdated and toxic technology?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Marling
"I should like to strongly object to the Sizewell C project for a number of reasons: 1. The scale, disruption and length of time involved in building Sizewell C will greatly harm the local area which depends, for much of its income, on tourism and the perception of a reasonably unspoiled countryside. This will industrialise the Heritage Coast at great cost. 2. The case for nuclear power is not convincing - especially now that renewables have become much more efficient. Other counries are abandoning their nuclear facilities, not adding to them..... 3. Most importantly the project might not be needed. The world has changed in terms of power consumption in 2020. What a disfiguring white elephant this would be."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Glen
"I intend to submit that the building of Sizewell C is not in the interest of the UK for the following reasons: Its detrimental impact on the environment Its high cost to build and run and the high cost of the electricity it will generate Its severe impact on the roads, countryside, towns and villages ie the area of Suffolk surrounding it. The long term problems that the subsequent nuclear waste will cause"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adam Cobbold
"Dear Madame, Sirs, I am writing to try to persuade you not to build Sizewell C. There are multiple reasons why i feel this way. Firstly, but not so importantly, the country road (A1120) I live on will become intolerably noisy. It is also clear that nuclear power is dirty (we all know it creates terrible waste, with a half life of over 500 years. Thirdly it is unsafe, The consequences of an explosion are devastating for local areas for centuries (Fukushima and Chernobyl). Fourthly, and most importantly, it is uneconomical. Apart from producing electricity, there are only three good reasons for building this plant cited by the Sizewell C's 'Latest News' promotional material; Jobs, local contracts and low carbon energy for 60 years. We do not need a Nuclear power plant to satisfy these benefits. We can create jobs, local contracts and low carbon energy by using better alternatives such as Wind, Tidal and Wave energy too. These will offer carbon neutrality forever, with just minimal maintenance and decommissioning costs. In relation to economics the cease against Nuclear is clear. The price for wind power for example is already falling fast. New contracts are being offered with a £47 per megawatt price tag, well in line with free market prices of around £50. So there is no need for government subsidies and guaranteed prices to suppliers. In contrast, nuclear power in the UK requires the Government to guarantee prices well above market - over £90 per megawatt for the next 60 years while also taking responsibility for waste disposal and decommissioning - an enormous cost to taxpayers for the next half century. Some cite an all in cost nearer to £200 per megawatt - a disgraceful financial burden on future generations. Power generation should be self-sustaining in a free market without government intervention. Renewable sources provide this, once build costs are covered. This project is economically senseless, environmentally irresponsible and completely out of step with the future we want to build. Nuclear power should be consigned to the dustbin of history, a post war fad, proven to fail. It has never worked economically and now more than ever, in the face of cheaper, cleaner contemporary alternatives such as wind, wave and tidal power, Nuclear is redundant and unjustifiable. Renewable energy projects are a proud and I think beautiful demonstration of our commitment to a sustainable future, with minimal environmental impact and increasingly minimal cost for both consumers and taxpayers, not just for 60 years, but in perpetuity. Please do not build this unwanted power station. Adam Cobbold"
Members of the Public/Businesses
County Councillor Christopher G Hudson
"Dear Inspectorate, For the following reasons,I submit my Representation: Vast increase in HGV’s and other vehicles on roads that are inadequate through rural and green belt areas,causing gridlock and environmental pollution. Most of the jobs will be imported from the existing Hinkley station-local jobs will be unskilled,plus a significant blow to Tourism,as visitors will avoid a congested vast building site and seek a quieter environment. There will be a vast increase of water needed for the project in our dry area plus a threat to marine life from the suction pumps. There will be significant damage to an AONB visually and materially,since the new road infrastructure will dissect the AONB. EDF is in debt and the coatings are unsustainable and lacks funding to complete Sizewell,with the U.K. bearing the costs of an unproven system,French-owned,with liabilities at other stations in Flammaville and Finland,both plagued with financial and technical problems-EDF’s Finance Director resigned accordingly. The Folz report is essential reading to prevent Sizewell’s completion. The disbenefits outweigh the benefits to both Suffolk and U.K.taxpayers. Yours faithfully. Christopher G.Hudson"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denise Johnson
"1. • The worst scenario from a nuclear reactor accident would be multiple deaths, injuries and environmental degradation. Spent nuclear fuel storage creates terrorism risks. No project is worth those risks, when safer alternatives are available. ____________________________________________________ 2. • The Climate Change risks to SZC come from increasingly unpredictable weather threats to its safe operation on this vulnerable coastal site, from flooding and tidal surges, which may well lie outside future 10 year modelling parameters. ____________________________________________________ 3. Environmental issues • The East Suffolk coast has important designated conservation areas. Mitigation Habitats of equivalent value cannot be created quickly enough. • Any damage to SSSIs is unacceptable. Their complexity cannot be recreated artificially. • Hydrological changes caused by Sizewell C presence could affect RSPB Minsmere’s sensitive water level management. • Will Marsh Harriers use the mitigation areas chosen by EDF? Are they actually Marsh Harrier ‘ready’? What about other key species? • Agencies have repeatedly stated in writing that inadequate ecological detail has been provided to allow them to make a suitably informed response regarding potential damage to existing sites, or to mitigation proposals. • ‘Low’ carbon applies only to the electricity generation operation – not the total project. • The proposed rail route needs environmental impact assessments for both day and night time use. By-pass routes should be fully environmentally assessed. • A beach landing will disrupt marine wildlife and reduce recreational and tourism value. _______________________________________________________ 4. • As a Recycling Officer (Suffolk Coastal District Council, 1997 - 2001) I saw then and now, that, when engaged, the local community have been highly motivated to support local environmental schemes, eg. Recycling, local nature reserves, Cycling schemes, Energy conservation, so their environment is obviously of high value to them. _____________________________________________________ 5. • Impacts/legacy of SZC on the local community : there was a local rise in unemployment in Leiston 1993 – 94 after construction of SZB. In Leiston 21.5% of children under 16 lived in low-income families in 2017 (cf. 13.8% in Suffolk). Not a great Sizewell B legacy. [Redacted] . • Job creation is a key marketing point for EDF. What will happen after construction of SZC? • The local community must be protected at all stages • I have seen in a large county like Suffolk how ‘low power’ psychology can affect some in rural communities managed by centralised urban councils/governments. This can reduce public participation in the planning process, and put statistics presented in support of projects open to challenge. • Inadequate detail in surveys done by applicants has already been mentioned - this undermines the possibility of other agencies being able to wield equal influence in the planning process. ___________________________________________________________ 6. • Sustainable local industries will need support throughout the SZC project • 37.9 million tourists in East Suffolk in 2018 contributed £671,710,000 (East Suffolk Council). • Farming is a key local industry and should be supported to thrive and diversify. ________________________________________________________ 7. • The high level of economic, environmental and social risks that the Sizewell C nuclear power plant presents are not acceptable on this sensitive site in exchange for a few years of ‘cheap’ electricity. ______________________________________"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Erica Rae
"As a resident of Yoxford in Suffolk, and in response to EDF’s planning submission for Sizewell C, I would like to register my opposition to the scheme. Nuclear strategy, cost and renewables: The UK Government’s nuclear policy, and approval for up to eight new plants is a decade old. Whilst I have no major issue with nuclear in general, I do have major concerns about not only the proposed site in Sizewell, but the economics of the Government’s strategy. Current research demonstrates clearly that the lower cost of renewable energy sources could prove a much better cost model for the country, whilst meeting objectives for green and renewable energy solutions. The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) launched by the Conservative Government in 2015 has stated publicly that: “They [the government] say full speed. We’re suggesting it’s not necessary to rush ahead with nuclear. Because during the next 10 years we should get a lot more certainty about just how far we can rely on renewables.” Given the significant requirement with nuclear to provide significant government i.e. taxpayer underwriting or support, and the recent moves by Hitachi and Toshiba to pull out of nuclear in the UK it would imprudent not to re-evaluate the cost and efficacy of renewable solutions as an alternate strategy. EDF has a guaranteed fixed price for each unit of energy produced at Hinkley for its first 35 years of operation. In 2012, the “strike price” – was set at £92.50 per megawatt hour, to rise with inflation. This means that if the wholesale price of electricity across the country falls below £92.50, EDF will receive an extra payment from the consumer as a “top-up” to fill the gap which will be added to electricity bills around the country. The current wholesale price is around £40 per MWh. This cost to the UK consumer and taxpayer is also significantly higher than the £39.65 fee agreed in the latest round of offshore wind projects, but even so has meant EDF cutting it’s estimated rate of return from Hinkley to 7.6% as from 8.5% two years ago. Even with that commitment from the UK Government EDF are rumoured to be concerned about their ability to complete the project before the current deadline of 2025. Gérard Magnin, a former EDF director, has been quoted as saying that the French company sees Hinkley as “a way to make the British fund the renaissance of nuclear in France”. He added: “We cannot be sure that in 2060 or 2065, British pensioners, who are currently at school, will not still be paying for the advancement of the nuclear industry in France.” The Government is looking at an alternate Nuclear RAB model, but that could mean UK taxpayers undertaking to fund cost over-runs, an equally risky and potentially costly strategy given the escalation in costs and timeline at Hinkley, and EDF’s domestic delays at Flamanville. EDF and other projects: EDF’s cost overruns are material versus the EDF market cap offered by the UK Government, and has negatively impacted their share price. EDF also has problems at home where its Flamanville reactor, using the same design as Hinkley Point is years behind schedule and way over budget. French President Emmanuel Macron has asked EDF to prove that it can build new nuclear power stations at lower cost amid falling renewable energy prices. Construction work began in December 2007 at the Flamanville site. The EPR reactor was originally expected to start commercial operation in 2013 and cost EUR3.3 billion (USD3.6 billion). However, the project has been beset by delays and cost increases. Last October, EDF said necessary repairs to the reactor's main secondary system penetration welds will further increase the cost of constructing the Flamanville EPR to EUR12.4 billion. The loading of fuel into the reactor has also been further delayed until the end of 2022. (Another EPR reactor in western Finland is already more than a decade behind schedule.) Tourism Economy: The proposed construction site will damage the local tourism economy, in addition to substantially reducing the quality of life for residents. In 2018 it was reported from figures released by Visit Suffolk, that tourism delivers £2bn annually in revenue for the county. With growth of +5% in 2017, jobs in the county’s tourism sector rose by 6% to 42,428, and in total delivered 13.6% of all employment in Suffolk. This will be substantially at risk from the proposed construction of Sizewell C Jobs: EDF make much of the undoubted number of jobs the project will create, however there is a strong argument that much of the labour will be from outside the county as it has been at Hinkley Point. In figures for 2017, Suffolk had unemployment rates of 3.7%, under the UK national average of 4.1%, so whilst job creation is always attractive, there should be serious consideration of the potential benefits, versus threats to jobs from damage to the Tourism economy EDF’s definition of ‘local’ workers for Hinkley Point also generously includes those with up to a 90 minute commute. Not only does this stretch the definition of ‘local’, but it risks increasing the already worrying amount of vehicular traffic. Security: The Government’s decision to eliminate Huawei from the UK’s 5G networks and the negative impact on Chinese relations, must have a bearing on whether to green-light a major nuclear project with significant Chinese investment. HUAWEI will be completely removed from the UK’s 5G networks by the end of 2027, the government has announced, following new advice produced by the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) on the impact of US sanctions against the telecommunications vendor. [Redacted] Local transport/Yoxford Bypass/D2 relief road: EDF have proposed a road by-pass between the A12, originating between Yoxford and Kelsale, and the B1122 ONLY in the event of a road led strategy being deployed. I would argue that a road by-pass of Yoxford must be implemented in any eventuality. The A12 through the village is already a busy pinch point with a sharp bend that raises safety concerns. If between 450-750 new HGV journeys were introduced each day, this risk would be substantially increased. The proposed road by-pass as proposed by EDF, will not provide any long-term benefit to the community, and is not supported by Local Highways. The optimal solution would be to build a direct route to the A12 with a connection just south of Saxmundham, known as the D2 route. The creation of the D2 relief road would have positive effects for the delivery of materials and workers to the Sizewell C development, the evacuation plans for Sizewell B and for the construction and maintenance of a substation infrastructure sited at Friston or Sizewell. It would also help to alleviate significant resident disruption, illegal levels of toxicity from slow traffic and environmental damage. Safety: The current road proposal does not adequately provide for safe, fast evacuation plans in the event of any accident or emergency at Sizewell. In 17/18, six postcodes in east Suffolk were ranked among the ten worst in the country for ambulance response times. EDF’s proposal for Sizewell C will substantially increase road traffic (with either strategy) on inadequately designed roads, and significantly exacerbate this risk for residents. [Redacted] There is no provision for a pedestrian crossing on the A12 at Yoxford. The A12 is already a busy road to cross safely at peak times, and increased traffic will further compromise the safety of residents and fragment the village. Pollution/Emissions: EDF’s proposal estimates increased road traffic at between 450-750 HGV’s per day, dependent on whether the rail or road led strategy goes ahead. Heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) are estimated to account for around 17% of UK greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from road transport and around 21% of road transport NO? emissions, while making up just 5% of vehicle miles. The Government has stated that meeting our climate change targets will require GHG emissions reductions across all sectors of the economy, including road freight. The government has a stated commitment to improving UK air quality and has published increasing evidence that air quality has an important effect on public health, the economy, and the environment. According to Public Health England, poor air quality is the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK1. Evidence from the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that older people, children, people with pre-existing lung and heart conditions, and people on lower incomes may be most at risk. [Redacted] EDF’s proposals do not adequately prescribe the emissions standards of either freight vehicles, or local supplementary supplier traffic. However, what is in no doubt, is the inevitable negative impact on the health of local people due to traffic pollution. Environmental impact: Suffolk and the area directly around the proposed scheme at Sizewell is home to some significantly important areas of scientific interest and the natural habitat for many indigenous and migrant species. This obviously includes the RSPB reserve at Minsmere and the valuable work done by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust. Nothing I have read in the submissions from EDF can adequately compensate for the destruction of, and damage to this area from an environmental perspective. Yours Sincerely, Erica Rae [Redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fay Sweet
"Building Sizewell C will cause more harm than good.. please try solar or water power instead.. for the sake of us and future generations. Continuing with Sizewell C is a big mistake in so many ways. Clean energy generation using solar or wind - and through improving home insulation - are now demonstrably cheaper than building nuclear power stations. They are safer too. Extending the power station will be a backward step.. a huge disruption locally and jobs can be created in the newer renewables industry"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Osborne
"as a local resident I am fully supportive of the project and the long term benefits that it will bring to the young people in the area. Offering long term, stable employment in an industry that has proven to be safe and well regulated in the Ik. The nuclear industry supports the UK's climate change aims & the existing power stations have proven they can exist in a beautiful part of the world and be respectful neighbours to the natural environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Molly Irene Elmy
"I understand that the country needs more energy generation provision, and take a pragmatic approach to these needs. Yes i would prefer the nuclear power station to go some where else, but it has got to go somewhere and providing it is not to the detriment of local people, i can see no problem with it. My representation is relating to support for the well thought out transport proposals put forward in this application. I could never see the rail option working that was a possible transport alternative put forward in earlier stages. As someone who lived through the misery of the the construction of Sizewell B and the problems this gave as a resident living on the B1122 i feel the proposals put forward, with the building of the Two Village and the B1122 bypasses, meets the needs of most residents and has my full support."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephanie Williams
"1/ The UK does not need additional power infrastructure from developments such as Sizewell C - not only is the risk of the proposal outlined here [Redacted] there is evidence that the project is more about the survival of the French nuclear industry then the necessity of the Sizewell C scheme to provide electricity to UK customers. Renewables are known to out compete nuclear and would have far less environmental impact yet do not appear to have been considered. Instead we should be proposing more clean energy schemes such as this one announced this week in neighbouring Norfolk if more energy infrastructure is truly needed. 2/ 93% of Conservative voters want to maintain or strengthen protections for habitats and wildlife. [Redacted] Supporting a ten year construction project, will cause so much damage that these sites will never be the same makes no sense. To proceed with this, at a time when public mood and opinion is changing, is the wrong path. We need more support for ecosystems, wildlife, and nature. Not more support for tearing down of natural habitats and damaging coastlines. 3/I am concerned about the increased traffic, noise pollution, air pollution, vibrations the total destruction of the nearby wildlife and the huge impact it will have on the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derek V H Downer
"As per my previous correspondence, fully explains my objections to this project being carried out by the Chinese. As stated I lived in East Africa during the period of the railway being built between Zambia and Tanzania. (Re the extraction of copper) My involvement in the building of a township in Jordan and also being involved in main land China.(Hotels in Shanghai) I am very concerned about the long term effects of this project and its effect on East Anglia -------------------------------------------------------- May I say to start that my views are not based on prejudice but experience; having lived in East Africa for ten years during the period the Chinese built a railway to get the copper out of Zambia, and then abandoned the railway to Dar-es-Salaam having got what they wanted. I then was involved in a complete township that was built in Jordan. King Hussain gave a whole valley area, Abu Usain to the Palestinians. It was assumed by the Jordanians that a British contractor would win the contract; as British contractors used local labour and a large part of the contract value would be spent in Jordan. What happened? A Chinese company by the name of Catic won the contract, then proceeded to bring every person down the tea boy out from China, carolled them on site, set up a depot shop and then paid their workers in Chinese Yuan currency. Not a penny benefit to Jordan. As a result of that contract my Company was contacted by the Chinese embassy in London for myself to go to Shanghai when after Chairman Mao died they wanted to build a number of international class hotels. (I can produce pictures and details of these projects). We found that the Chinese were only interested to find out about our technical details and then wanted us to set up manufacturers in China for them. Enough of the back ground, I completely object to these people being allowed to come to our country to build our nuclear power stations. We are more than capable of building our own and in fact with the number of off-shore wind farms and solar farms which will not interfere with the future generations of this Country in the same way as disused nuclear power stations. Suffolk is not a county that needs the disruption that this project will bring."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marie Curtin
"I live on the B1122 in Yoxford on the section of the road that has been identified by EDF as suffering from an impact of the development. I quote from EDF's documentation:- 'It is also recognised that the proportional impact of Sizewell C traffic would be much greater on the B1122 than on the A12, or indeed other local roads. EDF Energy recognises the potential for this traffic to cause adverse noise and amenity effects to a relatively small number of properties located adjacent to the B1122.' The construction of the proposed roundabout in Yoxford and the increased HGVs, other traffic and the to and fro of the Park and Ride buses from Darsham with the ensuing noise, vibration, and light and air pollution would have a devastating impact on day to day life for me and my neighbours. It would not be possible to continue living here but I do not want to leave this lovely place. I have many other concerns regarding this development but for this application will restrict my registering of interest to those most personal to me and my neighbours. Many thanks."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martial Pardoen
"I am interested by the protection of environment, biodiversity, well-being,..."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Pat Dorcey
"My main concern is the fact that huge amounts of radioactive material will be stored in the location amounting to a dangerous and vulnerable area . A terrible legacy to leave for he future . -------------------------------------------------- My concerns are vast but primarily the risk to the environment of nuclear waste being left in the environment and the huge threat that creates. Nuclear has become outdated and the huge amount of land take for this project should be used instead for renewable infrastructure which is safe!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Olding
"I guess that I am one of those classified as the "silent majority", not one for normally writing to express my views, but I think the time has come to put "pen to paper" as it were. I am writing to express my opposition to the construction of Sizewell C nuclear power station, with the main reasons being as follows: 1) Firstly, the detrimental environmental impact of such a large-scale construction site and the very long-term implications relating to nuclear power generation. There is no going away from the fact that the construction project is huge and will have a catastrophic impact on the local environment. Not only to the bird and animal life around the site and just north at RSPB Minsmere, but the large number of construction vehicular movements will be totally misplaced for residents within The Suffolk Heritage Coastal area. As our local representative, you must see that and listen to what local people are saying. Tourism will be hit hard and like other areas that we`ve seen in recent years, if you kill the golden egg, you never get things back, the economy is hit and the country`s taxes reduce. 2) The nuclear power generating equation just does not stack up. Since the tragic accident in Japan (and others around the world), nuclear power stations of this size are not the way forward and better alternative methods of generating power are currently available. Germany, as I understand, are winding down their nuclear power stations and should be completed by 2022. If however, nuclear is necessary, the technology and know-how for small nuclear reactors is here now and should be seriously looked at prior to giving the go ahead to these costly huge reactor sites. 3) The infrastructure (Doctors, schooling, dental, health support, etc) in this special part of East Anglia is just not sufficient to support a huge influx of temporary construction workers and with the social difficulties that would follow, many issues would ensue causing major problems to the local towns and villages. Many of the services are currently having issues trying to serve the local inhabitants already, as you are aware. 4) Paying for the nuclear construction? If the UK Government is looking to finance the whole project with Chinese investment, how on earth can you justify this if you cannot trust the Chinese to upgrade our mobile network? You cannot have two standards. Like many communications that you will have received about the subject, I ask you to take my concerns seriously and look forward to hearing from you very shortly. I am writing to express my opposition to the construction of Sizewell C nuclear power station, with the main reasons being as follows: 1) Firstly, the detrimental environmental impact of such a large-scale construction site and the very long-term implications relating to nuclear power generation. There is no going away from the fact that the construction project is huge and will have a catastrophic impact on the local environment. Not only to the bird and animal life around the site and just north at RSPB Minsmere, but the large number of construction vehicular movements will be totally misplaced for residents within The Suffolk Heritage Coastal area. As our local representative, you must see that and listen to what local people are saying. Tourism will be hit hard and like other areas that we`ve seen in recent years, if you kill the golden egg, you never get things back, the economy is hit and the country`s taxes reduce. 2) The nuclear power generating equation just does not stack up. Since the tragic accident in Japan (and others around the world), nuclear power stations of this size are not the way forward and better alternative methods of generating power are currently available. Germany, as I understand, are winding down their nuclear power stations and should be completed by 2022. If however, nuclear is necessary, the technology and know-how for small nuclear reactors is here now and should be seriously looked at prior to giving the go ahead to these costly huge reactor sites. 3) The infrastructure (Doctors, schooling, dental, health support, etc) in this special part of East Anglia is just not sufficient to support a huge influx of temporary construction workers and with the social difficulties that would follow, many issues would ensue causing major problems to the local towns and villages. Many of the services are currently having issues trying to serve the local inhabitants already, as you are aware. 4) Paying for the nuclear construction? If the UK Government is looking to finance the whole project with Chinese investment, how on earth can you justify this if you cannot trust the Chinese to upgrade our mobile network? You cannot have two standards. Like many communications that you will have received about the subject, I ask you to take my concerns seriously."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edith Summerhayes
"As a local resident who has known and loved Suffolk most of my life, I consider it a destructive and short-sighted plan to massively extend Sizewell nuclear site in the face of climate crisis. The development will cause irreparable damage to precious natural habitat, will impact on coastal erosion north and south of the site, and, most importantly, is the WRONG way to go for the future. We need renewable energy that will have a minimal footprint on nature and will not produce dangerous energy/waste that threaten our future. Give us a BIG windfarm please, NOT nuclear, not here, not now, never. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clive Lovelock
"EDF's most recent proposals see an increased role for rail transport for bringing materials to site for the project which is welcome, however the lack of detail in these proposals for the rail options must cast doubt on their determination to use rail transport and may be mere "window dressing". EDF has failed to adequately demonstrate that its rail proposals are feasible. All aspects of the rail proposals require amplification and clarification including those relating to: 1. Upgrading and extension plans relating to the Saxmundham to Leiston branch line hereinafter referred to as "The Branch". 2. Compliance with safety and other regulations on "The Branch" and its proposed extensions including current Railway Group Standards. 3. The feasibility of the number of train movements on "The Branch" within the times specified. 4. The ability of the National Rail network to cope with the proposed additional train paths. 5. Alterations to the National Rail network infrastructure required as part of the proposals including, but not limited to, the junction to "The Branch" at Saxmundham. 6. Details of any consultation and agreements with Network Rail about the logistics and scheduling of the proposed changes. There are continuing concerns about the impact of increased road traffic on local towns and villages. These will be exacerbated should the rail option proves not to be feasible. Irrespective of the feasibility or otherwise of the rail option there are particular concerns about the safety of existing level crossings on the East Suffolk line. These relate specifically to the level crossings at Darsham station and Willow Marsh level crossing and arise from increased traffic levels on the A12 as a result of the proposed Darsham Park and Ride facilities. In the case of Darsham station crossing they relate to the increased risk of road traffic "blocking back" over the crossing and the increase of HGV movements, particularly slow moving low loaders. Network Rails own current risk assessment of Darsham assesses it as having a "Collective Risk Rating" of 2(Very High) on a scale of 1-11 (where 1 is the highest risk). The same assessment identifies large numbers of HGVs and "Blocking Back" as key risk factors. In the case of Willow Marsh level crossing, the current protection arrangements are consistent with a crossing with low levels of road traffic. The increased risk stems from Willow Marsh lane becoming a "rat run" for site workers from the west of Darsham using it as a short cut to the A1120. There is no mention in EDFs proposals of any safety enhancements at either of these level crossings."
Other Statutory Consultees
English Heritage Trust
"English Heritage Trust (EHT) was formed in 2015 as a registered charitable company, independent of government – effectively English Heritage at that time was split into Historic England and EHT. We care for over 400 buildings monuments and sites nationally including Stonehenge, Dover Castle and Leiston Abbey. Caring for these places is the cornerstone of everything we do, and our business plan is also driven by the need to be financially independent by 2023. Key parts of Leiston Abbey affected by the proposals are within our guardianship. EHT generally have responsibility for major repairs and upkeep here, with day to day management and care undertaken by our local partners Pro Corda who also run their own business on part of the site. It is clear that the proposed development will have a significant adverse effect on the monument and its attractiveness to our visitors including the effects of increased traffic, construction noise and the proximity of the workers village. I note that the importance of protecting local heritage assets is recognised in your public consultation documents. It was good to see that proposals for mitigation works to the site are proposed including security and fencing/landscaping improvements and possible support for site improvements and enhanced historic interpretation. In addition, proposals to improve access to the site and help maintain the monument would be welcomed. It should be noted that maintaining heritage assets is highlighted as an important part of Sustainable Development in the NPPF, with associated local community benefits. Please can you continue to keep us up to date with proposals for mitigation works going forward, and if you need to discuss any aspects please let me know."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christina Campbell
"My main objection is that this technology is now outdated. Recent development in sustainable energy sources render nuclear power now longer fit for purpose. To pursue this would be total folly. I am extremely concerned about foreign investment in this case, and do not believe that this is a sensible long term investment. Government policy on this urgently needs reviewing. The A12 is not fit to carry to extra traffic this project would cause. Quality of life in Suffolk has plummeted enough in recent years to due slapdash planning. Christina Campbell"
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Osborne
"Traffic and pollution effects of the Southern Park and Ride plans on the immediate environment and on the wider countryside. The proposed scheme will attract traffic into a small concentrated area which will result in congestion, pollution, expose the inadequacy of the B1078 to absorb the volume of traffic, ruin the lives of villagers in Wickham Market and surrounding villages for in excess of 10 years.; bringing air, noise pollution and traffic danger that will blight the physical environment and local eople's lives"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Franklin
"I am fully supportive of the plan to build Sizewell C"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Martin
"I am in support of the plan to build Sizewell C. Sizewell B has been operating safely and efficiently for 25 years. It has played a vital role in providing carbon-free electricity. Nuclear power has essential role to play in reducing carbon emissions"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Ford
"Building a large nuclear power station on sand, on a rapidly eroding coastline with rising sea levels is clearly extremely dangerous, and should not be allowed, for the sake of present and future generations. It would be devastating for the entire area. To do so in an area of outstanding natural beauty and special scientific interest will damage the environment for wildlife, visitors and residents immediately and irreparably. To grant permission to a foreign owned company, with a history of overspending and missing deadlines, to exploit this region for the benefit of foreign investors, in order to provide energy which will be paid for by British consumers is bound to lead to exploitation. Britain is no longer part of the EU, and exchange rate risk will be paid for by British consumers and will be completely beyond UK control. This looks like it could become a repeat of Hinkley Point C which is reason enough to deny permission to EDF. East Anglia is a comparatively quiet and unspoilt area with low unemployment and a shortage of housing. It is unsuited to a large influx of vehicular traffic, rail traffic and increased population. The main transport routes in all directions will be overstretched and congestion will increase to the inconvenience and anger of the local population and tourist industries. The A12 will be unable to cope with the increased traffic associated with such a massive project. Night time rail traffic and vehicular traffic will increase noise levels and pollution dramatically for the residents of numerous small towns and villages, Woodbridge for example, for years to come. It is clear that some companies, French and Chinese, property developers, and others would benefit far more than the local residents and the wider communities. Any attempt to push this through at a time when the whole population is distracted by Covid 19 must not be allowed. Renewable energy and wind energy has in the past ten years overtaken nuclear energy on grounds of cost, but if more nuclear power is required in the UK then several small-scale reactors built by British Companies would be a better solution. Small scale reactors could be built more quickly, would be more flexible, would cause less local damage, could be placed where they are needed, and would be under the control of the UK. The environmental risks would be localised and major incidents could be smaller and more easily dealt with."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs P Jenkinson
"I seriously question the need for any further nuclear power stations at a time when this country is committed to becoming carbon neutral and there is no sensible framework for dealing with nuclear waste. The A12 is not a suitable gateway for transporting all the necessary materials and personnel to the site. The minimum requirement is to implement the 4 Villages by-pass. If the park and ride site is situated just north of Wickham Market, then it is essential that lorries and vans are prevented from using the B1078 as a shortcut to the site through the village. This would require number-plate recognition to be implemented for ALL vehicles, not just those over 3 tons. Alternatively, the B1078 could be diverted around Charsfield and Wickham Market. The proposed route is totally unsuitable as is the idea of stopping all parking along the High Street."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacky Carpenter
"The Sizewell C project lacks a realistic emissions lag in terms of offsetting greenhouse emissions generated in its construction. EDF estimate that 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide will be emitted in the 12 years during the build taking it until 2040 to offset and make a positive contribution to the UK's net zero target which leaves it an expensive and risky solution to our urgent climate crisis. The UK is expecting the power mix to be greener due to more wind and solar farms being built. The National Grid expects the UK to run our Power network with entirely zero carbon electricity by 2025, well before Sizewell is even built. The impact on the local infrastructure is unsustainable - Wickham Market is already struggling with unsuitable parking, highways, sewerage, housing, and flood risk. The aesethics & landscape of Wickham Market will totally change due to Sizewell C, during and after construction to the detriment of the surrounding life & villages and the UK."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Allen
"I am concerned that the impact of the building works over many years (even without the now familiar delays in such schemes) will impact on my enjoyment of the natural wildlife and nature in the area of Leiston, Eastbridge and Sizewell; and on local business (retail and hospitality). I also believe it is a project that will generate considerable amounts of CO2 from the production of materials and the pollution from vehicles etc. I would also contend that this is not a good use of scarce national resources, particularly given the now familiar pattern of costs increasing, especially as projects delay and falter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Alexander Ross
"The design of the reactor(s) building(s) should incorporate my invention for an Emergency Roffing System (UK Patent AWARD GB2526507). Without my invention the reactors will not have the maximum available safety protection. In the event of a Chernobal like failure of the reactor and its roof my invention will prevent the widespread dispersal of radioactive contaminants. My invention is very cost effective avoiding the huge cost of clean up such as at Fukashima."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Manley
"• Noise, air quality and vibration issues of up to 1,250 HGV movements at peak construction on the A12 (that is about one every minute during a peak working day). • The effect of long term pollution from Nuclear waste on future generations is unacceptable. • The capacity of the A12 to support additional traffic; cars, vans and HGVs based on out of date traffic surveys. •The visibility of the 1250 space SP&R with bus movements, postal consolidation facility and a HGV holding ground in the event of emergencies. The site is located on prominent high ground north of the Fiveways roundabout, Hacheston. •Little landscape mitigation is being planned other than some peripheral bunds •The noise, lighting and air quality issues that will arise from the SP&R. • The cumulative impacts from future housing developments near the A12 and Scottish Power’s Friston wind farm substation construction on roads already congested by EDF traffic. •The problem of “rat running” as frustrated drivers find alternative routes to avoid congestion. •The increase in cars and light goods vehicles/vans using the B1078 between Coddenham and Wickham Market to reach the SP&R. •The need to put pressure on EDF to track “white vans” to ensure they use A14/A12…not the B1078. •The traffic impacts on the roads in and around Wickham Market. •What mitigation and compensation might be needed to address local impacts?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deptartment of Housing, Planning and Local Government
"Dear Sir/Madam, I am registering Ireland as an Interested Party in order to ensure that Ireland is kept informed of progress with this application and the final decision. Regards, Declan Grehan EU & International Planning Regulation Unit Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government Ireland"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clarke and Simpson on behalf of Family Mellen
"Upon moving to [Redacted] we went to see the initial plans for Sizewell C and were told that our small parcel of land that came with our house and is integral to our future plans, formed part of the green railway route. The field is 9 acres and if the railway were to go ahead, construction, use and decommissioning of the railway 12 years later will have a massive impact on the quality of our lives and delay the plans we have for the field. Unlike many local landowners this is all we have in terms of land and we have developed exciting plans to transform the 9 acres from its current use and create a wildflower meadow and haven for wildlife to benefit our neighbours (all local Farmers) with diverse pollinators for crops and our guest with a peaceful area to enjoy the wealth of wildlife Suffolk has to offer. This will form part of our plans to develop some of our derelict farm buildings into holiday cottages and offer our guests a tranquil place to spend time as part of the holiday package. The field in short is integral to our business plan and retirement security. The key impacts the railway will have are as follows; • Visual impact on the views. The spoil from the excavation will be banked up around the site to create bunding, but the depth of the cut for the track will be such that the huge volume of spoil will block our views to the East and South from our property. • The construction will be very close to our home and will undoubtedly be very noisy during the construction phase , Rail service phase as well as the decommissioning phase. For 12 years we will have an undisclosed number of trains (this number keeps changing and getting confirmation has been impossible) running close by carrying heavy loads so will be noisy. Then of course all the initial noise pollution will be replicated at decommissioning 12 years later. • The construction will not just be noisy, but will create a huge amount of pollution from dust, dirt, vehicles and people trudging around the land adjacent to our home, which at present is the most peaceful place and is buzzing with wildlife. • Our movement will be restricted because the footpath from our field directly into Leiston will be closed, we will now have to walk along a busy road. The roads will suffer closure and diversion in the local area due to the works needed at Abbey Rd and Lovers Lane. This has been much played down, but when you actually look at the gradient of the railway vs the level of the road, a huge amount of work will be needed to bring the road up to the level of the railway. • Replicate all that on decommissioning 12 years later. • A 12 year delay and or disruption to our archaeological and environmental stewardship plans to the field as follows o Reinstate the medieval path discovered by EDF during archaeological digs (we have never been given the results of those digs or any items found despite being told there were some o Creating a wildflower meadow to attract pollinators to all the surrounding fields o Installing empty beehives to attract wild bee colonies to the meadow o Installing bat boxes in the trees to encourage bats to the meadow, we already have many bats in the area o Creating a pond to encourage newts, frogs, dragonflies etc o Tree planting programme including only native species and some rare trees and plants such as pyramidal orchids o Reinstating hedgerows along the perimeter of the meadow to encourage dormice and nesting birds o We currently have colonies of swallows, swifts and house martins nesting in our barns and outbuildings which we take great care to accommodate as we develop the site. We already encourage and undertake mitigation measures while they are here during the summer. We feel very worried that this huge project will without doubt disrupt the colonies feeding and breeding territories We moved to Suffolk for [Redacted] , both of us having [Redacted], obviously we had set out to have a very different lifestyle to improve our health and to try and do some good. We feel vehemently that this power station with its outdated technology is far too big for the site and not the correct solution to the Energy need the country has . It will cause far too much destruction to our already threated wildlife species and that greener and genuinely low carbon renewable alternatives are much more suitable for this coastline. EDF plan to tear up the countryside for 12 years, to offer only 25 years of power. We are both in the Autumn season of our lives with any hope, time is very precious to us to achieve our goals and provide a lasting legacy to our children. How can 12 years of filthy destructive high carbon construction for only 25 years of power be good value for the bill payers or the local residents (when I say residents I include the animals that have no say in the matter at all despite this being there home as much as ours)? Local residents are very worried about what will be done with the poisonous nuclear waste from the “A” plant, because we know a solution has not yet been found. How can we with a clear conscience go ahead and create more deadly waste that we have no idea how to dispose of. It will be our children and theirs that will pay the price and we just will not sit back and let that happen. What are the government doing about safely decommissioning Sizewell A and B? how can we have any faith in C when there appears to be no plans or anyone taking responsibility for the deadly toxic waste that threatens all our lives. With coastal erosion and extreme weather events caused by undeniable climate change it just seems a treacherous risk to continue with this project and have no plans to keep us safe from the old plants. Should the worst happen with the waste or worse and accident to C due to a breach from the sea, the effects would be felt far wider than we could image. This is not just an issue for the little communities on the Suffolk coast, this will be a problem our children and their children will be left to deal with and no one seems to be considering how poisonous and wicked this legacy could be."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Drew
"I fully understand that this development is of a National need and there will be disruptions for many. My concerns are really about traffic movement for the site being centered so close to the end of the A12 dual carriageway section. The disturbances this will have for the local rural communities and the amount of traffic disturbances this will bring to other local traffic. I would hope this could be looked at again The amount of extra traffic thro the narrow roads of Wickham Market is unthinkable. Getting onto the High street from my property is already bad enough and I see this as only getting worse. There must be plans in place to restrict traffic movement thro the village and also noise/pollution from all this extra activity"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Krohn
"I object to the building of Sizewell c on these points. 1. The amount of traffic coming and going to the site will be detrimental to the environment and clog up the A12 even though there are by passes proposed. 2. The proposed by passes go through pristine , quiet countryside and it will be detrimental to the people living near the by passes and to the wildlife in those areas. 3.The wildlife WILL be affected near the site even though it says it won’t. They propose to drive a road right through an area of special scientist interest. That says it all. Marsh harriers, bats , avocets , deer , otters etc all will lose their environment and this is even quoted in the proposal. Promising to put everything back in 12 years is not going to compensate for the disruption to the habitats. 4.The amount of people coming to live in our very quiet, peaceful area will change the areas dynamics, put pressure on shops, schools ,roads and our way of living. 5.This is 12 years of proposed disruption to our beautiful countryside and I totally disagree to the building of Sizewell C."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Kinsella
"Sizewell C will not contribute to net zero until 2040. EDF wants us to pay for £20 billion with a nuclear tax on our energy bills. It’s too slow to help our climate emergency. So why destroy an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Locally it adss 12,000 extra vehicles a day, including over 1,000 trucks on the trouble-prone A12. And, in EDFs own documents, a recognised proportional impact that traffic would be much greater on the B1122 than on the A12, or indeed other local roads."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanna Atherton
"I am against the building of SZC because I believe: -it will have a hugely negative impact on the ecology of the area; -more local jobs will be lost than gained due to the negative impact there will be on Tourism; -physical, mental and emotional well-being will be directly impacted due to the huge increase in traffic and air, light and sound pollution during construction; -there will also be a negative impact on the ability of the local populace to exercise freely in the area due to the increase in traffic and this thus putting the squeeze on local, currently quiet, roads; -similar projects in Hinkley, France and Finland have enormously over-run with numerous faults being exposed; -Suffolk`s coast is eroding fast and this will only increase over the coming years thus making it a highly inappropriate place to build any large structures. This is an even more important consideration when nuclear fuel and its waste products are included in the mix; -the cost to the public and private purses will be huge and ongoing due to the extra tax that will be needed to run this project; -CO2 capturing ecology will be destroyed in order to build a power station that will unable to pay back its emissions until 2040."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Stephen Dorcey
"Moving to the area 16years ago I did realise that C/D was on the cards Times Change. Sellafield closed in 2014 and the storage of Size well B nuclear waste was foisted upon the community I refuse totally to accept EDF's assumption that they have our approval to store the waste from the proposed new build on the same site in the same way.Thereby drastically increasing the potential threat to Suffolkof a major nuclear disaster. In short given the rapidly changing playing field of the renewable energy sector the government must pull the plug on Size well C/D ---------------------------------------- The nuclear waste that will be produced and stored on site for all three reactors( this is including size well b) is a time bomb and a target for terrorism ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amy Coulter
"I am a resident of East Suffolk writing to you to oppose the construction of a new nuclear power station at Sizewell. Transport I believe the associated congestion and noise and air pollution resulting from the additional traffic along the A12 and local roads would be a disaster for local people and tourists visiting the area. Already traffic congestion around Martlesham, Woodbridge and surrounding areas causes significant delays and economic losses, not to mention the negative affect on air quality. The road based transport plan not sustainable. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. Delays in the construction of the planned road infrastructure would also mean local villages would endure around 3 years of increased traffic. Where new roads are planned, these will split communities and damage the valuable rural footpath system. Additionally alternative relief road routes with legacy value have not been adequately assessed by EDF - those which are planned may not even be maintained after construction is complete. Natural environment and tourism I work in the environmental sector and also run a small hospitality business which caters for tourists visiting Suffolk to enjoy its wildlife, peace and tranquillity within an AONB. All of this will be jeopardised by the construction on Sizewell C. Wildlife in the local area (and at nearby Minsmere RSPB reserve which as a member I visit regularly) will be threatened by noise, air and light pollution during construction and running of the power station. This is a flagship destination of international importance and significance which should not be jeopardised. Flooding, water management and dust pollution I am concerned about the potential risk of flooding due to the increase in the run off from construction sites and the power station area. The effect this will have on the Minsmere Sluice is unclear and has not been fully examined. The huge demand for potable water also appears to have been disregarded - where is this going to come from? Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species. There is potential for a huge amount of dust pollution to occur from the spoil heaps and stockpiles and I feel that the planned dust management is totally inadequate. Climate I don’t believe that nuclear projects are fit for purpose in our current climate and ecological emergency. It is impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage and the power station won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years of operation. Offshore wind is much cheaper to install and will be quicker to come online. The generation of renewable energy will offset the embodied carbon involved in the construction of the wind turbines many years in advance of a nuclear facility. A new nuclear power station will not help us to meet our 2050 carbon neutral ambitions. Coastal erosion I am also horrified by the idea of the nuclear waste that will be generated by this so-called ‘clean’ energy which will stay on this eroding coastline for at least 2 centuries. An obscene legacy for future generations. Although ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature HCDF, no complete design of HCDF available. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Watson
"I own and manage a caravan and camping park at Darsham. I am concerned with the effect of Sizewell C on the tourism industry in the area. Of particular interest is the proposed park and ride at Darsham which would cause traffic , noise and light pollution nearby. I am also concerned at the damage the development will cause to the local environment and habitats."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian A C Royle
"In response to the proposal to build a new Nuclear Power station C at Sizewell I would make the following points in objection 1] Security & Safety A]The involvement of the Chinese Government agency in funding 20% of the project at a time of great uncertainty in UK /China relations poses a strategic risk. B]The scale and location troubles me as North Sea coastal erosion over the life of this power station will increase and threaten the foundations C] The history of nuclear accidents in UK, USA, former USSR and Japan does not inspire confidence D] The critical involvement of ‘’EDF as a French Government agency at a time of UK withdrawal for the EU poses additional political stress to this project.I note that Germany has ceased all nuclear power generation 2] Technology As pioneers of nuclear energy the UK should have moved on from the vas scale generation at one site to smaller UK manufactured generators based on well proven Nuclear submarine technology placed closer to areas of high demand. possibly offshore using similar cable- ways as Wind Power generators which could complement power generation at windless times. 3] Local impact A]The ten year construction timetable will blight this much loved , cherished and precious coastal area of England that has inspired artists , composers and writers and in turn tourists and those seeking an agreeable retirement home. B ]Should this project go ahead ,as I suspect it will do regardless of objections ,I question the merit of providing temporary homes for your workers which will be demolished on completion rather that building new homes in local communities which could be provided as social housing, which is much needed for low paid essential agricultural workers"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marie Gameson
"I would like to register as an Interested Party. I live less than 100 yards from the Ipswich-Lowestoft railway line and suspect that I (and my neighbours) will be substantially impacted by the plans to run goods trains during the night."
Parish Councils
Benhall & Sternfield Parish Council
"Benhall & Sternfield Parish Council submit the following comments on aspects of the proposed works within our parishes. Fen Meadow, Benhall. Whilst we support the proposed Fen Meadow in Benhall and appreciate the environmental and ecological benefits, we are concerned about the impact on Footpath 26. We note that the footpath is to be retained, but seek a commitment from the applicant that the footpath will be maintained in a walkable state, notwithstanding any works required to create the fen meadow, such as raising of the water level, or disruption to the meadow drainage. Two village bypass. It is noted that the eastern roundabout and approaches are within the parish of Benhall, and the following comments refer to aspects of the proposed bypass within Benhall. The proposed 40 mph speed limit at the eastern roundabout will leave a 600m length of 50 mph limit on the bypassed (old) A12 from the Farnham / Benhall boundary (where the 30 mph limit starts) to the roundabout. Within this short length are the junctions with Benhall Low Street and Park Road, as well as the access to Molletts Farm (holiday complex). Given that the ethos of any bypass is to improve conditions for that which is bypassed, it would seem to be more appropriate to extend the 40 mph limit from the roundabout to the existing 30 mph limit through Farnham. The earthworks for the leg of the eastern roundabout onto the A12 north are shown to be immediately adjacent to the footway running alongside the A12. We seek assurance that the footway will be retained, and that the drainage from the footway will not be compromised by the earthworks. (Refer to drawing SZC-SZ0204-XX-000-DRW-100039)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ciarán CUFFE MEP
"Madam/Sir, Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this planning process: As a Member of the European Parliament I wish to raise the following issues: 1. the importance of sharing important information regarding the project with neighbouring countries and their inhabitants; 2. the risk of transboundary nuclear pollution of neighbouring countries and their inhabitants arising from the operations of the Sizewell C Project including ordinary operations, malfunctions or terrorist attack; 3. the risks and costs associated with the long-term storage of nuclear materials arising from the plant’s operations; 4. the impact of State subvention of nuclear infrastructure on the energy market; 5. the challenges of grid integration of renewables arising from large centralised production of electricity. I look forward to fully engaging with this consultation in the months ahead. Ciarán Ciarán CUFFE, MEP for Dublin Green Party Comhaontas Glas Dublin M +353 87 265 2075: 12-14 Mount Street Lower, D02 W710 Brussels W +32 2284 5386: Room ASP 09G257, Rue Wierz 60, B-1047 Strasbourg W +33 3881 75386: Room T03 054, Ave du Président 1, CS 91024 F-67070 [Redacted] Irish Welcome - Cuirim Fáilte Roimh Ghaeilge Designated Public Official under the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015 Oifigeach Poiblí Ainmnithe faoin Acht um Brústocaireacht a Rialáil 2015"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denise Potter
"The impact on the local area has not been addressed, it has been put forward by people who work in the area, not by people who live in the area and quite clearly this shows on the routes being proposed. The park and ride at five ways roundabout will grid lock the area of Hacheston and Wickham Market. The proposal for traffic going through coddenham will also grid lock further. The five ways site will spoil an area of the countryside with light spill, noise and pollution. This proposal should not be given the go ahead with the plans being put forward."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fish Guidance Systems Ltd
"Fish Guidance Systems (FGS) will be commenting upon the requirement for an Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD) that was original proposed by EDF, but subsequently removed from the consultation documents. An AFD is an integral part of the Environment Agency best practice guide for the screening of coastal intakes, and the presence of herring and other 'fragile' fish at the site that can not pass through a fish recovery and return system indicates a requirement for a suitable system. FGS will outline its current AFD system, and will confirm that an AFD system is available, and the company can provide the required AFD to screen the intakes."
Parish Councils
Great Bealings Parish Council
"Our concerns include: Traffic Environment Cost Suitability"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Busby
"I have attended and made presentations to the ONR/NGO forums and its HSE predecessors for over 10 years as the Technical Advisor to Stop Hinkley. I have also made presentations to Sizewell B and its SSG on steam venting and other safety issues. My main activity is to write articles on energy matters with a predominance on nuclear power. I visited HSE Bootle to discuss safety issues during the EPR GDA examinations. I wish to comment on the financing and viability of SZC and the stability of its connection to the National Grid. I would like to be able to make PowerPoint presentations to the Planning Inspector's hearings on the emerging issues. I am well known by the Chief Nuclear Inspector, Mark Foy, who will I belieive support my application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
JP Dorgan
"To Whom it may Concern I am a new resident to Hacheston and live on the main road from Framlingham to the A12. I have grave concerns on the level of traffic that will be increased due to Sizewell and the speed. We already have had a few narrow escapes from collisions on the road as trying to leave my driveway. I also have concerns that EDF Energy have not really thought about the infrastructure and how the Park and ride facility will have a massive impact on people and the local surrounding area. I don't understand why the Park and Ride it is not closer to the A14 and running park and ride closer to where all the traffic will be coming from. Finally what happens to the Car park when Sizewell C is built? Kind Regards JP Dorgan Hacheston Resident"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Pyke
"This proposed nuclear power station is obsolete technology, environmentally dangerous and unnecessary. It will be making electricity while producing such toxic and dangerous material that we will leave a monstrous inheritance for future generations. It is also on an eroding coastline where there are submerged villages(Dunwich, Slaughden) and if there is one thing to learn from Fukushima it is that we will never be able to put right an unforeseen disaster when there are nuclear power plants getting submerged."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Catherine Northover
"I have lived in Suffolk for 42 years. For 34 years I was a local GP. I am very opposed to the building of Sizewell C and these are my main concerns. 1) The building of the power station and the associated infrastructure would destroy acres of habitat for threatened birds, animals and plants, including damage to Sizewell Marshes an SSSI. 2) It would border Minsmere Bird Reserve and the run off of pollutants from the site along with the noise and light pollution and damage to water levels would threaten the fragile habitat for the endangered birds and animals at Minsmere. 3) The new roads, car parks, roundabouts and rail links would destroy local village life and increase Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide levels. 4) Tourism along the coast at Southwold, Aldeburgh, Walberswick and all the little villages would suffer as would local businesses. 5) Large nuclear power plants are no longer cost effective. The advances in sustainable energy make nuclear power no longer an economic option. In the extensive time to build Sizewell C the costs will have tripled and the efficiency of solar,wind and other sustainable sources will have increased. 6) it is dangerous to build a nuclear power station on an eroding coast line with the prospect of rising sea levels especially with nuclear waste kept on site. In summary :- The country does not need another nuclear power station due to advances in sustainable energy. The building of sizewell C would devastate wild life and destroy the character of a beautify part of the country. Catherine Northover"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Ipswich Friends of the Earth
"+ Sizewell C is proposed to be situated directly in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The AONB is designated largely for its natural beauty and tranquillity. The main development site would be entirely within this protected landscape. The AONB has a ‘high level of protection’ under the Countryside Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000. This is the wrong place for another nuclear power station. The site is described in policy document EN-6 as only ‘potentially suitable’. + Ecology under treat. Suffolk Shingle Beaches County Wildlife Site (CWS). Would be totally destroyed due to new defences. Vegetated shingle a scarce habitat with rare flowers. EDFE to save some ‘substrate’ for replanting – but where and how? The building works would take 12 years – would the seeds last that long? +Huge change to the area which is known for its peace, tranquility and beauty. RSPB are forcasting 30% drop in visitor numbers, when you take in for the whole area, B&B, shops etc to the local community, the effect is a real one"
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Lewis
"The proposed Sizewell C project should not be in the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) or on the Suffolk Heritage Coast. I grew up in Colchester and I used to visit this incredible place to walk, to feel the freedom of nature and to enjoy the incredibly rich and diverse birdlife. This is the wrong place for another nuclear power station - the environmental damage to Suffolk’s protected landscape and designated habitats will be so severe that this project should be rejected outright. Public appetite for conservation is at its highest in our lifetimes. I support the conserving of our beautiful countryside and coastal idylls. This proposed project will lead to coastal erosion, habitats destroyed, water systems becoming imbalanced, deforestation. All contributing further to the destruction of our wonderful natural habitats, adding to the impact of climate change and eroding our relationship with the natural world."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Angela Lee-Foster
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. Need - nuclear power is far more expensive than renewables; Site - too large and impactful for effecting AONB, heritage coast, RSPB Minsmere and tourism. There are already significant and impactful energy projects being planned such as Scottish Renewables. Economic - Devasting negative impact on community and tourism. Most workers from outside immediate area. No lasting economic benefits. Transport - Road transport plan wholly inadequate and unacceptable. Siting of park and rides totally misjudged affecting small communities. In particular South Park and ride not diverting traffic away from A14 and A12 before Woodbridge. Will drive significant traffic through small villages. Inadequate by-pass of villages running up to site. Environment - Signficant impact on environment, increased risk of flooding and damage to ground water levels, and catastrophic impact on area of AONB. Significant ecological damage; Sizewell C will not pay off the CO2 from its construction until 2040;"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dominic Adams
"1. Site Selection • I believe it is the right project in the right place • Sizewell C will be built to withstand a 1 in 10,000-year event characterised as sea elevations 6.43m above the present mean high-water spring tidal elevation with 1.9m of sea level rise BEEMS (2014) • Minimal coastal footprint compared to any form of tidal energy • Modest impact on sites of ecological significance. Many orders of magnitude less than biofuel importation from overseas where SSI’s don’t receive the same protection • Additional supporting infrastructure requirements are minimised due to co-location with existing nuclear facilities and grid connection. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts • A decade of disruption to Sizewell, both positive and negative, could provide over 60 years of reduced pollution for communities impoverished by dirtier, more extractive energy sources we currently depend on • Very few communities within 1km of construction • 900 Long term skilled operation jobs with high salaries which inevitably trickle into local economy • Fantastic opportunity for locals to get their foot in the door of an industry with emphasis on STEM and multiple routes for personal development 3. Environment and Landscape • Owing to the energy density of Uranium, Sizewell C will occupy 2 orders of magnitude less land than renewable alternatives such as the proposed Cleve Hill Solar park which will lock in dependence on dirtier back up energy incurring further environmental damage • Most of the concerns about pollution, although perfectly sound, are all temporary and the advantage of pollution free energy for a minimum of 60 years after construction is clear • While it’s not possible to perfectly compensate for landscape and ecological damage, the additional 2,500 trees to be planted is a huge benefit and the potential to prevent more environmentally damaging energy production is far more important both locally and globally • CO2 from construction offset in 6 years • Concerns over flooding, as well as not being sound to begin with (regarding the operations of the reactors) are actually a strong argument for rapidly transitioning to low carbon energy like nuclear 4. Marine and Coastal processes • To put it mildly, nuclear has significantly less impact on coasts than oil spills • Marine processes are significantly impacted by CO2 from fossil fuels both because of ocean acidification and temperature rise. Sizewell is an important part of our transition off fossil fuels which is critical for the health of the global marine ecosystem not just locally This is my personal Relevant Representation as an individual with a BSc (hons) in Biomedical Sciences and an interest in not subjecting my grandchildren to dangerous climate change"
Members of the Public/Businesses
East Suffolk Travel Association
"Book 6.10, Vol. 9, Chap. 1-12. Our representation is summarised as follows. A full version will be sent before September 30th. We support the rail[-led option. There is need for extra capacity saouth oif Saxmundham, for which there are various options. We also support the case for extra station capacity, nitably and Darsham.;; and the case for restoring Leiston to the rail passenger network. We shall comment on ther case for some construction trains to run at night. The effects of Sizewell construction traffic on the rest of the rail network must also be addressed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Farley Family
"1) Concern for our health in the event of a Radioactive material leak into the environment. 2) The project is too close to important wildlife sites. 3) The project is too close to Heritage coast which is important for local tourism. And contradicts the recent plans for UK Government backed promotion of East Anglia as an important 'staycation' destination in the light of increased Corona virus spread. 4) The project is too close to established and planned residential settlements. 5) The project cost should be diverted to improving insulation in the UK ageing housing stock and creating more energy efficient new homes thus reducing energy generation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Harriet Bowes
"Sizewell C - I am concerned about the fragile coast line, will the construction make erosion worse? How well is the North Sea understood. How will the radio active waste be stored? What about climate change? What will happen in an extreme weather event? Where does the water come from for use in the power station? Will the coast and protected heathland (AONB) be protected from the development or will it become damaged? Access roads would destroy part of an SSSI. What about woodland lost due to the construction site where rare butterflies inhabit (eg White Admiral and the rare Norfolk Hawker dragon fly)? Drainage of the surrounding marsh land would damage the special sites. Places like these are special, they need to be protected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katy Attwater
"My representation is that:- - The financial model is not robust enough to deliver the project - The contingency for the effects on the design of Climate Change are not appropriate - The proposals for the safe storage of the high level toxic waste assume the provision of a GDF without offering a safe alternative"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynne Barrett
"I believe that damage to our protected wildlife and their habitats would be so severe that this project should not go ahead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Allsop
"1. By the time it is built improvements in storage technology and the input from the many wind farms off the North Sea coast will render the project obsolete. 2. The coastline is fragile and has been moving for centuries. The site is in an AONB and straddles two SSSIs. There will be permanent damage to flora and fauna. 3. The population of Leiston, the nearest town is around 6000 people. That’s similar to the construction workforce and 2400 workers will be housed in an accommodation block, with another 600 in caravans. That’s a 50% increase in the local population. The local infrastructure just isn’t up to it 4. The scale of the project and transport links, or rather lack of them, render the site unsuitable for a 12 year disruption. The applicants are looking at 600 plus HGVs per day along existing roads during the early construction phase and more when the access road is built. That access road will have no future relevance once construction has finished. Alternatives which might have legacy value have been overlooked by the Applicants. The A12 is inadequate for its current traffic load and the proposed two village bypass will do little to assist. 5. There will be huge pollution by light and noise and visually from the construction site and accommodation buildings as well as the projected spoil heaps 6. The tourist economy will be badly hit by the additional traffic, pollution and disruption. 7. Footpaths will be closed and diverted including a number on the East Suffolk railway line. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I submit that this application is unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Kellett
"1. Challenging the given cost of Nuclear power. 2012 Hinkley £102 per MW hour / Offshore £39 (on shore even cheaper) 2. Challenging the time it takes to build safely. 12 year plus delays. 3. Distraction. Cuckoo in the nest. Pushes others out of the debate, absorbs all social capital which means other systems, more preferable, don’t get exposure. 4. Waste. We will find a solution is the view. Will we? 5. Nuclear proliferation. Ours but not yours. 6. Safe. Until goes wrong. Terrorist. 7. Employment. It's a dying industry. Why create jobs in a declining industry? 400 jobs locally 8. Load dependable and needed. Myth. General capacity 90GW. Peak 53GW. Average 20-30 GW. 9. Use of land. Massive. Not just another little dome - it's over hectars."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Rusack
"I wish the inspectorate to consider the following factors in assessing the validity of the application 1 The impact the development will have on other road users over the development period. 2 The impact this development will have on the existing local businesses in particular the impact on tourism 3 The impact on the coast and erosion to the sea bed and local fishing 4 EDF have stated that the the development will reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Do these figures take into account the impact of transport for workers coming to the site during the building process 5 I am concerned about the small amount of benefit for employment for existing local residents as this appears to be an import part of the EDF benefits statement please ensure that that the local seeking employment can benefit"
Parish Councils
Trimley St Martin Parish Council
"Trimley St Martin Parish Council note that the freight management facility is intended to be situated off Felixstowe Road in order to facilitate access to the A12. The number of HGVs which may use the facility has the potential to interfere with the smooth flow of vehicles on the approach to the roundabout from Felixstowe Rd. With that in mind the Parish Council considers that it will be necessary to install traffic lights in order to mitigate the impact of the increased traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Adelson
"I have been a resident of East Suffolk for over 50 years. These are my objections to the building of Sizewell C. Erosion - I have witnessed the unstable and changing coastline. It is not suitable for such a large scale development. Safe storage of waste is not possible either. Climate change - changing weather patterns will lead to more extreme events and sea level rise making the site unsuitable. CO2 savings have not included the cost of the geological waste facility and so they are more optimistic than we can expect. Water - Where will it come from? No provision has been made for extra to support agriculture. Transport - The extra traffic will be noisy and make travel difficult for people already living here. The use of the railway during the night will affect the residents of all the towns from Felixstowe to Darsham. Habitat - It is a beautiful area full of rare species which will suffer from fragmentation and habitat loss. So much has been worked for that will be lost to diggers and not returned. Tourism - Now more than ever people have come to the area to enjoy the wide range of landscapes, to find rest and recreation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Adelson
"I have been a resident of East Suffolk for 36 years. I object to the building of a new Nuclear power station at Sizewell on the following grounds. Dangerous site - I have witnessed the unstable and changing coastline. It is not suitable for such a large scale development with extremely hazardous nuclear fuel and waste. Even if stable at the moment, it may change in a few years. The building itself may impact erosion patterns. Land key to the local economy on either side of the station may be flooded or lost. Climate change - changing weather patterns will lead to more extreme events and sea level rise, making the site liable to flooding despite artificial defences, and/or on an island where it can't be maintained and decommissioned safely or at reasonable cost. CO2 savings are not enough and will come too late to meet the planet's needs. EDFE's calculations have not included the cost of the geological waste facility and so they are over-optimistic. And savings are based on out-of-date policy documents that have been overtaken by fall in price of renewables. Water for construction- in this very dry area, agriculture and tourism as well as residential uses are already stressing the local supplies. The Environment Agency is not allowing any new water abstraction licences. So the amount of water needed for SZC will take away from local people, their businesses, and national food security. Transport - The extra traffic will cause severe congestion for years, crippling the local economy. The use of the railway during the night will affect the sleep of residents of all the towns from Felixstowe to Darsham. Local Tourism Economy - The area is currently a major attraction for a large section of Eastern and Southern England, and brings in visitors from further afield too. This is because of the hard work of organisations who have been able to preserve some element of its natural beauty. The major development will impact not only the visual amenity in the immediate vicinity, but the attractiveness of a much wider area because of transport links, hydrological impact, and even well out to sea through the cooling water tunnels. A national asset (in the form of this facility for natural recreation) will be badly damaged."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Debra Hyatt
"it is hard to know where to start. Effects on the landscape of the building work- the new road and the building of accommodation blocks on an area that was forest with the loss the wild life habitat and the closure of the Sandlings Walk during construction. The building of two new nuclear power plants in this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with decimate the Tourism business. The Lockdown demonstrated just how people in this area work in this industry. At the moment most visitors don't even know about the building plans. I cannot see them returning when all this building works kicks off with constant noise, 24 lighting, and dust. I am also concerned about the effects of the construction on coastal erosion to the North and south of the plants. Nuclear power is not efficient and out of date."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Ball
"The points I wish to make in my submission are related to: Site selection Environmental concerns Safety Radioactive hazards Coastal and marine concerns"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judie Shore
"I wish to make clear my many concerns about the planning application for the building of Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station. In addition I support the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C My concerns are based on the following: Environmental and ecological impact (both land and marine) upon areas of special scientific interest, AONB and habitats therein. I support the Relevant Representations made by the RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and National Trust Flood risk and impact on coastline The impact of the build on the local community and associated social problems caused by a high import of workers from outside of the area plus the pressure this will bring on local services. The projected numbers of additional HGVs, vans, buses and cars in this quiet rural area is untenable and would ruin the nature of the area and its landscape character The impact on Suffolk’s £2bn tourist industry would be devastating. I understand that a digital examination process has been suggested for the Sizewell C application. Given its size, this would be totally unsuitable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kim Vanhinsbergh
"Please consider these concerns when assessing the application to build two more nuclear reactors at Sizewell. Site location, is it in the wrong place? What effect will building a new power station have on the local coastline? Will it cause coastal erosion on either side? Is the site at risk from climate change if the sea level rises, will Sizewell become an island? It is in an area next to a SSSI, Minsmere nature reserve. How will that be affected? Nuclear waste At present we have no way of disposing safely of nuclear waste. EDF states that waste will be stored onsite until a way of disposing of the waste becomes available. We have been generating this waste for decades and still no long term solution has been formulated. Is it right to create yet more waste and expect our children to deal with it? Influx of large numbers of workers to the area. I oppose the building of a campus in Eastbridge. EDF promise that it will be a boost to local employment. But i believe most skilled workers will come from Hinckley. Only lower skilled lower paid workers will be employed from the local area. Will this have a detrimental effect on local businesses who might not be able to keep and employ new staff? What effect will it have on tourism in the local area with all the extra people around and increased traffic? What effect will having all these extra people in the area have on health services? It takes long enough to get a doctors appointment now. The development will destroy my local environment with light, noise and dust pollution, i overlook the present power stations. I oppose the spoil and stock heaps to be sited near to where i live. I fear Minsmere will be damage beyond repair, an area recognised internationally as an area of natural beauty. What effect will it have on the Marsh Harrier population? I believe the road based transport plan is unsustainable. Village life for all those effected along those routes will be destroyed by all the extra HGV's. A new road building scheme in the area could damage footpaths and separate farmland. Is it required at all? We are getting better at using power more efficiently. Battery storage is improving every year making power from off shore wind turbines and solar farms more sustainable. We will all soon have a storage device sitting on our driveways in the form of an electric car. It has been proved that these can be used for backup power when required. Nuclear power is not a green energy source as claimed. It is estimated that it will have to operational for a minimum Six years before it pays back the amount of CO2 released in its construction alone. What effect will the abstraction of water in the area during the construction phase and in the future have on the local water table, surrounding habits and ecology generally? Should this application have even been submitted during a national crisis with the Covid pandemic? Will people have the opportunity to voice their opposition effectively at this time? Is this application right to be submitted in a digital examination format alone? I endorse and support all submissions from other groups including Stop Sizewell C, RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife trust."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Nuclear Consulting Group (NCG) (Nuclear Consulting Group (NCG))
"Accidents are, by definition, accidental There seem no resounding new revelations over the vulnerability of nuclear to unforeseen natural disasters or through human or engineering-based fault conditions, including accidental or deliberate harm. Accidents are by nature, accidental, and the cost of ignoring this common-sense axiom can prove radiologically catastrophic. Whatever one’s view of the risks and benefits of nuclear, it is clear that the possibility of catastrophic accidents or incidents, and consequent economic liability, must be factored into planning decision-making. To date, insufficient attention has been placed on ‘beyond-design-base cascading accidents/incidents’ regards EDF Sizewell C. Climate change will significantly impact the proposed Sizewell C site. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently reported that extreme sea-level events that used to occur once a century will strike every year in many coasts by 2050, whether climate heating emissions are curbed or not. Thus, UK coastal nuclear plant, including Sizewell, will be increasingly vulnerable to sea-level rise, storm surge, tidal ingress, and flooding of reactor and spent fuel stores - and these impacts may occur quicker than nuclear regulatory or industry have planned for. As UK Inst. Mech. Eng. (IME) state in their publication 'Climate Change: Adapting to the Inevitable': The sea level rises projected could significantly redraw the map of the UK, as well as power station sites such as Sizewell. Perhaps alarmingly, IME point out that coastal located nuclear reactors, tincluding Sizewell, together with radioactive waste stores including spent fuel, will be vulnerable to sea-level rise, flooding, storm surge. IME note that coastal nuclear sites, such as Sizewell, may need considerable investment to protect them against rising sea levels, or even abandonment or relocation in the long term. Further, see map below, extrapolated from 'Nature' publication (S.A., Strauss, B.H. New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Nat Commun 10, 4844 (2019): doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12808-z ) which strongly suggests that the Sizewell C nuclear plant will be almost completely cut off by flood water once per year by 2050: Sizewell, Land Projected Below 2050 Annual Flood Level [Redacted] In this context it would prove deeply problematic to allow new nuclear build to progress on this site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Parish of Friston
"That the proposed development(s) in the parish and surrounding area will alter the character of the district to such an extent that major detrimental changes to life, habitat, usage and income generation are likely to take place and have a retrograde effect upon the total environment of the area for, up to, the next 25 years at least and probably beyond."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Prof Peter Dickinson
"WRONG DECISION SIZEWELL C The situation has changed dramatically in view of recent events. It is now obvious that the Chinese input through Huawei and our power stations must be curtailed. Failure to contain the Chinese threat will have very serious consequences for the future of this country in ways that have not yet been recognised or acknowledged. This alone is a reason for pausing now on the whole Sizewell project for reconsideration before it is too late. Objections already made remain. The whole project is too big and far too expensive. The track record of SZC reactors is poor. The whole site is vulnerable to changes in sea-level. The work for such an extended period would damage tourism and create unacceptable traffic. Wildlife habitat would be seriously affected in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The nuclear industry, with its long-term problems of storing waste, is in decline. PETER DICKINSON"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rob Piggott
"My submission will focus on the exceptional damage this development will do to this beautiful area of Suffolk. In particular I am concerned with: * transport provision, especially the proposed new road which will adversely impact massively my community as well as increase traffic on the already busy A12 throughout most of Suffolk; * the environmental impact on the Suffolk coastline with all the implications for wildlife; * the economic impact which will devastate an existing principal industry, tourism and leisure, and at best replace it with economic opportunities largely restricted to those with experience garnered working at and for Hinckley Point. The lasting economic legacy for Sizewell C will presumably be no greater than for A and B which has been very limited."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rupert Wise
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place Site at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding Potential impact on coastal processes Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value Site could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality 2. Community, Economic and social impacts Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a location that I oppose. Visitor economy: Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. Pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in “Site Support” Negative impacts - from traffic and losing staff - on local businesses Pressure on health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people. 3. Transport Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. Rat-running and disruption not adequately considered. Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed by EDF 4. Environment and Landscape Flooding. Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic Dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles inadequate Impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill not fully addressed. Irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. Impacts on Marsh Harriers threaten integrity of Special Protection Area Uncertainty re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond. Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species. Risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology Flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage Won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 5. Marine and Coastal processes Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature HCDF. No complete design of HCDF available Rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable Impacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes Impacts on marine ecology"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terry Jeffrey
"To comment on tourist and holiday let impact, along with traffic noise. Pollution concerns from the development build and harm to the environment. Loss of income. Health impact, including mental health from the development. Traffic safety and access to the A12."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Burtenshaw
"I am deeply concerned that EDF has proceeded with submitting this application whilst the country is dealing with a coronavirus epidemic and consider the timing to be totally inappropriate. Additionally, despite four rounds of public consultations, EDF has still not provided enough information or adequately consulted about a number of Important issues: ????1) The serious threat to RSPB Minsmere Reserve and other nearby protected sites. The company has provided no assurances that Minsmere and Sizewell Marsh SSSI will be protected from any potential harm as a result of Sizewell C. The amount of information about the adverse environmental impacts has been pitifully small. 2) How EDF plans to deliver millions of tonnes of material without a jetty, significant use of rail, or an adequate road route. Suffolk Councils dispute EDF's claim to have chosen the best road route. 3) Community Impacts: No study has been provided despite EDF promising this “at a later stage of consultation” 4) Health Impacts: no study has been provided despite promising this “at a later stage of consultation” 5) Worker numbers and accommodation: EDF’s communications about worker numbers at Sizewell have been very misleading and it is uncertain where everyone would live."
Parish Councils
Darsham Parish Council
"Darsham Parish Council Submission to Planning Inspectorate re EDF's DCO for Sizewell C & D. 1. Introduction and scope of submission. While Darsham Parish Council (DPC) shares the wider concerns about the impacts of EDF's proposals on transport, environment and tourism with the majority of local Parish Councils, and supports the views of the Environment Agency and national and local conservation groups, our submission concentrates on the siting and impacts of the Northern Park and Ride (NPR) which is located within the Parish Council boundary. 2. Consultation responses. 3. Traffic flow 4. Congestion 5. Level crossing closures 6. Dark skies 7. Rat-running 8. Noise and pollution 9. Legacy provisions 10. Geology, drainage and flood risk 11. Traffic constriction 12. Relief road 13. Summary Taken as a whole, Darsham Parish Council conclude that siting the NPR north of Darsham Station on a single carriageway section of the A12 adjacent to a level crossing is a serious mistake. (The Southern Park and Ride is located off a dual carriageway) Darsham Parish Council (CP & MS) September 2020."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heather McConville
"I am deeply concerned that EDF proposals for Sizewell C will severely affect me, and the Marlesford and surrounding community throughout the anticipated 12 year construction period. Despite the fact that the project would bring some benefits for local jobs and businesses, these would be far outweighed by the enormous disruption and environmental damage which would inevitably occur. A thorough DCO examination should be held where the public can attend IN PERSON and if the Sizewell C examination has to be delayed until then, PINS should comply. The proposed location of the Southern Park and Rice is totally inappropriate. It would create a hideous blot on the rural landscape and no adequate screening is planned. How will lighting and drainage be controlled? Ten meter light columns would be utterly unacceptable and our treasured night skies would be utterly destroyed. What about air pollution from increased traffic, and dust in the atmosphere and noise during the operational phase? Mature oaks on the site must be left untouched. The proposed design for a two-village bypass is disastrous as there appears to be no way it could at a later stage be joined up with a much-needed Marlesford/Little Glemham bypass, so Marlesford residents would have to endure ongoing increasing volumes of traffic for years. Living in Marlesford, there is no way of avoiding the Bell Lane/A 12 junction where one can sit in ones car sometimes for ten minutes or more trying to "get out". Catching a train from Wickham Market station is deeply stressful as one never knows how much extra time to allow to get there. This problem on the A12 will only dramatically increase with the extra proposed 1000 HVG movements a day. What about the cumulative traffic effects we will experience when Scottish Power's Friston project will be up and running at the same time? The A12 is busy enough. It cannot cope with any more traffic. I feel sorry for those living in Wickham Market which gets more and more congested, especially near the Post Office, with people trying to go to the surgery, library and local shops, Why was the marine-led option considered unfeasible? Why was the rail-led option not seriously considered? There are ongoing problems and delays at other EDF sites, in France and in Finland, which should provide enough evidence that Sizewell C should not be allowed. And the funding uncertainties only add to this opinion. I am also deeply worried about ecological impact Sizewell C construction will have. Our wildlife and nature reserves are something to be maintained at all costs."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Barham
"EDF only propose a two village bypass. The A12 is currently an extremely congested and dangerous road and adding a further 2000 vehicle movements a day for the next ten years is madness. There should be a four village bypass as a minimum requirement but this still will not elevate the congestion from Martlesham to Woodbridge. EFF have given no solutions to the rat runs that will happen apart from painting double yellow lines down the High Street in Wickham Market. The proposed park and ride at Wickham Market is far to close to the A12 and will cause tremendous tail backs on to the A12. The site itself is vast and totally out of keeping in such a rural location When Sidewalk B was built the majority of materials came via a sea pier but EDF say that is too expensive. It appears that whatever EDF propose it is the cheapest way of doing things and at no time have they listen to the concerns raised by people who will actually be affected. Their solution to any objections is to build yet another sports hall in Leiston. Sizewell C will not provide jobs for local people . Nuclear power plants require skilled engineers and these won't be found in Leistons job centre. The workforce to be build the plant will be transferred from the ones currently being built."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marie Adams
"I am worried about the consequences of building a nuclear reactor in such a sensitive area. It negatively impinges on sites of special scientific interest and is adjacent to internationally designated sites of ecological importance. I have read and heard speakers from the Hinkley Point site highlighting unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. Our region is heavily reliant on tourism which will be adversely affected and will have a long term effect on the whole area, already suffering from the consequences of the impact of the coronavirus. I have seen the suggestions regarding the road plans for the area in order for lorries to access the site. I am not confident that these proposals will be a) timely and b) mitigate the effects of the hugely increased traffic, much of which will be extremely large vehicles. I also noted that some of the new roads will split communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. It is unclear in the plans what will be the effect on Minsmere Sluice and consequences for the RSPB Minsmere site. In addition I have seen films of the pollution from light, noise and traffic in the Hinkley development. This will have a major impact on wildlife and birds in particular. I am totally adverse to the construction of Sizewell C & D 1. Site Selection Not only is it near to Minsmere RSPB site, it is also next to other SSSE (sites of special scientific interest) which areinternationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value 2. Community, Economic and social impacts I have looked at EDF's road maps and it is my view that it will cause unacceptable impacts on local communities. I have heard people from Hinkley Point talk about the amazing disruption to their lives, traffic and noise pollution. Lights on the working site day and night, disorientating migrating birds. We already have a stretched health infrastructure -more workers coming in will stretch it even more. 3. Transport Much talk is about climate change - about time too! More heavy traffic on our roads will increase the pollution levels to an unsustainable level. 4. Environment and Landscape We all know that flooding is high on the environment agenda and there is no clear indication of what effect this building site will have on Minsmere Sluice let alone the impact on Minsmere itself and and the wildlife there. The whole area is an AONB I believe. What a catastrophic impact on the locality. It will be impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage and it won't offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 5. Application I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Local Authorities
Norfolk County Council
"Norfolk County Council response to Proposed Sizewell C Project – Submitted DCO Application September 2020 (a) General Comments As the proposed development is located outside of Norfolk within the neighbouring County of Suffolk, it is unlikely that the proposal will have any immediate impacts on Norfolk in terms of landscape, ecology and archaeological matters. Furthermore, it is not felt that there will be any significant transport impacts on Norfolk arising from either the construction or operation of the new Nuclear Power Plant. (b) Employment and Training Comments It is understood from the EIA (NTS) that during construction there will be up to 7,900 people employed on-site and that a further 25,000 jobs would be created in the wider supply chain during this phase. When operational it is understood that the Plant would employ a workforce of around 900 staff. While Norfolk County Council welcomes the employment opportunities the Power Station will have within the local/regional area both during construction and once operational, there are significant economic issues, which the proposal will need to address with regard to: (a) The potential impact on the local labour market – will the development lead to shortages of construction and other key skilled workers in other location in East Anglia; (b) What measures will be taken to mitigate any potential impacts; and (c) What support and investment will be given to the training in the local area (e.g. covering the construction sectors). Norfolk County Council would especially welcome measures that will enable permanent, long term job opportunities to be taken up by local people. Norfolk County Council would welcome measures which would encourage/enable people currently excluded from the formal labour market being supported into jobs at any level /degree of permanency which could help ease competition for people already active in the relevant local labour market. The County Council recognises that EDF Energy are: (1) Working with the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce on Supply Chain matters; and (2) Developing an Employment, Skills and Education Strategy which will form part of the DCO application. The Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary (ES NTS) makes specific reference to EDF Energy preparing an Employment, Skills and Education Strategy, which is welcomed. The NTS also refers to a Supply Chain Strategy which is again welcomed. While welcoming the above commitments by EDF Energy, it is felt that given the proposal’s proximity to Norfolk and the likelihood of additional major construction projects in both Norfolk and Suffolk arising from the offshore wind energy sector (i.e. associated with the: Norfolk Vanguard (approved DCO July 2020); Hornsea Project Three Project (Secretary of State is minded to approve DCO July 2020); Norfolk Boreas (Examination extended to 12 October 2020); and East Anglia Offshore Wind One (North) and Two (Examination to begin shortly) - there is a need for any accompanying Strategies having regard to: (a) Wider consideration of supply chain issues to include working with neighbouring authorities particularly Norfolk County Council; (b) Ensuring that any Education, Skills and Employment Strategy addresses/considers the wider cumulative impacts arising from other planned NSIPs in the area (i.e. covering the above offshore wind energy projects) ;and ensures appropriate collaboration with neighbouring authorities (e.g. Norfolk County Council) and the Local Enterprise Partnership in any potential initiatives arising from the above Strategies; and (c) There needs to be clear evidence provided through the above Strategies that the significant construction workforce needed will not adversely affect the delivery of other key sectors such as local house building and other employment sectors. The delivery for the above Strategies by the applicant should be set out as a Planning Requirement in the Development Consent Order (DCO); or agreed separately through a S106 legal agreement. Norfolk County Council would expect to be consulted on any emerging Strategies along with Suffolk County Council and the Local Enterprise Partnership. The above Authorities along with the LEP would need to be satisfied with the Strategies’ content before the Requirement could be discharged (or S106 fulfilled). It is suggested that Suffolk County Council ought to be the discharging authority on such a Planning Requirement/s; or signatory on any S106 along with the applicant. Such Requirements have been used in in other DCO proposals (e.g. Norfolk Vanguard) – see below: Skills and employment strategy 33.—(1) No stage of the onshore transmission works must commence until a skills and employment strategy (which accords with the outline skills and employment strategy) has been submitted to and approved in writing by Norfolk County Council. (2) Prior to submission of the skills and employment plan for approval in accordance with Requirement 33(1), the undertaker shall consult North Norfolk District Council, Broadland District Council, Breckland District Council, Norfolk County Council and the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership on the content of the strategy. (3) The skills and employment strategy must be implemented as approved. (c ) Transmission network – grid connection comments It is understood that Sizewell C will generate enough electricity for 6 million homes. There are wider grid connection issues in respect of the 400kV network which runs between Norfolk and Suffolk. The Stage 2 Report (Autumn/Winter 2016) indicated that electricity from Sizewell C will be stepped up to 400 kV through on-site transformers and connected via underground cables to a new National Grid 400 kV sub-station. This previous report indicated that no additional overhead line circuits would be required for Sizewell C in the “vicinity” of the site. It is understood that further studies will be completed to confirm the details of the revised overhead line connection. The NTS suggests that apart from the provision of a new National Grid 400 kV substation; and the minor relocation of an existing National Grid Pylon and overhead lines, there is no further impact on the wider transmission networks. It is considered that there needs to be clarification from both EDF Energy and the National Grid as to whether there is likely to be any requirement in the wider area for either: (a) reinforcement; of the existing 400 kV network; or (b) new overhead lines (400kV). Given the amount of electricity coming ashore from offshore wind energy projects off the Norfolk and Suffolk Coasts, EDF Energy and National Grid will need to address the in-combination impact on the 400 kV transmission network in the wider strategic area i.e. including the potential for reinforcement and new lines in both Norfolk and Suffolk. These cross-boundary electricity transmission issues were raised by the County Council at both the Stage 1 consultation in 2013 and the Stage 2 consultation in January 2017 and at the Section 42 consultations stage (2019). As such the County Council would like to see further evidence and studies setting out the full implications of both the Sizewell C; and the planned / emerging offshore wind energy projects on the existing 400 kV network across the two Counties. Any such study / evidence will need to take into account the current Offshore Transmission Network Review (OTNR) being led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Parish Clerk on behalf of Parham Parish Council
"We would like to register as an interested party to give us the chance to send a representation, although we do not currently have a representation. -------------------------------------------- Parham Parish Council is concerned about the extra traffic travelling through narrow roads at Wickham Market to access the Park and Ride site, We share some of the concerns of our neighbouring parish council's too in regards to transport mitigations. Please keep up updated with this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Maier
"I want to raise the following serious issues of deep concern relating to the possibility of Sizewell C. Firstly, the site: 1. It is the wrong project in the wrong place 2. The earmarked site is at serious risk from sea level rises and flooding, despite the plans for a 33 foot sea wall 3. It is planned that waste will be kept on or below the site. That's simply criminal and will provide next generations with a huge and dangerous problem. The site could also become an absolute island in due course containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. 4. As you are well aware, next to the proposed site are internationally designated sites of ecological importance, of extraordinary cultural heritage and landscape value. These will be ruined forever. 5. There are currently 8 other totally uncoordinated energy projects planned for the area Secondly, the community: 1. Apart from the years of aggregate lorries all day, 7 days a week and the vast amounts of new concrete, the impact on local communities will be drastic and vast. 2. There will be a huge increase in car and van transport causing snarlups, delays and accidents. There will be huge traffic issues everywhere (not just on the A12). There will be pollution including dust, light and noise all of which will affect people's and animal health. 3. The disruption for 20 years (not 15) will be total. 4. I remember well the chaos caused in Leiston and elsewhere when Sizewell B was built. Prostitution, hard drugs and alcoholism were rife as was theft and a rise in traffic accidents and overall crime as shown in the records 5. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 of them will be in a campus in a location that is totally unsuitable Thirdly, the economy: 1. At a rough estimate experts forecast that tourism could lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. My view is that the % will be much higher. It will get around very quickly via social and other media that East Suffolk is to be avoided. For 20 years. 2. House prices will fall and rentals will suffer 3. EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in what they call Site Support. That's a cynical and unhelpful plan and will create much resentment and lack of support 4. Local businesses will suffer even more than they did from the few months of Covid when many went bust. With Sizewell C the impact on parking, on customers and on access will be enormous. Good staff will be hard to find. 5. The pressures on the NHS and local services during Covid were and are big. With Sizewell C, it's plain that health, social and emergency services will simply not manage and the results of that will be catastrophic. Fourth, transport: 1. Transporting the majority of materials by road makes no sense whatsoever. It would be perfectly feasible despite what EDF says to bring in everything via sea. 2. Bringing the majority fo materials in by road will result in road chaos every single day for two decades. 3. HGVs will be in the majority by far over cars. 4. The effect on visitors as well as locals of a vast increase in traffic will be so detrimental to business as well as all day to day activities. 5. The obvious delays and then length of time for new road construction will be over a two to four year period during which time villages would be disenfranchised and people would have to endure noise, dust and chaos for that period and beyond. 6. It will be seen as criminal that any new roads will split communities, will ruin the footpath network, will destroy trees and woodlands, will kill and alienate wildlife forever and split up farms. 7. During the construction of Sizewell B, rat runs were common despite assurances from the Sizewell authorities. Drunk driving increased then as did accidents in village high streets. This factor has absolutely not been considered properly because there are no proper and safe conclusions or proposals to be reached. 8. The proposed relief road system is a joke because it cannot obviously be sustained. Fifth, the environment: 1. Flooding is more than likely according to experts views. 2. Flood risk will be 100% higher than now due to the loss of flood storage from the development site 3. The Minsmere Sluice could be a huge problem vis a vis flooding 4. Dust from the development and piles of debris would be enormously problematic particularly for those with health problems 5. Geiger counter readings show a higher than allowable measure of radiation now! This will simply get worse 6. There is no clarity over landfill 7. Minsmere will be ruined forever and this is simply unforgivable. It's a Special Protection Area but will receive zero protection. 8. The amount of water required by the development each day will ensure that East Suffolk, one of the driest parts of the UK, will suffer and therefore so will the population. 9. The waste water is likely to harm protected species and wildlife in general. Ditto fish. Sixth: The coastline 1. The rate of erosion will be as higher if not higher than the current rate. This is dangerous as has been pointed out by all countries with nuclear power plants adjacent to the sea. 2. Erosion on the East Suffolk coastline is unpredictable and therefore dangerous 3. Marine ecology will be a t huge risk I want to endorse the relevant representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I also endorse relevant representations from the RSPB and SWT. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. Thank you"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marc Sidwell
"As a homeowner in Marlesford I am extremely concerned that the impact on our village has been insufficiently considered. EDF rarely even mentions our existence, and yet the Southern Park and Ride will be situated very close to our village. The impact of redirected traffic passing through the village and the increased weight of traffic on the A12 will be considerable. Increased noise, air and light pollution in a peaceful rural village over a ten-year period are real concerns, and the impact of the greatly increased traffic level is even more worrying. Crossing the A12 on foot is currently an important part of life in Marlesford – it follows traditional footpaths and gives access not just to the nearest shop and café – the Farm Café – but also to the nearest train station (Wickham Market, in Campsea Ashe). This is already a challenging crossing, but if traffic is heavier (2,000 extra HGV and bus movements daily!) it might become impossible, especially for older and more vulnerable residents. Leaving the village and joining the A12 in either direction might be even more difficult – and that will only increase the risk of rat-runs through the village and surrounding roads. Marlesford is a peaceful haven, not only for its residents but also for holidaymakers in several holiday lets. The development also brings uncertainty and perhaps threat to these small businesses. The proposal for the Four Village Bypass was a sensible mitigation strategy, and it is a great disappointment that EDF is opting only for the cheaper Two Village option, which does not help Marlesford at all. Indeed, I understand that the structure of the EDF bypass proposal makes it impossible for a Marlesford-Little Glemham bypass to be added later. I would urge re-consideration of the site or adoption of the four village bypass. At the very least, a bypass that could be later expanded to help our village would be sensible, as would moves to maintain foot access across the A12 and car access onto the A12."
Parish Councils
Peasenhall Parish Council
"Sizewell C: Relevant Representation Statement by Peasenhall Parish Council If the Sizewell C power station is built, there will be impacts on the parish of Peasenhall during the 10-15 year construction phase, the most significant of which will be an unacceptable increase in traffic levels along the A1120, with consequential loss of air quality, worsening noise pollution, light pollution; and vibration damage to the historic village centre: many residential properties have no front gardens and open directly onto the main road, and many are listed buildings which will not be granted planning permission for sound insulation. 1. Traffic Although there will be a Delivery Management System for HGVs travelling to and from the site along the A12, Peasenhall will be adversely affected by an increase in LGV ‘white van’ traffic on the A1120. Strict measures including ANPR or RFID technology must be put in place to prevent HGV traffic using the A1120 as an unauthorised route. Increased construction traffic on the A12 will hamper access from the A1120 for Peasenhall residents, especially during the first three years of construction and the building of a new roundabout at Yoxford. Options for sea and rail delivery of bulk materials are preferred. 2. Workforce Many thousands of construction workers will be living off-campus. The numbers commuting from west of Peasenhall has been underestimated, and their journeys to and from the site will add to the existing traffic capacity issues in Peasenhall. Projected shift patterns at the construction site will mean disturbance to residents very early in the morning and late at night. 3. Environment The adverse carbon footprint of the construction phase will impact Peasenhall. The proposed very large-scale water abstraction will affect the region’s water table with consequences for local farms, which are significant local employers. The unique clay plateau landscape of Peasenhall and its biodiversity is threatened by any wider environmental change in the broader geography of East Suffolk caused or affected by the construction phase. The other significant local industry, tourism, will be consequentially affected. 4. Costs The project costs are of concern to Peasenhall. We oppose increases to local precepts and council taxes caused by a national infrastructure project, the costs of which should be borne and spread nationally. We are also concerned by the implied tariffs once the power station is operational; by the middle of the next decade renewable energy will be several orders of magnitude cheaper to produce and supply."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Timothy Roberts
"I intend to object in detail on the basis of the huge waste of capital and construction resources this project will entail plus the massive and lengthy disruption we will face across our rural community, our transport systems and our protected (AONB status) coastal environment here in rural, East Suffolk. Here in East Suffolk, we are already heavily invested in generating power for the whole of the UK (plus NB there are further plans to increase our offshore, wind power contribution, the construction and enormous power distribution impacts of which have not been taken into cumulative effect here as all projects are intended to build over the same 15 year period) and I do not believe we need two nuclear reactors of unproven design and this size on top. I also believe that the gigantic capital required would be far better invested in new and innovative green power and conservation measures which will have a far longer and greater benefit for all UK citizens, our macro-economy and export market potential, and potentially East Suffolk if located in our “Energy Gateway”. Overall, though, I do not believe that this project will be financially viable nor sustainable and I am most concerned about: 1. The basic thermal power generation technology being employed here which is 30 years out of date as admitted by EDF’s own board in France (where it is coincidentally diversifying from nuclear as requested by the French Government) – thermal nuclear is a technology of the distant past in most developed countries, e.g. USA, Germany and Scandinavia 2. The need for the developers to raise assured capital in advance through a Residual Asset Based (RAB) model as they have proposed to UK Government, but interestingly has not yet been fully endorsed. This comprises an “open cheque book” for a project which may not even finally get built or work, given EDF’s poor construction record of its EPRs globally 3. The involvement of a French parent company - set against BREXIT - and a Chinese power company - set against growing global concern about Chinese influence; its domination of many global markets; and its growing military power, all operating under a communist regime of dubious humanity) who are both desperate not to underwrite UK power infrastructure but to gain improved access to the global nuclear power market through this UK expansion of its activities as well as help cross-fund the massive cost of decommissioning EDF’s ageing plants in France 4. As proven over the recent coronavirus lockdown, the sheer inflexibility of nuclear power has been proven to be too onerous with the UK Government having to subsidise Sizewell B’s reduced production under a horrendous cost underwriting model, and especially as EDF Energy is a private entity 5. This plant will not be a net exporter of energy for SIX years after commencing generation (if it can) as the energy content of 13.5 million tonnes of construction materials and the other resources required to build Sizewell C is so massive and this should be compared to alternative and less intensive power generation and storage systems, such as wave, wind, solar, hydrogen and other energy generation from waste sources, which are much more flexible 6. There will be no significant, long term gain for our local economy and its infrastructure (in fact there will be many losses, as with tourism) as most resources are planned to be ephemeral and the employment prospects will draw people from far outside our community with limited prospects for our own community and its commerce. Please note that the models promulgated by Sizewell C’s developers are based on spurious data emanating from the sister plant being constructed at Hinckley C in Somerset which is quite different from a socio-geographical perspective 7. Longer term, as the UK nuclear industry has irresponsibly still not after nearly 40 years since the formation of NIREX, determined and created safe disposal or storage facilities for medium- and low-level radioactive wastes in the UK and, worse, Sizewell is already a significant waste storage facility for low- and medium-level radioactive wastes, the operation and eventual decommissioning of the proposed twin reactors is of fundamental, national environmental and security concern for centuries to come. This also adds to the potential costs and legacy impacts of decommissioning any nuclear power plant as the UK Government has discovered to its dismay over recent years in relation to the first- and second-generation nuclear power plants which are now leaving service 8. The immediate area surrounding the development is unique in terms of its wildlife, habitats, coastal scenery as well as intrinsic value and, no matter to what extent Sizewell C’s developers intend to mitigate the barely-admitted impacts in each area, it is inevitable that the biodiversity of our coastal margins, the stable livelihood of our existing community and our growing and valuable tourism market in East Suffolk will be significantly and negatively impacted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amanda Taylor
"I am writing to highlight my major issues of concern about Sizewell C 1. The technology is yet to work anywhere (except perhaps China??) and is already outdated; in the meantime proven green alternatives are up and running…our own government has HALVED offshore wind forecasts through to 2030 report. Even without the expected delays, evidenced at Flamenville and Hinkley, it is not scheduled to be up and running by then 2. How will it be financed? NO ONE is as yet prepared to pay for it, EDF can’t, so the British public are already lined up through RAB 3. Tourism: It will adversely affect our thriving tourist industry which has been even more of a Godsend this summer since Covid put the breaks on easy foreign travel. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred 4. It will be catastrophic for local wildlife, cutting our AONB in half 5. Climate concerns: It is too slow and expensive to be a good solution for climate change. The nuclear industry itself admits renewables are faster and cheaper 6. Site at great risk from seal level rise and flooding. This is recognised by EDF but no complete design of hard coastal defence feature is available 7. It will not be a boost to the local economy. Similar promises were made when Sizewell A and B were built but evidence locally has shown that these promises were not forthcoming or long-lasting. EDF itself says it expects only 8% of Professional and Management’ roles compared to 90% of 'Site Support’ (essentially temporary) roles to be filled by ‘local’ (90 minute radius!) people 8. Road based transport plan is not sustainable. huge and adverse impact on local communities and the tourist economy. HGV numbers are still as high as those under 'Road Led' proposals rejected by all statutory consulates in consultations. Lack of local knowledge evidenced by new roads which would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland 9. What do we do with the nuclear waste? A hellish legacy for future generations which will NEVER go away... 10. Decommissioning has not been clearly costed or included in the calculations for CO2 emissions I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process Thank you"
Parish Councils
Butley, Wantisden & Capel St Andrew Parish Council
"Dear Sirs, RE: THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIZEWELL C The Butley, Capel St Andrew and Wantisden Parish Council has debated the issue of building a significant nuclear power station within eight miles of our villages and has agreed unanimously that we oppose the building of this expensive nuclear installation. We can see few positive attributes for this but many negatives. The reasons are : POOR ECONOMIC RETURN/UNCERTAIN COST CONTROL Economically speaking, the cost of the construction and units of electricity and the aftermath of the nuclear installation will all be much higher. SINCE THE IDEA WAS FIRST FLOATED THERE HAS BEEN A MASSIVE REDUCTION IN THE COST OF RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY. The proposed cost per unit is high and if the over-run in costs as experienced from previous French constructions has to be added in then the costs will be higher still. Nuclear plants built by the French system have an average life of only fifty-six years! The plant then cannot be touched for several centuries so future generations are stuck with this white elephant for years. You will I am sure have seen the recent damning report by the French auditors report on EDF and their various attempts to construct nuclear power stations to any form of accurate budget and timescale in either their country or ours. Surely the last thing we need is them to destroy the fabric of the Suffolk Heritage Coast by embarking on another Hinckley Point? Suffolk is already benefiting from the success of large scale off-shore wind farms in a vastly more cost effective and efficient way of producing electricity. Furthermore, as a country we need to become more aware of the ever increasing influence of China who are also involved with these energy projects: look at the recent Huawei U turn. THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT The last thing we need is to destroy the fabric of the Suffolk Heritage Coast by embarking on another Hinckley Point. Suffolk is already benefiting from the success of large scale off-shore wind farms which are a vastly more cost effective and an efficient way of producing electricity. Following the Huawei episode and the exposing of the vulnerability of this country to unwelcome pressures, we need to become more aware of the ever increasing influence of China, who is a partner in this design and construction. The damage to our fragile Heritage Coast with massive movements of vehicles together with the building of a large number of properties for construction staff will be immense and will profoundly affect the tourism industry. Of course, we also have concerns about the size of the roads. At a time when we are seeking to reduce emissions of CO2 it seems absurd to significantly increase the number of traffic movements for ten years. However, with wind farms being a more positive option, they could be serviced from the ports of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft greatly increasing business opportunities in an area of low economic value but not diminishing the tourism industry, while not clogging our ill-equipped roads with massive lorries, delivery trucks and commuting workers with the inherent pollution. VULNERABILITY OF OUR COASTLINE The coastline and countryside of East Anglia are very important to us all. It is a very vulnerable coastline and has seen massive changes over the past centuries and even decades. The disappearance of Dunwich and the flooding of 1953 are all relevant. Even now we see Orford Lighthouse, only a few miles from Sizewell and for centuries considered safe, is about to fall into the sea and is having to be rescued and moved inland. You would not be able to do the same to a live fusion plant which will be active for centuries during its cooling down phase. What safeguards do we have to avoid such a catastrophe? THE FUTURE INHERITANCE Future generations looking back will consider any decision to go ahead with such a questionable project as totally wrong. They will have as a consequence of this decision a nuclear plant sitting on a vulnerable coastline which they cannot touch for 200 years, producing highly expensive energy with little direct benefit to the locality when there were better alternatives. They will question why it was allowed to happen to Suffolk and who was responsible. So, we would implore you on our behalf, and that of future generations, to raise your voice to call for the end of the idea of building such a terrible installation with all its attendant negatives in such a wonderful place. Yours sincerely, Cllr David McGinity on behalf of Butley, Capel St Andrew and Wantisden Parish Council."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Wade
"My issues of concern for planners to examine regarding Sizewell C: 1. Environmental damage - The site is at risk from sea level rise and flooding particularly in view of climate change and loss of flood storage from the development site footprint. - Irreplaceable environmental damage to local landscape, SSSI’s, nature reserves, marine and terrestrial habitats and wildlife. -The amounts of water needed to construct the site and keep it running in the future are not currently available or properly planned for. - Extreme pollution to the environment from noise, light, traffic and dust. 2. Economic and social impacts - Tourism could lose up to £40 million per year which means loss of employment for local people, up to 400 jobs according to some estimates. EDF surveys have shown 29% of visitors will be deterred from the area during construction phase and could be lost forever. - Pressure on local housing accommodation. - Unacceptable impacts to local communities particularly to nearby villages with the construction of the campus and the road use. The Sizewell Link Road will sever villages and communities. 2. Transport systems - the road led strategy has downgraded the marine and rail components and will have an adverse impact on local communities either side of the A12. - 1000 HGV’s, 700 buses, 700 vans and over 10,000 extra cars daily on the A12 and approach roads will affect all our lives in East Suffolk. 3. Legacy - Changing Suffolk coast forever and losing tourism - No sustainable solution for the disposal of nuclear waste - Spent fuel and high level waste will stay on the eroding coastline for at least 100 years during which time climate change and predicted rising sea levels are likely to mean the site becomes an island. - Not addressing an economic regeneration programme after construction ceases. This happened to Leiston’s economy after the building of Sizewell B!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Ann SK Mitchem
"As a resident of East Suffolk, a volunteer at Minsmere and at Dunwich museum, I am passionate about this beautiful area of AONB - and an invaluable SSSI. We must protect the species that flourish here: flora, fauna, and the unique landscape, not just for our pleasure and enjoyment, or even for our visitors’ - but for our children and future generations, who will lose so much of this precious heritage which is in our custodianship, if we fail to protect it. The following points reflect the issues that I feel MUST be addressed comprehensively: *Lorry journeys - permanent jams and hold-ups along the A12, through Leiston and along the B1122. Frequent road works. Dangerous delays to Emergency Services and Police trying to attend serious incidents. Noise and dust/dirt pollution. * Construction of the extremely large accommodation block on the corner of a B road and small lane, in a very rural area. Occupation by several thousand male workers on a small site far from entertainment and relaxation facilities. * Building of Sizewell C itself: on an unstable coastal area, with rising sea levels and more frequent storm surges predicted due to Climate change. Necessitating a huge protective sea wall (in itself acknowledging the dangers) which will affect the tidal flow and currents and impact the surrounding coastlines. * The destruction caused by building the Power Station: light pollution - dimming the fabulous night skies of this ‘dark’ area. Continuous noise and dust pollution: stressful for residents, visitors and wildlife alike. For AT LEAST 12 years.. * Disposal of Nuclear Waste. No longer any nationally designated site for this. EDF expertise in storage of this deadly material ? On a small site, surrounded by eroding shifting shingle, and a town to its hinterland? * Damage to and possible total destruction of our precious wildlife, habitats and countryside, including the RSPB’s flagship site, Star of 3 seasons of Springwatch: Minsmere. We have rare, iconic species here! Do they not count? Are they not in any way valuable to us? Try listening to our oft ecstatic visitors, as I do, at this famous bird reserve! * Local economy. Tourism is the life blood of this much-loved landscape. If tourists stay away because of the congested roads, never-ending roadworks, noise, light and dust pollution, the loss of habitats and associated wildlife, what will happen to all the businesses that depend and thrive on our visitors? And the businesses that serve and supply them? Do we owe no loyalty and support to all the creative, hard-working dedicated entrepreneurs and their staff who make this area a fascinating, enjoyable place to live in and visit? Are we trying to ENCOURAGE Ghost Towns?! * A White Elephant.. a structure that when finally completed, will be superseded by cheaper, greener Renewables, possibly even Nuclear Fusion. Is it genuinely worth going through all this devastation, at stupendous costs, for the sake of a few hundred promised apprenticeships and (low quality?) jobs? If EDF back out, will whoever takes over pick up this undertaking? We all know what our Government thinks of making promises!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pete Wilkinson
"Amenity The construction of Sizewell C will require the urbanization of a rural area, the wholesale conversion of a tranquil, peaceful area of Suffolk into a building site with the influx of thousands of workers, the construction of park and ride facilities, campuses for the workers, new roads, five new roundabouts on the A12, compulsory purchase orders and the disruption of thousands of lives forced to live with 1000 HGV movement a day, constant light, dust and noise pollution for a 10 – 12 year period for the construction of a facility which, by the time it is ready to deliver electricity, will be surplus to requirements. Access to DCO materials During a pandemic, it has been impossible to undertake appropriate scrutiny of materials for such a huge development project which will have a devastating impact on the lives of thousands in East Suffolk. Inappropriate site The Sizewell site is surrounded by areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) and sites of special scientific interest. AONBs have specially protected status and can only be infringed if the project is deemed one of overriding national importance, which Sizewell C is not. Quite apart from the legal protection which is afforded to AONBs, the site is underpinned by soft sandstone, is on an eroding coastline and will be, by 2120, according to the Environment Agency, an island. The Sizewell site’s location in a remote rural area accessed by small lanes which wind through sleepy villages is highly inappropriate for such a huge development. The site is too small for the proposed development. In order to create more space, EdF are required to consider the development spilling over into the AONB to the point where Coronation Wood would be felled. AONBs are afforded special protection under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act and the 1949 National Parks and Access to Countryside Act. Spent nuclear fuel To site a nuclear power station close to the Sizewell population of 5,500 people is, a crime under the Human Rights Act, as it threatens the wellbeing of those people in the event of a major off-site release of radioactivity from which there would be no escape, despite the presence of an emergency plan aimed at evacuating the people of Leiston and surrounding areas. Such an evacuation would not be possible in time to ensure that radiation contamination would be avoided. Health All reactors and nuclear power stations emit routine, low level radiation into the environment. The authorized levels of discharge and subsequent exposures are largely based on data collected after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing in 1945 and are recognized to be imperfect in the conclusions they draw about safety, especially at very low levels. Monitoring regimes around nuclear power plants are imperfect: often the sampling of material for the presence of radioactivity occurs in the wrong place, at the wrong depth and in the wrong recipients: only 40% of known radionuclides are within the scope of the monitoring regimes. All predicted health consequences of nuclear radiation exposure from accidents are exceeded by the observed impacts after the event."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Etheridge
"The site at Eastbridge is too small for the proposed construction. It is impossible to construct a building of this size without causing environmental damage Will cause a huge noise and light pollution to what is a quiet countryside. Will virtually isolate Eastbridge. Bring to the area numbers of workers from outside the area that has covid-19 to this part of Suffolk that is relatively free. I am deeply concerned about the impact Sizewell C will have by building on the proposed site. EDF cannot build a power station of this size without causing permanent environmental damage to the surround area. Noise and air pollution to what is a quiet country area will reach unacceptable levels. It will have a devastating effect on Minsmere, on it’s biodiversity and visiter numbers. It’s access roads will be used as a ‘rat’ run between Westleton via Eastbridge to the site to avoid the large volume of construction traffic on the B1120. This is an important area for tourists who will be deterred from visiting the area and will have a negative effect on the economy. 6000 workers moving into what is virtually a Covid-19 free area should be considered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
"This representation is made on behalf of the Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Partnership. The Partnership is made up of around 25 organisations who are committed to the purposes of the AONB designation, to conserve and enhance natural beauty. For the avoidance of any doubt, some individual members of the Partnership are public bodies or statutory undertakers who have duties to conserve and enhance natural beauty and it is anticipated these members will provide separate representations reflecting their complete interests and responsibilities. Other Partnership members are likely to make their own representations reflecting their purposes. The AONB Partnership’s main concerns are summarised below: 1) Impact on the statutory purpose of the AONB, to conserve and enhance natural beauty. The natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB have been identified and agreed by EDF Energy, the AONB partnership, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council (now East Suffolk Council). The AONB Partnership has requested from EDF Energy an analysis of the impacts of the development on the defined natural beauty and special qualities several times during the four rounds of consultation and at various workshops and is pleased to see this analysis contained within the documentation, although disappointed that it has not been advised of it, nor been invited to comment on the analysis before this stage of the DCO process. The developer acknowledges significant long term adverse effects to the AONB natural beauty and special qualities as expressed in the agreed natural beauty and special qualities document therefore to the statutory purpose of the AONB. Further thoughts from the AONB Partnership on the acknowledged impacts on the defined natural beauty and special qualities will be progressed during written representations. The AONB Partnership does not consider that EDF Energy have addressed, or have seen any explicit reference to all the areas of concern raised in earlier rounds of consultation and maintains its concern that the developer is not paying due regard to the statutory purposes of the AONB. 2) The AONB Partnership do not concur, in the strongest possible terms, with EDF Energy’s apparent approach to the impacts on the AONB. Throughout, the analysis of the impacts of the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the proposed development references are made to impacts in a ‘limited area’ of the AONB, for example at page 110 6.3 Volume 2 13.149: In conclusion, there would be significant effects from construction on the natural beauty indicators and special qualities of the AONB over a limited extent of the designation. However, the overall integrity and resilience of the wider designated landscape would not be compromised and the wider countryside especially west of the construction area, would continue to support the AONB’s general countryside characteristics. The AONB is a single entity. Therefore, impact to one section of the AONB impacts the statutory purpose of the AONB. The integrity and resilience of the AONB and its statutory purpose is compromised when part of it is negatively impacted to such a degree. This point is acknowledged in the National Policy Statements that reflect that there will be damage to the statutory purpose of the AONB from a proposed new nuclear power station at Sizewell. Furthermore, in the statement reproduced above, the phrase ‘AONB’s general countryside characteristics’ does not appear to acknowledge the national landscape designation and defined natural beauty and special qualities. The development will have a significant impact on the AONB, in effect cutting it in two during the proposed 12 years of construction. The introduction of the Sizewell link road brings development into the AONB that does not conform with its statutory purpose. The AONB Partnership would wish to see EDF Energy demonstrate how the proposals meet the statutory purpose of the AONB, to conserve and enhance natural beauty. In addition, the proposed link road will permanently split the AONB in two and negatively impact on the setting of the AONB. 3) The AONB Partnership acknowledges and welcomes that EDF Energy have stopped referring to the AONB designation as a ‘local’ designation as it had been doing during the consultation phases, despite representations from the AONB Partnership to seek acknowledgement from the developer that the designation is a national designation and has a statutory purpose. However, the AONB Partnership considers that the linking of the AONB designation to that of the Heritage Coast is misleading. There are multiple occurrences of this throughout the documentation, for example at page 22 6.3 Volume 2 13.4: to the natural beauty and special qualities of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB/Suffolk Heritage Coast. The AONB Partnership considers that the two designations should be treated separately and the impacts on the purposes of each of the designations should be undertaken in recognition of each of their defined purposes. 4) The AONB Partnership considers that several concerns raised during the consultation phases and engagements with EDF Energy have not demonstrated regard to the purposes of the AONB in the current application documents. These include: • Impact of the Sizewell B relocated facilities on the AONB as described on page 70 6.3 Volume 2 13.6.8 of the documentation that states: The assessment concluded that the Sizewell B relocated facilities works on their own would result in no significant effects on the assessed receptors [Document emphasis]. The AONB partnership does not concur with this view. • The design of the operational facilities. The AONB Partnership note that the Environment Statement acknowledges there is only limited scope for design of the proposed development due to health and safety considerations and to a limited degree the sites physical constraints. It further notes that much of the design is lifted and shifted from Hinkley Point C. The AONB partnership considers that this does not recognise the different situation of the proposed Sizewell C development. Sizewell C is proposed to be built in a nationally designated landscape and the proposed design fails to meet the statutory purposes of the AONB, to conserve and enhance natural beauty. It is recognised that EDF Energy employed the Design Council to undertake a review of the design approach. The AONB Partnership do not concur with the findings of the work. It considers that the work focused primarily on building design, architectural merit and operational functionality and did not give enough weight to the location and setting of the site within an AONB, nor did it recognise the significance of the construction phase impacts on the AONB and impacts on the AONB qualities of the wider EDF Energy estate. 5) The AONB Partnership do not concur with the analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the AONB. The proposals will: • Negate the mitigation of the careful simple design of Sizewell B. • Negate the screening effect of Sizewell A by Sizewell B. • Extend the relatively contained nuclear complex by doubling its size. The AONB Partnership considers the cumulative impacts of proposed and existing infrastructure appear to have been underplayed when taken into combination in relation to the statutory purpose of the AONB. Other proposed and existing Nationally Significant Infrastructure in the area include: • ScottishPower Renewables East Anglia Two offshore wind project • Scottish Power Renewables East Anglia One North offshore wind project • National Grid Venture’s Nautilus interconnector • National Grid Venture’s Eurolink interconnector • National Grid Venture’s Suffolk to Kent link • Innology Five Estuaries project • Other projects coming through the Crown Estates Round 4 auction And existing major infrastructure including: • Sizewell A • Sizewell B • Greater Gabbard offshore wind array and associated on shore infrastructure • Galloper offshore wind array and associated on shore infrastructure 6) The AONB Partnership consider the introduction of new pylons into the nationally designated landscape is unacceptable. The AONB Partnership makes the following comments in relation to the pylons: • Introduced pylons will have a significant negative impact on the statutory purposes of the AONB. • It is not convinced that all alternatives to the introduction of pylons into the AONB have been fully explored. • It is inappropriate to Introduce new pylons into a nationally designated landscape when Ofgem are promoting a scheme to enhancement of visual amenity in National Parks and AONBs affected by National Grid transmission infrastructure. In England this is via the National Grid Visual Impact Provision scheme. This proposed scheme introduces more pylons into the AONB while at the same time the Ofgem allowance is paying for the undergrounding of transmission lines in other nationally designated landscapes. 7) The AONB Partnership consider that the impacts on the tourism industry in the AONB, worth £228M pa in 2019, have not been properly acknowledged or mitigated. The AONB is the ‘canvas’ for the tourism industry to operate successfully and a 12 year construction phase has the potential to negatively impact that industry as demonstrated in the Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation/AONB study in 2019. The study showed that 29% of those polled would be a lot less or a little less likely to visit the Suffolk coast having been made aware of energy project proposals. 8) The AONB Partnership considers that the construction phase impacts have been underrepresented: • Observation of recent major infrastructure projects, e.g. Flamanville and Olkiluoto indicate that the duration of the construction period cannot be guaranteed and there his high potential/probability of the construction phase extending beyond the anticipated period. Flamanville nuclear power station extended the construction period to 13 years in March 2017, a 15 month delay at Hinkley Point C and Olkiluoto (many years behind schedule). • The AONB Partnership further consider that the EDF Computer Generated Imagery are not fit for purpose to give a visual representation of the impacts of construction and that work similar to that provided for Wylfa should be undertaken. 9) The AONB Partnership considers the loss of part of the Site of Special Scientific Interest unacceptable, particularly as such designated sites are in the defined natural beauty characteristics (as agreed by EDF Energy, the AONB Partnership, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council [now East Suffolk Council) and statutory purposes of the AONB. It is further concerned that the impacts of the current proposals for crossing the Site of Special Scientific Interest will have a significant impact on the defined characteristics of the AONB including: • Landscape (Landscape Quality, Scenic Quality AONB defined indicators) • Biodiversity (Landscape Quality, Natural Heritage features AONB defined indicators) • Functioning Ecosystem (Ecosystem Goods and Services AONB defined indicators) • Landscape Character (Landscape Quality, Scenic Quality AONB defined indicators) 10) The AONB Partnership considers that the proposed causeway will introduce an unacceptable level of development into the AONB and does not meet the statutory purposes of the AONB and will have significant negative impacts on the defined natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB (as agreed by EDF Energy, the AONB Partnership, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council [now East Suffolk Council]) such as: • Landscape (Landscape Quality, Scenic Quality AONB defined indicators) • Biodiversity (Landscape Quality, Natural Heritage features AONB defined indicators) • Functioning Ecosystem (Ecosystem Goods and Services AONB defined indicators) • Landscape Character (Landscape Quality, Scenic Quality AONB defined indicators) 11) The AONB Partnership considers the proposed access road causes unacceptable negative impact on the defined natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB (as agreed by EDF Energy, the AONB Partnership, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council [now East Suffolk Council]) and the statutory purposes of the AONB, in particular: • Design during operation (Relative Wildness and Cultural Heritage AONB defined indicator) • Urbanisation and loss of character and urbanisation of the AONB (Landscape Quality, Scenic Quality, Scenic Relative Wildness and Cultural Heritage AONB defined indicator) 12) The AONB Partnership considers that if the proposed Green Rail Route is implemented that further consideration of avoidance and mitigation for the negative impacts on the AONB’s defined natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB (as agreed by EDF Energy, the AONB Partnership, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council [now East Suffolk Council]). Furthermore, the route of the line should be reinstated at the earliest opportunity. 13) The AONB Partnership considers the night-time impacts of the development have not been appropriately assessed against the AONB criteria. A baseline that includes impacts of light emanating from Sizewell A and Sizewell B should not be used as these are temporary structures and not representative to the background light of the AONB. 14) The AONB Partnership considers that the location of an outage car park in the AONB is inappropriate, unnecessary and does not meet the purposes of the AONB. The AONB Partnership does not consider that the case for siting the outage car park within the AONB has been sufficiently made and that alternatives outside the AONB have not been given appropriate consideration in relation to impacts of the proposals on the AONB. 15) The AONB Partnership has concerns relating to the loss of public access via public rights of way and open access areas. This loss of access will compromise the experience for those using such routes or areas and the experience of the AONB. There is particularly high negative impact on the Suffolk Coast Path/proposed England Coast Path. The loss of public access (via public rights of way open access areas) and a compromised experience for those using such routes or areas he proposed mitigation is not satisfactory in meeting the statutory purposes of the AONB such as the defined natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB (as agreed by EDF Energy, the AONB Partnership, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council [now East Suffolk Council]) health and Wellbeing and Economy special qualities. 16) The AONB Partnership considers that the design of the accommodation campus does not pay due regard to the statutory purposes of the AONB. Although located outside the AONB this element is within the setting of the AONB and would have an impact on the AONB natural beauty and special quality characteristics as defined natural beauty characteristics (as agreed by EDF Energy, the AONB Partnership, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council [now East Suffolk Council]) and statutory purposes of the AONB. This will include the Relative Tranquillity and Relative Wildness indicators. 17) The AONB Partnership have concerns about the approach to coastal issues, it questions the developer’s approach and considers it does not pay due regard to the statutory purposes of the AONB as communicated by the agreed Natural Beauty and Special Qualities document in relation to: • The visual impact of the Beach Landing Facility • Access impacts caused by the Beach Landing Facility • The treatment of the AONB during the decommissioning of the coastal defences • The impact on the landscape and scenic quality of the AONB of the coastal defences during their maintenance and operation (eg the exposure of hard sea defences during this time) 18) The AONB Partnership recognise the wording in the National Policy Statement (EN-6), C.8.73, that states: Therefore, the Appraisal of Sustainability has found that there is the potential for some long lasting adverse direct and indirect effects on landscape character and visual impacts on the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, with limited potential for mitigation. It therefore considers that if the development goes ahead then compensation to the damage caused to the AONB be made in the form of compensation payments to further the statutory purpose of the AONB and deliver work to support the aspirations of the statutory AONB Management Plan. Such funds should reflect the impacts caused by the development during the construction, operation and decommissioning on the AONB. The AONB Partnership considers projects delivered through any compensation fund should at least consider the view of the AONB Partnership through a mutually agreed mechanism. The AONB Partnership’s further developed concerns relating to impacts on the statutory purpose of the AONB and the agreed Natural Beauty and Special Qualities document will be outlined during via Written Representations at the Public Examination. The AONB Partnership cannot support the development proposals in the current form due to the unacceptable level of negative impact on the nationally designated landscape."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Pigneguy
"Regarding the widely-acknowledged looming environmental crisis, it is absolutely crucial to make the future as "green" as possible. Wind, solar and tidal power are all "green and clean," unlike nuclear power with all its many environmental problems and risks, not to mention its prohibitive financial costs and risks (ironically, even the nuclear industry acknowledges that renewables are quicker and cheaper). The Sizewell C project has no place in a "green future." Not only would it disastrously affect this whole area in so many ways, but it is also said that Sizewell C could well be obsolete by the time it is built. In addition, and as has already been mentioned, "nuclear power" is fabulously expensive and dangerous, with radio-active-waste-storage being another really costly and dangerous long-term problem. As can plainly be seen, "green" is the colour of the future, and the future is right here, right now."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Richmond
"my representation will include the following areas of concern General - this power station is too large for the national Grid to cope with - EdF have not yet demonstrated a working EPR and are badly placed financially to deliver this project which was borne out of a time when the future looked different - EdF's consultation was not high profile and the final plans were submitted during the pandemic, they never even planned a meeting in Aldeburgh - Chinese investment is questionable at this time -. EdF admits this project is not carbon neutral until 6 years of operation,2041 at earliest and this depends on it opening on time which none of its EPR have done. - EdF do not have the capability to finance this and no decision should be taken until that plan is put together. The RAB model proposed hits consumers with yet another tax where the payback is not for atLeast 15 years. This power station is too big and will take too much investment away from other projects that could see payback in much less time. Given our perilous financial state and with a likely oncoming set of costly restrictions to fight a second wave, this is too expensive and too many question marks exist over it to plan such a lot of money on this. Ukconsumers will be paying for the pandemic dearly and won't need this tax hike to pay for this esoecially with a very high strike price agreed for the energy produced. - we do not know yet what our energy needs will be come 2035 and given the downturn in demand that led to Sizewell B being turned off for the time being at great expense to the UK consumer this could be a white elephant. Site - the area chosen is on a volatile coastline suffering severe coastal erosion, it is literally next to RSPB Minsmere and sits on top of SSSIs with much varied and unique wildlife which are set to be destroyed by this site. RSPB call the plan catastrophic, - nuclear waste will be buried here until 2150 , on the eroding coastline which is being built so much higher than the existing power stations. The land behind it is low enough to result in this being an island during surge tides -. EdF have not revealed proper plans for mitigation of the environment or the industries destroyed by their construction site. -. Sizewell is now within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. When the land is protected to the point I cannot erect a beehive on my 6.5 acre and are told how high I'm allowed to have my hedges, how can the government expect us to believe that AONB designation means anything at all if this project is given the go ahead, along with the other projects being planned in isolation for this section of coast. - the peace and tranquility of this land will be shattered. The residents will lose the clean air, dark skies and tranquility that this region currently gives them. Infrastructure - East Suffolk is not well enough served by infrastructure to enable this build to go ahead without any significant upgrading to the road and rail network. The preferred plan of upgrading the rail link is now not possible and the least best option that of transporting it all by road is what is left -. Adding 1100 hgvs and 700 buses will gridlock both the A12 and the A14 as well. this is in isolation of the substations for the windfarms being built In Friston at the same time and the remaining expansions of other windfarm substations in Leiston and interconnectors being proposed all during SZC build. - the only road changes are the proposed link road which will relieve the B1122 after two years of construction but will have no longer term future for the area once the build is complete, and the single carriageway bypass around two of the four villages after the dual carriageway at Wickham Market on the A12 narrows to single. This is presumably only because the hgvs cannot get around the Farnham bend and takes a route that is the worst option per the local residents of those villages. With six extra roundabouts the slow down of traffic will make it impossible for Suffolk Coastal residents to leave, trapped between the estuaries. Jobs. The positive Impact on jobs for East Suffolk has been vastly overplayed by EdF. The local jobs are defined as anyone within 90 minutes of Sizewell which covers the whole of East Anglia theSejobs will be low paid low skilled and unsustainable. Importing so many workers from Hinkley Point will Change the sociaL mix of the region and we are forecast to lose 29% of our tourism, the regions most important industry. EdF have not issued any detailed mitgation. Given how cash poor EdF are and how they have to rely on external sources of funding to build this, why do we think that they will ever come up with proper mitigation. Overall the Management of the future of East Suffolk is being left in the hands of the government at Westminster, leaving the local councils powerless to intervene in the area they should be custodians of. 8 NSIPs have the potential for utter devastation given the uncoordinated way in which they are being planned and one of the few truly rural areas of this country with its unique wildlife, geography and landscapes will be lost forever, The people making the decisions have very different motivation from the councils, who's job it is to protect us. Accepting this project as is will be a very sad thing for this country."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Susan Eckholdt
"The application misleadingly suggests that there is a need for Sizewell C, yet the claim is a false one. There is no local, county, regional OR national energy production target driving this specific project, and absolutely no need for it at all, whatsoever, on energy requirement grounds within East Anglia because East Anglia is already over capacity for electricity. Any pledges to mitigate the destruction required in order to build this monstrosity would be a drop in the ocean. Once the flora and fauna are gone the damage is irretrievable and in the past week no-one could have failed to hear the latest stark news on The State of Nature report. It shows, in grim detail, that almost one in five plants are classified as being at risk of extinction, along with 15% of fungi and lichens, 40% of vertebrates and 12% of invertebrates. It paints a picture of what conservationists call "the great thinning", with 60% of "priority species" having declined since 1970:-[Redacted] With this in mind, the refusal of this application is surely a foregone conclusion. TIDAL ENERGY is the way forward for the UK because unlike wind and solar, the moon is a 'constant' and we are an island nation. With sea levels rising faster than at any time, how can anyone seriously consider this a viable project for the future of energy production. I don't know for certain but I believe Chinese steel is to be used as it is cheaper. It sounds like an accident waiting to happen."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susanna Powers
"Sea level rises are almost certain making the siting of Sizewell C extremely dangerous given that there is currently no solution to the problem of nuclear waste which will need to be kept cool for the foreseeable future."
Parish Councils
Bromeswell Parish Council
"Bromeswell Parish Council would prefer that we didn’t need to use nuclear power but accepts that there is a need to phase out fossil fuels and that, at this stage a mixture of nuclear & renewables represents a sensible government policy to keep the lights on across the UK. It accepts that as there are existing nuclear power facilities at Sizewell then it is logical that the site is considered for future stations such as proposed as Sizewell C. The PC is not technically competent to decide on energy policy for the UK and relies upon the government to do this. It is therefore, in principle, in support of Sizewell C and further renewable energy sources. However, The PC believes that more can be done to ensure that the economy and environment of East Suffolk should receive tangible benefits from both the construction and ongoing running of both nuclear and renewable developments being proposed. Current proposals for the build phase of Sizewell C do not go far enough in providing protections for the way of life of East Suffolk residents, the environment and businesses nor in promoting their economic well being. The PC therefore supports the Combined Authorities lack of support for current proposals for Sizewell C. It notes that in recent days, Suffolk County Council has concluded that it opposes the proposals from EDF and the Parish Council supports that opposition. The issues that the Parish Council is particularly concerned about are: Impact upon pedestrian and road crossings on the East Suffolk railway line (including proposed closures) which will materially adversely affect the lives of thousands of residents and the tourist industry that is so vital to this area over a period of many many years. The impact upon the residential amenity and tourism industry of additional pylons. The lack of any local offset arrangements to encourage businesses hungry for power to relocate to the north east suffolk area. The impact on traffic when the inevitable traffic issues on the A12 cause drivers to seek alternative routes. Such a plan will be needed and given we are now on to the third reactor being built at this site the problems are clearly known and such a detailed plan should already be available. The council is not satisfied with the proposed environmental mitigations which EDF have had years to work on but still involve the destruction or potential destruction of internationally important wildlife and natural habitats. The failure to fully fund a proper upgrade to the A12."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Greg Walsh
"As a Chartered Engineer, I will be examining safety and environmental aspects of the EDF reactor and infrastructure design, and basing my objections to the development based on these."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hillas Smith
"I object to sizewll C construction on the following grounds, The vast sums of money involved in the project could be better spent on other renewable energy sources eg wind and solar power. The costs of decomissioning are also massive and will be haned on to future generations which I feel is very unfair. I object to the dependance on Chinese resources. I fear for the safety of nuclear power and obect on safety grounds. I object on environmental grounds."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phillippa Headlam
"This is the Relevant Representation of Phillippa Headlam to the Planning Inspectorate regarding NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited DCO Application for Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station and associated works. I live in Marlesford which is a small village just next to the A12. Whilst I recognise that the construction of Sizewell C brings some local economic benefits, I am very concerned about the impact on Marlesford residents. I would ask PINS to consider the following points: 1. Traffic flow The A12 has a very high volume of traffic, particularly during the Summer tourist season, and it can already take up to 5 minutes to join the A12 safely. Given that the construction of Sizewell C could potentially bring an additional 2,000 HGVs and buses per day, I would imagine that the two access points from Marlesford to the A12 would be virtually impossible to use, particularly during peak periods. This would lead residents to seek alternative points, causing both inconvenience as well as adding to traffic flow on other minor local roads. Given the above, it would seem sensible to construct a 4-village bypass to ensure that the residents of Marlesford (and Little Glemham) are not unnecessarily impacted as described above. The current design of the two-village bypass at Stratford and Farnham would make it very difficult to connect with a bypass of Marlesford and Little Glemham at a later date. A final point regarding the increased volume of traffic is how it will impact on pedestrian access between the two parts of the village. Many villagers rely on the Farm Café on the A12 for basic provisions. Accessing this means crossing the A12, which is challenging at the best of times. Should this proposal go ahead, the increased volume of traffic would make this virtually impossible without the provision of safe pedestrian access. 2. Southern Park and Ride Marlesford is set in beautiful countryside. The planned elevated position of the Southern Park and Ride would not only spoil the view of this rural landscape but bring unwanted air, noise and light pollution. Would it not be sensible to use the established Park and Ride at Martlesham rather than damaging even more of the natural environment? The building of a park and ride facility would also impact on house prices as it will impinge on both the stunning views and tranquillity of the village. The reason I moved here was for the peace and quiet it offers whilst providing ease of access to the A12 – both of these would disappear if the park and ride was built. In summary, the many negative effects of these proposals would seem to justify further consideration of and amendment to the current plans to ensure that Marlesford and its residents are not unduly affected by the construction of Sizewell C."
Parish Councils
Sibton Parish Council
"Relevant Representation by Sibton Parish Council on the application by EDF to construct Sizewell ‘C’ nuclear power station. We are disappointed that EDF are still not proposing to make full use of the East Suffolk Line. With a passing link and changes to level-crossing signals they would be able to run more freight trains and further ease the pressure on the road system. [Stage 4 consultation – Project Overview 2.1.3]. An additional 325 to 500 loaded HGVs on the A12 at the peak of construction would cause serious delays particularly around the Martlesham and Woodbridge roundabouts. [ T.C. (Transport Assessment) 7.2.4, p.149]. Additionally, large housing estates are proposed for the Martlesham area which will add further to congestion in this area. There is serious concern in this area regarding increased traffic on the A1120. This would comprise of light vans from the west including the Midlands and the daily site commuter traffic. Sibton parishioners live on the road which also passes through Peasenhall and Yoxford where the houses, many of them listed, are only separated from the road by the pavement. In the application it is estimated that at peak construction 4230 workers, not living on the campus, will either be parking on the main site (approximately 1000 spaces) or using the Northern or Southern Park and Ride sites (each 1250 spaces) [T.C. 7.2.18/9]. This will add to the congestion on the A1120 as described above. The northern park and ride site with 1250 car parking spaces [T.C. 5.3.2] is situated at the end of Willow Marsh Lane which joins up with further narrow lanes serving local villages. These lanes are mostly very narrow without passing places and at regular times of the year are used by heavy agricultural machinery which take up most of the road and are therefore totally unsuitable for site commuter traffic. If the A1120 was very busy then a road map would suggest to a driver that on reaching Peasenhall he could leave that road and go north through Poys Street, Sibton and then turn eastward through Sibton Green and then along Willow Marsh Lane to the Park and Ride. During a visit to EDFs Leiston office a member of staff confirmed they knew the area which they also considered totally unsuitable for site commuter traffic and suggested that this should be raised in our submissions. Please see attached map. Finally, both earlier stations were built with most of the material arriving by sea. Minimum disruption was caused to the area and unless you visited the site one hardly knew it was under construction. We understand that the previous building of a jetty caused some impact on sea life and the coast but if ways could be found to mitigate these problems then this method would solve so many of the difficulties presently being experienced and to be experienced during construction. I regret that I have been unable to attach the JPEG format map described above."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Maggs
"The existing application fails to take proper account of the damage to local flora and fauna, the impact of traffic on the local area and the noise and dust pollution that will be suffered by the local community, including ourselves at [Redacted] in particular. Additionally allowances made for the loss of amenity fail to take account of the actual use of residential property, e.g. using our garden and outbuildings. They also fail to account for damage and financial loss incurred and as a result of being unable to effectively work from home due to the rise in noise levels directly from the site (specifically LEoEIE). Lastly the residential receptors have been placed at one point on our land rather than adjacent to the boundary and in the open air which is a more appropriate measure of the actual impact on residential use of residential property - we do not hide in our house from all the time but use our house and garden as a contiguous whole. The proper measure should therefore be the worst impact on any party of the land, not based on a presumption that residents are inside at all times. Fair compensation should therefore include: a) Provision of additional sound insulation to the house and other occupied areas within a residential envelope by default to those areas significantly impacted such as ours, rather than being deferred to agreement with East Suffolk Council, b) Continuing damages throughout the period of the build for impeding the quiet enjoyment of gardens and other parts of residential property, c) Review of safety to access to specific properties impacted by significant increases in HGV traffic, and funding of measures to minimise the risk to individuals, d) If the build process creates significant impacts via sound or other issues, provision for alternative accommodation for families throughout that period (e.g marginal costs for children to board at school for a period/hotel accommodation) Stuart Maggs"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Page County Councillor for Woodbridge
"As elected county councillor for a division affected by this proposed development, I wish to register concern about the development's long-term - in some cases irreparable -effect upon and damage to the heritage coast, the AONBs and ancient landscape of Suffolk coastal. I wish to register concerns about building this power plant on a shoreline threatened by both erosion and sea level rise at a time of increasing climate change I wish to register additional concerns about the delivery of both building materials, and subsequently the energy generated by land rather than by sea. I wish to register my concerns as to the environmental and societal impact of that overland delivery. I wish to register my concerns as to the cost of the power produced, especially in light of the waste that remains. I wish to register my concerns about the impact this construction will have on local people's way of life. I wish to register my concerns that the income brought in by both construction and operation will in no way ameliorate the damage of this project to the income to the tourist industry on which this Heritage Coast relies. I wish to register my concern about the seeming paucity of truly local jobs gained and how many other local jobs lost through Sizewell C. I wish to register my concerns as to the disproportionate loss caused to our community and environment by this project, and the correspondingly disproportionate benefits that are offered elsewhere. Finally I want to register my concerns as to the potential danger that this plant can cause the inhabitants of the Suffolk Coast, including those in my division"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Oliver Holloway on behalf of Clarke and Simpson
"I write as Agent acting for an on behalf of the majority of Landowners affected by this proposed scheme. Whilst we are having meaningful conversations with EDF's agents we believe a number of our client's concerns are not being adequately listened to. Concerns over environmental impact of the project • Justification of the need for the link road • Road design concerns – the wider road network will be affected in the whole of Suffolk not just coastal areas which has not be sufficiently considered • Fen Meadow mitigation – great information required • Alternative options – have these been adequately considered • Mitigation measures – not adequately considered • Funding – lack of information provided • Catalogue of errors – agreed access arrangements for surveys have not been adhered to amongst other problems • Other residential property owners face considerable disruption causing an adverse effect on the economy and wider area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hayden Foster on behalf of Clarke and Simpson
"I write as Agent acting for an on behalf of the majority of Landowners affected by this proposed scheme. Whilst we are having meaningful conversations with EDF's agents we believe a number of our client's concerns are not being adequately listened to. Concerns over environmental impact of the project • Justification of the need for the link road • Road design concerns – the wider road network will be affected in the whole of Suffolk not just coastal areas which has not be sufficiently considered • Fen Meadow mitigation – great information required • Alternative options – have these been adequately considered • Mitigation measures – not adequately considered • Funding – lack of information provided • Catalogue of errors – agreed access arrangements for surveys have not been adhered to amongst other problems • Other residential property owners face considerable disruption causing an adverse effect on the economy and wider area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eleanor Havers on behalf of Clarke and Simpson
"I write as Agent acting for an on behalf of the majority of Landowners affected by this proposed scheme. Whilst we are having meaningful conversations with EDF's agents we believe a number of our client's concerns are not being adequately listened to. Concerns over environmental impact of the project • Justification of the need for the link road • Road design concerns – the wider road network will be affected in the whole of Suffolk not just coastal areas which has not be sufficiently considered • Fen Meadow mitigation – great information required • Alternative options – have these been adequately considered • Mitigation measures – not adequately considered • Funding – lack of information provided • Catalogue of errors – agreed access arrangements for surveys have not been adhered to amongst other problems • Other residential property owners face considerable disruption causing an adverse effect on the economy and wider area."
Parish Councils
Corton Parish Council
"* Consultation method and timing * Use of fresh water * Tourism * Transportation * Pollution * Environment * Outdated and unproven technology * Use of sea water for cooling * Release of waste warm water into the sea * Lack of adequate provision for the safety of sea life * Too much power generation in one area * Is a new nuclear power station needed? * Employment * Pollution created during construction * Coastal erosion * Disruption to villages"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Jobson
"The pre-fixed electricity price is far too high I don't like China having a financial interest - look at the problems with China at present, with Hong Kong, Tik Tok, possible involvement in producing Coronavirus, South China Sea land expansion. There will be damage to the local environment by using up land that form an environmental corridor. Gravel and large items are not being brought by sea, there is no insistence on supplies coming by train - both of which occurred for Sizewell B. Roads are inadequate, especially A12"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Marshall
"1.Site Selection The UK Government’s 2011/existing National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation EN-6 concludes that Sizewell is a potentially suitable site for new nuclear power stations before 2025. This conclusion is out of date as the EN-6 assessments predate government acceptance of the Paris agreement on climate change and legislation to make the UK Zero Carbon by 2050 We believe this is the wrong project in the wrong place because The development cannot be operating before 2025; The site is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and fluvial flooding; It will have an adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance; It will have an adverse impact on coastal processes; It will have an adverse impact on sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value; The carbon footprint of Sizewell C’s construction will have an adverse impact on carbon targets; it cannot positively contribute to UK’s carbon neutral timetable until 2040 at the earliest; The 32 ha twin reactor development (c.f. Hinkley Point C 45ha) requires unacceptable increased coastal exposure, relocation of existing Sizewell B facilities, other design compromises and is well below the EN-6 presumption of 30ha for a single reactor installation; There are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality; resulting in significant cumulative impacts to the East Suffolk environment and economy; There is no sustainable solution for the safe disposal of nuclear waste. Spent fuel and high-level waste from Sizewell B and C would stay on this eroding coastal site until at least 2135. Climate change and rising sea levels mean that the site is likely to become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors. There are major concerns over flooding and overtopping during storm surges, and ultimately the site will become an island if sea levels rise to predicted levels. 2.Local communities The development would have unacceptable impacts on local communities, in particular Leiston, Eastbridge and Theberton; and settlements along the B1122 and A12. . 3. Worker Campus The campus would have significant impacts on local communities during construction and thereafter because of noise, light, pollution, traffic and social pressures. 4.Transport EDF’s transport strategy has rejected a marine/jetty component due to environmental and geomorphological concerns but the extensive use of rail has also been rejected with insufficient justification. The projected road improvements are 'too little, too late..... 5. Landscape & Heritage The proposed development, by virtue of locality, design and scale, would have a catastrophic long term impact on landscape character. 6. Environment The impact on the local environment, the local flora and fauna, Minsmere and surrounding areas will be devastating. 7. Marine and Coastal processes The plan here would appear to be woefully inadequate and unclear. 8. Economic and social impacts EDF’s own surveys show that a significant percentage of visitors will be deterred from visiting the area during construction, thereby damaging the Suffolk coast visitor economy. Tourism could lose £40m a year, with job losses of up to 400. 9. Associated Development Impact of the Yoxford roundabout on local residents and traffic Location of the Park and Ride facilities The Two Villages ByPass Location of the Freight Management Centre"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kirsty Logan
"I reject Sizewell C on numerous grounds. Firstly the effect on local environment is appalling. Minsmere is an internationally critical reserve that will not recover from the build. Neither will the SSIs, green field sites or woodland that will be destroyed. We CANNOT afford to lose any more habitat in the UK, we are in a biodiversity crisis that must be taken seriously. It will be disastrous for local tourism industry right at a time when we are already suffering. It is not a suitable site for the project given sea level rise, flooding, eroding coast. EDF have an appalling build and financial record. The claims of jobs created are extremely misleading and will not outweigh what is lost. We should be building back green. Renewables are the only way ahead and the UK should be capitalising on its ability to produce wind and wave power now. We should also be looking at cutting our energy use rather than feeding an endless appetite for it that will just create more problems. The actual carbon footprint of the build and its surrounding carparking, housing, lorry parks, concrete pour etc is appalling. The nuclear waste issue is not resolved and just stores up issues for future generations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lorna Burkle
"We live on the B1122 that a large proportion of the traffic to Sizewell will travel along and therefore are concerned about the impact on our property (noise, traffic smells, disruption to the peace of the countryside)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Taylor
"In no particular order: i) I do not believe any argument that the development will benefit the local economy in either the short term or, especially, the long term. Indeed, I feel strongly that the project will damage the local economy by severely impacting the tourism industry that forms such a huge current and longterm sustainable part of the Suffolk economy. EDF's own figures suggest a 29% reduction in tourists to the area in light of Sizewell C - the reality is likely to be much more - and the local economy is estimated to lose up to £40m per year and at least 400 jobs. ii) EDF's proposed road-led transport 'solutions' do not come close to mitigating local concerns. iii) The chosen location of Sizewell C is misjudged as it is projected to be a major area of coastal erosion. EDF's survey of this does not expand far enough along the coat (eg. to the Alde & Or area). iv) The model that is proposed for Sizewell C has repeatedly failed to operate as planned, with the most obvious example being at Flamenville. In the UK itself we can see how far over-budget and over-time the Hinkley project is, so why should we believe that Sizewell C will be any different? v) EDF simply cannot afford to build Sizewell C as it is in such severe financial difficulty through the mismanagement of previous and current projects. Why is our government allowing the British tax payer to pay (along with Chinese investors - which is a whole other story!) and why is it supporting a company that has a proven - and repeated - record of failure in projects similar to Sizewell C. vi) A major long term concern is the provision for nuclear waste. In short, there is no plan for this insolvable problem (beyond burying it as deep as possible and hoping that the materials used will be sufficient to contain the waste!) and I fear that future generations will judge us very harshly if we sanction a project that deliberately creates such cripplingly lethal waste that has very real potential for future environmental catastrophe. vii) And while talking of legacy, surely to support this project is to laugh in the face of any genuine concept of ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ as our own nationally and internationally acclaimed AONBs will be decimated for this and future generations. While I am not a member of any particular body, I do support the representations made on this topic by the Stop Sizewell C campaign, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, RSPB and other concerned groups."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Lindsay
"Sizewell C no longer makes economic or strategic sense for the country, given that A) we need to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2030 if we are to have a reasonable chance of keeping warming within 1.5 degrees. The emissions from building this power station will vastly increase carbon emissions and it will not be completed until at least 2034 and will then take six years to offset the carbon emissions its construction created. B) Nuclear generated electricity is now the most expensive energy, while renewables in the form of wind and solar are the cheapest. The line that nuclear is needed as a base load because renewables are intermittent no longer holds true given the growth of storage capacity and the wide geographic spread of wind and solar power stations. At some periods during lockdown nuclear was generating too much energy and wind farms had to be paid to switch off their power."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon Head
"At a time of Climate Emergency, this is the wrong project to invest in. It will take 14 years to be operational and by then it will be under threat from rising sea levels. In the process of building, it will have a detrimental effect on habitats of the surrounding area...habitats we should be making desperate attempts to protect. I am also deeply concerned about radioactive waste and the disposal of this. I am deeply concerned that it will be a threat to national security if targeted by radical groups. I believe that it would be better to invest the money in wind/solar/tidal energy projects."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Lee-Frampton
"I feel that the siting and building of a nuclear power reactor in such close proximity to RSPB Minsmere and the potential effects on the habitat and species living there, especially marsh harriers, will be detrimental. Additionally I am concerned about global warming, potential melting of ice in Greenland, Arctic and Antarctic which has already begun and its subsequent effect on rising sea levels and how this will impact the site. Also, if it's going to take until 2040 to be carbon neutral I think that we should be considering other alternative sources of power. Finally I am deeply concerned about radioactive waste. A Conservative MP recently said that nuclear power was safe. Well I wouldn't want toxic nuclear waste dumped in my local landfill site. It presents a serious health hazard and I am very much concerned by it."
Parish Councils
Westleton Parish Council
"We [Westleton Parish Council] wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Community, Economic and social impacts • Construction will cause significant environmental, social & economic damage to the local area. • The extensive scale of the construction site, the associated workforce and the location of the site itself will severely damage an area of outstanding natural beauty which is the basis of a significant and flourishing tourist economy and will place significant burdens on local services, housing and disrupt the local economy. • The area may lose up to £24m per year from the Tourism/Visitor economy as a result of visitors being deterred. • Added pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. • It is understood that EDF expects to import most of the supply chain and workforce from Hinkley Point whilst most of the ‘local’ people to be employed are expected to fill the lower-skilled/paid jobs in “Site Support”. • Concerns over the influx of 3,000 workers living in the accommodation campus and caravan site. With this there will be considerable additional pressure on health, social and emergency services - in particular policing. 2. Transport/Traffic • The road based transport plan is not sustainable; enormous and adverse impact on local communities – in particular for Westleton as the village is located roughly 7 miles by road north of Sizewell and workers at the current site already use the B1125 as a “rat-run/shortcut” rather than use the longer A12/B1122 route. As a result, this route already suffers from road safety concerns with excessive vehicle speeding which coincides with peak times shift changeovers from Sizewell A and B. • With projected increases in traffic to and from the Sizewell C site in the early years of construction, it is feared that the situation will only get worse and the village centre will also suffer from increased congestion and consequent pollution. • We believe that viable alternative relief road routes [with more of a long term legacy value] are not being adequately assessed by EDF. 3. Environment and Landscape • Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic • Irreparable harm to AONB - Minsmere is a flagship destination of international importance and significance and borders nearby Sites of Scientific Interest. • Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB • Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage • Won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 4. Application • Wording of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement. In submitting the above comments we would also wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C group. Westleton Parish Council also reserves the right to submit a more fuller additional Supporting Statement at the Examination in order enlarge upon the representations which have been made here in summary/bullet points. We also wish to state that we consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brigitte D'Angelo
"I am trying to understand the risks of such a project on a coastal site. I want to safeguard the environment for future generations. I understand the need for sustainable energy and potential benefits investment can bring to an area. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: 8 other energy projects planned for this area including SPR’s EAN1 & EAN2 Plus National Grid Interconnector, Nautilus and Eurolink at Friston. Resulting in significant cumulative impacts to the East Suffolk landscape, environment and economy. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT Extensive rail transport and a jetty at Sizewell have been rejected by EDF. Most of the strain will be on the A12 and surrounding B roads Increase in HGVs, White vans and cars on the A12 will result in Air pollution, Noise pollution and will cause local roads to become a rat runs. Reduced road safety on the A12 and on the local B roads. This is exacerbated by a total lack of public transport in the area. We are close to the junction at A12/ B1119 and must cross it to reach local amenities. It is an accident site with a 60 mile an hour speed limit On the busiest days, peak construction, EDF projected volume of 1720 HGVs a day (source EDF DCO 8.4 Planning Statement on the 2 village by pass) Emergency services hindered. Inadequate changes to the junction at A12/ B1119 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS EDF’s surveys show that a significant percentage of visitors will be deterred from visiting the area during construction, thereby damaging the Suffolk coast visitor economy. Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation found that tourism could lose up to £40 million a year, with the potential loss of up to 400 jobs. Jobs at Sizewell C may not mitigate for the types of jobs and businesses lost in Tourism. Construction workers in temporary accommodation in caravan parks locally may have social impact on communities. Holiday lettings and local rental market taken up with construction workers forcing prices up for local people. Strain on local services and health care provision. SITE SELECTION Sea level rises, climate change and coastal erosion Inadequate coastal defence plan - No design available for hard coastal defences feature HCDF Adverse effect on coastal process Adjacent to site of ecological importance. SSSi ENVIRONMENT AND LANDSCAPE Flooding. Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic Irreparable harm to Minsmere Nature Reserve Impacts on wildlife including dark skies lost Uncertainty re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of portable water a day for the construction period and beyond. Will EDF have water supply preference over locals and farmers. East Anglia is the driest part of the country. Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage The carbon footprint of Sizewell C’s construction will have an adverse impact on carbon targets; it cannot positively contribute to UK’s carbon neutral timetable until 2040 at the earliest. 12 years in construction and a 60 year lifespan. Thermal plumes and Chemical discharge what are the impacts on marine wildlife Unclear if there will be a sonic deterrent for the fish which will be sucked in to cool the EPRs NO SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION FOR STORAGE OF WASTE: Spent fuel and high-level waste from Sizewell B and C would stay on this eroding coastal site until at least 2135. I endorse the representations made by Rendham Parish Council, Stop Sizewell C, RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife trust and Friends of the Earth. I am concerned that virtual hearings are not entirely suitable for this project and will deter people from engaging with the process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dominic F Douse
"I object to the sizwell c nuclear power project on the grounds that it is unasasery and massively over priced in comparison to more long-term solutions like solar and wind which are cheaper easier and far more efficient than nuclear power this particular nuclear power station is a design that has been outlawed for being unsafe in Japan and China and has due to the serious over run of the progect in France it has been nearly a decade since it was supposed to be completed and it cost so much more than it was supposed to that edf had to be bailed out by the French government I also point out that by the time it is up and running it will be according to a significant portion of the sintific cominty will be obsolete I beg of you to actually do some research that is not given to you by EDF'S propaganda department"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edwin Edwards
"I agree with the reservations and issues raised by Suffolk County Council and those submitted by Shut Down Sizewell Campaign and Together Against Sizewell C. My personal objection is based on the probable damage to the Suffolk Heritage Coast and the risks associated with radio activity. I believe there are better ways to supplement UK energy needs."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helga Ballam
"I wish to register my concerns about the proposal to build Sizewell C I believe the site is flawed because of predictions about rising sea levels. It is also adjacent to sites of ecologically significant importance. Coastal erosion has been proved to have some disastrous consequences for the built environment on this Coast. Tourism is an important contribution to the local economy and the impact of the building process may force a significant downturn In the long term income for the region. The influx of transient workers and necessity to provide accommodation will have an impact on local housing and simply building lots of poor quality temporary dwellings is environmentally damaging. The road infrastructure is inadequate and the impact on communities in the access are will be extremely detrimental. Health and social services are barely adequate for the existing communities and stretching this resource to the limit will have a very negative effect on existing residents ability to receive the services needed. Noise, light and environmental pollution will increase significantly. Current roads are not suitable for construction traffic and unless properly researched proposals are made to provide the roads needed villages and countryside could be carved up, scarring the area permanently and damaging community cohesion. Flooding is a consistent risk and conversely abstraction of water risks damage to the environment and protected species. Irreparable harm could be caused to the internationally important Nature reserve of nearby Minsmere. There will be an impact on the marine ecology. Nuclear power is not the most cost effective form of energy supply so where is the justification to go down this route? I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process"
Members of the Public/Businesses
India Bacon
"I wish to make a representation and my concerns centre around: The damage to the local economy that Sizewell C will cause The transport issues that will be created and felt far and wide The environmental impact of the destruction of vital habitat and disturbance to local flora and fauna The lack of meaningful engagement of EDF with the local community and affected people throughout the whole process The transport solutions proposed lack any credible justification and I really question the independence and rigour of the Aecom report The road designs reflect the lack of engagement and need immense scrutiny from a truly independent source as the approach to date by EDF has not had the necessary level of detail or critical thinking applied The funding proposals and strike price for nuclear energy versus alternatives The mitigation measures planned need more detail and to demonstrate a better grasps of the extensive destructive nature of this project"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kier Construction
"I work for Kier and am interested in the works considered at Sizewell. Other parts of Kier have been working at Hinkley Point and we would be keen to cross polinate our experience to Sizewell and use local supply chain to deliver some of the building works needed to enable this project to be a success."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Bonnett
"In the event of an incident at SZB during the construction of SZC, have the plans considered the safe evacuation of the local community to SZB - including those without own transport (e.g. residents of care homes, children at nurseries and schools, the elderly - as well as the current Sizewell workforce at A & B, as well as the additional SZC employees? What certainty is there that this coastline will not significantly change due to rising sea levels and erosion during the operational lifeline of SZC? If sewerage works are being planned for the temporary worker’s accommodation it seems likely they are being planned to remain in situ after construction, is this the case, will the temporary accommodation in Eastbridge be left as an unwanted legacy? In addressing climate change with our attention on renewable energy, energy efficiency and low carbon output, are EDF prioritising well-insulated living accommodation, non-car dependence, cycling, protection of biodiversity, local homegrown produce, electric vehicles and recyclable, sustainable, ethical materials over fossil fuel heavy transport, single use materials, high carbon emitting options and temporary, poorly insulated accommodation? In addressing our community’s and their worker’s mental health, are EDF prioritising people’s ability to grow and cook their own food, have walking access to areas of tranquility and the enjoyment of our local wildlife and nature? For example, this week I have picked fresh vegetables from my garden, walked on my local footpaths and along the beach, swam in the sea and have spotted red deer, bats, seals, a huge variety of birds as well as frogs, toads, butterflies, moths and a wide variety of other essential insects. My children have climbed trees over 500 years old. This is all possible whilst working full time hours. Is my wellbeing and lifestyle supported and emulated for all, and if not why not? Have EDF calculated the carbon emissions from the increase in traffic congestion on A12 and B1122? Will, and if so when, will SZC repay its energy debt from the whole construction? Is there a long-term plan for safe disposal of the nuclear waste? Are EDF fully mitigating any possible pollution of light, noise, air, water and soil in their plans for our SSSI and AONB environment? How will the imported workers at SZC integrate and play a valuable role in the local communities and neighbourhoods? Why are EDF not using land elsewhere that does not threaten a thriving tourist economy, sustainable farming industry and precious wildlife? How are EDF ensuring safe cycling and walking between our amenities? How safe will it be for the families in our community to continue to cycle and walk between Theberton and Leiston, Sizewell beach, Wesleton and Middleton, for example? Is there a risk that the project will be abandoned mid-construction as it is no longer economically viable and the imported materials supply (e.g. uranium) geopolitically unsustainable?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynn Eldrett
"Sizewell C is the biggest building project planned in Europe at the moment but there has been scant provision for infrastructure improvements to allow it to happen without destroying the local communities and environment. Im particularly worried about the transport impact. Traffic will come in huge numbers, day and night, across from the A140 and A14 through villages on the A1120 to the Hatcheston lorry and car park. Towns like Framlingham and villages like Earl Soham simply are not built to cope with lorries and cars on this level they need to go on a dual carriageway. The result will be congestion and pollution on levels which will make our lives unbearable and our houses worthless. I live in Parham on the B1116. My house is 6 feet from the main road which has national speed limit applying so live is going to be awful, how will I work when I will have no sleep? In Framlingham there is a tiny roundabout which will get jammed and traffic is bad enough there with the hundreds of new houses built over the last few years - it will be a complete standstill with the Sizewell C traffic. EDF say traffic will use the A12/14 but there is no way it will detour out south of Ipswich over the Orwell bridge just to get jammed up in the single carriageway road past Woodbridge. The A12 isnt adequate and Ipswich needs a northern bypass to allow for the additional traffic. That and decent rail links for passengers as well as freight, plus dualing the A12 are needed before anyone lets EDF go ahead. Its obvious isnt it? Why on earth would we let companies based outside the UK make a fortune at the expense of our environment and quality of life?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Whitby
"The development of the plans for Sizewell C are illustrative of a process of linear design rather than iterative design. The latter being a process that involves on reviewing early decisions in light of the developing design. As such it is flawed. I do not intend to comment in depth but will illustrate the point through a review of the plans to duplicate the B1122. I will set out an alternative more direct route to link the site to the A12 across land previously disturbed by the WW2 runway west of Leiston Abbey. This route and the old airfield site offers the potential for the projects residential accommodation to be more sensitively sited away from Eastbridge, the opportunity for a ‘site’ railway station and further can accommodate car parking for construction personnel so avoiding the additional impact of the car parks proposed at Darsham and Wickham Market. The route is shorter than that proposed, and as it only needs to exist for the duration of the construction could be built to lower standards and as such it is potentially far less costly. It also provides for the segregation of site traffic from local traffic after the A12 so lessening the risk for accidents and can be delivered more quickly, with less impact on the local community, so potentially reducing the time for the overall construction."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management
"At this stage, we can agree with your conclusion that the construction and commissioning of the new Sizewell C reactor is not likely to have significant adverse consequences for the Netherlands. From past experience though we know that in the eventuality of an incident with a nuclear reactor, adverse effects will also occur at longer distances, beyond 100 kilometers. The Netherlands would therefore like to receive information on developments, both during the preparations for construction and during the construction itself and, of course, when the operator will commission the reactor. In addition to this, it is important for the Netherlands to know whether transport by sea will take place of radioactive waste or materials. If so, please indicate the impact of these journeys on the international adopted shipping routes, with special interest on the route between Harwich and Rotterdam. We would also like to receive updates on this particular subject."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Barker
"I believe that the park and ride site has been moved too close to the village of Marlesford. it will be a 10-15 year blight on the community from both light and chemical pollution. The foot dragging on the proposed four village bypass is a disgrace. Attempting to use any part of the A12 in the four village area will engender multiple deaths from road accidents. This piece of road is already over capacity, especially in the Summer."
Parish Councils
Walberswick Parish Council
"1. Application We wish to raise concerns about the inadequacy of the Planning Statement with particular reference to: ? Approach to environmental mitigation, management and development flexibility ? Construction worker Social/Community Mitigation ? Transport and Freight Management strategy ? Planning Assessment – Benefits and Assessment Principles 2. Site Selection ? The Government’s National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation concluded that Sizewell is a potentially suitable site for new nuclear power stations before 2025. This potential suitability is no longer valid because of the following: o It was based on an ability to use a sea-based transport strategy. Once that was deemed unviable by EDF, the project should have been declared unsuitable because land based transport cannot be properly mitigated. o The development cannot be operating before 2025 and the CO2 admissions from construction will not be offset until at least 2040 therefore making no contribution to carbon zero targets. o The site is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and fluvial flooding; o It will have an adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance; o It will have an adverse impact on coastal processes; o There are some eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the same locality resulting in significant cumulative impacts to the East Suffolk transport, environment and economy; o Spent fuel and high-level waste would stay on this eroding coastal site until at least 2135. 3. Local communities, landscape and heritage ? The power station and all the associated development would have unacceptable impacts on local communities including every town and village along the coast and along the A12. For Walberswick, in particular, we are completely dependent on accessing the village along the B1125 and A12 corridors. B1125 will become a dangerous rat run to escape the A12 Park and Rides, new roundabouts, and massive traffic increases making getting to school, shopping, jobs, medical care and recreation extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for the local population. ? Our village’s economy is based around a rural, clean, relatively accessible coast. Accessibility to villages, walking paths and sites such as Minsmere and Dunwich Heath are major draws for visitors and residents of Walberswick. The urbanisation, congestion, noise, air and light pollution caused by this massive infrastructure project will destroy the basis of our village economy and the fabric of our community. ? The proposed development, by virtue of locality, design and scale, would have a catastrophic impact on the integrity of the AONB and the many nationally and internationally important nature conservation areas. ? The planned mitigations for landscape and ecological damage are inadequate and would not compensate for the damage done during construction and for the lifetime of the power station. 4. Transport ? The so called “integrated road-based” transport strategy is unsustainable and inadequate and would have an adverse impact on local communities and result in significant damage to the East Suffolk visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as under EDF’s “road led” strategy rejected at Stage 4 consultations. ? Meaningful upgrades to the A12 and B1122 are not proposed to be started before site preparations and significant earthworks begin. Several of the other energy projects are likely to be in progress at this time with peak HGV movements. Road upgrades would need to be completed before any work starts at the Sizewell site. ? The urbanisation and congestion caused by the associated development is not properly mitigated and will directly impact on our village. This includes: o Impact of the Yoxford roundabout on residents, visitors and traffic congestion o Location of the Park and Ride facilities north of Darsham station will directly and negatively impact the ability of residents to reach Darsham station and to travel south for shopping, medical care, school and public transportation links. Major tailbacks in both directions will be inevitable. o Location of the Freight Management Centre which will disrupt traffic on the A12 from just outside Ipswich all the way to Sizewell. o The Sizewell Link Road will isolate and sever communities, damage the rural footpath system, disrupt ability to cycle, divide farmland and has little legacy value. 5. Environment ? Most importantly, the application is wholly inadequate in assessing the environmental impacts of the power station, its construction, the pylons and the associated development. Until this is done and assessed, no approval should be forthcoming. Areas of specific concern include: o Impacts on Minsmere Sluice cannot be assessed due to the combination of changes in ground and surface water combined with an incomplete plan for access to potable and construction water supplies. o The environmental implications of the proposed stockpile and spoil storage areas is unclear with contradictory statements and assessments o Mitigation of the environmental impact of the proposed borrow pits and subsequent landfill and other areas of landfill has not been addressed. o The development does not address the potential adverse impacts on the ecological value of species and habitats in the marine and terrestrial environment. o EDF itself admits that it will not be able to mitigate against the harm to the protected Marsh Harrier. The RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife representation deserves special consideration in this regard. o Implications for the integrity of designated sites, including internationally designated sites - European sites and European marine sites - nationally designated sites - SSSIs, the AONB - and impact on local, regionally and nationally significant natural history is not adequately addressed. o RSPB Minsmere is of international significance. We are concerned that Minsmere would be irreparably harmed by the proposed development. This would not only be a disaster for nature, but would irreparably harm the visitor economy. RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife’s representation is critical. o There is inadequate information on the impact of the abstraction of water as well as risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology have not been adequately assessed and nor mitigated. 7. Marine and Coastal processes ? The information and design of the planning application in terms of coastal processes is unclear and inadequate and planning should not be allowed to go forward until this is clearly addressed and independently analysed and assessed. ? Site safety, marine ecology, and flood risk impacts during construction and operation have not been adequately assessed. ? EDF predictions of when the hard coastal defence will be exposed cannot be accepted when no finalised design has been made available. ? EDF have not justified the assertion that coastal effects to the south will not extend beyond the coralline crag to the north of Thorpeness. ? EDF cannot justify the assertion of shingle accretion north of the site until a complete design of the hard coastal defence is presented for assessment. This is of the highest concern to Walberswick given the ongoing situation of coastal erosion and the threats posed to our Village and all those around us even without Sizewell C. 8. Worker Campus ? The campus would have significant negative impacts on our local communities during construction and thereafter because of noise, light, pollution, traffic and social pressures. There is insufficient justification for its location and impacts and ignores suggestions for alternative locations. 9. Economic and social impacts ? EDF’s own surveys show that a significant percentage of visitors will be deterred from visiting the area during construction, thereby damaging the Suffolk coast visitor economy in general and Walberswick in particular. ? Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation found that tourism could lose up to £40 million a year, with the potential loss of up to 400 jobs. We believe the numbers could be even higher if the true impact of the construction were presented. ? Unacceptable pressure on local housing accommodation. ? Inadequate information to address local supply chain advantages and disadvantages. ? Does not address the impact of the development on the availability of tourism accommodation, particularly during construction. ? Does not adequately address the impact on jobs and skills, during construction and operation. ? Does not address the issue of locally based employment. Sectoral work is inadequate and does not help to explain what jobs, at what skills/remuneration levels, will be available to local people. The experience at Hinkley suggests EDF’s projections are undependable. ? Socio economic aspects of development are not adequately addressed by the developer. ? Minimal consideration of potential negative impacts on local businesses outside the nuclear supply chain whether through competition or disruption to investment. ? No account of the long term negative impact on the environment and the future natural capital and tourism value of the site, i.e. no long term view emerging of the economic legacy of a comparable project other than jobs created in the nuclear sector."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Weight
"There are a myriad reason why this project would be devastating to both the natural beauty but also the local population who live and work here day to day, as well as the UK economy in general. The idea that the road systems, infrastructure and local facilities can support the huge amount of traffic, pollution, and population increase needed to build this huge reactor over a period which will undoubtedly extend into the 2040’s (and obsolescence) based on the current record of the manufacturers to meet any deadlines or safety standards, is woefully optimistic. Having lived in Aldeburgh for 15 years now and enjoyed an area of outstanding natural beauty, not by designation but by experience, I am truly saddened at the pending disaster that construction will impose on the scenery, wildlife, and economy of the area (thousands of itinerant workers in camps is far from the current demographic of visitors and locals). This is not a NIMBY attitude but merely a fact of life for this part of the country. Is the Government going to hold EDF and the investors liable for delays and retrofitting of defective or unsafe elements, once the project is underway, or is the taxpayer going to be liable to a huge increase in costs as previous PPI fiascos? The proposed reactor design (EPR) has shown to be a complete failure in France where it is 11 years late, with many dangerous faults being discovered late and huge cots overruns. The Finland EPR rector has also now been found to have major faults which will inevitable cause delays and large cost overruns. The agreement for supply rates for Hinkley point for 25 years shows the complete inability to forecast energy prices and has left the taxpayer to pay vast amounts over the current cost of energy from other sources. The viability of the reactor must be hugely in doubt at this stage with costs skyrocketing at Hinkley, energy prices declining (the pandemic will potentially lower needs greatly as more people work from home and offices are not needed), and so many other much more effective cost savings available to be exploited in the areas of home insulation and renewable (the costs of which have reduced exponentially in the last few years). The money spent on such an obsolete project could be spent on so many projects to help people affected by the fallout from the COVID pandemic, the failing social care system, and the spiralling National debt. Last but not least do we really want the Chinese to have any control or operational influence on such a vital part of the economy. They are showing that they have no consideration for anything but total world domination, whether through: Their Belt and Road initiative putting so many countries into debts that they can never repay except by giving the CPR control of infrastructure, resources or ports; There building of fortified islands in the South China sea against the UN ruling that they had no right to do so; Threats against other nations in South Asia, and even attempts to intimidate India in the North; The complete disregard of the agreement on Hong Kong, and now arrests of anybody who opposes the Chinese regime, including the free press; Their agreed intention to annex Taiwan; Their continual attempts to infiltrate countries essential services and security structures through CPR army teams of hackers; The admitted the responsibility of ALL COMPANIES to allow access to their systems by the Chinese government. Can you imagine if our internet structure was suddenly taken over, or our energy supply greatly disrupted, due to the UK or Europe taking a stand or retaliatory action over some of these actions (which I believe is the intent of the Chinese Govt. either to hold us captive due to their control over infrastructure, and force us to comply with any of their mandates, or worse TAKE ACTION)....WHO NEEDS TANKS anymore?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bill Hough
"To continue with this project is very worrying. If it's passed it will completely ruin our life and we will become a build site and constant traffic. I ask you to Stop this very bad project and it's request. There is not one person I know of that supports this. Please think reflect an cancel Bill Hough"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catriona Donkin
"I wish to my register my interest in the planning application relating to the granting of permission for Sizewell C Project, Planning Inspectorate Ref. EN010012 I was brought up and spent much of my early life in Suffolk and continue to visit family members in Woodbridge and Ipswich. I am very worried about the negative impact this construction will have on the aptly named Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, I will focus my comments on just one aspect of the application - WATER. *Is Anglian Water in a position to supply the vast amounts of water that will be required both during construction and during the lifetime of the reactor? EDF has said it is not financially viable to construct and operate a desalination plant and will therefore rely on mains water.  *Suffolk is in the driest part of the UK with low rainfall; 71% of the UK average according to the Anglian Water Drought Plan 2019. It is estimated that 1,600m3 of water per day will be required. Even the Stage 3 consultation makes no mention of the source of so much potable water.  *This is a predominantly agricultural region, producing large quantities of wheat, potatoes and sugar beet. For years farmers have been forced to irrigate their fields because of low rainfall.  Climate change projections show that this region is expected to experience lower summer rainfall and increased evaporation, leading to lower groundwater recharge in the future. *In addition, this is one of the fastest growing regions in the UK with the numbers of new homes being built rising fast. The government has told Suffolk Coast District Council that it needs to build nearly 19,000 new homes in the next 15 years, all requiring drainage and mains drinking water. The Environment Agency has designated this as an area of serious water stress and opportunities for new water resources are limited, but I understand that the water needs of the nuclear reactor would supersede those of inhabitants, businesses and agriculture. *Predicted rises in sea levels in the coming century of up to one metre could threaten the reactor as it is situated right on the coast.  In addition, the offshore banks are always moving and even though EDF say their modelling predicts that their proposed sea defences would protect the site, future storm surges could completely change the shape of the coast. These sea defences might also interfere with the natural movement of shingle and impact other coastal resorts such as Aldeburgh and Orford. *Another danger is that if water levels drop because of extraction, the draw-down of water from Minsmere, RSPB’s flagship nature reserve, will severely impact this unique, diverse and fragile habitat. I hope you will consider these points. Thank you very much. Catriona Donkin"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daisy Franklin
"I intend to submit the following, in relation to the building of the new Sizewell C nuclear power station: - that the proposed site will have the potential to impact flood risk and impact ecology -that the proposed site and infrastructure will result in a loss of SSSI fen meadow habitat which is difficult to recreate through compensation schemes - that the site and infrastructure will pose a risk of contamination to waterways and ecology - that waste management will negatively impact on ecology -that there has not been a full assessment of the impacts to wildlife"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Robertson
"I would like to make the following observations about the proposed Sizewell C Nuclear Power station. Solvency and efficiency EDF is fighting to stay solvent in France where it is struggling to find funds to de-commission 58 of its old reactors. This is a company that needs the funds for building Sizewell C to simply stay afloat. It has yet to deliver its current commitment to a new power station at Hinkley - now at least 7 years behind schedule and nearly £3 BILLION over budget. It is doubtful they will prove any more efficient in delivering Sizewell C. Location and local environmental impacts The local environment will be changed for the worse and forever. Coastal and marine processes will be destroyed, ecologically, historically, culturally and geographically precious resources will be compromised or eradicated. There will be deleterious consequences for Minsmere, the world-renowned population of Marsh Harriers, local roads and pathways will be clogged and rat runs created to cope with the enormous tarmac tread of the project. ’Benefits’ for local population If any of EDFs other projects are a guide - and what else can one use as a measure - the benefits to the local population in terms of employment and economic upsurge are either negligible or dubious. Most of the workforce will come from outside the area and lucky locals can simply look forward to the opportunity of the most menial jobs on offer. There will undoubtedly be some chunks of money spent by that workforce in the local area, but most of that 6000 strong workforce will be living on campuses with their own facilities, commuting to and from site along side the hundreds of lorries that will disrupt normal life and tourism for years. It is estimated that all the lovely local tourism will be polluted to the tune of £40 million. Nuclear power can help with reducing carbon footprint, but not nearly as effectively per £ spent building wind farms. And nuclear waste doesn’t just blow away on a breeze. By the time EDF finally finish Hinkley it is estimated their power will be twice as expensive to produce per KW hour as wind power, which has way fewer negative impacts on the local area, and future generations.  Water, water everywhere The flood risks of this project have not been adequately addressed by EDF and their plans for the 3 million litres (plus) of potable water they will produce less than transparent. There is a huge risk to groundwater in terms of levels and contamination which will unquestionably compromise the local habitat and protected species. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, as well as those by the RSPB and SWT. For the avoidance of doubt I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deborah Bragg
"Relevant Representation These are my main areas of concern over Sizewell C and why I believe it is the wrong project for this site: Wrong Location • The project is too big for the setting and land available • The impact on a Heritage Coast, the landscape and wildlife will be devastating and irreversible. • Irreparable damage to Minsmere, catastrophic for bio diverse habitats. This is at a time when the latest UN edict urges us to protect habitat – not destroy it. Road-based Transport Plan • EDF estimates 700+ extra vehicles a day on a rural B road (B1122) in addition to the existing traffic, causing concerns and delays not only for residents but also for emergency workers and delivery drivers • Inevitably such heavy traffic would cause an increase in noise and pollution and this is at a time when the causal association between pollution and poor physical and mental health is well documented. In addition damage to listed buildings along the route is likely and EDF’s admission that there “may be an effect” is unacceptable EDF’s proposed road alternative would divide farmland and communities Damage to Tourism • In an area dependent on tourism it is estimated that the local industry would lose £40m a year as tourists are driven away by the disruption and traffic jams. In addition there would be the likely loss of 400+ permanent jobs – as opposed to EDF’s claims of 7,900 temporary jobs, mostly from outside the county. Water • The build will need 3 million litres of potable water a day at peak but EDF has not made clear where this will come from • Suffolk is the driest county in the UK – not only will EDF be taking valuable water from local and farming supplies but their influx of 7,900 construction workers will also place demands on the system Cost • When first proposed the cost was £6 billion; the estimate is now £20 billion. EDF can only pay for it with a tax on all electricity bills Design & Partner Issues • Sizewell C will have two trouble-prone EPRs. The French one is 11 years late while in Finland another unfinished project has design faults. Hinkley Point started eight years late and will not be operational until 2025 – at the earliest • Chinese involvement is concerning and controversial The Future • There is growing evidence that such large-scale nuclear projects are too expensive and too slow to solve the climate crisis. And the claim that nuclear power is carbon neutral is questionable – when the huge increase in CO2 emissions during construction is taken into account, it could take 20 years to contribute to net zero • Sizewell C could be obsolete by the time it is built … which means a county famous for its wildlife and tranquillity will have been needlessly destroyed forever. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C . Further, I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Parish Councils
Dennington Parish Council
"Dennington Parish Council has some concerns about this DCO. We would like to ask that ANPR cameras are extended to the A1120 at Stowmarket to monitor and control Sizewell traffic entering the A1120, rather than just the sites suggested currently. We would ask that as much equipment and materials are transported by rail and sea as possible. We would like to see that a pontoon is constructed, as was the case with Sizewell A and B. This would reduce the necessity for the Theberton by-pass, which would virgin countryside and not be of much use after the construction has been finished, and reduce vehicles on other local roads."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Henry Franklin
"I wish to register the following concerns about the proposed Sizewell C development: I am opposed to the proposed development on the following grounds: Access The timing of the EdF public consultations has been unacceptable. The Covid 19 pandemic has disrupted the EdF public consultations as well as the document review period and should not have been allowed to proceed during times of restricted access, meeting and transport. It has also been difficult to access EdF’s documents, which have consistently been of poor quality and difficult to view, with maps too small and with descriptions almost unreadable. The application and examination process is totally unsuitable to being digitally examined. Environment The carbon reduction benefits of Sizewell C are limited, despite EdF’s claims. It will take at least 6 years before the carbon debt created by the construction of the plant to be off-set, i.e. not until 2040 if the plant is completed by 2034. Fresh water demand for Sizewell C will require 3 million litres a day in an area which is the most water-scarce in the countrySpoil heaps, over 30mtr high, will blight the countryside and be difficult to manage from dust and run offs. RSPB Minsmere will be put under intolerable pressure. This prized national asset for birds and wildlife will be compromised.Water abstraction may affect groundwater levels and represent a risk to the wider environment. The Site The proposed site is surrounded by designated sites of international and national ecological importance and sites of landscape, cultural heritage and amenity value which will all be adversely impacted. I live with my family in Suffolk and I am immensely proud of the local area. The proposed site will be ruinous as it will require the acquisition and destruction of areas which are inside the area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). Amenities Traffic I live in the area and use the A12 daily to get to work and to get children to school, to shop, to go to the doctor, dentist etc. The proposed work will mean increased traffic – up to 1140 HGV’s per day, 700 buses and 10,000 cars/vans per day for the entire construction period of between nine and 12 years – and this will bring misery to thousands of local people. Cars and vans servicing the site will seek out rat runs to avoid traffic gridlock on the A12 - we live on the a112o and I have no doubt that accident rates will increase. There will be unacceptable impacts on local communities – severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light, air, dust pollution and disruption. The massive increase in HGV movements, light van deliveries and workers’ car journeys will change the traffic profile in East Suffolk detrimentally for a decade at least. It will require five new roundabouts on the A12. Tourism and the local area One third of tourists to the area will decline to visit, severely harming the thriving trade on which the area largely depends. An estimated £40m a year in lost revenues is predicted. The influx of an estimated 6,000 workers will mean a reduction in quality of life, more social unrest and disturbance as well as pressure on local services such as the NHS and emergency services.The siting of worker campuses will disturb existing residents and the shifts at Sizewell will mean site traffic peaking in the morning and evening.Footpaths which are familiar to and well used by local residents will be closed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Cook
"Objection to the plans for SIZEWELL C When Sizewell C was first proposed the cost was £6 billion - now it is estimated at £20 billion. As with nearly all projects, this cost will rise even further, and for something that will be passed its sell-by-date in 60 years, then becoming just another blight on the landscape, as nuclear sites cannot be safely demolished. Which is why Sizewell A still stands as an eyesore. The nuclear industry admit that renewables are cheaper and save more CO2 than nuclear power. This area of East Suffolk is being industrialised with multiple energy projects which, if they go ahead, will make life intolerable for people living there and deter visitors. Tourism will suffer with a great loss of income to the local economy. During construction there will be unbearable noise and dust while new roads are built, footpaths closed, endless traffic jams and an end to peace and tranquility in this part of Suffolk. The timescale to build Sizewell C is 12 years. The number of workers brought in to build Sizewell C is calculated to be around 6,000. The number of HGVs are said to be over 1,000 a day with many more cars than that on the A12 bringing in the workers. All this in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which includes RSPB Minsmere which is a haven for many varieties of birds. The building of Hinkley Point power station has overrun in time and money and has had many objections to its plans including the financing by China. In France another project is eleven years late with numerous faults and in Finland another unfinished reactor has had malfunctioning safety valves. None of this bodes well for the future of Suffolk."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jasper Garland
"I am an expert in energy, I consult for the UNDP on the matter and hold a Master's Degree in the subject. In my opinion, the arguments against building Sizewell C (ie environmental, financial, social) significantly outweigh the arguments for. It is likely to be at least 20 years before Sizewell could start repaying its carbon debt, in the meantime resources could be better directed to offshore wind and storage solutions that would be more effective, efficient and sustainable. The UK is referred to as the Saudi Arabia of wind, and that is the energy resource we should be pursuing to make us the world leader in the sector, not wasting effort, money and time on this white elephant."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeremy Lovett
"I completely object to Sizewell C proceeding. In 2020, there is now no valid economic or environmental justification in my opinion. The project is based on old and outdated thinking - it will not make money for EDF or any other organisation now that different options are shown to be working and with consumption patterns changing. Reputational and financial risk for any organisation involved in Sizewell C is surely too high now. Sizewell and the surrounding area cannot sustain such a build and structure - the area suffers from erosion, road transport is not sustainable and flood risk is high. Public safety would be compromised. The ecological and flood risk impacts on our coastline would be dangerous and now outweigh any previously calculated economic benefit. I endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and the RSPB. I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Squirer Kirkham
"I have followed the course f this project with interest and a general attitude of support. however, with the geopolitical changes that have occurred since it was decided upon by government, I must ask for a pause on further development at this site. IT IS BETTER TO CANCEL AND WASTE MONEY SPENT SO FAR, THAN PROVERBIALLY TO THROW GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD. WITH FRACKING NOW FEASIBLE IN THE UK, AND WITH PETROLEUM USAGE TECHNOLOGY ADVANCING RAPIDLY, HUNDREDS OF SMALL GENERATING UNITS POWERED BY CLEAN ENERGY EFFICIENT GAS TURBINE ENGINES EASILY ADAPTABLE TO PEAK AND TROUGH PERIODS OF DEMAND COULD BE BUILT AT MINIMAL COST AND WITH MINIMAL MAINTENANCE AND TERMINATION CONCERNS. PLEASE BEAR THIS IN MIND"
Members of the Public/Businesses
William John Price on behalf of Judith Mary Croton
"THE OBLIGATION OF EDF TO MITIGATE ON THOSE LIVING VERY CLOSE TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE A GENERAL OBLIGATION The construction of Sizewell C will have a quite devastating impact on Eastbridge, a hamlet less than half a mile from the development site EDF has, over almost nine years and four stage of public consultation, shown a total disregard for the concerns we have expressed about the blight about to descend on us. It has in effect admitted that Eastbridge and Theberton have to be sacrificed as collateral damage. At no point has EDF spoken of any mitigation, compensation or protection that it intends to offer the twin parish of Theberton and Eastbridge. We therefore insist that any grant of the DCO should require that an independent monitoring structure is established to assess the impact.of the construction works, as they progress, on residents who live so close to the development site. EDF should be obliged to take appropriate action to fully mitigate the harmful impacts identified, which will inevitably vary according to their individual personal circumstances, age and location., including providing compensation. TWO SPECIFIC ACTS OF MITIGATION ARE REQUIRED It is already quite clear is that some of the most devastating impacts will be on the B1122 road and we urge that two s specific actions are taken to mitigate these. 1. A ROAD BRIDGE TO ENSURE THAT PRETTY ROAD REMAINS OPEN TO LOCAL TRAFFIC The new Link road will close Moat and Pretty roads to through traffic. Easy access to both Leiston and Saxmundham for essential services is key to to survival in our villages. After the opening of the link road, the volume of traffic will be such that access onto it from the B1122 will become very challenging, and journeys to both towns,will become extremely tortured. The closure of both roads to through traffic will mean there are no alternative routes. To access the link road from the B1122 we will have to compete with streams of the HGVs. After navigating the roundabout at the site entrance, we will then have to cross the new railway line before progressing on to either town. . Without continuing vehicular access via the Pretty Road bridge, residents in will find themselves effectively ‘kettled’ in their villages. It is clear from experiences at Hinkley that journeys that previously y took 5 or 6 minutes can now take up to one hour. This MUST NOT happen here. 2. A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN THEBERTON During the two or three year period before the relief road is completed, the volume of traffic on the B1122 will make it almost impossible to move between the village hall, church and pub which are the focal points of village life. There must be a pedestrian crossing, as was proposed at Stage 2 of the public consultation, but which subsequently vanished from EDF's proposals.."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Blackburn
"I am a much published writer who has often described the almost unspoilt beauty of this coastal stretch of Suffolk where I have lived for forty years. I object to the proposal of a third power station because it is a prohibitively costly method of producing electricity ,no longer considered safe or viable or even necessary in most advanced countries . It seems to me a gross injustice to our democratic rights to even consider spreading such a vast , dangerous and unnecessary complex of structures and infrastructures across a heritage landscape of such exquisite beauty. Yesterday i walked the Sandlings Path down to the sea and wept to think of all that might be lost. Thank you Julia Blackburn [Redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kristina Elvin
"I live and have grown up in Leiston which has suffered significantly due to the two already nuclear plants. The town is full of either charity shops or empty ones. It has been left to suffer after the work force of the plants have left leaving behind single families and drug and alcohol problems with it. “Sizewell C will bring in lots of jobs” I here a lot but that isn’t going to happen immediately as the workers from Hinckley C will will moved to construction at Sizewell. And to what cost are these jobs? Extinction of beautiful countryside? Minsmere bird reserves and it’s wet lands, which are extremely important and help to stop flooding. Ploughing through countryside that is untouched just for roads to carry thousands of lorries. The roads have been busier than ever around the A12 since the COVID lockdown was eased people flooding to the area. The roads can’t cope now how will they with all the extra that’s been started by EDF. As a country, an island we should be using that to are advantage and making way for renewable energy that isn’t going to impact on the planet. With all the uncertainty at present the fact that a nuclear power station is even being spoken of is obscured. We are using less energy at present with the current power station running on half there is no need for another. We are using less due to offices being shut and people not working. We need to look at the bigger picture, the future and Sizewell C I hope is not in it. Representations of Stop Sizewell C (the campaign name of Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell Ltd) 1. I’d like to raise concerns about the Planning Statement generally including Status of DCO plans and proposed use of ‘Not for Approval’ plans Consents and Powers in the Draft DCO Approach to environmental mitigation, management and development flexibility Approach to Subsequent Approvals Planning conditions and legal agreements Approach to Environmental Mitigation and Management The Approach to Flexibility (Rochdale Envelope) NPS EN-1 and NPS EN-6: Applying the Policies to the Sizewell C Application Compliance with Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and relevant national policy statements for major infrastructure Regional and Local Planning Policy UK Marine Policy Statement 2011 Construction worker Social/Community Mitigation Transport and Freight Management strategy Planning Assessment – Benefits and Assessment Principles Common Law Nuisance and Statutory Nuisance 2. Site Selection The UK Government’s 2011/existing National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation EN-6 concludes that Sizewell is a potentially suitable site for new nuclear power stations before 2025. This conclusion is out of date as the EN-6 assessments predate government acceptance of the Paris agreement on climate change and legislation to make the UK Zero Carbon by 2050 We believe this is the wrong project in the wrong place because The development cannot be operating before 2025; The site is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and fluvial flooding; It will have an adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance; It will have an adverse impact on coastal processes; It will have an adverse impact on sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value; The carbon footprint of Sizewell C’s construction will have an adverse impact on carbon targets; it cannot positively contribute to UK’s carbon neutral timetable until 2040 at the earliest; The 32 ha twin reactor development (c.f. Hinkley Point C 45ha) requires unacceptable increased coastal exposure, relocation of existing Sizewell B facilities, other design compromises and is well below the EN-6 presumption of 30ha for a single reactor installation; There are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality; resulting in significant cumulative impacts to the East Suffolk environment and economy; There is no sustainable solution for the safe disposal of nuclear waste. Spent fuel and high-level waste from Sizewell B and C would stay on this eroding coastal site until at least 2135. Climate change and rising sea levels mean that the site is likely to become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors. There are major concerns over flooding and overtopping during storm surges, and ultimately the site will become an island if sea levels rise to predicted levels. 3. Local communities The development would have unacceptable impacts on local communities, in particular Leiston, Eastbridge and Theberton; and settlements along the B1122 and A12. Residents of our Parish will experience noise increases of 600 times ambient noise including Old Abbey Care Home can expect noise to increase 200 times current levels. 4. Worker Campus The campus would have significant impacts on local communities during construction and thereafter because of noise, light, pollution, traffic and social pressures. The developer does not provide sufficient justification for its location and impacts. Following a consultants’ study on site options Suffolk CC suggested consideration of relocation of the proposed campus to alternative locations. EDF has not adequately responded to this suggestion. 5. Transport EDF’s transport strategy has rejected a marine/jetty component due to environmental and geomorphological concerns but the extensive use of rail has also been rejected with insufficient justification. The “integrated” road based transport strategy is not sustainable and would have an adverse impact on local communities and result in significant damage to the East Suffolk visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as under EDF’s “road led” strategy rejected at Stage 4 consultations. Significant upgrades to the A12 and B1122 are not proposed to be started before site preparations and significant earthworks start. Several of the other energy projects are likely to be in progress at this time with the Sizewell B facilities relocation likely to be at its peak of HGV movements. The proposed timing of these upgrades needs to be brought forward to avoid significant impacts to communities along the A12 and B1122. The current proposal for the Sizewell Link Road will isolate and sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland threatening viability. The proposed route has little legacy value for communities and would perpetuate damages and community severance. Sizewell Link Road alternative routes have been dismissed as options by EDF with insufficient justification. 6. Landscape & Heritage The proposed development, by virtue of locality, design and scale, would have a catastrophic long term impact on landscape character. It would have an adverse impact on integrity of the AONB and many nationally and internationally important nature conservation areas. The planned mitigations for landscape and ecological damage are inadequate and would not compensate for the damage done during construction and for the lifetime of the power station. The proposed development would affect the settings of 90 heritage assets. 7. Environment Impacts on Minsmere Sluice cannot be assessed due to the combination of changes in ground and surface water combined with an incomplete plan for access to potable and construction water supplies. The environmental implications of the proposed stockpile and spoil storage areas is unclear with contradictory statements and assessments The construction phase of the development would result in unacceptable levels of environmental pollution, including from light, noise, traffic and dust. Mitigation of the environmental impact of the proposed borrow pits and subsequent landfill and other areas of landfill has not been addressed. The development does not address the potential adverse impacts on the ecological value of species and habitats in the marine and terrestrial environment. Implications for the integrity of designated sites, including internationally designated sites - European sites and European marine sites - nationally designated sites - SSSIs, the AONB - and impact on local, regionally and nationally significant natural history is not adequately addressed. RSPB Minsmere is of international significance. We are concerned that Minsmere would be irreparably harmed by the proposed development. This would damage the UK’s reputation for conservation as well as the visitor economy. EDF recognises that there could be impacts on Marsh Harriers which are protected species The proposed development does not fully address the need to provide an adequate drainage and water supply for the construction period and beyond. Abstraction of water will have impacts which will need to be managed to avoid risks to the environment and to protected species. The risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology have not been adequately assessed and mitigated. Proposals increase flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the main development site footprint. 8. Marine and Coastal processes The effect of Sizewell C on coastal processes is unclear as its current hard coastal defence structure is incomplete and therefore cannot be assessed. Site safety, ecological and flood risk impacts by an incomplete hard coastal defence feature cannot be assessed. The rates of erosion and recession along the site frontage, to the north and south of the site cannot be understood until there is a completed design for the hard and soft coastal defences The Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, being discussed with local authorities, needs to be made public for assessment at the examination and the Marine Technical Forum responsibilities, powers and transparency need to be defined. EDF predictions of when the hard coastal defence will be exposed cannot be taken seriously when no finalised design has been made available and any adaptation strategies for the incomplete design have been specified. EDF have not justified the assertion that coastal effects to the south will not extend beyond the coralline crag to the north of Thorpeness. EDF cannot justify the assertion of shingle accretion north of the site until a complete design of the hard coastal defence is presented for assessment. The impacts on marine ecology during construction and operation has not been adequately assessed. 9. Economic and social impacts EDF’s own surveys show that a significant percentage of visitors will be deterred from visiting the area during construction, thereby damaging the Suffolk coast visitor economy. Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation found that tourism could lose up to £40 million a year, with the potential loss of up to 400 jobs. Unacceptable pressure on local housing accommodation. Inadequate information to address local supply chain advantages and disadvantages. Does not address the funding of a Leiston economic development/ regeneration programme. Does not address the impact of the development on the availability of tourism accommodation, particularly during construction. Does not adequately address the impact on jobs and skills, during construction and operation. Does not address the issue of locally based employment. Sectoral work is inadequate and does not help to explain what jobs, at what skills/remuneration levels, will be available to local people. Socio economic aspects of development are not adequately addressed by the developer. Details of proposed housing and tourism funds inadequate. Minimal consideration of potential negative impacts on local businesses outside the nuclear supply chain whether through competition or disruption to investment. No account of the long term negative impact on the environment and the future natural capital and tourism value of the site, i.e. no long term view emerging of the economic legacy of a comparable project other than jobs created in the nuclear sector. Applicant fails to explain how vulnerable children and adults in the local area might be impacted in the short, medium and long term. 10. Associated Development Impact of the Yoxford roundabout on local residents and traffic. I’m a resident of the village of Yoxford and I have been shocked by the influx in traffic on the A12. I live just off the A12 towards Leiston and the traffic has been so bad I can’t get out of my driveway, it had been backed up from Leiston towards the direction of the A12. I have [Redacted] and at times it is dangerous in the village with so much traffic coming through from Stowmarket direction. I would like you to take some time in looking at this issue as when SizewellC was first giving the go ahead things were much different. Location of the Park and Ride facilities The Two Villages ByPass Location of the Freight Management Centre"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Taylor
"This Representation is sent on [Redacted] and my behalf. We live in a property on the B1122, that even with the ineffective proposed bypass, will be directly adversely affected by the transport to Sizewell C. There will be unacceptable traffic movement, most of it by HGVs, at all times of the day and night with the resulting deadly diesel pollution and causing congestion, vibration and rat runs. There is no proposed evacuation route and accidents will not be accessible. EDF have consistently refused to consider the D2 relief road or even an alternative that has a legacy. This is an area reliant on tourism and agriculture and with the road led transport plan, income from this area will be directly affected, as will other industries as they struggle to navigate the often single carriageway A12 and other overloaded local roads. Villages and farmland will be severed and rural rights of way lost. The proposed 6000 workforce are expected to be accommodated in this small rural area, some 2400 housed in a totally inappropriate workers campus in the small hamlet of Eastbridge, a walk away from the nationally Renowned RSPB Minsmere. Those taking up accommodation in the area will take up holiday lets or local cheaper rental, depriving the tourist market and true local residents. The remaining workers will travel in upto 90 mins each way. The infrastructure and key services cannot cope with this influx, particularly the local health services, one of which has acknowledged that it is unable to provide a service at even current levels. The proposed huge number of jobs are unlikely to go to locals, EDF acknowledging they will transfer the Hinkley workforce. The only jobs likely to go to Suffolk workers will be unskilled which will be to the detriment of our other local employers, namely the hospitality area. Those familiar with the area cannot fail to notice the eroding coastline, along which the new project is proposed. Over the last few years, some areas have eroded by approx 15 metres. With climate change acknowledged, accompanied by rising sea levels, this build is in the wrong place in uncertain times with a potentially disastrous future. There will be incalculable damage to the environment and this special historic landscape resulting from flooding, 24 hour light, noise, dust and waste and irreparable harm to Minsmere, one of the biggest tourist attractions to Suffolk and internationally acknowledged. I further wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Wendy Colles
"I wish to state that I am opposed to the construction of Sizewell C and its 2 nuclear power station on just about every ground I can think of. We have lived in Suffolk for 40 years and have seen many changes. The offshore wind farms have impacted the countryside but mainly been handled sensitively with cables buried underground so that pylons are not needed. I appreciate that the electricity supply needs to be protected for the future but would argue that with modern generation techniques this large nuclear power station is in danger of becoming obsolete before it is completed. The new E.P.Rs have been trouble prone and subject to delays and vast increases in cost. The recently announced withdrawal of the Japanese company Hitachi from the Wylfa site in Anglesey after a long pause and much expenditure is an indicator of the changed world economy and at a time when we shall be in deep debt and recession for many years as a result of Covid 19 there are better ways of spending £20billion. Since this power station was proposed there have been reductions in use of electricity because of improved technologies and now, with the development of much more efficient solar panels, wind power and research into improved battery storage, Nuclear power with its dangers and problems of storage of nuclear waste begins to look like a very expensive and dangerous dinosaur. The involvement of the Chinese CGN company in our nuclear power generation as at Hinckley Point is very controversial and in view of the authoritative and secret way that country is governed and the delay in informing the world about Coronavirus it is best not to allow them any control on such a potentially dangerous project. The involvement of the French EDF company makes the whole project more expensive as the agreed payment of £92.5 per Megawatt Hour generated for 35 years will be a huge cost to British Customers and the construction costs at Hinckley Point have already increased hugely with no end in sight. We already have 2 nuclear power stations at Sizewell with resultant scars on the landscape even after one has been decommissioned. The proposal now is for two more reactors .In previous letters I have highlighted the damage to our beautiful coast and countryside by 10 years at least of construction and congested roads plus the effect on our wildlife and very valuable tourist economy. These treasures are particularly valuable now because of the strange new world we find ourselves in. This present government has got so many things disastrously wrong from HS2, to Brexit and to the chaotic handling of the pandemic that it does not inspire any confidence in its judgement or ability. To cancel this project would go some way to restoring its reputation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Youngman
"A concerned East Anglian against the building of Sizewell C I recently decide to do some reading on the proposal from EDF to build a new nuclear power station at the site of the current Sizewell B reactor, after hearing various views against from locals and those for it from outside the area. After reading EDF’s full plans I was horrified to find it will encroach on the RSPB reserve at Minsmere . The plans will drive a literal wrecking ball through an area of AONB and also at close proximity to a preservation area. My main objections are: 1. Position of site. The idea of such a development in a place recognised throughout the world for its unique environment and wildlife is simply wrong. It will be destroyed. The effect on the water levels around the Eastbridge / Minsmere levels will destroy the habitat for various reptile amphibian species otters and water voles permanently . Where is the fresh water coming from in the amounts needed for a construction of this magnitude? 2. Effect on Local Villages. The quality of life for locals will be severely damaged. 8,000 workers at the site driving from outside East Anglia daily ,ending their journey at Leiston on B roads causing rat runs through rural farm roads , speeding through villages, chaos at the start and end of the working day on roads designed for light traffic (as was with Sizewell B). The additional issue of large lorries carrying supplies along the same B roads 24hrs a day 7 days a week. The issue of noise and light pollution for the residents of Eastbridge and Theberton , (my home) continuously 7 days a week on what will become the largest building site in Europe in an area with 90 listed buildings. 3. Anti-social behaviour. As is found at the Hinckley site problems of drug taking and mental health issues among workers at the leading to problems of anti-social behaviour .Leistons infrastructure is simply too small to cope with the influx of such a large increase in population. 4. Effect on local holiday trade. Such a large site will be visible along the whole length of coastline and will affect an area of East Suffolk with tourism as a sizeable sector of the local economy. EDF themselves admitting up to nearly 30% of this trade could be lost some predict an even greater loss. The thought of holidaying next to a building site with its associated issues will destroy it. 5. Nuclear waste. Where is it going , what is the plan from EDF no information is forthcoming ? I fully support the Representation submitted by stop Sizewell C and the RSPB and wish to state as a resident of East Suffolk this is completely the wrong site for a development of this type, Mark W Youngman"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Macartney
"Used fuel refers to the uranium fuel that has been used in a commercial reactor. The fuel is made up of metal fuel rods that contain small ceramic pellets of enriched uranium oxide. The fuel rods are combined into tall assemblies that are then placed into the reactor. Used nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts. More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor.There are also some advanced reactor designs in development that could consume or run on used nuclear fuel in the future. France recycles its spent fuel rods. We don't! Why should Suffolk stand alone storing Two more Nuclear Waste sites for the foreseeable future. There is no plan for EDF to ever remove or recycle any of their nuclear waste and have never ever done so!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Penelope (Peppy) Barlow
"I am an interested party both in general and as a resident of [Redacted]where I will be affected by the noise of night trains. 1. At this stage I don't think the development is needed at all. Due to the present situation I understand Sizewell B is only running at 50%. If this kind of money was put into making solar panels compulsory on all new builds together with other energy saving strategies a new Nuclear Power station would not be needed. 2. This development will decimate 30 acres of pristine marshland with consequences for the wildlife and the local residents. 3. There will be an enormous increase in road and rail traffic with the provision of accommodation as well as in the building of the power station. 4. As a resident of [Redacted] close to the railway I will be in danger of being disturbed throughout the night by the use of long and heavy trains. A long train may take anything up to 20 minutes to pass and there are 4-5 trains scheduled per night as the development proceeds. Closer to the railway line the foundation of houses may be affected. 5. I cannot believe that in 21st century we can't develop technologies that can produce carbon free energy without the use of nuclear power which will involve storage of nuclear waste for decades. In fact we have most of them already. INSULATE. MAKE SOLAR PANELS COMPULSORY. USE GROUND HEAT PUMPS. BUILD ONLY CARBON NEUTRAL HOUSES AND HELP PAY FOR THEM. This must be cheaper than helping to fund a huge nuclear project which will destroy a whole section of the Suffolk countryside and is not even going to be part of our own energy investment as the Chinese and the French are heavily involved here."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Penny Cook
"1. There's going to be a lot of pollution from its construction through traffic and materials used. 2. Locals may loose jobs as the area will loose a natural beauty spot, it may make the area less appealing to visit. 3. The wildlife around the world including the wildlife in our county needs protection, habitats will be lost and may never return. The wildlife around minsmere is a wonderful treasure and one that's put Suffolk on the map. It offers opportunity for young and old to learn together. 4. It's important to me and my children that we spend money on renewable energy and find a new way to do things which won't leave the next generations with a toxic waste problem. Moving the waste out of Suffolk does not remove the problem or solve the issue. We currently have no way of getting rid of radioactive waste from the nuclear power plants."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rev Dr Anne Morris
"I oppose the new Sizewell development as I believe it will have a negative impact on rare and important habitat. I am concerned about both the building process which will increase traffic on local roads and the final result which will have a negative visual impact visually and physically through inevitable environmental changes such as changes 8n water levels etc which will disrupt habitats. This simply isn't the right place to build a big new power station."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Noble
"There are a number of reasons for opposing Sizewell C. • China’s involvement is quite clearly now hugely controversial. • We are living through a now recognised climate crisis. The proposed plans for Sizewell C should as such strike us all as wholly misguided. The traffic congestion and pollution would be greatly increased and the devastation to the local environment catastrophic. It is well worthwhile you listening carefully to the views of those of the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership and the RSPB for evidence of this imminent disaster. • The cost to the economy. £20 billion is now the estimated cost. I cannot believe that this money could not be spend more creatively for the greener and more economically viable good. This is the time to find a greener alternative. • 6,000 workers will be brought in rather than be given to those who now find themselves without income in the local area. • Radioactive waste will erode the coastline."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roderick Macdonald
"I believe another nuclear power station in an area of outstanding natural beauty at a time when science shows us that we are in great danger of losing much of our natural resources will cause great harm. I know that the country needs more energy supplies, but there are other far less harmful solutions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Nicholls
"I wish to raise the following areas of concern I have about Sizewell C. Noise pollution: Not only due to the main build of Sizewell C, but to the Theberton village bypass road that will be built to the north of my property only about 200m away at the nearest point. How good will the suggested acoustic protection actually be? as I am a shift worker and this WILL have an impact on my health and ability to do my job? I moved to Theberton for the peace and quiet!!! Air pollution: Caused by the massive influx of HGV's, construction vehicles, buses and EDF (local!!) workers travelling in from up to 90 mins away. You won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. This will have a massive impact on my village community (we are not all spring chickens!) Economic impact: The loss of tourism to this AONB and to beautiful places like Minsmere. Environmental impact: The irreversible destruction of rare bird and animal habitats. It is impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage. Crime: Increased risk, due to dropping 2400 people into a small campus that I completely oppose. Impact on emergency response: The slowing down of emergency vehicles to the village, to support vulnerable people due to the huge volume of construction and delivery vehicle traffic. The application as a whole is totally unsuitable for a detailed digital examination process. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and the RSPB"
Parish Councils
Ufford Parish Council
"Ufford Parish Council would like to register their objections to the construction of Sizewell C and to oppose the granting of a Development Consent Order. We have already written during the consultation process at stages 3 and 4, but do not wish the impression to be gained that the reasons for objection have been overcome. Our reasons fall into the following chief headings: Flawed Transport Strategy We are particularly concerned about EDF’s plans for an “integrated transport strategy, which in reality would see a very significant proportion of the construction and other materials transported by road. By comparison at Hinkley Point a much smaller proportion is road-based and EDF and its partners have invested heavily in sea and rail supply capability. The scale of the lorry and construction machinery traffic proposed for Sizewell C is unacceptable, as it will have significant impact on local communities, road infrastructure and the environment, as described in more detail below. We urge the Planning Inspectorate to require further consideration of the transport and supply strategy in favour of greater use of sea and rail transport. Traffic Congestion and Pollution The plans include 1,140 HGVs and 700 buses a day travelling along the A12 and local roads, with peak numbers during the morning rush hour at the height of construction. This does not include the vans and cars which will travel either to Sizewell or to the southern Park and Ride planned to be located just north of Wickham Market. The impact of this additional traffic will be huge to our local community. The A12 is already very busy. People from Ufford use Wickham Market as a local service centre, and deplore the plans which do not include realistic mitigation for the impact of vehicles coming to the Park and Ride. Particularly the effect on the B1078 along its entire length, and particularly in Coddenham. Undoubtedly this is a short cut to the westbound A14 used by many local people, and there is no practical way to prevent the construction workers using this route to Wickham Market. We are also concerned about smaller local roads if a problem occurred causing closure of the A12. Then the B1438 would become a route bringing HGVs right through Ufford. Light traffic will almost certainly find routes through villages to avoid queues and we also fear use of the A1152 down Woods Lane, through Melton and informal use of sites at Bentwaters for parking up and storage. We understand that Suffolk County Council has cited “significant concerns” over transport, design and environmental impact in the plans for Sizewell C submitted by EDF Energy and we strongly share the concerns that they have outlined. Local Environment Noise, light and air pollution will threaten local wildlife habitats. The Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will be harmed by this project. The RSPB says it could be “catastrophic for wildlife” at their renowned Minsmere Reserve. Suffolk Wildlife Trust also opposes Sizewell C. Local residents will lose the amenity of the beautiful coast that they cherish. Jobs and Business EDF will bring most of the supply chain and workforce from Hinkley to save money and, they have stated, to speed up the process. 6,000 workers will be brought in, risking social problems locally. EDF says 2,600 workers will be recruited locally, but this could include commuting from up to 90 minutes away. Tourism would very likely be lost. The Suffolk Coast tourism body suggests that tourists “will seek ….peace and tranquillity elsewhere”. That would mean a loss of jobs and existing businesses damaged. Conclusion These objections are based on the predicted local effect of the plans that EDF have put forward."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Peter Gdula
"While a few of us (not me, incidentally) may be considered 'experts' in a certain area, no-one is an expert in every area. Therefore, I believe it is imperative that expert opinion is sought to explain the likely effects of this proposal : a)under the ground b)on the ground and c)above the ground. Furthermore, we need to know the likely outcome for a)human life and b)other forms of life - since this is not just about human comfort. This is not a pencil sketch, where errors can be erased and forgotten, we are talking of long term change - beyond all of our lifetimes - so decisions need to be well informed."
Parish Councils
Blythburgh with Bulcamp and Hinton Parish Council
"SIZEWELL C: Application for Development Consent Relevant Representation: Blythburgh with Bulcamp and Hinton Parish Council 1. Blythburgh Parish is situated either side of the A12 about seven miles north of the main development site. The demographics, heritage, character and location is summarised at: [Redacted] 2. The councils’ responses to each consultation stage is available at: [Redacted] 3. The council recognises that the main development site will inevitably have an environmental impact. However the council is concerned that: • the use of green-field sites has not been minimized • insufficient account has been taken of the negative impacts on the Minsmere nature reserve • disturbance of coastal processes will impact the Blyth estuary 4. Any traffic travelling from the north to Sizewell C must pass through Blythburgh village using either the A12 or B1125. The council has concerns about the increased usage on both these roads. 5. The council is not persuaded by the arguments for the integrated freight management strategy. 6. Figure 9.2 in Book 6 Non Technical Summary 6.1 illustrates that Abnormal Indivisible Loads will travel from Lowestoft to Yoxford along the A12. No mitigation has been proposed at Blythburgh. The parish request that further investigative work be undertaken on potential impacts of these movements. 7. The Darsham Park and Ride should minimise workforce traffic on minor roads. However Book 8, 8.5 para 10.4.34 states “it is unlikely that any Sizewell C traffic would be turning right into the B1387 since such traffic would be able to use the B1125 instead.” The council object to any usage of the B1125 at Blythburgh as it is clearly signposted ‘Blythburgh village only’. 8. Book 8 Doc 8.5 transport assessment Table 8.5 and Table 8.6 provide baseline traffic figures given for Blythburgh location L (B1125) that remain a serious underestimate compared to parish council figures. 9. Issues of rat running and fly parking within the village and along the B1125 have not been addressed. Mitigation requested: • number plate recognition on the B1125 and other traffic calming measures • pedestrian crossing or refuge on A12 • create a pull-off for the bus (south bound A12) • the B1387 should be improved as an alternative route for displaced traffic • village roads should be engineered to make them unattractive to through traffic • imposition of parking restrictions 10. Existing road safety problems in the village will be exacerbated for pedestrians. Mitigation requested: • provision of a pedestrian crossing or refuge • provision of a continuous pedestrian footpath at the entrance to the B1125 from the A12 11. Doc 8 8.5 Road Safety and Off-site Highway Improvements states “no mitigation is proposed at the A12 junctions near Blythburgh”. Additional traffic flows will exacerbate existing issues with the A12/A145 junction. Mitigation requested: • a roundabout should be considered for this junction. 12. The council request mini-bus shuttle services for village workers to the Darsham Park and Ride 13. The council is concerned that the employment of local tradesmen could denude existing businesses of their workforces. Mitigation requested: • include training opportunities for local young people to fill skills gaps."
Parish Councils
Bucklesham Parish Council
"Bucklesham Parish Council have grave concerns over the Freight Management Facility to be built at Seven Hills. Our concerns include: - How will lorries be prevented from using the smaller roads through the village if the A12 is blocked by an accident and - What guarantees will the inspector place on any permission that the FMF is returned to farm land once the facility is no longer needed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Dobson
"Whist I support Sizwell C in principle, I am extremely concerned about the inadequate and injurious infrastructure and transport links, especially in and around Hacheston and Wickham Market."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Corinne Lusher
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Project and Economic a. EDF have a poor record in bringing a complex project such as this to conclusion on time and within budget. Examples: Flamanville, Hinkley Point. It is likely that this project, if it gets the go ahead, will suffer delays and increases in predicted costs. Whilst EDF say that it will be faster to build Sizewell using Hinkley experience, the geographical location is different, and the challenges will therefore also be different. b. EDF say that there will be 900 new permanent jobs created at Sizewell, approximately 300 of which will be local. The build is estimated at £20bn. This equates to £22m per post. There are much better ways of creating work in this area. c. There are currently 10 energy projects proposed to be built over the next 12-15 years that will impact the Suffolk heritage coast. This is too much for this area to absorb without considerable damage to its beauty, wildlife, and tourist industry. d. It is estimated that tourism, an important employer in this area may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. e. The cost of nuclear power has dropped below that of renewable power. The proposed funding could be better diverted to research better methods of storing electricity produced by renewable methods and advancing the wind, sun and wave power available. f. If this cannot be funded without a surcharge on customers bills it should not be contemplated. 2. Site Selection a. This week it has been reported that another huge (43 square mile) block of ice broke off from the Arctic’s ice shelf, contributing to the concern over rising sea levels. This site will be at risk of flooding. b. Minsmere will border the development and the disruption will impact the many protected species, such as marsh harriers, that depend upon it. There is no evidence to guarantee that providing alternative habitat will mitigate the impact of the project on these species. 3. Disruption during development a. The predicted road traffic will impact badly on air quality and cause disruption on roads leading to the site. b. The influx of workers to an area of relative low population will place existing infrastructure under stress. I endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust. I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Dowley
"I am concerned about many aspects of EDF’s SZC proposal, especially the following: 1. Environment and Pollution - Damaging levels of light, noise, air and traffic pollution arising from building works - Huge unsightly borrow pits made up of unsecured, and possibly contaminated earth, which will be blown on the wind - Irreversible damage to wildlife habitats and protected species, especially those at Minsmere, a site of European significance, the impact of the project described by the RSPB as ‘catatrophic’. - Damage to Minsmere Sluice and the consequent effect on land round the site - Destruction of AONB and SSSI sites, which cannot be adequately mitigated - CO2 emissions from construction works will take 6 years of SZC’s output to offset and not contribute positively to Britain’s CO2 targets until 2040 2. Marine and Coastal Issues - Flooding to low-lying land round the site and possible damage to a fragile coastline which is already subject to erosion - Marine ecology and the likely damage to fish stocks - EDF’s proposals for sea defences near the SZC site are described as ‘unbuildable’ and ‘do not meet any form of design standard’ (Bill Parker, ex-head of Coastal Partnerships East) - Lack of information about the impact of EDF’s beach landing facility 3. Economic and Social Issues - The local economy is heavily dependent on tourism will suffer severely, EDF admitting visitors will be deterred - Loss of tourist income is estimated at £40m a year, with many jobs being lost - Construction jobs will be created, but most will not go to local people and many will be low quality jobs - The proposed workers campus, unsuitably sited, will cause much disruption and not provide any legacy benefit - Excessive pressure put on local housing and on local health, social and emergency services - Disruption to life for local inhabitants over a long period, causing lasting damage to the community 4. Transport - Unsustainable pressure on the local road network, with adverse effects on local communities, existing businesses, farming and tourism - The proposed link road will not solve transport issues, wreck many local farms, and have no legacy benefit - Other possible link roads not canvased 5. Site and Consultation Process - The adverse impact the project will have on the environment heavily outweighs any contribution to climate change SZC might make, come too late compared with other technologies and cost much more, with financing arrangements for the project unclear. - The consultation process has all but ignored constructive suggestions many by respondents, and the DCO documents fail to address many important issues - Complete lack of coordination with other energy projects in the area - Even Suffolk County Council cannot support EDF’s proposal - SZC will mean the end of my family’s farming business with the loss of 8 jobs and the dispersal of a prize-winning herd of cattle. EDF have failed to even ask for suggestions for mitigation measures. 6. I would like to endorse the Relevant Representation made by Stop Sizewell C"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fiona Williams
"1.At this time of Climate Change I am concerned that too much water will be used for the processes of the new Sizewell C plant. Over 1,600m3 mains drinking water may be needed per day. This means 20percent of the local catchment area’s water. Suffolk is one of the driest counties in the UK . Water is essential for agriculture, industry, domestic use and also, and equally importantly, for maintaining the eco-balance in this beautiful coastal area. We are told that droughts will become more frequent in the future. If there were a period of drought in Suffolk what would be the priority for the water board? To address the lack of water in Suffolk, there has long been an ongoing discussion about water being transferred from the River Trent. A 1993 feasibility study looking at this issue estimated possible costs running into hundreds of millions so if Sizewell C goes ahead, new reservoirs and infrastructure would have to be created.The plans for a reservoir at Great Bradley were finally dropped as unsuitable. Where will the water for Sizewell C come from? There was no mention of any solution to this problem in EDF’s Second Consultation Document so how do they intend to comply with the Suffolk Ecology Principles that have been set out ? 2. A single nuclear reactor does not provide power for much more than 60 years.The enormous cost of building and developing Sizewell C in terms of money, environmental damage and carbon impact makes it a worrying use of resources in these post Brexit and post Covid times. Financial backers Hitachi's recent withdrawal from the Wylfa project in Wales will impact Britain's nuclear supply chain putting been more pressure on Sizewell C but in spite of the fact that nuclear energy is now twice as expensive as renewable energy. In a Financial Times article 25June 2020 it states that the cost of Sizewell C is now put at 20bn rather than the 18bn predicted by the developers the French EDF and Chinese Government CGN. Judging by Hinckley Point's example it is likely to go up further. The article states that “Privately, some nuclear industry leaders have been making an argument for the taxpayer to take a stake in any new project” as the developers have not clarified how the new plant would be funded this is very worrying especially in the current global economic climate. 3. I am very concerned about the issue of waste, how it will be stored and treated both short term and long term in this area of coastal erosion and instability. What will happen to it in the very long term must be worked out in the early stages otherwise it will be yet another problem for future generations to deal with.Is there any legal framework that will ensure this? 3. I grew up in Suffolk and regularly visit this stunningly lovely county. The projected building of Sizewell C would be in an AONB and cannot possibly do other than damage the natural environment which takes hundreds of years to develop. What assurances are in place to make sure that compensatory measures are put in place at every stage to protect the environment if the project takes longer than anticipated or runs out of money or its backers pull out?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
G H Thomas
"Dear Sir/Madam I understand and agree with the need for good clean power for the UK as a whole. I am also very aware of the need for jobs in Suffolk as well as elsewhere. I do feel however, that more nuclear power production being put in place is not the answer. The building of the power plant will cause immense traffic and pollution concerns in sensitive areas. Whilst clean at source of use, nuclear has very long term disposal issues which can also contribute to problems for future generations. As such it does not have ecological benefits needed for the future of the nation or indeed the world. Future predictions set out by science has established a rise in sea levels affecting the coast and further inland. If this rise does happen it will create a dangerous situation. It appears far more logical to study, promote, design and build renewable forms of energy in a world that has huge issues with climate change. Wind power is already in place, this I would have thought is quicker and safer to implement. Solar is another to be used more frequently, but there needs to be tidal power, the tide does not falter. We are after all known as an island nation with the tide surrounding us. Surely in the East of England we can invest in jobs for research and engineering to assist both the nation's needs for power and the climate. The future relies on all of us who are here now, so please consider renewable over nuclear. Anyone who has children or indeed grandchildren will not thank you for speeding severe challenges they will face in 30 or 40 years time. I don't have children. I could say who cares go ahead make life easier for me, I won't be here in 30 years. That would be morally wrong. I do not know, even after reading all the notes if what I have written is considered a representation as I do not personally have the scientific skills to analyse the whole issue. I do hope the people who carry out the full examination do have those skills and have no bias just towards business. Your faithfully Genevieve Thomas Adrian Thomas"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Newman
"Whilst I have no issues about nuclear power per se, I do wish to raise the following issues of concern about the plans for the building of Sizewell C. 1 Site location and its effect on coastal processes ? It is not clear from the documentation that the hard coastal defence features are adequate to withstand the increasing regularity and strength of damaging storms and other weather events for the full 170 years for which the site must remain secure against such threats. There is a risk the site could become an island. ? Even if the design has taken account of coastal engineers’ best estimates, please be advised that expert predictions about the shoreline in this vicinity have sometimes proved incorrect. Even less severe storms in the winter of 2019/20 have caused significant loss of coastline nearby – events that were not forecast to occur within the next 10 years 2 Transport to the site ? I believe the current mixed “road & rail” transport strategy, in which 61% of the project’s freight will be brought to the site by road to be totally unacceptable, unsustainable and environmentally damaging. It is already admitted that the power station will need to operate for 6 years to mitigate the CO2 dispensed in its construction! ? Whilst whatever strategy is adopted, the disturbance to nearby residents is unlikely to be significantly mitigated, there is a significant benefit for the rest of Suffolk (and indeed further afield) for a greater use of the rail network – particularly given EDF’s proposals for enhancement of the rail branch line between Saxmundham and the site. ? Further enhancements to the rail line between Ipswich & Saxmundham to facilitate a greater proportion of freight to come to the site by rail are dismissed as being “unable to be achieved in the time available”, but this is simply incorrect. A recent project to build more than 1km of sidings (ie equivalent distance to a passing loop between Melton & Wickham Market stations) near Norwich for the new Greater Anglia train fleet was completed in less a year (completed February 2020, cost £7.2million), presumably unfettered by Network Rail’s “Governance for Railway Investment Projects” process. ? Without greater use of rail, the entire A12 route from East Ipswich to Saxmundham will become seriously congested (particularly the single carriageway sections), as will the A14 around the Orwell Bridge and its junctions with other major routes. More freight by rail would obviate the need for a “Freight Distribution Depot” as far away from Sizewell as is the Seven Hills site proposed (30 miles distant), which is likely to obstruct passage to the nationally strategically important container port at Felixstowe. In summary, I ask the inspector to withhold permission for this project to go ahead without these aspects of the proposals, and the potential mitigations, being implemented. Graham Newman 17th September 2020"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Grahame Beales
"I wish to raise the following points with regarding to the building of Sizewell C 1)Both the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust oppose SZC because of concerns about impacts on Minsmere, Sizewell Marshes and protected species. I am concerned that the damage the building of Sizewell C will cause to landscapes, tourism and importantly to the area of The Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 2) Renewable energy is quicker, cheaper and save more CO2 than nuclear, meaning more can be done to fight climate change for the same budget. 3) The noise, light and air pollution from the building of Sizewell C will threaten our health and wildlife habitats. In addition, the majority of workers will be brought in, risking social and transport problems. The impacts will be felt across the region, congestion, pollution and influx of thousands of workers. 4) Sizewell C will deter people and businesses from moving to the area who would otherwise have been drawn by the quality of life at present."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Rose
"1. The project is enormous ? too big for the setting and land available. 2. Road transport is totally unsuitable for the level of traffic movements. A12 is single lane and totally unsuitable. Other options (sea and rail practically dismissed by EDF). Up to 900 HGVs a day, plus Park & Ride buses, on the B1122 through Yoxford and Middleton Moor, with a bypass of Theberton which is inadequate. the bypass would not be in place until after two years of high-volume HGV and other traffic had already been inflicted on this “B” road. 3. Effects on local communities. Eastbridge is a tiny village with minimal road access. Will be overwhelmed with huge numbers (at least 2400) of staff attempting to get to work. 4. Site is on a coast with flood risks and prone to erosion. Remember Fukushima. 5. It is unlikely there would be any benefit to the local economy, indeed it is likely the £250m annual local tourism industry would be seriously affected. Sizewell C traffic will deter visitors to the coast between Southwold and Aldeburgh. 6. EDF has not provided enough information on expected impacts on tourism and the adverse effects of traffic to other local businesses who provide services. The local communities have been largely ignored. 7. Construction will threaten some of the most biodiverse habitats in the UK and the Heritage Coast, including two Sites of Special Scientific Interest and the internationally important Minsmere Reserve. The proposed causeway crossing of the SSSI would damage the fragile hydrology of the Minsmere Levels, Sizewell Marsh and affect the Minsmere Sluice. 8. Many vital studies not properly researched or reported on by EDF. Access for emergency services and healthcare threatened. Building of another nuclear site would increase danger to the public should there be an incident. Only inadequate emergency plans for Sizewell B exist and how would the public escape with roads clogged with Sizewell C traffic. 9. Consultation by EDF was inadequate and derisory. Paying only lip service and failing to make clear changes as consultation progressed. EDF demonstrate that they are only interested in what is easiest for them. 10. Increase in nuclear waste with storage already on site. The government have no solution for storing the waste already produced. 11. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations from “Stop Sizewell C”, RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust and Suffolk County Council’s decision not to support EDF’s proposals based on concerns on transport, effect on SSSI’s and questions on economic benefit estimated from EDF. 12.Finally, I believe most strongly that this application raises issues that are far too complex to be relegated to a digital examination. It must be heard in public,."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Wilson
"I object to the power plant because: It is unnecessary and the energy can be delivered in other way. The benefits have been overplayed and will mostly be going to French and Chinese owners It will decimate Suffolks most valuable asset, not just on terms of land but also noise, air and light pollution The impacted areas will be much greater than the proposal suggests with vehicle movements and support infrastructure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeremy Harrold
"I strongly object to Sizewell C being constructed and used as a nuclear power station. for the following reasons. 1. It is in an Area of outstanding natural beauty. It will double the size of the industrial site on the coastline, which is already visually spoiling the coastline and the buildings will be visible for many years after they are no longer producing power. 2. Green energy is now being produced more cheaply than nuclear power. 3. The Suffolk coastline is always moving and is unsafe for nuclear power. 4. The building of the station will cause congestion and difficulty on many narrow roads."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Amos
"I wish to register the following concerns about the proposed Sizewell C development. I am opposed to the proposed development on the following grounds: 1) Concept Large scale nuclear power generation is outdated in principle, massively polluting and destructive during construction, prohibitively expensive, and massively polluting at end of life, with all sorts of possible negative consequences to future generations. The huge sums involved would be better spent finding new, more acceptable solutions to power generation and better, less wasteful and polluting ways of leading our lives. Such investment could also establish the UK as a leader in this field once more. 2) Amenity This area of Suffolk is hugely valued by people from all over England and way beyond, because it is a truly unique environment. Not only does it have unique and rare habitats, and wildlife, but a wonderful unspoilt coastline and a sense of unchanging beauty. It is a place of peace and solace. Much of this will be destroyed by such a project and millions of people will feel a deep sense of loss for this place that they have loved all their lives. Sizewell has healed after the terrible disruption of the the original power stations. It would be criminal to inflict yet another crushing blow to such a beautiful area. 3) Site The site is unsuitable for many reasons, including its size, its proximity to highly important ecological sites, including AONBs, and the nature of the coastline which is in flux, and forecast to be heavily impacted by rising sea levels well within foreseeable timescales. This raises the risk of dire consequences for the stored nuclear wastes etc."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Josephine Cutts
"The proposal will be an unacceptable intrusion on the exceptionally beautiful landscape."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Justin Dowley
"I would like to raise issues about Sizewell C under the following headings:- 1. My farming business; the likely demise of that business because of the land take by EDF; the unemployment of my staff which will result; the end of my nationally recognised pedigree cattle herd 2. The transport proposals put forward by EDF; the lack of proper consideration of a relief road; the already overburdened local roads at peak weekend and holiday times; the inability of the existing road structure, as supplemented by EDF's new road proposal, to bear the weight and volume of proposed traffic 3. Impact on the local economy which is built on tourism and agriculture; inevitable unemployment 4. Location of the project (and the proposed storage of nuclear waste) in an unstable coastal location; likely ecological damage 5.Environmental damage to an internationally recognised jewel of an area 6.EDF's minimal efforts so far to take account of consultees' views 7.EDF's track record in developing similar projects I ask why the examination process is taking place at a time when proper consultation, meetings etc are not allowed. I note the strong objections to date by, inter alia, Suffolk County Council, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Suffolk Preservation Society etc. I endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Bensley
"After initially supporting this project and having been persuaded by the government stance that nuclear energy is necessary, I can no longer support the project because of the misery that the construction phase of Sizewell C will cause to myself and other Marlesford residents. Despite submissions by local groups, including Marlesford Parish Council representing the residents of my village, outlining the disruption and distress that the increased traffic on the A12 will cause, all suggestions have been dismissed. I feel that our concerns have been largely ignored. Plans for the four village bypass must be revisited by EDF, ESC, SCC and central government. I had not opposed the principle or position of the Southern Park and Ride to reduce traffic movements to site but siting it where there is no dual carriageway to carry the increased hgv traffic is a nonsense. Without a bypass, increased traffic with up to 1000 HGVs per day for the entire construction period of many years, will bring misery to our residents that live along the A12. Marlesford already suffers with the community being cut in half by the A12 and the difficulties that pedestrians currently have in crossing the A12 to catch buses or visit the shop will be severe as Sizewell C traffic builds up. It will be increasingly difficult and dangerous for Marlesford residents to exit the village on to the A12 at Bell Lane where vision is already restricted. Traffic controls have not been offered at that point. The massive increase in HGV movements, light van deliveries and workers’ car journeys will cause gridlock. Any incidents causing blockages on the A12 will send traffic looking for alternative routes around Marlesford and the surrounding villages that are dangerous for large vehicles. Many roads such as Marlesford Road, Marlesford joining the B1116 (Hacheston) and the A12 are single track. Cars and vans servicing the site will seek out rat runs to avoid traffic gridlock on the A12, accident rates, noise, light and dust pollution will increase significantly. The impact on the Marlesford community will include severance, a heavy increase in traffic, with significant increases in noise and light pollution. Finally, why has the consultation gone ahead when the Covid 19 pandemic has disrupted the EdF public consultations. They should not have been allowed to proceed during times of restricted access, meeting and transport. EDF’s documents have small print with small maps (and notes that cannot be read) and often with too much fitted on to one page. The subset of residents who have been self-isolating and do not have digital access to documents have been seriously hampered (and in some cases completely disenfranchised) in their ability to respond to the consultation. As many of that subset will be elderly and/or disabled this restriction is discriminatory and potentially illegal under the Equality Act 2010."
Members of the Public/Businesses
LJ and EL Dowley Farming Partnership
"We raise issues about Sizewell C under the following headings- -our farming business will cease to be viable. EDF proposes taking some land for roads/roundabouts etc and some land for borrow pits for the spoil from the site. These will make our arable business unviable. This is integrated with the husbandry of our nationally awarded pedigree cattle herd; the land take will also make our commercial shoot impossible to operate - the transport and road proposals of EDF are insufficient and unworkable. The local road network is already overburdened at busy (holiday and weekend) times. A relief road (the old D2 plan) seems to have been rejected by EDF on the basis of inaccurate or misleading data - the local economy which depends on tourism and agriculture will be severely damaged unemployment etc - it would be foolhardy to build this project and its nuclear storage site on land which is unstable due to coastal erosion and rising water levels - not sure if this falls to be considered by PINS but the project is not financeable without major subsidy/grant from HMG - a comic suggestion at a time when the cost of alternative energy sources is falling impressively and will probably be even lower by the time (12 - 15 years?) when this project comes on stream - the environmental damage will be very substantial - in an area internationally recognised for its biodiversity - EDF has a very very poor track record in delivering projects of this kind -EDF has a poor track record of taking notice of consultees' suggestions - see Hinkley Point We note the strong objections of a number of important bodies - Suffolk County Council, Suffolk Preservation Society. Suffolk Wildlife Trust, RSPB. We support the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Smith
"I am a regular (monthly) long-term visitor to the Suffolk coast and a homeowner in Aldeburgh, where my wife and I intend to retire. My grandparents and my mother are [Redacted], a stones throw from Leiston and the Sizewell nuclear power station. Over the past decade, I have become increasingly concerned by the proposals of EDF regarding the Sizewell C project and more recently by ScottishPower regarding the generator site at Friston. The proposal is to build two nuclear reactors north of the existing Sizewell B over a period of at least 12 years, which will during peak times involve employing almost 8000 workers on site. EDF are planning to build temporary accommodation and other facilities including parking on site for 3000 of these workers, whilst the rest will travel directly or be bussed in from various park and rides up and down the A12 between Ipswich and Southwold. In addition, there will be new railway lines bisecting the countryside and around 1000 truck journeys a day delivering to the site via the A12 and smaller local roads leading directly to the site. It is also intended to bring in significant amounts of freight by sea to a temporary jetty at the construction site. The timescales involved in these concurrent projects (especially Sizewell C) will impact the area for almost a generation and during the construction period this area of Suffolk will largely resemble a giant commercial building site. The A12 Access road from Ipswich will be a nightmare, especially as additional depots are being built near Ipswich for the HGVs and other delivery vehicles. None of this takes into account any further development at Felixstowe docks. Several important large-scale cultural events (e.g. the Snape Prom season, various literary/food festivals and the Latitude music festival) are also likely to be impacted. There will also be social consequences as the project will largely involve shiftwork by mostly male workers who will want to enjoy their recreation time, not all of which will be spent on site. Their numbers are likely to be far greater than any of the local towns or villages, so their presence will be felt and not always in a positive way. Over the past 20 years other forms of energy have become more effective and more affordable and would provide more specifically UK based jobs for UK based companies, which has to be good for the economy. There is also the wider political context. Firstly, there is Brexit and the potential impact on EDF. Secondly, the government’s recent decision to abandon Huawei and reduce our dependency on all things Chinese and CGN is significantly involved in the Sizewell C proposals. In addition, highly credible reports have been produced recently about the potential flood risk to the Sizewell site. The inaccessibility and poor infrastructure along with the underlying natural beauty and tourism ultimately mean that the Sizewell C location is simply no longer appropriate for such large-scale energy production. Please do not let this happen."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Robert Steerwood
"Regarding the proposed development by EDF of a twin nuclear reactor power station and spent nuclear waste storage facilities to be established at Sizewell, Suffolk (Sizewell C); I wish to register my strong concerns pertaining to the ecological, environmental, and social impact on the area as well as questioning the overall economic and structural validity of such a project. 1. The site falls within a designated 'Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty', plus encompassing several smaller 'Sites of Special Scientific Interest'. It is an already fragile and sensitive environment for fauna and flora much in need of protection from industrial development at a time when the natural word is generally under threat (all wildlife decimated by 60% in the last 50 years, an appalling achievement). 2. The cultural status of an ANOB encourages a respectful tourism and consequently an opportunity for jobs and businesses involved in promoting the area and it's unique qualites to thrive in an ecologically responsible way befitting 21st century ideals. This environmentally conscious way of life would be destroyed, you can't switch it off and on again. 3. The social and environmental impact of such a development would have a devastating impact on the local and wider area creating noise, light and dust pollution, carving-up the landscape and restricting traffic flow. A massive influx of workers would dominate the area, overwhelming the local populations' resources/services and generally making life hell for residents and potential visitors for years to come. 4. Questions regarding the technical issues involved in undertaking such a controversial and major civil engineering project are overwhelming; The (un)suitability of the site, the storage of spent nuclear fuel, the increased level of regular and HGV traffic during and after construction, the decommissioning and removal of moribund reactors (already a big problem), issues around water, issues around climate change,. The list seems endless. 5. Do we really need a new nuclear power station ... here or anywhere? The environmental impact of their construction is overwhelming, to call nuclear energy 'green' energy ignores this completely. Then there is the waste issue, nothing 'green' about nuclear waste storage and disposal. The cost of construction and on-going maintenance is horrendous (almost incalculable), they always vastly overrun their budgets and as a result the energy they finally produce is expensive. Where would the construction money come from??? ... and who would ultimately be responsible for and in control of these vast pieces of significant technological infrastructure ... EDF?, France?, China?, some faceless conglomerate? So much for the U.K. becoming an independent nation in control of it's own resources. Robert Steerwood."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Mahler
"I am the County Fungus Recorder for Suffolk and am very concerned no fungal survey has been made or even commissioned for any affected areas (new access routes, material storage areas, etc) regarding the Sizewell C planning application, I also note no fungal survey was commissioned prior to the application to remove Coronation Wood for buildings to be erected there. As the county recorder, I emailed EDF for permission to do my own fungus survey on some interesting land adjacent to this wood and it was refused (citing the corona virus as a reason for refusal !) Somewhere in the small print accompanying this form were details explaining how to obtain permission to survey land likely to be affected. I would like to apply for permission please. I am very concerned no survey of the fungi in the affected area has been included in the Environmental Impact Statement. As the County Fungus Recorder for Suffolk I am aware of at least 3 rare species found recently in the area around Sizewell A,B & C. There are: 1. Mycenastrum corium - Found at Sizewell Belts near Leiston Common - only other UK location for this fungus is a site in Scotland. 2. Dendrothele naviculoefibulata - found at Kenton Hills and the only UK site. This is known from 1 other location, a site in France. It was new to science when discovered in 2005. 3. Geastrum minimum - a rare earthstar fungus found in sand dunes on the beach below Sizewell B. EDF refused me permission to survey for fungi so really, nobody knows what other rare fungi are waiting to be discovered/destroyed in the area due to be affected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Malkin
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place Site at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding Potential impact on coastal processes Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value Site could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality 2. Community, Economic and social impacts Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a location that I oppose. Visitor economy: Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. Pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in “Site Support” Negative impacts - from traffic and losing staff - on local businesses Pressure on health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people. 3. Transport Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. Rat-running and disruption not adequately considered. Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed by EDF 4. Environment and Landscape Flooding. Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic Dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles inadequate Impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill not fully addressed. Irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. Impacts on Marsh Harriers threaten integrity of Special Protection Area Uncertainty re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond. Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species. Risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology Flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage Won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 5. Marine and Coastal processes Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature HCDF. No complete design of HCDF available Rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable Impacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes Impacts on marine ecology 6. Application Wording of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. Feel free to endorse other organisations’ Relevant Representations such as RSPB, SWT etc. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Shepherd-Barron
"This project will cause unbelievable stress and inconvenience to everyone living in this area and the AONB. In addition, is the technology stable and strong enough to still be viable shouild this prject be completed? I dop not belive EDF's statements about the benefits to the local economy or the effect of the prjuect on the area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Clark
"The local roads and rail network, even with proposals already outlined, cannot cope with the anticipated traffic. This is a rural area and the rurality will be destroyed if This much construction traffic is allowed. The same goes for accommodation, especially the proposed development at Eastbridge/ Theberton. Local footpaths will be diverted and closed. During the many years of construction the Coastal Path will be well inland. The network of paths around Abbey Farm will become a dual carriageway and that whole area will be industrialised. The construction and running of the power station will mean substancial loss of habitat for many wild animals and especially birds, being so near to RSPB Minsmere. The dependency of the local economy on tourism will be decimated during and after construction because the coast between Thorpeness and Walberwick will be Partially closed and resemble a noisy construction site rather than a haven of wildlife, peace and tranquility.Overall the development will contribute to global warming and climate change, not decrease it. Funding will far outweigh the need and it it not an economical development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Thompson
"I oppose the Sizewell C project for the following [email protected] - It will take more than ten years to build, years of lorries thundering up and down the A12 pumping carbon dioxide, cadmium and lead into the atmosphere, damaging roads and overloading infrastructure. - Building it close to a crumbling coast line is irresponsible and will further erode this fragile location. - If it is built it will only be viable for 60 years, the destruction of habitat, detrimentally impacting on the local area cannot justified. - The issue of nuclear waste has not been addressed and with a frighteningly long half-life will remain a danger for decades to come. - If the money for this proposed building was invested in renewables it would far outweigh any advantages of a nuclear power station."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sheree Malkin
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place Site at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding Potential impact on coastal processes Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value Site could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality 2. Community, Economic and social impacts Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a location that I oppose. Visitor economy: Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. Pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in “Site Support” Negative impacts - from traffic and losing staff - on local businesses Pressure on health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people. 3. Transport Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. Rat-running and disruption not adequately considered. Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed by EDF 4. Environment and Landscape Flooding. Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic Dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles inadequate Impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill not fully addressed. Irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. Impacts on Marsh Harriers threaten integrity of Special Protection Area Uncertainty re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond. Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species. Risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology Flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage Won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 5. Marine and Coastal processes Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature HCDF. No complete design of HCDF available Rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable Impacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes Impacts on marine ecology 6. Application Wording of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. Feel free to endorse other organisations’ Relevant Representations such as RSPB, SWT etc. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Suffolk Coast Acting for Resilience (SCAR) (Suffolk Coast Acting for Resilience (SCAR))
"The aim of SCAR is to preserve and protect, for future generations, the Suffolk coastline, tidal rivers and surrounding land area. SCAR is a strategic partnership of organisations and individuals of all political persuasions representing groups on the Suffolk coastline. 1. SCAR submits that because the DCO submitted by EDF contains no detailed design of the coastal defences the application should be rejected. 2. No report of the ground conditions has been supplied which makes any assessment of the coastal defences impossible. 3. There is no mention of how to take account of long term settlement which is a real risk given the soft eroding materials making up the bulk of the local geology. 4. EDF has not complied with the precautionary principle as laid down in the Principles for Flood and Coastal Erosion risk Management (PFCERM). EDF has not complied with Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-6 as laid down in government guidance for nuclear power stations within Flood and Coastal Erosion Management guidelines. EDF does not comply with the H++ scenario. 5. The approach to future coastal processes and the assessment of future shoreline change – the appointment of the seven expert geomorphologists,set out in section 7.2 of document 6.3, Revision: 1.0; PINS Reference Number: EN010012; Volume 2 Main Development Site; Chapter 20 Coastal Geomorphology and Hydrodynamics; Appendix 20A Coastal Geomorphology and Hydrodynamics: Synthesis for Environmental Impact Assessment – lacks proper professional rigour in that none of the seven experts have signed off the report of their views"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Suffolk New College
"As BD Manager at Suffolk New College I wholly agree with the Sizewell C proposal. As a college we are looking at how we can support young people and the wider community with their career and employment choices. I am in contact with EDF, SCC and the Suffolk Chamber in regards to programme development."
Other Statutory Consultees
The Coal Authority
"The Coal Authority were notified by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited (letter dated 03 July 2020) that an application for a Development Consent Order has been made to the Planning Inspectorate. I have checked the application boundary (Figure 1.1.1 - Main Development Site and Off-Site Associated Development Sites Location Plan) against our coal mining information and can confirm that all development areas fall outside the defined coalfield. Accordingly, the Coal Authority has no comments or observations to make on this project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Victoria Proctor
"I believe that the duration and size of the construction phase of Sizewell C taking into consideration the land use, the sound and the light will lead to a net loss of wildlife species in the area. I've noted the suggestion that animals can move elsewhere and come back after, however I don't believe this is in line with the behaviour of animals. A key example would be the small isolated populations of migratory birds at Minsmere. The construction phase will make nesting and breeding around the area (not just on the reserve) less likely and as the populations are small it will only take a short amount of years where no birds return and breed for the location to be entirely lost from the memory of any individuals and therefore the species will be lost to the area. With dramatically reducing numbers of birds in our skies this is a very real possibility"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Virginia Storey
"Suffolk coastal society is totally dependent upon tourism. If Sizewell C and D are built it will destroy tourism to our coastland. Minsmere RSPB will be devastated. The A 12 will be chocked with traffic . The continual noise and light pollution during the 12 year building program will drive visitors away, including the wildlife. A few jobs at the power station will not replace the loss of business to holiday let’s, cafes, restaurants , shops, sports activity’s, etc The sums do not add up . Virginia Storey"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Wegner
"I am concerned about the following issues with respect to Sizewell C - significant negative effects on local community: jobs only for lower-skilled employees limiting personal growth, lack of suitable local housing putting pressure on house prices and rentals, negative effect on tourism industry as a major player in the area with potential job losses, health issues for some due to increased traffic and pollution. - unsuitable site: area of outstanding natural beauty will be ruined – the current Sizewell site is enough of an eyesore for many miles, coastline is prone to erosion, lack of coordination with other energy projects in area - further environmental issues: unnecessary road building some of which will be too late and thus mean increased traffic for local villages and roads ill-equipped to deal with heavy transport, local footpath network could be severely impacted, Minsmere bird sanctuary site under severe stress, it will remain impossible to counteract and compensate for environmental damage to the landscape and marine world in the area. - effects on local businesses: surge in business while building is being conducted will mean a temporary growth in local businesses with a “ghost-town” effect once building is completed. This process was extremely evident with the building and operation of Sizewell B. The holiday-home tourism business is likely to suffer with loss of income to those living from it. The flooding potential due to a reduction in flooding areas has not been properly assessed. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I also consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brigitte Walker
"I wish to register concern about the development’s long-term – in some cases irreparable -effect upon and damage to the heritage coast, the AONBs and ancient landscape of Suffolk coastal. I wish to register concerns about building this power plant on a shoreline threatened by both erosion and sea level rise at a time of increasing climate change I wish to register additional concerns about the delivery of both building materials, and subsequently the energy generated by land rather than by sea. I wish to register my concerns as to the environmental and societal impact of that overland delivery. I wish to register my concerns as to the cost of the power produced, especially in light of the waste that remains. I wish to register my concerns about the impact this construction will have on local people’s way of life. I wish to register my concerns that the income brought in by both construction and operation will in no way ameliorate the damage of this project to the income to the tourist industry on which this Heritage Coast relies. I wish to register my concern about the seeming paucity of truly local jobs gained and how many other local jobs lost through Sizewell C. I wish to register my concerns as to the disproportionate loss caused to our community and environment by this project, and the correspondingly disproportionate benefits that are offered elsewhere. Finally I want to register my concerns as to the potential danger that this plant can cause the inhabitants of the Suffolk Coast, including those in my division"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cakes and Ale Holiday Park
"I am concerned about the following: The increase in traffic especially on minor roads which are likely to become "rat runs" Noise of building the train line Effect on the local widelife Negative effect on tourism"
Parish Councils
Coddenham Parish Council
"Coddenham Parish Council has already submitted comments during the pre-examination stage of the process and in accordance with the information and advice contained in the Sizewell C Summer 2020 “Latest News” now wish to register the following points with the Planning Inspectorate. The Parish Council ( PC) remain extremely concerned at the proposal in relation to the impact on the rural highway network and environment and in particular on the B1078 which runs right through the heart of the village. The information made available so far fails to adequately address or even discuss in certain respects the extreme difficulties associated with the prospect of additional traffic movements on the B1078 through the village centre. The following headings set out briefly the main issues of concern: 1. Coddenham Village and immediate environs have an extensive Conservation Area designation and was one of the first villages in the former East Suffolk County Council era to be so recognised. The designation acknowledges the importance of a number of factors including Listed Buildings one being Grade II *, and others fronting the B1078 through the centre, the character of the layout of the High Street, and other strong visual features. 2. The B1078 follows a twisting route through the village with at its western edge an historic brick arched bridge which suffers regular collision damage. Several parts of the road have extremely limited visibility including a 90 degree bend. Of particular concern is the High Street section of the road which has limited footway provision on one side only being so narrow that it can barely be used. Large sections of the street have no pedestrian provision whatsoever. There are no verges, level or otherwise. At its narrowest point the carriageway is only 4.3m (four point three metres) in width and then between high solid vertical concrete or brick walls. At this point there are, for obvious reasons, no footways or any other refuge area for pedestrians. HGV traffic completely blocks the road. 3. The road is subject to a 20mph speed limit and a restriction on 7.5 tonne HGVs travelling west. Both of these traffic control measures were introduced to try and moderate highway user behaviour but have generally failed to do so partly because of a complete lack of any proper monitoring or enforcement either by the Police in relation to speed or by Trading Standards in respect of the HGV movements. 4. There is a growing list of accident events in the High Street, including those involving vehicles striking buildings and damage to legitimately parked vehicles owned by adjacent property owners who have no alternative provision. Contraventions of the HGV restriction often leads to conflict resulting in almost daily jams of which result in significant delay and frustration. It is not however just HGV movements causing problems with the road inadequate to allow two normal cars to pass. There is much local concern at the possible consequences of any emergency service vehicles answering local calls and being unable to quickly attend. The road suffers badly when the Orwell Bridge is closed either because of high winds, accident or repair work adding to traffic and environmental chaos. 5. The safety of pedestrians is a serious concern making such movements dangerous at times. This is a significant concern for those visiting the local village community shop. 6. Whilst the information available thus far indicates two relatively minor layout improvements to the B1078 one of which is within the parish at the junction with the A140 and elsewhere at Otley Bottom, no reference can be found of any assessment or note of concern with reference to the narrow section of the road through Coddenham. This is a surprise as the route is clearly featured in parts of the highway assessment as forming a cross country link between the A14 and an extensive park and ride facility at Wickham Market which happens to be situated immediately adjacent to the B1078 and with access from it. 7. The section of the Summer 2020 publication headed Transport: Freight and the Workforce gives no comfort to the PC. Why are any works of improvement to the B1078 route proposed if, as the item suggests, certain vehicles will be required to use the “A14, A12 and then on to the Sizewell Link Road”? 8. Under the heading ‘Sizewell C and the Local Community’, reference is made to the employment potential of the project with headline figure of “2,600” workers coming from “the local area..” However, there is no reference to the leisure and other journeys which will be attributable to the large number of workers who are likely to be accommodated on a “campus,” “ secure caravan site,” or elsewhere totalling some 3,000 bed spaces. It is in fact difficult to reconcile these employment figures totalling some 5,600 people with the claim on page 6 of the document that, at the peak of construction, a workforce of around “7,900” will be on site. Where are the balance of workers likely to travel from? In conclusion at this point, and taking into account what the PC identify as significant gaps in details relating to rural highway issues, any additional vehicular movements on the B1078 through the parish associated with the construction of Sizewell C are unacceptable for the reasons detailed briefly above. The B1078 is wholly inappropriate as an access route to Sizewell. Coddenham Parish Council would wish to be kept fully informed as to the processing of the application and to become involved further as appropriate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diana Howard
"My husband and I live in Marlesford, looking out at fields that stretch towards Wickham Market, with the A12 500 yards away. We are very concerned about the extra traffic Sizewell will bring, the noise, the light disturbance from the park and ride and so much more. We realise that there will be some benefits from Sizewell C to the local economy but there will be huge disadvantages to this part of Suffolk. The ecological impact of the main site will heavily affect places like RSPB Minsmere and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust nature reserves, why would anyone want to put these wonderful places under pressure? There are days when it takes time for us to cross onto the A12 from Bell Lane how much worse will it be when Sizewell is under construction? EDF describe our junction as not requiring improvement but that is obviously from someone who doesn't use it, how can that information be put forward as credible? Yours sincerely, Diana Howard."
Parish Councils
Dunwich Parish Meeting
"Building on an eroding coastline with an insufficient impact statement. Damage to tourist industry the mainstay of the local economy. Environmental damage to a world-renowned and highly sensitive AONB, loss of habitats, risks to endangered species with inadequate mitigation. Pollution of the water table. Lack of safety building on a cramped footprint. Lack of coordination with other large scale energy projects planned for this coast. No impact assessment of overall traffic movements including those generated by the building of electricity infrastructure from offshore windfarms in the vicinity. Air pollution, congestion and noise generated by upwards of 750 HGV movements per day within an AONB. Legacy roads serving no future useful purpose. Air pollution, light pollution, noise pollution during construction. Rejection of serious alternatives to road-led strategy. Rejection of 4 village by-pass"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian KH Galloway
"Relevant Representation of Mr I Galloway, [Redacted] I am a resident of Kelsale cum Carlton Parish and have contributed to responses made to EDF Energy during the Pre Application Consultation Phases. I wish to raise concerns in a number of specific areas: 1. Pre Application • Incomplete, incorrect and misleading data. • Charts without axis labelling or data tables. • Portrayal of complex data poorly executed. • Maps, photographs, overlays were poorly; reproduced and electronic renderings rapidly pixilated. 2. Application • Impacts; underuse of avoidance, sub-optimal mitigations, ineffectual management proposals and inadequate compensation are widespread • Traffic movements; underuse of avoidance, sub-optimal mitigations, ineffectual management proposals and inadequate compensation are widespread • Little adherence to the principle of “…Water-borne or rail transport is preferred over road transport at all stages of the project…” is self-evident. • Freight transport; strategy, method, means and management • Highway safety impacts; analysis and completeness • Environmental impact assessment; timeliness, analysis and completeness • Sustainable transport modes; appropriateness and adequacy for place • Community impacts; timeliness, analysis and completeness • Relevance and suitability of ONS “Wards” • Maps, photographs, overlays were poorly; reproduced and electronic renderings rapidly pixilated. 3. Traffic, Traffic Analysis Modelling • The omission from analysis of weekends, Bank Holidays and holiday periods in Pre Application unashamedly ignored East Suffolk as a popular all-year round; holiday, weekend and day-trip destination with growing economic importance. • The addition of a perfunctory execution (2015 data) of this “…good practice…” (DoT correspondence 4th March 2019) in no way discharges the need to explore and understand this devastating omissions more fully. • “Self routing” - analysis, impact and consideration of unforeseen consequences • Against this backcloth the veracity, suitability, completeness and applicability of EDF Energy’s traffic modelling is questionable. • High potential for “…an unacceptable impact on highway safety…” • High likelihood that “…residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.” • The proposal of a 45 kilometre non-trunked heavy haulage route, without any notified or viable alternatives gives rise to unquantified widespread risk. It likely understates the likelihood and impact of; short, medium and long duration closure of the principal route during the 12 year construction. There are no degrees of confidence stated or a body of evidence provided from of lessons learnt from existing comparators, if indeed any exist in the UK? • “Early years” without substantiated mitigations. • TIMP; intent, scope, limitations, threats to life and overall credibility. • Haulage company and HGV driver routing autonomy; risks, analysis, impact and consideration of unforeseen consequences. • Seven Hills FMC; A14J58 circulatory congestion and impacts on Seven Hills Crematorium operations • Freight Management and especially the largely unexplored Northern HGV routes, plans for dealing with A12 incidents and closures. • HGV “…diversionary routes…”; definition, agreement, protocols and community safeguarding mechanisms • Sizewell C buses “…diversionary routes…”; definition, agreement, protocols and community safeguarding mechanisms • Unplanned closures of Orwell Bridge • Orwell Bridge planned closure, Sizewell C construction traffic “…appropriate diversionary routes…”; definition, agreement, protocols, community safeguarding mechanisms. • The assertion “It is expected that planned maintenance work on the A12, B1122, and other roads …could be restricted to overnight and/or weekend.” and the potential impacts on residents, local businesses, event organisers, tourists etc. • TRG should be formed - ‘prior to the commencement of any construction’ • TRG meetings should meet monthly until all TRG members unanimously decide to meet otherwise. • TRG delegation should be able to delegate issues or functions to a sub-group if agreed unanimously.’ • Local Transport and Traffic Groups should be formed ‘prior to the commencement of any construction. They provide and monitor actionable transport-related issues that impact the wider public.’ • Main Site mode share assessment targets; adequacy, sustainability and predisposition toward the line of least resistance. • The proposed “…package of measures…” in respect to sustainability and their impact in reducing utilisation of some sustainable modes. • Park & Ride targets • CWTP ‘early actions’ lack credibility and depth. More akin to an excerpt from a Project Pre-initiation Document. • Timing and delivery inter-dependencies of LEEIE, Northern, Southern Park & Ride facilities and Main Site parking provision. • Park & Ride principles – lack quantification of forecast numbers of workers living within 800m of Park & Rides and the relevance of this distinction. • Rail Shuttle Pick-Up Point at Saxmundham Station impact assessment; timeliness, analysis and completeness • Car Share Scheme • Main Site 1,000 space car park - construction workforce assertions are misleading. • The submission “A key parking control measure is that only workers living inside the area bounded by the A12, River Blyth, and River Deben…will be issued a parking permit for main development site…parking.” and the implication that this reduces unnecessary vehicle movements local roads. • The submission “the mode share targets are ambitious.” without evidence being provided. • The submission ‘…limitations of EDF Traffic Modelling cannot reflect influences impacting traffic on the local road network…’ and the implications thereof. • The submission “The scale of the proposed development is such that significant transport impacts would have arisen if only road transport were to be used for the movement of construction materials.” and the implication that the proposed levels of rail and sea use will negate “…significant transport impacts…” • The unsubstantiated assertion “Quality of life for residents has been at the heart of the development of the transport strategy.”, when the majority of freight, construction workforce and independent service deliveries have no alternative other than a journey on a local roads. • The unsubstantiated assertion by EDF Energy that their actions in “Minimising congestion and maximising the resilience of the highway network is a fundamental part of the transport strategy: it contributes to high-quality spaces by minimising emissions…” • The assertion “Users of the highway are not limited to car drivers: pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians have all been considered extensively during the development of the transport strategy…” when acts of omission and the unfettered opening up of access to single track lanes demonstrably contradict the claim. • The submission “The transport strategy has been designed to minimise the need for worker car trips to the main development site, in turn reducing the noise and visual impacts of large volumes of cars passing through the wider area.”, when 1,000 ‘shared shift’ parking spaces are proposed at the main development site. • The lack of any significant quantitative or qualitative evidence demonstrating EDF’s understanding of the cultural, entertainment and recreational programmes hosted in East Suffolk in any year, beyond a passing reference to “The Latitude festival is an annual music event … SZC Co. would liaise with SCC in advance of the festival to understand peak arrival/departure times for the festival and would minimise HGV movements during these times.” 4. Sizewell Link Road • The submission “The site selection and design evolution process for the proposed development has been iterative and informed by consultation with statutory consultees and the public.” lacks credibility insofar as EDF also state “No direct link road from the A12 to the main development site was proposed in the Stage 1 or Stage 2 consultation.” • The predetermination (by EDF Energy) of a single issue to dominate the selection of a route for a Sizewell Link Road is evident in the submission made by EDF Energy that “The initial transport assessments predicted that the B1122 would be the main route for construction traffic travelling to the development site. Therefore, the rationale and purpose of the Sizewell link road is to relieve the B1122 from the anticipated construction traffic associated with the main development site, and consequently reduce traffic passing through Theberton and Middleton Moor.” rather than undertaking an objective assessment of whether any suitable route existed for modern HGV, LGV, bus, car and motorcycle traffic to access the Main Development Site prior to the early stages of the Pre-Application Consultation. • The lack of transparency demonstrated by EDF Energy in being unwilling to disclose the process(es) and methodology(ies) employed in assessing the relative merits of various routing options for a primary HGV route to the Main Development Site. • The efficacy and integrity of the Peer Review undertaken by AECOM. It is understood to have been undertaken largely by means of desked based review, calling largely on historic documents (some dating back to the 1980’s). • The thoroughness of the Peer Review. It is understood that a single site visit over the 18th and 19th April 2019 and was conducted on a drive-by basis and from some vantage points afforded by PROW’s. • The questionable value and objectivity of The Peer Review. It is stated that “AECOM was commissioned by EDF Energy…to carry out a peer review of the assessment work undertaken by EDF Energy to assess the identified options for the…SLR and the rationale in selecting a preferred option.”, yet the Draft Peer Review does not identify any EDF Energy documents relating to the process for the selection of EDF Energy’s “…identified options for the…SLR”. Nor does it refer to the review of any assessment work undertaken by EDF Energy that provides a rationale used “…in selecting a preferred option.” • The Peer Review does however call on various historic documents (some dating as far back as the 1980’s) and a report entitled “Sizewell C, Route D2 and B1122 Study – Rev 3”, undertaken by AECOM in 2015. • Paras 4.2 onwards of The Peer Review seem wholly inappropriate to “…the assessment work undertaken by EDF Energy to assess the identified options for the…SLR and the rationale in selecting a preferred option.”."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jack Broom
"Objection to Sizewell C Planning Inspectorate Sept 2020 Jack Broom [Redacted] I am opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons: During the building of Sizewell B in December1990, I was cycling home from work and was hit by a car that was a Sizewell B worker leaving the site. I sustained life changing injuries and after some time at [Redacted], I had nine months off work and still consider myself lucky to be alive. There will be a huge increase in traffic, worker cars, service vehicles and lorries near where I live despite many changes to local access roads to Sizewell C. This proposed development will will have a massive changes in my local community and also with additional disruption, noise, light pollution will cause permanent damage to a delicate environments including my house which is located in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) and our garden is on the border of a site of special scientific interest (SSSI). These are under threat from Sizewell C. RSPB Minsmere is also under threat from Sizewell C for the same reasons. Much wildlife will be damaged. Destruction of the site for the of access roads, worker accommodation and the nuclear site itself will lead to a massive permanent loss of flora and fauna. When I moved to [Redacted], where I live, a new domestic water pipe was installed and it was connected to a 6 inch water main that was originally laid exclusively for water needs of 1960s Sizewell A nuclear station. This huge water main now supplies Sizewell B. I am given to understand that Sizewell C will need 3 million litres a day in an area with water shortage. I am very comcerned that we have declining fish stocks and that Sizewell C will use sea water as a cooling system which destroys a vast amount of marine life. The policy is to store nuclear waste on site along with decommissioned reactors. This is long term the most hazardous aspect of Sizewell C new build on a coastline that is subject to erosion. The Environment agency has predicted that Sizewell will be an island in a century caused by climate change. Covid 19 has caused disruption to public consultation about Sizewell C. People during lock down have have had less ability to see the plans and time to organise objections to EDF's massive plan."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Fendley
"I wish to register the following concerns about the proposed Sizewell C development: I am opposed to the development on mainly environmental grounds. Daily I hear concerns linked to our environment in the newspapers, T.V. and radio. Examples include: The Red list for Britain finds a quarter of mammals at risk of extinction soon (Guardian 30/07/2020 written by [Redacted]; Data reveals alarming collapse in wildlife populations (Guardian 10/09/20 Patrick Greenfield); Wild belt land needed to help nature recover across England says trust (Guardian 17/09/20 Sandra Laville) where the RSPB highlights that the government has failed to reach 17 out of 20 UN biodiversity targets agreed 20 years ago; the Chair of Natural England speaking on the Today programme on Radio 4 on 16/09/20 …(we are) the most nature depleted country in the world. The disappearing habitats have lost many species. [Redacted] said ten years ago we need to invest in nature. The radical habitat loss and the lack of public amenity seriously affect well-being. Britain has a really serious and worsening problem with anxiety-and this data is from before C-19 pandemic. The site identified for Sizewell C is surrounded by Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and will require a fundamental change in the character of the area. It will mean acquiring and destroying existing areas within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). We need to look after our AONBs, as Britain only has a few such sites, not destroy them. Any amount of mitigation will not replace the wealth of biodiversity that currently can be found there. Daily Marsh Harriers fly over the water meadows neighbouring my property, the Bittern is heard “booming” from the reed beds in the Spring: just two examples of birds that would be affected by the devastation caused by the construction. The fresh water demand for Sizewell C will take 3 million litres per day in this area of very low rainfall. The sea water intake system will have a devastating effect on fish stocks as it sucks in tonnes of fish hourly, let alone the impact of the closing of footpaths and bridleways used daily by both local people and visitors alike. I attempted to read EDF’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The reference to Terrestrial Ecology and Ornithology is compliant with regulation 14 of EIA regulations 2017 is very vague and generalised with no mention or SSSI or AONB. Also, there is a potential for a breach of legislation regarding IEF (Important Ecological Features), what does that mean? A thermal plume (in the sea) of 2oC is mentioned in the documents-what impact will that have on the life in the sea? How will the noise affect the porpoises and dolphins? I am concerned about the increase in traffic; how will we be able to safely exit our track where we live to access Lovers Lane for example? How will the noise, pollution including light, impact on wildlife and human residents? The cumulative impacts are enormous."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joan Breese
"I am totally against the construction of Sizewell C The future is in renewable energy sources, advanced battery systems, advanced building construction to include solar and wind generation The impact on the local area from traffic pollution, light pollution, as well as the increase in the need for water and sewerage. The adverse affect on wildlife, from the disturbance of habitat to the increasing number of dead and injured animals on the roads. The impact on the tourist trade, affecting local attractions, and hospitality."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Brown
"Environmental concerns at every impact level from human,animal,flora and fauna level. Life threatening proposed build for many endangered species. Loss of habitat irreplaceable..mitigation measures proposed inadequate for what is proposed. Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest re Marsh Harriers in an AONB , given state of environmental damage and Global warming and other energy projects proposed for this area...hugely questionable new nuclear is needed....people/animals/insects are screaming out for places to live. Water.....where is it all coming from....and used water...where is it going in this exceptionally dry area.? Traffic....unrealistic imagery from EDF modelling showing 1/2 cars on the B1122... Huge reality check needed on road usage. Air quality, spoil pits, 24/7 movement.....pollution from air/ light/dust etc.. All that makes this area special be altered by the impact of this proposed build, from fly parking, workers movements, imbalance in employment (8% managerial) and loss of work in areas not connected to the power station. I have followed this project since the build of Sizewell B. EDF have failed to provide adequate information at every turn to allow an in-depth understanding of their proposals and impact. Their absence of detail to allow proper scrutiny is made more alarming as this proposal is too complex and wholly unsuitable for a digital examination . I completely support Stop Sizewell C’s Relevant Representation"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Libby Eves
"Dear Sir/Madam I wish to register the following concerns about the proposed Sizewell C development: I am opposed to the proposed development on the following grounds: -Outdated and dangerous technology - more modern, efficient and safer reactors have been developed not to mention reliable clean renewable technology. -Overseas investment and ownership not in the interests of the UK population who will be paying for this to foreign investors (China/France) for decades to come. -Nuclear waste and decommissioning - Sizewell A and B are still being decommissioned at vast cost. Nuclear waste is dangerous and impossible to deal with. - Disgusting outdated, vanity project that should be rethought for the good of the UK population and world environment - not for the good of those with shares and interests in the companies involved. - Legacy of hundreds of years of cost and problems - this money could be used to invest in renewable (wind/solar/tide/geothermal/hydro) options that provide employment and do not cause this terrible legacy of nuclear waste and danger. Yours in disbelief, Libby Eves"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Morgan Dadd
"As a local home-owner I am interested in updates re the development, having previously expressed my concerns to Stephen Burroughes at East Suffolk Council as follows. To have an area of natural beauty on our doorstep and know the harsh effects this development is certain to cause, I have many concerns, but three fundamental ones that I explain below: • Road schemes / traffic management - the A12 is already an important artery that feeds the whole Suffolk Coastal area with minimal impact to the many villages it serves or the surrounding environment. I am concerned that the plans for construction (1000+ HGVs per day) but also subsequent fuel storage management will have a major impact on major exit routes using the A12. Obviously any road development work to manage traffic will have a significant impact to peoples homes, rare wildlife and the landscape. • RSPB Minsmere and other local AONB - I am a member of the RSPB and would hope that you have seen the following article - [Redacted]. There is no doubt that the development will have an impact on such locations as this clearly articulates, as well the surrounding marine environment with proposals such as a beach landing facility and a very sizeable cooling water intake infrastructure (drawing 2.5 billion gallons per day). • The UK does not need additional power infrastructure from nuclear developments such as Sizewell C - not only is the risk of the proposal outlined here [Redacted]there is evidence that the project is more about the survival of the French nuclear industry then the necessity of the Sizewell C scheme to provide electricity to UK customers. Renewables are known to out compete nuclear and would have far less environment impact yet do not appear to have been considered. Instead we should be proposing more clean energy schemes such as this one announced this week in neighbouring Norfolk if more energy infrastructure is truly needed - [Redacted] To quote one of the articles above, “The only legacy Sizewell C will leave for Suffolk is a degraded environment and a radioactive waste mountain which future generations will have to deal with”. Yours Sincerely, Morgan Dadd"
Members of the Public/Businesses
National Grid Ventures
"This is a Relevant Representation submitted by National Grid Ventures (NGV) requesting that NGV are treated as an Interested Party throughout the Examination process of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application for The Sizewell C Project by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited (PINS ref: EN010012). NGV is a ringfenced division of National Grid plc, responsible for both developing and operating businesses in our UK and US territories. NGV is proposing to develop two high voltage direct current (HVDC) electricity Interconnector projects between Suffolk and Europe, the Nautilus and EuroLink Projects. NAUTILUS AND EUROLINK INTERCONNECTOR PROJECTS Both the proposed Nautilus and EuroLink Interconnector Projects have grid connection agreements in place with the National Grid Electricity System Operator (ESO) to connect these projects at a new 400kV electricity substation located close to the existing Sizewell 400kV line, provisionally referred to as “Leiston 400kV.” NGV’s proposed Nautilus and EuroLink Interconnector Projects share the same connection offer location as SPR’s East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia TWO projects, both of which are currently subject to ongoing DCO applications. Each Interconnector project will involve the construction of an electricity converter station in each country and the installation of offshore and onshore underground (HVDC) cables between each converter station and underground high voltage alternating current (HVAC) cables between the converter station and electricity substation in each country. The Nautilus Interconnector is a proposed HVDC electricity link between the British and Belgium transmission systems connecting between a substation in Suffolk and a substation in Belgium. On the 29th April 2019 NGV received a Direction by the Secretary of State under Section 35 of the Planning Act 2008, confirming that the Nautilus Interconnector project would be treated as National Significant Infrastructure Project under the Development Consent Order regime. The EuroLink Project is a proposed HVDC electricity link between the British and Dutch transmission systems connecting between a substation in Suffolk and a substation in The Netherlands. NGV’S INTEREST IN THE SIZEWELL C PROJECT DCO APPLICATION NGV have identified potential site options for location of infrastructure required for the Nautilus and EuroLink projects including landfall sites, converter station sites and associated cable routes for each project. Further technical assessment, survey work and refinement is currently being undertaken and will need to be completed before NGV are ready to present options for non-statutory public consultation and progress to seek an EIA Scoping Opinion. Dependant on the location of preferred sites identified during NGVs assessment work, it may be necessary for NGV to discuss the opportunity for locating NGV’s infrastructure on land associated with the Sizewell C Project. NGV will continue to engage with Sizewell C and the Nautilus and EuroLink Interconnector Projects develop and throughout the Sizewell C Examination. Without prejudice, NGV may wish to participate during the Examination in relation to the interests we set out above. NGV reserve the right to make further comments through the Examination process. NGV welcomes engagement with NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited in relation to our common interests."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ray Mumford
"Sizewell C is nothing more than a horrendously expensive vanity project. When Cameron’s government was promoting this, their mantra was “not a penny of public money would go into it, it would ALL be financed by private companies” Now we find the companies involved will be paid way over the going price for electricity and it would be on EVERYONES bill, even those who only use renewables. All that money will go to foreign companies with ‘questionable’ reputations. Because the companies still think it is a financial risk we hear the government is considering paying billions towards building it! East Anglia is already self sufficient for energy generation, mostly renewables, so it will be of ZERO benefit to the area where they want to build it. The effect on the whole area during years of construction will be terrible, huge numbers of articulated lorries pouring in and out every day, environmentally horrendous. The affect on local wildlife reserves, and wildlife in general will be catastrophic. Add to this the indisputable fact that the technology is beset with problems, so no one knows whether it will even work. And if it does work, nuclear waste will have to be stored on site for over 100 years, and then moved to a place where it can be stored, cooled and guarded for possible thousands of years. And, of course, being on the coast, should there be another flood or tidal wave we shall have our own ‘Fukushima’. To allow this nightmare to go ahead would be insane. All logic and common-sense directs this application must be refused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sara Cozens
"I object to the planning application due to the environmentsl imoact."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Cousins
"I would like to make these points: • Nuclear Power using Uranium has too high a risk if something goes wrong • There are more sustainable, cleaner and safer power alternatives we should be considering • If we stick with nuclear, alternative energy sources such as Thorium would be safer • If it takes 9 - 12 years to build Sizewell C won't our technology, our needs and our infrastructure have moved on during that time? Building a uranium fuel reactor is outdated when EDF and CGN could be leading the way building a sustainable, clean, green, safe alternative instead • In your application/promotion saying "thousands of well paid jobs for the region" would apply whatever the energy/power source • In your application/promotion saying "investment in education and skills" shouldn't be dependent on Sizewell C • In your application/promotion saying "a net gain in land for biodiversity" shouldn't be dependent on Sizewell C • These three promotions above are offsets to try to influence community goodwill. • In your application/promotion saying "powering 6 million homes" isn't a lot compared to our current population of c68million and in 9-12 year's time if our population is an additional 8 million as estimated this means <8%. That's a risk of a uranium breach/meltdown destroying the country and impacting the world in return for energy for less than 8% of the current population."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Eves
"I object to sizewell C. It will cost way to much. It won't provide enough jobs to balance out the cost and upset to the local area. No real plans for decommissioning-and how to do it and the cost. No plans in case there is an accident - how would you evacuate Suffolk or London. The cost to the environment is way to high. We should be investing in renewable energy with new technology which would provide jobs for the future. We need to look to the future not build out of date structures. We have ruined this planet please don't make it worse . Don't let big business and money influence your decision look what the oil industry has done to our planet."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Guyton
"New Roads and Construction Site The impact of over a thousand HGVs and hundreds of buses on the A12, an already over used link through the county, will create terrible congestion. Having studied the planned changes to the roads in the local area (as partially detailed in the EDF Latest News) and drawn this out onto the local Ordinance Survey map. I suggest that the Two Village Bypass and the Sizewell Link road will cut through swathes of existing country side to the detriment of the area. The sheer size and scale of the construction site (254 hectares), accommodation site, the freight holding area, the northern and southern park and ride sites will dominate this part of the county with noise, light and air pollution for years. I know this part of coastal Suffolk well having walked the Coastal Path, Sandlings Way, Minsmere Nature Reserve and many other footpaths in the area. The impact of this colossal construction will ruin this area for ever No amount of assurances about reducing the impact on birds and wild life hold true. The RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust oppose the plan Construction The time that it takes to build estimated by EDF at 9 to 12 years with an allowance for a 30% overrun is an extraordinary long time. Disturbing the region for a decade. After a life of sixty years the power station will have to be decommissioned and nobody to my knowledge knows what to do with the core except bury it or keep it cool for centuries. EDF have a poor record for meeting timescale and cost estimates. Many nations within Europe are now going away from the nuclear option as the true costs of decommissioning come to light. Alternative means of providing energy are available and take much less time to install as can be seen along the East Anglia coast. Most importantly of all, allowing The Peoples Republic of China to be involved in a nuclear power plant is just beyond belief! They are not a trusted partner in business as shown by the Huawei control of telecoms, not to mention the suppression of personal freedom in Hong Kong, or the disregard for their neighbours as shown by their expansion in the South China Sea. Local Jobs and Businesses EDF say that they will employ local businesses and in their Latest News they list local companies that are currently working for them. But the total number of employees at present is tiny. EDF will transfer workers from Hinkley Point where ever possible as they will have the experience necessary without extra training The impact on tourism in this area will be catastrophic due to the number of extra people working from out of the area and heavy traffic which will last for at least a decade. Who wants to holiday in a construction site?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Seabrook
"I wish to register the following observations and concerns relating to the proposed Sizewell C and D developments and to object in the strongest terms to their Planning Application. 1. Nuclear power is outdated, too expensive, polluting and most countries in the world will not entertain nuclear any more, including France who have had a disastrous relationship with EDF and refuse to subsidise them further, hoping that the British consumer\tax payer wil be saddled with the expense. Other forms of green energy generation are rapidly on the increase which are safe, cheap and from which there is no lethal waste that no-one knows how to, or is willing to, deal with for future generations. 2. There is not enough fresh water to accommodate the needs of a further two nuclear power stations and all the ancillary services required in connection with the build. We have no idea where EDF think they are going to acquire such volumes of water. Do they know? 3. The East Suffolk coastline is receding at a pace. The local beach could be, and has been historically, washed away in one fell swoop given the right conditions, leaving Sizewell power stations on an island cut off from emergency relief and in a dangerous condition. 4. Sizewell A and B have destroyed and are destroying millions of tons of fish during their operation. Obviously with two more stations operating this situation can only get worse and cannot be avoided. We need what they destroy for our own food. The fishermen are obliged to throw back undersized fish while nuclear power stations scour the seabed and waters unquestioned and unaccountable. 5. Our roads are totally inadequate to cope with the construction\workforce traffic. There is already too much traffic emanating from Sizewell A and B. We cannot afford to mend the copious amount of potholes in this region through historic lack of investment in very old roads. Most of the local roads are too narrow for large lorries\loads to pass unhindered. There will be inevitable traffic jams given that the A12 and A14 are closed on a regular basis as is the Orwell Bridge. 6. The rail line is inadequate for construction loads in its current state and is single track all the way to Ipswich and Lowestoft. 7. Sizewell nuclear power stations have brought no long term benefit to Leiston Town and it remains unloved, under-developed and ugly, and since the building of both power stations has become a haven for illicit drug activities. Most of the public houses in Leiston have gone bust and closed. There is very little for local people to enjoy. 8. As a local person, I watched the building of Sizewell B from being a hole in the ground to the placing of the dome. I had two businesses during the building programme, a gentlemen's outfitters in Leiston, the beach cafe in Sizewell and three letting properties so I have seen it all. It didn't make me or the town rich from what was promised by Sizewell B. Nothing will change. 9. The intended site for Sizewell C and D is far too small and limited to be viable. It is in an AONB and triple SSI. It will impinge and possibly destroy one of the jewels in the crown of Britain, Minsmere Bird Reserve, which has been developed and nurtured over decades and draws visitors from all over the world. The area is one of the most beautiful in East Anglia. 10. During the past thirty years and beyond, great emphasis has been put on the development of tourism in this part of Suffolk and heavy investment involved in drawing visitors to the area who come to enjoy the beauty, peace and quiet and quality of life this area has to offer. This will not sit beside the development of a huge industrial site spread over many hundreds of acres of our precious countryside and seaside, bringing dust pollution, light pollution, air pollution on a massive scale. Tourists will be driven away from the area and many businesses will suffer accordingly. I would beseech the Planning Inspectorate to consider very deeply the ramifications and cost of all aspects of this planning application. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr. J Cadogan
"Concern about lack of transparency about final visual configuration of Sizewell C Concern about noise pollution esp during construction Concern about traffic and impact on air quality, and sheer volume Concern about impact on tourism and tranquility of the area esp in relation to impact on local economy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elisabeth Walker
"wish to register concern about the development’s long-term – in some cases irreparable -effect upon and damage to the heritage coast, the AONBs and ancient landscape of Suffolk coastal. I wish to register concerns about building this power plant on a shoreline threatened by both erosion and sea level rise at a time of increasing climate change I wish to register additional concerns about the delivery of both building materials, and subsequently the energy generated by land rather than by sea. I wish to register my concerns as to the environmental and societal impact of that overland delivery. I wish to register my concerns as to the cost of the power produced, especially in light of the waste that remains. I wish to register my concerns about the impact this construction will have on local people’s way of life. I wish to register my concerns that the income brought in by both construction and operation will in no way ameliorate the damage of this project to the income to the tourist industry on which this Heritage Coast relies. I wish to register my concern about the seeming paucity of truly local jobs gained and how many other local jobs lost through Sizewell C. I wish to register my concerns as to the disproportionate loss caused to our community and environment by this project, and the correspondingly disproportionate benefits that are offered elsewhere."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hilary Ward
"1 Site Selection • I believe the project is too big for the site proposed. • Two Nuclear reactors squeezed into 32 hectares is nonsensical. • The site on the fragile Heritage Coast could be at risk from climate change, coastal erosion, and sea level rise and flooding. • The Hamlet of Sizewell, Thorpeness, Aldeburgh, Dunwich Heath and RSPB Minsmere all neighbouring the site area would be adversely affected visually, environmentally including sound and light pollution. • Eight other uncoordinated energy projects are planned for this Heritage Coast. • The future of storing waste could be of danger to the inhabitants and environment to East Suffolk. • The pleasures enjoyed by local people and tourists of Sizewell Beach will disappear. 2 Community, Economic and social impacts • 2,400 single occupancy in a worker campus on a location that I oppose. • 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, bringing a ‘boom and bust’ scenario. • Employment only to a few local people as site support with no long term career prospects. • Pressure on the private rental sector and local housing with the possibility of price rises. • A loss in relied upon Tourist economy. Road congestion will deter visitors to the Heritage Coast. • Footpaths will be closed. • Farmland destroyed. • Pressure on the health services and the well-being of communities. • Pressure on social and emergency services. • Livelihoods destroyed. • Homes along the B1122 will be blighted. 3 Transport • The addition of between 790/1140 a day of large trucks, over 10,000 car journeys, 700 buses and 700 vans. A massive increase of traffic on the A12 and local ‘B’ roads. • New roads would divide the landscape of community villages and block country lanes. • New roads and Park & Rides would not be completed until year 3, the existing A12, B1122 roads would take the toll. • New roads not a legacy. • New roundabouts will become a congestion and pollution blackspots. • Rat runs would appear all over the area. 4 Environment and Landscape • Pollution from light, noise and traffic. • The proximity, landscape and environment effects to RSPB Minsmere, Dunwich Heath, SSS, ANOB sites. • Impacts on March Harriers, a protected species. • Flood risk. • The effect on Minsmere Sluice. • Water management risks of the build. • Urbanization of the countryside. • Impossible to compensate damage of such a build. • Additional pylons a further blight on the landscape. Will not offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 5 Marine and Coastal processes • Unpredictable rates of erosion. • Marine life ecology. • Flood risks. • The construction areas, campus site, spoil heaps, quarries, haul roads and causeway crossing will threaten the fragile hydrology of the Minsmere Levels and Sizewell Marsh. • The site would not be decommissioned until 2190, but sea level rise could make it and island. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ivor Murrell
"I wish to register the following concerns about the proposed Sizewell C development: I am opposed to the proposed development on the following grounds: The Site 1. The site identified for Sizewell C is totally unsuited for the size of the development. It is surrounded by designated sites of international and national ecological importance and sites which will be devastated if the project goes ahead. This includes areas of outstanding natural beauty and scientifically important areas. RSPB Minsmere will be compromised, this is a site of national importance. 2. The coastline is already in retreat, and land is being eroded. Forecasts by the Environment Agency predict that Sizewell will be an island in a century where it will be storing lethal spent nuclear fuel as well as operational and decommissioned nuclear reactors. The warning of Fukushima seems to have been completely ignored. 3. The increase in traffic if the project goes ahead is a serious threat to those who live here. More than a thousand HGVs per day, 700 buses and 10,000 cars/vans per day for the entire construction period of between nine and 12 years. This will cause immense problems for the area and misery to thousands. 4. The tourist trade in the area has been built up over many years and is now thriving business bring employment to so many people in the area. This will be very adversely affected if Sizewell C construction goes ahead, tens of millions of pounds of our tourist revenue will be lost 5. EDF estimated 6,000 workers will be needed, which will put excess pressure on local services including the NHS and emergency services. Most of these workers will be from outside the area, many from the Hinkley site. The movement of these workers from the proposed worker camps will mean traffic peaks and significant disturbance. 6. Footpaths which are familiar to and well used by local residents will be closed. 7. The massive increase in HGV movements, light van deliveries and workers’ car journeys will change travel in East Suffolk detrimentally for a decade at least. 'Rat runs' will develop (as per Sizewell A and B) which will cause problems for villagers. 8. EDF's claims for carbon reduction have been seriously challenged. The technology proposed has already been superseded. 9. Millions of litres per day of fresh water will be needed for Sizewell C in an area which is the most water-scarce in the country. General comments 1. The virus pandemic has disrupted the EDF public consultations as well as the document review period and should not have been allowed to proceed. 2. EDF’s documents have consistently been of poor quality and difficult to view."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Parsons
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. I believe that the site is wrong, and that the industrial development of this area would be sacrilege, having an adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape. The site is at risk of rising sea levels, and could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. This would represent a 100,000 year [or more] environmental millstone around our successor’s necks. The project will have unacceptable impacts on local communities including increased traffic, noise, light pollution and disruption. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a location that I oppose. Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. The road-based transport plan is not sustainable, and will have an enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. I, up until recently, lived in Westleton by the busy B road that runs through it. The current Sizewell rat-run traffic is already awful there – the construction and operating of new reactors would make life in villages such as this intolerable. The alternative relief road routes with legacy value are not adequately assessed by EDF The damage to this world-famous AONB and SSSIs would be irreparable, with permanent harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance – and the surrounding area. This includes general disturbance to the flora and fauna through noise and pollution. It would be impossible to compensate for the landscape and ecological damage. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the RSPB, and other organisations who oppose the project. I wish, also, to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. John Parsons"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Jonathan Hamlyn
"I am a owner occupier of a property known as [Redacted]. This is a property which will be directly affected by the proposed construction and operation of the northern park and ride. I am concerned about the impacts on the local environment, ie. effects on wildlife, the various forms of potential pollution, environmental, noise and light pollution. The visual impacts from our property. The effects of the construction and operation on our livestock and the impact on our business. I am also concerned about the impact of construction on the existing land drainage systems and future ability to cope with the surface water runoff."
Parish Councils
Nacton Parish Council
"EDF should adopt a rail-led strategy during construction phase. This will reduce the environmental impact on the whole area and will mean that no Freight Management Facility is needed. The Suffolk Coastal Local Plan encourages everyone to move freight by other means than roads. A rail-led option will leave a legacy for the future with the upgrade of the East Suffolk rail line. This will benefit both freight movements and passengers and provide a better and more sustainable means of travel for residents along this line. If the road-led option is agreed, the following comments should be taken into account: The proposed site for the Freight Management Facility (FMF) should be re-considered. Ideally, it should be west of the Orwell bridge so lorries can be held there when the bridge is closed, or further up the A12. The proposed site for the FMF has the potential to cause accidents on and around the Seven Hills interchange. No improvements to the roads in this area have been suggested. The proposed site for the FMF will adversely affect businesses in Nacton, particularly Home Farm, Nacton and the Seven Hills crematorium which serves the whole of the Colneis peninsula, including the towns of Felixstowe, Woodbridge and Ipswich. The proposed site for the FMF will also affect the main bus route between Felixstowe and Ipswich and a major cycle route between these two towns. These routes run past the proposed site. The FMF will be operating at the same time as the construction of a large residential area nearby on the A12 and the construction of a small business development next to the proposed site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Naomi Adelson
"As somebody who grew up close to the East Suffolk coast, I am concerned about the impact of Sizewell C on the local community, landscape and wildlife. I am now a practising doctor and I also have serious concerns about the impact of this nuclear power station on health. The radioactive waste produced by the power station will surely have an adverse impact on the health of the local community. I am concerned about how and where this waste will be stored. Research from Germany links nuclear power stations to increased incidences of leukaemia in young children living nearby, and it is not advisable for us to expose our population to this risk. However my biggest worry from the health perspective is that nuclear power contributes significantly to climate change, which is the biggest known threat to human health that we face. I also have concerns about the local economy which relies largely on tourism, with people travelling to the area for its peace, tranquility and beautiful landscapes. Visitor numbers will surely drop if there is a new nuclear power station at Sizewell, especially with the extra noise and traffic which will be generated by the transport of workers and materials. This is an area of significant importance for wildlife and the environment and this will be destroyed if the project goes ahead. The Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is supposed to have a ‘high level of protection’ under the Countryside & Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 - I cannot see how a new nuclear power station fits in with this. There are many rare species of wildlife that currently thrive in this area, and would not survive if the project goes ahead. Moreover, there will be an impact on the land itself, with worsening of the existing coastal erosion that the region already faces. All in all I have serious safety concerns about this project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas John Ward
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Our local community of Theberton and Eastbridge in our area of East Suffolk have repeatedly asked EDF Energy to explore alternative methods of delivering key aspects of this development to reduce the impact on local people and wildlife. They have failed to do so. 2. The size and complexity of this project are unsuitable for this location. 3. Legacy - EDF must provide a legacy for our area after the project is completed being; a viable A12 link road, social housing and protect the AONB and the environment. 4. Link Road to the A12 - Suffolk County Council as our highway’s authority has condemned EDF’s transport strategy and in particular its flawed Sizewell Link Road route. The council says the route ‘would have a permanent detrimental impact on landscape and ecology’ with no ‘legacy benefit” after construction’. There is a far better solution from the A12 south of Saxmundham, which is more direct and passes through low populated areas. It would also provide a lasting legacy for the Leiston area. 5. Road-Led Transport - The transport strategy presented by EDF Energy relies heavily on road-based haulage for materials. In its current form, I don’t believe it is a sustainable solution with its massive impact on the environment and our communities and a much higher number of heavy goods vehicles taking to Suffolk’s roads than our existing infrastructure can handle. 6. Blue Light services – these will be impeded by the large volumes amounts of construction traffic. Please investigate impact. 7. EDF must increase rail or sea transport to alleviate some of the pressure due to be put on our road network and our communities. 8. Environmental Impact – these have not been mitigated as expected. For example, the proposed use of electricity pylons is an unnecessary blight on the landscape and the effects on local wildlife and wider environment have not been mitigated. 9. Water Supplies – main water supplies to householders and local businesses will come under threat. EDF have not explain adequately how the vast amounts of water for construction will be obtained. This is the driest part of UK and is frequently subjected to water restrictions. Essex and Suffolk Water say additional measures will need to be taken, but these as yet are unproven. 10. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. 11. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by; Stop Sizewell C, RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Bodek
"My representation is that Sizewell C will devastate the local countryside, kill local tourist and hospitality industry and traffic and worker impacts will be horrific. Pleases think again."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Alan Hoggar
"a. The potable water demand for this Sizewell C&D EPR nuclear twin reactor would be more than the area could supply. Local town Leiston would be at riske of a water shortage as a result.Local agriculture would be disadvantaged and crops would suffer.The area is known as the driest area in Britain. b. It is intended to build the largest building project in Europe on an Area of outstanding natural beauty known aas the heritage cost of East Anglia. c. The permanent noise,dust,and light pollution wil affectand destroy the adjacent famous RSPB Minsmere bird reserve. d.The impact on this fragile forna and fauna will be devastating. e.All of the area is AONB,SSSI, SPA, & RAMSA designated. Nearly 1000 acres will be lost of this special location. The loss is not at all justified due to the increasing global climate imergency which exists. f.Many mature hardwood Oak trees, would have to be taken down.Including the established Coronation Wood. very much in despute and all considered a devasting loss. g.There would be footpath losses and reduction in access to the countryside. h.Huge increase in traffic on totally unsuitable already mostly packed roads with the increase of CO2 particulates. Traffic would not be able to continue to enjoy the intended recreation,leisure, and tourism which exist now. iThe assessment of the complete carbon footprint of the project would be devastating. Sir David Attenbourgh has warned. We cannot plead,we didn't realise. j.Polutants entering pristine SSSI habitats is certain. k.Impact on water levels would be threatened. L. a very now more recently understood certainty is the huge loss of fish stock due to the huge amount of water reqired to be sucked through seven metre diameter tubes to cool the turbines for the next 60 years plus.This is already happening at other nuclear pwer stations and should stop! Many thousaands of fish are killed each day as a result. m.The cost of building this largest nuclear power station in the world would have to be funded with public financing at twice the now average cost of Renewable energy by the tax payers of Britain index linked for,it is said,35 years commencing at £95.50p per megga watt hour. Renewable energy is already less than half that cost and is on line now. n.Nuclear waste will be an inhertance for the next generations to store as best they can for thousands of years on our behalf. Nuclear is so favoured even now simply to be able to kill people with atomic weapons.This not a justified reason to continue development as there is enough nuclear waste in storage to knock this planet of its orbital aciss."
Members of the Public/Businesses
A.P.Whittle
"Hinckley point is vastly over budget, Hitachi has pulled out of Wylfa in Anglesey, and we are worried about Chinese involvement in our infrastructure. This would be a dangerous vanity project for our politicians for overpriced electricity compared with offshore wind or small local generators as envisaged by Rolls Royce. Then add the decommissioning costs and the danger form sea level rise and this should not go ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Wheeler
"I fully support the PINS representations made by TASC and Stop Sizewell C. I strongly object to approval of the DCO application for Sizewell C on the following grounds (amongst others): 1. Need. The rapid increase in power delivery from renewable energy projects makes the need for a new nuclear power station unjustifiable. Battery banks, hydrogen storage, hydro power and CCGT stations etc. can augment renewable energy sources during periods of low output. 2. Nuclear Power is out of date. With other nuclear power plant proposals around the UK being abandoned by their sponsors it is likely that SZC would no longer be part of a viable industry and would therefore be both uneconomic and dangerous to operate due to the lack of niche skills and equipment over an extended period. 3. Spent Fuel Disposal. No arrangements are in place in the UK for the long-term storage of spent fuel and allowing it to be stored locally for an extended period in limited-lifetime casks in a flimsy structure at Sizewell would be both dangerous and unacceptable to the community. 4. Safety. The Fukushima-Diiachi disaster has demonstrated how easy it is for catastrophic nuclear accidents to occur, especially at nuclear plants close to the sea. There can be no confidence in the statements made in the application documents that sea level increases and greater storms will not pose a risk to a site that has already been shown by some experts to be likely to be underwater before the end of its lifetime. 5. Spent Fuel Ponds. The ‘hot’ fuel removed from the reactor during routine refuelling is extremely dangerous because if not constantly cooled it can overheat and burn with massive release of radioactivity. In the Fukushima-Diiachi disaster it was necessary for fire-fighters to risk their lives pumping water from the ocean to prevent the cracked spent fuel ponds from emptying and exposing the hot fuel rods. Without this action the evacuation of Tokyo might have been necessary. This level of risk is unacceptable adjacent to the populated areas of East Suffolk and I suggest is a fundamental flaw in the implementation of pressurised water reactors. 6. Design unproven. No European country has yet successfully completed a nuclear power plant of the design proposed, with time and cost overruns present at all current sites. Even counties with well-established nuclear fleets from previous decades (e.g. France) have lost key skills (such as specialist welding) required to safely construct the pressure vessels and containment. There can be no confidence in the safe construction of SZC. 7. Political Risk. Political relationships between the West and China are at a low ebb so any involvement of the Chinese state with SZC would represent a huge risk to the construction and operation of the plant. 8. Environmental Impact. And of course the greatest possible objection to SZC is its environmental impact on the Sizewell and surrounding area, including on the AONB and adjacent Minsmere reserve, road congestion, noise and disturbance to residents from overnight train movements, light pollution – the list is endless and I support the much more comprehensive lists generated and published by others. 9. Transport Infrastructure. If despite all the objections the project should be approved then it has to leave a worthwhile legacy for the future. As a minimum this must include dualling of the railway line between Saxmundham and Woodbridge and the construction of a Four Villages bypass, not just the Two Villages bypass currently proposed. 10. Better Uses for the Site. The renewable projects active in the East Suffolk have their own demands for land suitable for industrial infrastructure. Use of the proposed SZC site for these would be greatly preferable to the current proposal for inland sites. 11. Ongoing Radioactivity releases. The release of low level radioactivity from nuclear power plants presents a health risk to the community as there is no convincing proof that it does not cause serious illnesses. In particular I am concerned about Tritium gas releases which can eventually find their way into the drinking water (recent tests on local water supplies prove this) and thence into the environment including plants, animals and of course human metabolism. Building yet more nuclear power plants must inevitably increase these releases and I suggest we risk a similar problem to that of Climate Change with small releases over many years leading to terrible outcomes with unacceptable increases in rates of cancers, mutations and other health problems. C Wheeler CEng MIET MIEEE"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David William Green
"I am concerned about the environmental impact of the project during and after construction"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Imogen Robinson
"As a long term resident of Suffolk, and someone who cares passionately about this area where I and two previous generations of my family lived and worked in, I wish to register the following concerns about the proposed Sizewell C development: I am opposed to the proposed development on the following grounds: THE SITE The site identified for Sizewell C is too small for the size of the development. It is surrounded by designated sites of international and national ecological importance and sites of landscape, cultural heritage and amenity value which will all be adversely impacted. It will require the acquisition and destruction of areas which are inside the area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). Climate change forecasts by the Environment Agency predict that Sizewell will be an island in a century: it will still, by then, be storing lethal spent nuclear fuel as well as operational and decommissioned nuclear reactors. Insufficient protection afforded by hard sea defences; risk of flooding. AMENITIES Increased traffic – upto 1140 HGVs per day, 700 buses and 10,000 cars/vans per day for the entire construction period of between nine and 12 years – will bring misery to thousands. Cars and vans servicing the site will seek out rat runs to avoid traffic gridlock on the A12, accident rates will increase. Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light, air, dust pollution and disruption. One third of tourists to the area will decline to visit, severely harming the thriving trade on which the area largely depends. An estimated £40m a year in lost revenues is predicted. The influx of an estimated 6,000 workers will mean a reduction in quality of life, more social unrest and disturbance as well as pressure on local services such as the NHS and emergency services. The siting of worker campuses will disturb existing residents and the shifts at Sizewell will mean site traffic peaking in the morning and evening. Footpaths which are familiar to and well used by local residents will be closed. Coronation Wood will be felled. TRAFFIC The massive increase in HGV movements, light van deliveries and workers’ car journeys will change the traffic profile in East Suffolk detrimentally for a decade at least. It will require five new roundabouts on the A12. Traffic will be gridlocked while the new road layout is under construction and possibly for longer periods due to the huge increase in HGVs. Relief roads will divide communities and farms. Insufficient use of rail and sea transport. ENVIRONMENT The carbon reduction benefits of Sizewell C are limited, despite EdF’s claims. It will take at least 6 years before the carbon debt created by the construction of the plant to be off-set, i.e. not until 2040 if the plant is completed by 2034. Fresh water demand for Sizewell C will require 3 million litres a day in an area which is the most water-scarce in the country. Spoil heaps unmanaged. RSPB Minsmere will be put under intolerable pressure. This prized national asset for birds and wildlife will be compromised. Water abstraction may affect groundwater levels and represent a risk to the wider environment. MARINE ISSUES The sea water intake system will have a devastating effect on fish stocks, sucking in tonnes of marine life daily and discharging them in the outfall. Coastal erosion/accretion processes unpredictable but siting the development on an eroding coastline is plainly dangerous and irresponsible. ACCESS The Covid 19 pandemic has disrupted the EDF public consultations as well as the document review period and should not have been allowed to proceed during times of restricted access, meeting and transport. EDF’s documents have consistently been of poor quality and difficult to view, with maps too small and with descriptions almost unreadable. The application and examination process is totally unsuitable to being digitally examined. If sizewell C is built I feel it will be a disaster for the wonderful area of coastal Suffolk that contains such a rich and diverse wildlife. The damage is inconceivable to the natural world of this area. I have lived in this area for most of my life, my parents were born and brought up in the area having moved away and returned to have our family, and so I understand the nature of the countryside and coastline well. There are so many considerations it is difficult to know where to start. Alternatives are available and in my opinion should be pursued fully to their limit before such a monstrosity as sizewell c is even considered. The roads are unsuitable for transporting the fast quantities of materials, and local employment does not depend on waiting for this development. Maintain the existing sizewell A and B and let it run its course, more than enough pollution for our planet. The facts speak for themselves with regards to wind farms and solar power, alternative natural energy provided from the earth's resources without depleting and damaging the natural environment of this wonderful aonb, and more economically viable. Future generations will be thankful, if we can see the way forward to really examining the the overall perspective and and taking wise action, we must make the right decision now."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Healey
"That the energy produced by Sizewell C can be environmentally better and more quickly delivered by renewable solar and wind turbines. Nuclear energy is inflexible in terms of responding to increased demand. And this energy is very expensive and not economic for us as a country to pay for. Again alternative sources such as wind, solar would be cheaper therefore the project should be rejected and alternatives set up. Sizewell C will take 10 years or more to build and will create demands on the local infrastructure that will destroy the local tourism economy for instance by taking up accommodation that might otherwise be used by tourists and destroying important sites such as RSPB Minsmere and the SSSI at Sizewell that can NEVER be replicated and are one of the reasons people flock to this area on holiday. Creating park and rides and bypasses that will then revert to their previous identity is ridiculous since the original land use will be destroyed forever. However much EDF try to reinstall it, the damage will be done and the infrastructure will be in place for the 10 years or so that the reactor is being built. And in the current climate of coronavirus, what measures are being taken to ensure that the local area, which has seen few cases, is protected in terms of people's health and wellbeing. I also object to the increased rail traffic that will pass near my house."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Poll
"My objections to the building of Sizewell C include the following points: Transport - I am concerned about the enormous impact of the proposed traffic volumes on the local community. New roads and railway link would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. Rat running and disruption has not been adequately considered. Site Selection - The main site is in the wrong area with risk from flooding, sea level rise and coastal erosion. An area of outstanding natural beauty on the Heritage Coast will be destroyed. Campus - 2400 workers being housed in such a small area in a rural location is unacceptable. The area will experience traffic, noise, dust and light pollution and general disruption. Environment - as yet there is no indication of where fresh water is to be found for construction, leading to concerns for groundwater levels locally. Also considerable impact on local wildlife such as marsh harriers, and endangered species at sites such as Minsmere."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Kenny
"Submission to Planning Inspectorate Regarding Sizewell C This is the relevant representation of Julian Kenny to the Planning Inspectorate regarding NNB Generation Company (SZC)Limited DCO Application for Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station and associated works. I own [Redacted] and would like to bring up some mayor concerns I have before the project is approved. 2 Village bypass • At present it is only proposed to have a two village bypass, meaning Marlesford & Little Glenham will not be bypassed. The road at present struggles to cope with the volume of traffic .When you add all the construction traffic which will be on the road for at least ten years this will make it unbearable. For my children it is unsafe to cross road even now with the present volume of daily traffic. • Also the pollution it will bring. There are clear studies that traffic that increases and decreases in speed causes the most pollution, which will be inevitable due to increased volume of traffic . With links to Asthma, respiratory diseases, Heart disease and cancers. • Damage to my property. With my property being a Grade 2 listed [Redacted] the vibrations caused by all this extra traffic is bound to have a detrimental effect on the structure of my property. • So why would EDF not consider the 4 village bypass then all the concerns I have and the other residents could be put at ease. Southern Park & Ride • The location of the park and ride and the fact it will be operating 24 hours a day will create noise pollution and light pollution. Not to mention the chaos it will cause through Wickham Market and the surrounding villages when the cars are trying to get there ,but also the vehicles entering the A12. Mr Julian Kenny"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Poll
"I am concerned about the following: Transport - concerns about the vast increase in traffic on roads already busy, particularly at the Theberton end of the network where the proposed new bypass would end and at the Abbey Lane/Abbey Road/Lovers Lane junction where the proposed railway line will cross. Damage to the rural footpath system is a concern - although new routes have been suggested they are taking footpaths from rural country lanes to running adjacent to roads with noise and exhaust pollution. Rat running will become an issue on lanes that are often only one car width with few passing places. Communities and farmland will be divided. Environment - with recent dry summers and lack of water reducing the water table I have concerns about future water availability for homes and agriculture. The local wildlife will be impacted with no opportunity for it to recover as replacement areas such as Aldhurst Farmland are not like for like land and so will not encourage the same species and wildlife at the Minsmere Reserve will suffer from the impact of the noise and light pollution. Fencing will also hinder wildlife movement. Community - it is already difficult to get appointments with the doctors surgeries with the existing local population and with an additional estimated 6000 workers moving locally using the same services there it will be even harder. With roads that are inadequate the emergency services such as fire and ambulance will find it incredibly difficult to get to where they need to be."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Whittle
"The proposed application is in an triple SSI. Nuclear power is more expensive to produce than renewables. The decommissioning costs have not been taken into account. Sea levels are rising which could pose a serious threat to flooding of the site as in Japan a few years ago. Nuclear power is too dangerous. A similar plant to the proposed was found to be unsafe in Finland."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Susan J Stone
"1.East Suffolk is one of the lowest rainfall areas in the UK. Existing demands on water from farming, housing and tourism are already high and droughts, as experienced this spring, are leading to significant strain on water supply. Both construction and operation of Sizewell C will greatly increase demand for mains water (estimated at 1,600m3 per day for operation alone) as will servicing the domestic water needs of the campus. It of great concern how this large increase in demand is going to be met without being to the detriment of existing water needs essential for farming, domestic supply and natural wetland and river systems. 2.The increase in road traffic and pollution (noise, air and vibration) to and from the development will be both to the long-term detriment of, and beyond the capacity of the A12, 'feeder' roads and all local settlements on these routes. In recent years, new housing and development in the east Suffolk has significantly increased traffic flow and congestion. Many roads are unsafe for other road users like cyclists and pedestrians. The Sizewell C DCO plans to ‘ease flow and prevent congestion’ do not take sufficient account of the current local traffic and road layout. This is demonstrated by the proposals for the Southern Park and Ride outside of Wickham Market. My understanding is that the proposed measures to maintain traffic flow are either to • prevent parking outside of roadside houses on a residential section of the B1078 north east of the High Street. This would increase traffic through a residential area and potentially be damaging to historic/period buildings. or • a diversion off the B1078 down a single-track lane via Valley farm, over a single lane, weight-restricted, historic bridge. It would then continue along a mostly single-track road that is periodically inundated and impassable when the River Deben is floods. These proposals are beyond the capacity of and damaging to the local infrastructure as well as being detrimental to the quality of life and character of both Wickham Market and surrounding villages within the ‘feeder area’ of the park and ride. 3. Sizewell C is within Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and Suffolk Heritage Coast, a fully protected landscape under the (CRoW) Act 2000. Sizewell C would also potentially adversely impact the immediately adjacent Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SSSI and Sizewell Marshes SSSI. SSSIs are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). These statutory designations clearly demonstrate the importance of the area both for landscape and biodiversity and as such should be afforded the legal protection commensurate with the designation. The proposals for Sizewell C are therefore not appropriate for this protected location."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Whitelock
"I wish to raise a number of concerns regarding the Planning Application for Sizewell c I am concerned that the site would become a significant store of nuclear waste and contaminated structures in an area subject to changing sea levels and coastal erosion. I have grave concerns regarding the detrimental impact on the local community and on the environment. This is an area noted for its tranquillity and unspoilt countryside supporting a significant tourist industry. The consultation process was flawed. The local community raised significant concerns regarding the EDF transport proposal and workforce accommodation plans. These have been ignored in spite of alternative solutions. The Sizewell Relief Road has no legacy benefit and will have a significant negative impact on the landscape, farms and homes. I have concerns that EDF have failed to provide details of the consequences of a number of their proposals. There is an element of making positive statements out of context, of choosing not to have consultation meetings at communities directly affected. I am concerned that the energy needs, costs, and alternative solutions have changed significantly since this proposal was first muted. If this is not the place for this comment please ignore it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Rixon
"I write being a local resident local to Sizewell to register a serious concern and consideration regarding the proposed Sizewell expansion. My concern is the traffic and road safety aspects during the lengthy development phase. My work as a driving instructor and advanced test examiner makes me particularly concerned about the outcomes involved. I live in Hacheston on the B1116, a few miles just north of the southern park and ride site. Road safety concerns already exist for roads and in particular villages and towns surrounding the Sizewell site, before any proposed development. This is largely a matter of excessive speed and large vehicle movements often also at illegal speed, at day and night. A village in the area recently had a temporary sign to passing motorists informing them that, from their village survey, in one day 2600 vehicles passed through but 2200 of them were travelling in excess of the posted 30mph speed limit. In our village, Hacheston, in the evenings and overnight vehicles travel through the approximate one mile long village 30mph zone substantially in excess of the speed limit, including very large heavy goods vehicles. This is especially the case in the dark and at night when visibility obviously is poor. An clear concern with the Sizewell expansion development phase is with the vast increase in vehicle movements, to and from the park and ride facilities in particular. There is also worry about the enormous growth in heavy goods vehicle movements. The park and ride facilities obviously help direct traffic and movements away from the Sizewell site itself, but will literally drive vast traffic volumes through the surrounding roads, villages and towns; the project acknowledges this fact in the figures and statistics already offered. Many if not most of these vehicles will have excessive speed, sadly this is the case. This traffic, at speed, seriously affects the safety, environmental and noise pollution and also the fundamental quality of life of residents alongside or near these roads. The Sizewell development may not be welcomed by many people locally for these and many other reasons. But accepting that more power generation is required locally and nationally, if final planning is approved the Sizewell project should accept the genuine greater road safety concerns and take greater additional care to mitigate them. The project should fund methods to monitor vehicle speeds and noise/environmental pollution. The project should fund and use methods to persuade and ultimately control vehicles to use preferred larger-road routes, monitor and control vehicle speeds and ensure legal speed limits are not exceeded at any time. For example, telemetry and other technology is quite able to enable this for any worker or contractor travelling to the Sizewell area. Funding should enable additional local village group speed controls to be resourced appropriately. Funds should also be provided for additional local Highways Agency and Police officers to “police” the local areas for traffic violations, day and night. In summary, the project related traffic growth affects many many thousands of people for a decade or more. It will have a major detrimental effect on their quality of life and well-being. This will happen if Sizewell goes ahead, the road related measures proposed by the project – park and rides, new roads, etc. - in affect accept this point by virtue of those measures. I suggest that a condition of the project being approved is that additional road safety related measures must be identified, investigated and a mitigation plan, some examples provided, be funded and delivered. This will not remove the disruption to local people and areas, but it will ensure that the affects over such a long period of time to their quality of life and well-being are kept to the absolute minimum."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Audrey West
"1. The site is situated on a receding coast and will become an island when sea levels inevitably rise. Dangerous radioactive waste from the two new reactors will be stored on site along with that from Sizewell B posing a risk for hundreds of years. 2. The site is far too small for the proposed two reactors and its ancillary buildings. An AONB and a SSSI will be detrimentally effected as land from both of these designated sites will be taken for the build. Historic Coronation Wood will be clear felled and built over. 3. Valuable farmland will be concreted over in the main site along with new roads and roundabouts. A huge number of trees and swathes of wildlife rich habitat will be sacrificed. There will be unacceptable impact on the flora and fauna of this special area that cannot be mitigated or compensated for. The proposed new fen meadows that have been offered to replace marsh harrier habitat are many miles from Sizewell and are not within or adjacent to national or international habitat designations. They will therefore have no protection. 4. We will suffer the loss of valuable footpaths and bridleways which have been used for hundreds of years and this will effect locals and visitors alike. 5. The planned construction will have an impact on water levels on the SSSI, AONB and adjacent RSPB Minsmere. Pollution will enter sensative, pristine water courses causing loss of plants, animals, fish and invertebrates. The established ecosystem of the area will be damaged. 6. Many tons of fish, fry, crustaceans, fish eggs and larvae will be killed each year by being sucked into the cooling systems of the plant from the sea. Sizewell B is already doing this. 7. Along with the noise, light, dust and pollution from the construction site there will be an increase in all of these from the huge amount of extra traffic on local roads in the form of cars, vans, buses and up to 1000 HGVs for the length of the build. It is proposed that workers will travel to the site and park and rides for as much as 90 minutes thus clogging our vital routes and causing polluting traffic jams. 8. The huge number of workers to be imported into the area, estimated to be 6000+, will swamp Leiston and the surrounding areas. The caravan and campus style accommodation, housing mostly young men, will cause social problems. Local residents and communities will suffer a reduced quality of life by being disturbed also by traffic resulting from the work shift patterns. There will be much pressure on the NHS and emergency services. 9. We have a thriving tourist industry on this Heritage Coast which is worth many millions of pounds a year and employs thousands of local people. This would be destroyed when we are being overwhelmed by traffic, light, noise, pollution and the visual impact along the coast. Visitors will seek more tranquil unspoilt areas to stay well away from the chaos and confusion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Belinda Strachan
"Funding - Chinese involvement is unacceptable. No information as to how this project is to be funded. The costs are out of proportion to the benefit Reactor is outdated and known to be unreliable. Other methods of electricity generation are now available. Transport - Proposed new road will result in two roads to the same destination, divide farmland and damage the footpath system. Rat running has not be addressed. Site - The site is inappropriate with the likelihood of rising sea level before it is decommissioned, coastal erosion is a huge problem on this section of coast, risk of flooding. AONB will be destroyed. Not possible to mitigate this loss as cannot be replicated. Endangered species at Minsmere will be affected Campus - inappropriate to house 2400 workers in a small rural location with no GP and little facilities. Traffic, noise, dust and light pollution will result. Small local communities will be adversely affected. Fresh water. There is insufficient fresh water for this project. Local groundwater supplies will be seriously affected"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diana Cadogan
"See my concerns about the Sizewell C project: Site Selection The project should not be located in Sizewell so close to Minsmere which is of such ecological importance. Being so close to the coastline it is at risk of being damaged if the sea rises or if there is flooding. This area could end up home to 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. There up are to 8 other energy projects planned for this area and there is a lack of coordination of these projects. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts I am really worried that this project will destroy the peaceful nature of the area. Traffic and light pollution will go up exponentially and I worry about the risks to walkers, nature lovers and visitors, young and old alike who are currently able to enjoy walking in the local area with minimal disruption. On a personal note I worry about the increase on traffic down our street. This development will have a terrible impact on the local community bringing in huge numbers or workers (up to 6,000) to live in the area including 2,400 in a worker campus. I think the location of the campus is completely inappropriate and will have a very damaging effect on the local area. I also worry that the project will attract local workers away from their current employment leaving local businesses without staff. How will the local services such as health and social services not to mention emergency services cope with the huge increase in workers? 3. Transport The local area cannot sustain the high numbers of HGV’s needed for the project and the transport plan will have a terrible impact on the local community and the visitor economy. Traffic in the area will be extremely high in the first few years as the new road infrastructure is built. The new road system could damage communities and the rurual footpath system. I don’t think EDF have considered alternative relief road routes or the risk of rat running. 4. Environment and Landscape Huge list of concerns especially the damage that will be caused to Minsmere, such an important ecological site. How will the risks around flooding be managed? The dust managed from spoil heaps? How will the 3 million litres of potable water be drained and supplied? How will the natural environment and at risk species be protected ? What about the terribly impact the project will have on the character and the landscape of the local area? And the CO2 wont be offset for 6 years. 5. Marine and Coastal processes My concerns here include the impact on erosion on the coastal area; the flooding and ecological risks.; the impact of beach landing facility on coastal processes; the impact on the marine ecology. I see there is no complete design of HCDF available. 6. Application I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jill Pass
"My representation is for interest in the following: Stratford / Farnham bypass and how it will affect the local environment. The construction method of the bypass The location of the bypass How the existing road will be managed to stop it becoming a 'rat run' Management of noise / traffic during construction of the road."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Wheeler
"I fully support the PINS representations made by TASC and STOP SIZEWELL C FLOODING: The planning application for two new nuclear reactors looks to be sheer madness. From reports read the site could likely be under water by 2050 if not sooner. The coastline in that area has been proven to be unstable and is eroding fast. Given that the sea level is also forecast to rise it will be an unprecedented disaster. NUCLEAR WASTE: There is still no long-term solution as to how to store/dispose of/recycle the nuclear waste which is ever increasing. A nuclear disaster waiting to happen. Terrifying. Spent Fuel Ponds potentially extremely dangerous – refer to Fukushima-Diiachi disaster. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Damaging to all from all aspects, both in the construction and operation of SZC ROADS/TRANSPORT: The scale of the construction operation and the transportation of both materials and workforce is out of all proportion to the roads, lanes, facilities and accommodation in the area. EDF claim 40% of materials will be delivered by rail or sea (how so?) that leaves 60% to come in by road which means hundreds of lorries plus the movement of the work force. DISRUPTION: Huge - unacceptable to residents and wildlife and visitors AONB/WILDLIFE: EDF say they pledge to "Respect the Suffolk Heritage Coast and minimise impact on Minsmere, Dunwich Heath, Leiston Abbey ..." Since they are trashing land classified as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, polluting a vast area of East Suffolk, importing thousands of workers, building blocks of accommodation on unspoilt land along with support services on the edge of a delightful village they cannot possibly be respecting it. DESIGN: The design for the reactors is not proven and the projects are seemingly unlikely to be sustainable or viable, there are better less dangerous more sustainable ways of producing power PERMANENCE: EDF has pledged to return the 'temporary' campus area and associated sites to a standard befitting the AONB - this seems unlikely to say the least. By the time the contract is completed (if it ever is) many years will have passed and its original status likely to be irretrievable, unaffordable, and would cause yet more disruption/disturbance at an enormous cost, further detriment to the environment. Given the way the economy is going as a result of Covid 19 it would likely be an unaffordable operation - and would the power that could be produced be needed?? Already part of Sizewell B has been shut down as more electricity is being generated than there is a requirement for. TOURISM will be a fast dwindling source of income on which many companies and individuals rely on for their income. LOCAL EMPLOYMENT: The workforce from Hinkley will be moved on here in vast numbers so there will not an employment opportunity for many local inhabitants. EDF also pledge to enhance the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of local communities – we don’t need enhancing, we need to live our lives peacefully without EDF’s Nuclear Projects INVESTMENT: Chinese investment a definite NO,NO."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Tillcock
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. I believe there was a staggering lack of information during the consultations and this application. I support Suffolk County councils recent statement saying they are unable to support this application in its current format. I also wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, Together against Sizewell, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and RSPB Minismere. I believe EDF have submitted this during covid now knowing full well that you will be unable to talk to us on a one to one basis in Suffolk and here our DEEP concerns personally it is therefore in my opinion unsuitable for a digital examination 1. Link Road ? Both County and district council favour a link road (Formerly known as D2) south of Saxmundham, I cannot see why bringing all traffic virtually to Yoxford helps in keeping pollution to a minimum as it means 1,000s of unnecessary journeys. ? Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed by EDF • There will only be one entry and exit to the site surely a D2 type link road which has legacy value and an upgrade of the the Yoxford existing road means that in an emergency the Nuclear power station has two means of evacuation NOT ONE • There is no legacy need for proposed link road, County council have asked for it to be removed after construction or a substantial payment for maintenance. • The bulk of the construction traffic is in the early years and this road is not due to be completed for 3-4 years this is unacceptable • We have virtually perfect night skies here I have no knowledge of how EDF are proposing to keep lighting of the new roundabout and general site construction to a minimum and the planting of hedges trees etc. or any embankments to reduce noise and light issues 2. Community, Economic and social impacts ? Visitor economy: Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. ? Pressure on health, social and emergency services 3. Transport ? Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations ? Suffolk County Council say that EDF have missed many opportunities to deliver the rail/marine led strategy why should they be allowed to get away with this just because it is a major “PROPOSED” project. 4. Environment and Landscape ? Flooding. ? Irreparable harm to Minsmere ? Won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 5. Marine and Coastal processes • I understand that when Hinckley was proposed a full structural plan was part of their application why has this not been part of this application?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Sharif
"I object to the construction of a further power station, the impact on the local environment, wildlife habit ,surrounding countryside will far out way any benefits to the local economy. Nuclear power is an outdated form of energy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marion Gaze
"1. By the completion of this power station it will no longer be necessary as we will have enough renewable cheaper energy. 2.Nuclear Energy has never been economic because of the cost of the build, the cost of electricity once a deal is done and the cost of making safe the nuclear waste. 3. Mitigation for environmental damage to our most precious Suffolk coast is in no way sufficient. 4. The danger and consequences of a nuclear accident outweigh infinitely any advantages of this project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Tillcock
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. I believe there was a staggering lack of information during the consultations and this application. I support Suffolk County councils recent statement saying they are unable to support this application in its current format. I also wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, Together against Sizewell, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and RSPB Minismere. I believe EDF have submitted this during covid now knowing full well that you will be unable to talk to us on a one to one basis in Suffolk and here our DEEP concerns personally it is therefore in my opinion unsuitable for a digital examination 1. Link Road ? Both County and district council favour a link road (Formerly known as D2) south of Saxmundham, I cannot see why bringing all traffic virtually to Yoxford helps in keeping pollution to a minimum as it means 1,000s of unnecessary journeys. ? Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed by EDF • There will only be one entry and exit to the site surely a D2 type link road which has legacy value and an upgrade of the the Yoxford existing road means that in an emergency the Nuclear power station has two means of evacuation NOT ONE • There is no legacy need for proposed link road, County council have asked for it to be removed after construction or a substantial payment for maintenance. • The bulk of the construction traffic is in the early years and this road is not due to be completed for 3-4 years this is unacceptable • How do I enquire about compensation for the blight this road will cause my property if I wanted to move during construction. • We have virtually perfect night skies here I have no knowledge of how EDF are proposing to keep lighting of the new roundabout and general site construction to a minimum and the planting of hedges trees etc. or any embankments to reduce noise and light issues 2. Community, Economic and social impacts ? Visitor economy: Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. ? Pressure on health, social and emergency services 3. Transport ? Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations ? Suffolk County Council say that EDF have missed many opportunities to deliver the rail/marine led strategy why should they be allowed to get away with this just because it is a major “PROPOSED” project. 4. Environment and Landscape ? Flooding. ? Irreparable harm to Minsmere ? Won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 5. Marine and Coastal processes • I understand that when Hinckley was proposed a full structural plan was part of their application why has this not been part of this application?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Dwelly
"I wish to register the following concerns about the proposed development of Sizewell C which I oppose on the following grounds: This site on the Suffolk coast is very vulnerable to rising sea levels and is surrounded by areas of outstanding natural beauty which will be irreparably damaged if this proposal is given the go ahead. At present ,these areas count amongst my favourite places to visit and enjoy with my family and we will be very sad to lose them. Such an enormous engineering project will require a huge increase in heavy road traffic, air and noise pollution ,large areas of land covered in concrete to provide new roads , roundabouts and car parking facilities , all at a time when the country is supposed to be reducing its environmental impact. The carbon reduction benefits which we are told Sizewell C will bring are not expected until 2040 which will be far too late to address the climate emergency. The benefits to the local economy are very dubious in my view as much of the workforce will be imported from the Hinckley site rather than the local jobs marketand there will be a huge negative impact on tourism during the many years of construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shona Hardie
"1. Large nuclear power stations have had their day. If Sizewell is built it will be a very expensive white elephant by the time it is finished. 2. “Green” energy is cheaper. Existing wind and solar continue to get cheaper but they are not the only sources of renewable power. 3.e.g Scottish Power and partners plan to use energy generated by a major new solar farm near Glasgow to run an électrolyser to produce hydrogen gas for use in power plants, heavy machinery and transport. Could be working by 2020. 4. Large battery storage plants are being developed and built. 5. “Most analysts have now accepted we don’t need 30% energy from nuclear”. Professor Jim Watson, UK energy research centre. 6. Power market needs to be more flexible and renewables are more flexible than nuclear. 7. If nuclear has to be used Rolls Royce plan to Install factory built mini reactors by 2029. These could be sited on former gas and coal fired stations where there is a supply of cooling water and maybe existing cooling towers. Thus regenerating old industrial sites rather than wrecking invaluable Unspoilt countryside. Also less transmission losses being closer to large conurbations. 8. Nuclear waste - governments have being trying as long as I can remember, 50+ years to secure a geologically suitable site to store high grade waste - in vain."
Members of the Public/Businesses
St Peter's Church Theberton
"Increased construction traffic through our villages At peak up to 700 HGVs, 700 LGVs, 650 buses and thousands of Sizewell C-related cars would use the B1122 through Yoxford and Middleton Moor, with a bypass of Theberton. Heavy construction traffic would potentially cause damage through vibration to Theberton Church and private property being located close to the B1122. The Theberton bypass affects too many residents and still places unfair congestion, noise, pollution, vibration damage and accidents on residents and visitors. Our groups and residents have never advocated bypasses around B1122 villages. The bypass will cut Theberton in two and close connecting roads to Saxmundham. This will effectively prevent parishoners from accessing church services. Accommodation, services and wellbeing EDF accommodation plans have attracted widespread criticism, proposing a new ‘town’ for 2,400 workers, of 3-4 storey blocks with car parks and leisure facilities, on a greenfield site close to Minsmere and next to Eastbridge, a hamlet of 50 people. The EDF accommodation campus will bring noise, air and light pollution, a massive increase in traffic, and the potential for anti-social behaviour. This will affect our health and wellbeing and place an unfair burden on Leiston, Eastbridge, Theberton and Minsmere. EDF has yet conducted many vital studies including Health and Community. The project must not reduce locals’ access to emergency services and healthcare."
Parish Councils
Parish Councillor Wissett on behalf of Wissett Parish Council
"The Parish council does not support EDF Energy’s proposed freight transport strategy due to the fact that (1) it is not a sustainable strategy, because an increased proportion of rail transport (and potentially sea-borne transport) could be reasonably achievable, and (2) it does not currently mitigate its transport impacts on the highway network to acceptable levels for the community. The Parish council would seek additional assurances from the applicant, in order to secure the maximum possible rail and sea usage, robust transport controls and monitoring arrangements, and additional mitigation to address junction and road capacity issues, increased carbon footprint and emissions and community impacts. Contributions towards increased highway maintenance costs resulting from construction traffic using the A12, B1122 and other local roads. This includes additional costs to undertake maintenance at night or advance of construction to avoid disruption and structural damage to local highways."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew McDonald
"1 Process: The current proposals do not address significant development impact issues that have been repeatedly raised in previous rounds of consultations by SCC, ESC and the great majority of East Suffolk Town and Parish Councils. 2 Transport (and integrity): The transport strategy has not developed since the first consultation stage, despite continuing objections from councils and road users. Its current form is unsustainable and would have a massive, economically undermining effect on the entire ‘Heritage’ coast, not only in terms of tourism but also in terms of quality of life and business efficiency. EDF have always stated their commitment to development of a rail-led strategy; but it is now clear that they deliberately failed to progress discussions with Network Rail over a period of years, and there has not therefore been a fair assessment of the rail-led option. The application should not proceed until this deliberate failure has been rectified. 3 Impact on biodiversity, and poor mitigation: The proposed construction works would engender permanent damage and destruction to a wide range of affected designated habitats, protected wildlife and open countryside, both within and outside the AONB; the damage would be so severe, and the mitigation and compensation so inadequate, that this project should not go ahead on the basis proposed. 4 Road impacts: the permanent negative effects of three new roads, including the proposed access road to the station platform, would fragment Suffolk’s protected landscape, dividing the AONB completely in two and forming a wildlife barrier between Minsmere – Walberswick Ramsar, SPA, SAC, SSSI and Sizewell Marshes SSSI. Friends of the Earth estimate that, in addition to direct mortality, there would be a loss of bird life of up to 30% extending to 1 km either side of each new road, due to noise, lights and fumes. Established commuting routes of bats and other animals would be cut off and dispersal of species prevented. Such losses are intolerable. 5 Coastal processes, safety and longterm impacts: Sizewell is not sustainable in the future as a safe and suitable site for nuclear power and long-term storage of nuclear waste. It is seriously worrying that the application makes no comment or forecast on coastal evolution south of the Great Sizewell Bay, ignoring the clear problems that its jutting out beyond the natural shoreline will undoubtedly cause to the Suffolk coast – a single geomorphological unit. Manmade damage to natural processes will disrupt a local economy worth over £100 million a year. The application should not be accepted until a scientific assessment of these risks has been submitted. 6 Carbon and cost benefits: the application fails to show that the costs of this project will be lower than a renewables solution, nor that the deferred carbon emissions gain will outweigh the immediate and until at least 2040 adverse carbon balance between construction and energy production. EDF must make public its ‘lifecycle CO2’ calculations and show why they differ from those used by IPCC and the UKCC."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ben Coxon
"To many hgvs on unsuitable roads. Crime associated with the itinerant labourers transit camps. Too much hgv pollution Too much hgv noise. Too much hgv damage to roads and hedges. Not a big enough by-pass - 4 village needed. Long delays in traffic sure to increased amount of hgvs and day labourers. EPR reactors are old tech - replace with scalable Small Modular Reactors"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carole Lee
"I am not opposed to nuclear power and I acknowledge that Sizwell A and B have been well run (we often use that beach). But, I am strongly opposed to the Sizewell C project: The size is far too big for the area: damage to the environment, damage to the local economy, damage to local life from overloaded roads and services for many years during construction. Mitigating plans by EDF are inadequate. The position is too risky, on a coastline that is eroding. The technology is too risky: faults in plants in France and Finland. The cost is far too high: £20bn (originally £6bn) and guaranteed £92.50 perMw. This region has a flourishing hospitality and tourist economy which this project proposal has vastly underestimated and will blight. Even post Covid, there are faster and more sustainable ways to recover. I endorse Stop Sizewell C's Relevant Representation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Quinn
"As a resident of Leiston I wish to voice my concerns and opposition in relation to the building of Sizewell C. There are a number of areas I would like to address - Whatever EDF's Transport plans in relation to 'park and ride', bypasses and delivery by sea the effect on traffic flow in the region will be enormous on both the A12 and local roads. This will impact on the livelihoods of many, in an area where tourism is a major source of income and jobs, and also on the lives of those living here. Last year an air quality report on part of the A12 in this area stated that although current movements of HGV's only account for 6% of traffic flow they accounted for 53.5% of Nitrous Oxide concentrations. Given that as part of EDF's road transport strategy the figure of between 500 and 1000 lorries per day has been mentioned this will have a hugely significant increase in emissions and a further reduction of air quality as well as an impact on the one thing the Government has pledged to do something about - namely climate change. As well as blighting lives this huge increase in traffic will have a detrimental effect to visitor numbers to the area. Last year the Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation estimated that Sizewell C and Scottish Power projects could cost the visitor economy between £24 - 40 million a year - because people travel to and stay in this region for the coastline, the countryside and the tranquillity. They certainly won't come to visit a giant building site after being stuck behind a convoy of HGV's. Any decline in tourism, leading to major job losses and business closures will not be offset by EDF's job creation scheme, especially as it is their intention to build a 3,000 space campus on site for workers from outside the area. The anti social effects on Leiston, which will effectively have its population doubled, will be enormous. If EDF were serious about green travel why haven't they established greater links with Network Rail? By upgrading the East Coast Rail line between Ipswich and Lowestoft they would not only be seen to be positively contributing to the area but also enabling the building of worker campuses on brownfield sites at either end of the line which would be a major economic boost to both Ipswich and Lowestoft - towns that are bigger and much better suited to a large influx of outside labour. Workers could then travel to and from site by train. Not only would this negate the destruction of part of the countryside but also stop Leiston from being over run and turned into a wild west town, as was the case during the construction of Sizewell B, EDF, despite their fine words and 'tick box' consultation exercises are not building Sizewell C out of any sense of altruism but purely for profit. Indeed, it has been suggested that the Sizewell C and Hinkley Point builds are more critical to the survival of the French nuclear industry than they are to providing electricity to UK consumers. The company itself has a poor track record in delivering projects of this nature. EDF nuclear builds in both France and Finland are significantly over budget and over run. Last year the BBC reported that Hinkley Point ran over budget to the tune of £2.9 billion and that an over run of 15 months had been identified - this in the same year EDF were giving assurances that the build was proceeding on time and on budget. So much for the promise economies of scale that the Hinkley Point build would bring to Sizewell C. On this showing EDF are fast becoming an unreliable partner in an unreliable arena. The whole question of nuclear power as a source of energy is questionable given that currently more electricity is produced from renewables per year (30%) than nuclear power (20%) (source: Digest of UK Energy Statistics). There is no guarantee that at the end of the Sizewell build, whenever that will be (their French build is 11 years late), that nuclear power as a source of energy will not be obsolete. And we as the citizens of this country will have to pay the price. Quite literally because as well as the destruction of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Scientific Interest, the increase in carbon footprint from increased traffic and the effects on health that will bring their will be a financial penalty. Given the current poor relations and tensions with China in the wake of the government's decision over Huawei and the 5G network it has been mooted that if CGN are not allowed to partner EDF or invest it will mean the implementation of a Regulated Asset Base and a surcharge on utility bills for all users, to make up the financial shortfall. Which will inevitably lead to civil disobedience when consumers refuse to pay. Despite the overwhelming need for economic recovery post Covid 19 there can be absolutely no justification in desecrating the world renown Minsmere reserve and adjoining sites of scientific interest with a white elephant of Sizewell C magnitude - and creating more nuclear waste for future generations to deal with. Let us remember that even after 70 years of nuclear power in the UK no permanent store for nuclear waste has been agreed - despite successive governments best efforts - waste that is lethal to human tissue and remains so for thousands of years. On the BBC news website on 20th July this year under the headline 'Government promises a green recovery' the Environment Secretary George Eustace is quoted as saying 'Protecting nature will be at the heart of UK's recovery from Covid virus.' This will not be the case if the proposed Sizewell C development goes ahead. If I can finish with one final point to underline the unsuitability of this build it is this - As part of their consultation process in response to questions about the suitability of the site they stated that the Sizewell site is on one of the most stable coastlines. At the same time Coastal Partnership East were reported in the press as identifying Suffolk as having Europe's fastest eroding coastline. So much so that Thorpness, one mile south of the Sizewell site, is set to have £1.5million spent on it's coast in the next two years. I humbly urge you to make the brave decision of throwing out EDF's plans for Sizewell C and sincerely hope that other environmentally sound solutions can be found to take their place, not just for today but for tomorrow's future generations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Ure
"Sizewell is a totally unsuitable location for a twin-reactor nuclear power station to be built. It is on a very vulnerable and unstable part of the east coast which remains at ongoing risk of flooding and coastal erosion and it is also in an area of environmental protection. In the event of an incident at Sizewell it would be quite impossible to evacuate the area. The roads would immediately become gridlocked and the local population would not be able to escape to safety. This rural, coastal area would also become heavily industrialised during the building process with a vast number of vehicle movements affecting n impact on tourism and having a major impact on the local environment with loss and damage to of important wildlife sites. The evidence in both Europe and the UK is that nuclear is unaffordable. At Hinkley Point there have been major technical and environmental failures resulting in the build cost doubling and the strike price being uneconomical. Sizewell must not be evaluated only on local issues, but also in relation to the phasing out of nuclear power stations across Europe and the major advances being made with renewable energy, particularly carbon capture and battery storage. It must also be considered in relation to the issues of nuclear waste for which there is no safe disposal and the risk of accidents such as Fukushima. There are very strong local objections to this newbuild on the basis of safety, security and cost. I record my strong objection and would wish my view to be considered in the consultation process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Bryant
"My concerns include the following: - Effects on A12 and related minor roads along route to be taken by SZC-engendered traffic, with particular ref to safety issues (road repairs, emergency escape routes,(for locals and EDF lorries). - Heavy and constant use of local roads for an indeterminate time but lasting years, prior to any mitigating work by EDF. - Disruption of all non-SZC traffic for up to 12 years. - The concentration on 'consulting" very local individuals rather than making it clear that a far wider area will be affected by Sizewell traffic than EDF would have us believe. - Lack of effort on the part of those representing us to make clear to other potentially interested parties (such as users of the A12 in Essex and beyond) the effect that building Sizewell will have on the use of that road. It feels as though all the counter arguments to this project have had to be put by small groups of individuals who seek to redress the balance against a well-funded and supported company. - The effects of creating the ensuing carbon emissions from the construction and transport which cannot be offset by carbon-neutral generation for many years to come, when it is, arguably, too late to help alleviate climate change. - Loss of tourism-related trade, which cannot be accurately predicted from an EDF survey, with only limited and low-level local jobs to compensate the few. - EDF still seem able to distribute inaccurate material about the "Pros" of SZC (such as all the ensuing well-paid local jobs, when we know that their aim is to import as many workers as possible from Hinkley and up to 90 miles around) without any official counter claims -Risks of building another power station on an eroding coastline - Insufficient advice as to how waste from the plant will be dealt with. -Destruction of wildlife habitat which cannot be fully compensated for -Opportunity missed to create more environmentally-friendly power generation in an area which is already heavily loaded with "green " schemes such as offshore wind generation. -Needless destruction of a quiet way of life in a coastal area recognised for its special qualities in order to put a nuclear power station in a place which is unsuitable for it in every respect. - Why it has to be Sizewell and not one of the sites recently abandoned by Hitachi in more realistic and needy areas"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Stephen Chamberlain
"My Family concerns about Sizewell C. Only France and England still build Nuclear Power stations, they are considered obsolete technology, and take years to build. None of the EDF-EPR nuclear power stations work and EDF want all UK residents to pay a nuclear tax on their electricity bills for EDF’s incompetence. EDF say Sizewell C will be carbon neutral, but that is only after 2040, due to all the carbon they use to build SizewellC. The spent fuel will stay on site until 2140 as there is no long term waste nuclear treatment facility in England to process the fuel. So it will be up to future generations to build and pay to recycle our nuclear waste. Do we want our electricity to be controlled by the China? Wind power, solar power, wave power is the future and are quicker, cheaper to build, commission, maintain and far greener than nuclear power. Sizewell A,B, & C on the Suffolk coast could be potential terrorist target. If there is a radiation leak from the site, accident or terrorist attack, the local roads are not adequate for a mass exodus all trying to get on the A12. What planning has EDF done about the scientist forecast for the rise in sea level due to Antarctic Thwaites glacier melt? Increase in traffic noise and pollution from cars and lorries using the A12, B1122 and the increase in vehicle and human accidents due to workmen speeding on country roads. SizewellB staff speed every day past the refuse tip, even though there are 30mph speed signs, but the police/council do nothing! Will EDF use 15,000 tonnes of granite from Pembrokeshire in Wales to protect SizewellC, 33ft high sea wall defence (how deep below sea level?) like Hinkley Point, surely this is not cost effective and not carbon neutral? Nature: Due to excavating massive holes, building massive concrete structures which will produce huge spoil heaps to the height of a 10 storey building, the water levels will change, ground pollution will happen, constant noise and light from 24 hour working for 15 years and this will have a devastating affect Wildlife, Flora & Fauna. What impact will it have on Sizewell marshes adjacent to SizewellC, which is a SSSI? What impact will it have on AONB which covers the coastal area south of Lowestoft to Ipswich and coastal erosion? What impact will it have on RSPB Minsmere and especially the Bitterns/Marsh Harriers? Any mitigation will take years to recover. If SizewellC is the same as Hinkley Point what impact will the two 3.5km cooling tunnels and a 1.8km outfall tunnel have on marine life, if they are transferring 120,000 litres of water per second from the North Sea? All my points will impact on tourism in this area and this area of Suffolk relies on tourism to exist! Tourists come to the East coast of Suffolk as it is quiet, exceptional wildlife and lovely walks, all this will change if Sizewell C goes ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Ford
"Dear Sirs/Madam, I wish to raise the following issues of concern and objection to the plans for Sizewell C. 1. Location of site It is the wrong project in the wrong area, ie. an area designated as an AONB. I understand the site is at future risk from sea level rise and flooding. It will have an adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value 2. Economic and Social impacts The plans will have impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a location that I oppose. Tourism will be adversely affected. Pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. 3. Environment and Landscape Flooding risk Despoiling the AONB. Pollution from light, noise and traffic and dust Irreparable harm to RSPB Minsmere - a reserve of international importance and significance. Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage The electricity eventually generated will not offset CO2 from construction for many years Impacts on marine ecology I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C campaign, the RSPB and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust. Yours faithfully, Neil Ford"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicki Bell
"This is the relevant representation of Nicki Bell to the Planning Inspectorate regarding the NNB Generation Company Limited DCO Application for Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station and associated works. I own a house in Marlesford and am aware of the EDF proposals for Sizewell C and wish to comment on them because if the project is approved, many aspects of the proposals will have a seriously negative impact on myself and my family and the rest of the Marlesford Community for the duration of the 9 -12 year construction phase. Although there may be some benefits from the building of Sizewell C to the local economy, the negative impact on the people who live in this area will be significant and I have particular areas of concern. To position a Southern Park and Ride on the hill between Hacheston and Marlesford, which is overlooking the Special Landscape Areas of the River Ore and Deben is totally inappropriate and its elevated position will be visible from numerous points in the area. I along with many other villagers am concerned about the amount of noise, pollution (both fumes and light) and traffic that will emanate from the scheme for many years and will make life intolerable. At night, the skies are dark in Marlesford, one of the great joys of living in the countryside. If the P&R is lit for 24 hours and use of tall lighting towers is permitted, our dark skies will be no more and species such as bats will suffer. Dust will blow down from the construction site as will the fumes from all the vehicles, thereby affecting the quality of our air. I am also concerned that a Two Village Bypass in place of the much needed 4 Village bypass is short-sighted and totally inadequate. If a two village bypass goes ahead, there will be no possibility of a linking bypass with Marlesford and Little Glemham at some point in the future because of the design that has been proposed. EDF say that “the junction between Bell Lane and the A12 does not require improvement” but as a daily user of the junction I can state that what is already a dangerous nightmare to pull out and cross the road before being driven into at high speed by oncoming traffic (ignoring the 40 MPH speed restriction) will become intolerable with the huge increase in traffic that will ensue with the P&R at Hacheston. Our local roads will become “rat runs” as locals try to avoid the traffic chaos and pedestrians will no longer be able to cross the road to visit the shop. In addition, the whole length of the A12 towards Lowestoft is in desperate need of improvement, so to skimp and simply bypass such a tiny section seems madness. Signed Nicki Bell"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Smith
"I am writing to object to the construction of Sizewell C. The negative impacts of the proposed development of SZC are so severe that adequate mitigation is not possible – though there are measures which EDF might take to make the scheme less unacceptable. We endorse the representations made by Stop Sizewell C. EDF has been secretive and disingenuous in its public consultation, making a mockery of the whole process. EDF’s claims about carbon payback period are misleading – it assumes all electricity will be generated from fossil fuels – discounting substantial and increasing renewable sources. EDF tells us, the site is potentially suitable, this does not mean it is unequivocally suitable and not open to challenge. We believe that there can be few less suitable sites in the country. The only reason government picked Sizewell is because the local population is inured living near a nuclear power station. Should the scheme go ahead, we have grave reservations about the construction process, its impact on the local community and environment and the mitigation measures currently proposed. EDF makes out it is doing as much as it can to mitigate the impact of the scheme; we believe it is being economical with the truth. As we see things, it has put forward the absolute minimum it thinks it can get away with. Expenditure on mitigation is derisory compared with the total cost of c. £20bn. If there are any benefits at all to this scheme, they are national or regional. All the disbenefits fall on the local community. Specifically, we have concerns about the following issues: • The irreparable damage the development will inflict on the wildlife and amenity value of Minsmere nature reserve and the Sizewell Marshes SSSI – impacts need to be considered cumulatively • The impact on the landscape of the AONB • Inadequate assurances on mitigation of light pollution • Local employment opportunities over-stated – the vast majority of the temporary and permanent workforce will be imported - local opportunities will be largely limited to on-site support (catering and cleaning). The construction of the previous two nuclear power stations has left Leiston one of the poorest towns in Suffolk. • Impact on tourism • Water supply • Hydrology • Community impacts – security and crime • Rejection of marine-led strategy – EDF has not tested any alternatives to the close pile pier it has rejected (described by one engineer as a sixteenth century solution) • Minimal use of rail • The proposed relief road will sever the little lanes and communities on either side putting the viability of our village school at risk • Lack of sustainability/legacy - the relief road and the worker campus will be removed on completion of construction – a better choice of route and site would offer lasting benefits at little extra cost. • EDF has understated potential traffic congestion – the construction of Sizewell B brought massive disruption even though, unlike SZC, all aggregates were brought in from the sea. We believe that it is totally inappropriate and unfair that the examination of this application should be conducted digitally. Nigel Smith"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Fridd
"The environmental impact Sizewell C will have on wildlife is indisputable. RSPB Minsmere, quite rightly, are gravely concerned about the affects it will have on the fragile eco-system. Minsmere is vitally important nature reserve. Suffolk County Council has expressed many times it's concerns about the impact the huge increase in road haulage will have on communities. As a local village resident, it will undoubtedly make my local roads far more dangerous with the increased traffic. There is a huge outcry as to why the use of rail and sea is not being considered more seriously as more effective way of transporting aggregates etc. Many small town and villages will be used as rat-runs and as as a result, will increase the possibility of fatalities of either other road users or pedestrians."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Gripton
"Dear PINS, I wish to make the following submission, as my initial written 'relevant representation' to register as an interested party involving the Sizewell C examination. Ref EN010012. Many of my issues regarding SZC, result from unacceptable issues and practices identified during the HPC project. Briefly the issues i wish to raise at the SZC examination involve the following - SZC Transportation issues, including lack of public participation/representation involving the proposed 'exclusive' Transport Review Group'. Remit of the Transport Review Group and 'Section 106' provisions, including potential lack of any safeguarding of recognised 'limits' and the developer having 50% of the vote, raising 'conflict of interest issues'. Developer and Council compliance with the 'Infrastructure Planning (EIA) 2017 Regulations, including Article 35, regarding Objectivity, Bias and Conflict of Interest. Potential Conflicts of Interest through the Councils roles in the TRG, making decisions, Discharge of requirements and as enforcement regimes for the DCO and EIA regulations, without clear commitments to Transparency and Clarity, vitally before public impacting decisions are taken. Lack of ability for public comment on impacting Requirement Discharges. Potential abuse of the 'Exceptional Circumstances' provision involving HGV delivery times under the SZC Traffic Incident Management Plan regarding long term, pre-planned roadworks. Discharge of Requirement issues including potential 'tail-piece' legislation and conflict with the 2008 Planning Act provisions. Ensuring the inevitable 'Project Changes' remain under the 2008 Planning Act remit rather than be circumvented. Need for a clearly defined and mandatory, developer 'Management Change Protocol', identifying, confirming and complying with regulatory requirements, including EIA regulations and impact identification/mitigation issues. Need for Council enforcement powers to ensure clarity and transparency of process/changes. The provision and appropriate use of DCO requirements. Inappropriate remit under the Section 106 agreement."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Mackenzie
"1 Site Selection I am extremely concerned that there will be a catastrophic impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance. Fundamentally I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place.The extension of the Sizewell Nuclear site to allow the development of a new reactor will have massive effects. I am concerned primarily about the impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance – notably the RSPB site at Minsmere and other sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value. I am also concerned about the potential risk caused by rising sea levels and the danger of a tidal surge combined with a north-easterly storm. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts I live about 3 miles from the proposed site and there will be huge impacts on our local community - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. The life of our village community will be severely changed with 6,000 workers coming to work in the area and 2,400 living in a Worker campus built on a greenfield site only a mile from my house. Gentle ‘eco’ tourism is increasingly popular in this beautiful area and this will undoubtedly be undermined. There will be considerable pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. EDFs suggestion that they expect local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled jobs etc sounds unrealistic. There are a significant number of elderly and retired people who live in the area – many are worried about the pressure on our local health services. I know of several local neighbours who suffer with very poor health and the disruption in their lives will undoubtedly increase mental health problems. 3. Transport In my opinion the road-based transport plan is not satisfactory. It will have an enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. The Alternative relief road routes with legacy value has not been adequately assessed by EDF. 4. Environment and Landscape Having lived in Suffolk for over 50 years I am well acquainted with both local environmental expertise and the knowledge built up over generations that would suggest this is an area of critical concern. The issues are well known as listed below: Flooding Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic Dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles inadequate Impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill not fully addressed. Irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. Impacts on Marsh Harriers threaten integrity of Special Protection Area Uncertainty re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond. Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species/ecology. Risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology’Flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage Won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 5. Marine and Coastal processes The issues are well known and listed below: Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature HCDF. No complete design of HCDF available Rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable Impacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes Impacts on marine ecology 6. Application I strongly endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. It is my opinion that the Sizewell C application is totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Beaumont
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern to me. The Site. The site is too small for the development proposed and the proposed design is likely to lead to serious coastal erosion. The sea defences shown are inadequate. Transport. In their original proposals regarding the movement of freight EDF said that 80% of this would come by sea. The use of rail is a token gesture only. It is now clear that 90% of freight wil be carried by trucks on road. The daily traffic figures produced indicate a massive overload for the road system in East Suffolk. The Sizewell Link Road (SLR) proposed is too disruptive to homes, farms and Listed Buildings and will provide no legacy. The Highways Authority have recommended a new access road to the site D 2 whih is a far better option causing less disruption with a legacy, but this has repeatedly been ignored by EDF. Pretty Road. This is the principal local access road for 100s of local homes and businesses to and from Saxmundham with its station, supermarket, shops and services. SZC proposes to close this to accommodate SLR. SZC proposes to build a bridge over the SLR for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. This could quite easily be enlarged for vehicular traffic to continue current use. Theberton Hall. The bridge proposed above will prevent access to the Hall drive after 400 years of use. The local pollution - noise, light and dust - caused by the construction of SLR and the use of it will destroy future use of the Hall as a home. Local environment. This will be ruined for both humans, flora and fauna by the destruction of the existing both on and near the site, and by the access to it. Nuclear waste. The proposed storage needed for the increase in radioactive waste at the Sizewell site caused by SZC will make the are the larest nuclear dump in Europe, if not the world. A better solution is needed. Local communities. The massive disruption to be caused by the influx of 6,000 workers, traffic and pollution to both transport, social and emergency services will adversely affect all communities locally. Local economy. The construction of SZC and its related traffic and pollution will destroy the local tourist industry and the employment it supports. The increased road traffic and diversions will adversely affect many local busineses. The employment opportunities in both the construction and management proposed by SZC do not stack up. The lack of honest engagement by SZC with the local communities despite the 4 sham consultations has led to the realisation that cost is always their overriding interest. Please note I consider the SZC DC application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Readhead Family
"Concerns regarding environmental impact - loss of local habitat and impact on such species as Marsh Harrier. Claims made by EDF that they will be able to pledge net biodiversity gains on the main development site do not provide detail on what losses they anticipate over the whole development area and how and when they expect to offer a net gain. Concerns regarding transport schemes. Not enough detail has been given regarding the alternatives to the road option. EDF's investigations in to the use of rail appear to have been poorly researched and presented, leading to issues with Network rail. Likewise the option of deliveries by sea is not fully explained. However, the options for new roads such as the Yoxford, Middleton, Theberton bypass are presented by EDF as a solution to the problem of heavy traffic and appear to take the emphasis away from trying to find alternative schemes with less environmental impact. The Middleton/Theberton bypass will have little or no lasting benefit to the local community once construction of the power station has been completed. Concerns regarding management and organisation of schemes. Already we have seen problems with EDF not adhering to agreements made with local landowners regarding access arrangements to carry out surveys."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tony Wheeler
"The proposed development will devastate an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty causing irreparable damage to wildlife and the ecology of the area. Huge swathes of countryside will be lost forever to make way for new infrastructure required to facilitate the development. It cannot be safe to contemplate expanded use of nuclear material and associated storage of nuclear waste in this flood prone stretch of eroding coastline. Jobs created by the development will be predominantly short term in nature. In contrast established tourism and tourist based businesses the area will suffer hugely with a negative effect upon both long and short term jobs within these businesses."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alex Crockatt
"I object to planning permission being granted for the building of Sizewell C and D on the following grounds: The construction of such a huge power station will ruin what is a particularly beautiful site, which attracts thousands of walkers and bird watchers every year. It cannot be a good idea to build such a potentially dangerous power station so close to a coast which is constantly eroding. The construction process will involve a huge amount of pollution, which will permanently frighten away many of the rare species of birds and mammals which currently can be found in the area. It is a retrogressive step to build another nuclear power station when other forms of energy such as wind and solar power, which are much cleaner and safer, are providing an alternative source of electricity. Suffolk is a county which is very dependent on tourism, and the building of a huge nuclear power station is going to deter many people form choosing this area of Suffolk as their holiday destination. I have read that the government have been paying EDF recently, huge sums of money to reduce the amount of electricity being produced by Sizewell as it exists, so it seems financially unjustifiable to then pay for an expansion of the site to provide more superfluous electricity."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amy Corzine
"I am concerned about the needless excessive cost of the project when alternative methods of truly clean energy creation are available, including solar, geothermal and marine power, and better building practices could conserve the energy generated. In this cash-strapped time, the UK should turn its attention to training its own people for such things and conserving its resources for its energy needs. I am also concerned about the other national interests that may be involved in this project, national interests that are not in the best interests of the UK."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amy Rayner
"* Noise, light, air and land pollution and effects on people, tourism, environment and biodiversity/ecology. * Nuclear waste *Degredation of ecosystems and biodiversity *Fish death *removal of woodland *Water consumption *Vehical movements *Carparks, park and rides, road, rail and sea infrastructure. * Employee and contractor accomodation. *Environmental degredation mitigation. *Cost...financial and environmental *Tourism/economy/longterm employment *Local employment *Decommissioning *Sea defence and rising sea levels *Reactor design and safety"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Vince
"I am principally concerned about two issues; The first is the impact on an Area of outstanding natural beauty by countless lorries using the lanes in this area to access the site. In my view the existing network is not up to the task and the continual flow of heavy traffic will have an adverse impact on a fragile and special environment. Surely EDF could use the existing rail lines to transport much of the material, and given the overall cost of the project it cannot be beyond their means to upgrade the network so that it is fit for purpose. My second concern relates to the impact that the development will have on the wildlife and habitats that exist in close proximity to the site. The nationally important RSPB Reserve of Minsmere is adjacent, and I am not convinced that EDF have been clear enough in explaining what measures they intend to put in place to mitigate the serious effects that the development will have on the location. I have an interest here as I am an RSPB member and also volunteer at the reserve. (I have already submitted my concerns over this on the 'Love Minsmere' document. The RSPB have spent 70 years developing and managing a world class nature reserve and it is not good enough that EDF appear to dismissing the concerns of thousands of people out of hand"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Middleditch
"As my home lies within [redacted] of the B1122 my wife and I will be personally affected if the SZC project goes ahead as our lives will be made a misery by the unacceptable level of construction traffic so close to our home. I have asked EDF to carry out a full structural and environmental study to assess the impact of their traffic on our home.They have failed to do this. As I have spent the majority of my career working in the field of Operational Research and Mathematical Modelling I feel qualified to comment on the traffic analysis performed by EDF in their DCO application. I have discussed these studies with EDF's experts at each of the Consultation Phases and have studied the relevant sections in their DCO application. EDF claim that as a result of their studies there will be no major congestion problems on the A12 at Yoxford. Having personally studied the traffic flows in this area over many years there are issues with the A12/A1120 junction at Yoxford which at peak times can cause severe congestion. This can only get worse due to the extra SZC construction traffic and the building of a new roundabout at the nearby A12/B1122 junction. Having studied in detail the assumptions made by EDF in their modelling I can understand why their results do not match the observed traffic flows. In my considered opinion EDF have made a number of assumptions which cannot be justified and which lead to an optimistic assessment of the situation. I therefore conclude that their studies are seriously flawed and are not fit for purpose. I have been a lifelong member of the RSPB and often visit their reserve at Minsmere. I am very concerned about the impact that the SZC construction will have on this unique haven for wildlife as I am convinced that it will be impossible for EDF to mitigate the damage it will cause. I leave the detailed assessment of the impact on wildlife to those organisations better qualified to make these arguments."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Webb
"I have an agricultural/horticultural site in close proximity to a proposed lorry park at Levington.I believe that the proposed term of usage (10-12 years)will cause further denigration in an area that has become known for unsocial and criminal activities throughout the county and beyond(refer to Suffolk Police and Suffolk County Council). I believe the landowner of this site has little interest in preventing this as it is far removed from his own domestic dwelling and will not impact. I give little credence to the intention of returning it to field cultivation after the term expires.(see East Suffolk Local plan) I believe the proposers have the ability to circumvent this supposed necessity by a logistical approach , that would negate the further disruption to already overused local road infrastructure, which is becoming increasingly used by commercial vehicles."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Stanley
"I am deeply concerned about the following if this project goes ahead: 1. The permanent changes to biodiversity. 2. The damage to the Tourist Industry as Suffolk Coast and Heaths are areas of outstanding natural beauty. 3. The huge increase in large vehicle traffic which will affect the ability of locals, business, and tourists to use the roads over the 12 year period it is predicted the building of Sizewell C will take. 4. The damage to the social fabric of the local communities who will not benefit as was found when the last addition to the power station was built when workers were brought in from outside Suffolk to work. 5. The expense of the proposed Sizewell C project as opposed to investing in green alternatives that will not harm the environment in the future. Also in this context, the energy that Sizewell C is predicted to provide does not, based on the evidence, provide energy far enough into the future to make it worthwhile over investment in green energy. 6. Due to climate change and our eroding coast I am concerned for future generations about the safety of storing radioactive waste. I walk this coast and have seen the erosion and an increase in extreme weather. Specifically when the sea brakes over the banks in front of the power station."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlie Williams
"Regardless of which way you choose to get into the issues. (e.g. impact on nature, sea defences, traffic, marine environment, building on an eroding coastline, energy and material requirements, pollution, spiralling costs and finance of previous project, Chinese funding). As a simple baseline; the destruction of Suffolk heritage sites... to replace them with a nuclear station (which energy projections suggest we will not even need) cannot be something that makes good sense to move ahead with. The UK does not need additional power infrastructure from nuclear developments such as Sizewell C - not only is the risk of the proposal outlined here [Redacted] tthere is evidence that the project is more about the survival of the French nuclear industry than the necessity of the Sizewell C scheme to provide electricity to UK customers. Renewables are known to out compete nuclear and would have far less environmental impact yet do not appear to have been considered. Instead we should be proposing more clean energy schemes such as this one announced this week in neighbouring Norfolk if more energy infrastructure is truly needed - [Redacted] It will be catastrophic for wildlife. The building work may increase erosion, upsetting the delicate balance of the reserve. It will affect the water levels in Minsmere’s ditches, impacting its rare wetland wildlife, which includes bitterns, otters and ducks. Once the construction is in progress, it will increase levels of noise and light pollution. Rare marsh harriers, breeding ducks and geese and wading birds are very sensitive to this. The effects will be long-term. Please consider the above. It is extremely important that Sizewell C does not go ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Porter
"I own the Freehold interest in[Redacted]my private residence. The property directly abuts the Ipswich/Lowestoft Rail line where is lies is a shallow cutting. The line would be used to transport construction materials with freight overnight. Transportation of all materials between Ipswich and Woodbridge sections of the line will occur at the bottom of my garden resulting in vibration to my land and buildings if heavy loads and heavy trains are involved with the risk of structural damage and increased environmental issues such as noise and sleep deprivation. Such transportation will have an adverse affect on the Freehold Value of Pendlewood and my enjoyment of its current amenities. On Environmental grounds, I would prefer the source of electricity needed is derived and generated, not from nuclear power but other renewable sources as many experts have suggested it could be and this is where Government funding and policies involved in spending Tax Payers monies and borrowings should be directed. I therefore strongly object to the grant of Planning Application to build Sizewell C."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Thurlow
"This project must not go ahead. It is clear there will be damage in a number of environmental areas including: Loss of rare invertebrates from Sizewell Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) This area is cited by Natural England as being ‘of exceptional interest for their invertebrate fauna’. New habitat has been created at EDFE’s Aldhurst Farm to compensate for loss of habitat at the Sizewell C site. However, Friends of the Earth research demonstrates that many of the rarer specialist species would not thrive here due to high nutrient levels in the water. Death of a large number of fish in the cooling system, and negative effect on the habitat for the harbour porpoise. Irrepairable damage to the hydrology of the surrounding Sizewell Marshes SSSI and RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve, which in turn will have a negative impact on the many species of flora and fauna that are currently found there."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Councillor Mary Schedrin
"Off the A12 by Friday Street Farm is the beginning of the A1094. This road is likely to be deluged with polluting traffiic and subject to even more serious traffic accidents, should SZC and SPR be granted planning permission. It is a narrow enough single track road with dangerous junctions including popular Rights of Way, along its 7 miles route to Aldeburgh on the coast. There is alarm and despondency at the thought that SZC workers and its suppliers will likely not be content to use the very busy A12 but follow the lead of SPR heavy goods vehicles, lorries., vans and cars, to travel instead along the A1094. Therefore, it is anticipated there will be a substantial increase in serious traffic accidents and congestion as well as adverse impacts to air quality and the environment in general."
Local Authorities
Framlingham Town Council
"Framlingham Town Council represents the citizens of Framlingham. Framlingham is a medievil town, with narrow roads, located some 13 miles from the proposed site of Sizewell C, but more importantly is on one of the road routes people will be using to travel to the park and ride at Wickham Market - 5 miles from Framlingham. During the construction of Sizewell B there was increased traffic through the town and during the construction of Sizewell C this is expected to be far more than than for Sizewell B. Framlingham Town Council is particularly concerned that the anticiapted increased traffic is informed, controlled or managed in such a manner as to reduce the impact upon the town."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frederick Poll
"Noise, dust and light pollution from the main site will be a problem for local residents. Security will be problem. The accommodation block is sited in the wrong place in a rural area. The transport system will not cope with the volume of traffic which will cause congestion, pollution, rat running and movement of agricultural vehicles will be very difficult. Local traffic will struggle to operate with the extra volumes expected from Sizewell C. Farmland will be divided up into unviable land areas due to the road and railway line. Emergency services may have problems in the traffic flow to get where they are needed in a timely manner. The environmental impact has not been fully examined - such as fresh water supply, wildlife mitigation etc. Local businesses may loose staff to Sizewell C making it impossible to survive."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Coulter
"I have many concerns regarding Sizewell C -the impact on Minsmere -the impact of building accommodation blocks in Eastbridge -the destruction of habitat -traffic congestion -environment damage caused by radioactive material produced -£20 billion could be spent producing electricity in a much more Cost effective way -leaving radioactive waste for future generations -don’t want to support a failing French state owned company -expensive electricity"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Lanman
"I wish to oppose the proposed development of Sizewell C on the following grounds: The site is inappropriate for the following reasons. Part of the development will be within an AONB, and will adversely affect the area, especially at Minsmere. This is also an area of coastal erosion, and with predicted sea level rises it does not appear to be a sensible place for a nuclear reactor. The problem of increased traffic will be enormous, with the predicted number of HGV movements, and will adversely affect the lives of a great many people for several years. Has the long-term cost of storing the nuclear waste been fully researched, and who will be responsible for this, EDF or the UK government - i.e. us? If EDF, what happens if they cease to trade?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Guy McGregor
"The site for the proposed construction of two nuclear reactors to generate electricity is not large enough for the proposal; The technology proposed has not been successfully brought to a conclusion at other locations; The site for this proposal is unsuitable for a number of reasons including: the location on marsh land means that an extensive platform will have to be constructed causing the need for considerable extra aggregates and if constructed cause damage to the fragile wetlands; being located in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will destroy the essential qualities of such designation; being located at considerable distance from the national road network means that local unsuitable roads will be used to bring in the materials for the construction which will mean considerable damage to these roads and the traffic proposed will cause local congestion; the traffic management proposals are road based and there is insufficient utilisation of rail and marine opportunities; The design proposed is of a poorer quality than Sizewell B and does not recognise the national importance of the site. The length of the Construction Period will cause unacceptable burden on residents of East Suffolk."
Members of the Public/Businesses
High House Fruit Farm
"I wish to make the following representation about the issues of concern that I have about Sizewell C. 1. Community, Economic and Social impacts negative impacts from: - loss of local workers to lower skilled roles in "Site Support" and shortage of seasonal workers, - influx of 6,000 workers stretching already weak health, education, social and police services - anticipated losses of upto £40m/year and 400 jobs in tourism, - worsening health outcomes from air pollution from construction and vast increase in road traffic. 2. Transport Issues: - The "Road-led" proposals already rejected by statutory consultees causing traffic congestion and transport delays adversely affecting businesses like ours, emergency vehicle access which is already poor, adverse health impacts from adverse impact on air quality! 3. Environmental Concerns: - sustainability and safety of siting a nuclear power plant on a fragile, eroding and prone to flooding coastal strip. - severance of the AONB and dire and irreversible impact on the landscape, its ecology and the marine ecology from site, design and construction. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the RSBP, SWT. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irene Bews
"The application has many concerns namely: impact on local environment during the building project, with hundreds of lorries on small country roads, the current road proposal is poorly thought through and many more roads will be impacted as lorries find alternative routes; carbon footprint of a 12 year building project; impact on small Rural communities of 1500 workers in a village of barely 100 residents; impact on local towns of influx of workers; wrecking the SSI area next to world renowned Minsmere RSPB site; light pollution impact on birds, animals etc. Additionally the cost to the British people for a technology that will be out of date by the time it is constructed and it will cost twice as much which the British taxpayer will pay for, and the land will be contaminated for 100s of years as Dounreay is for 330 years. What a legacy for our children."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ivan Turner
"No more nuclear power stations should be built at Sizewell. Our communities cannot support a development on this scale. Our roads cannot support any increase in traffic. Our medical and educational establishments are already over stretched and poorly supported. Our country side and the tourism it supports will be physically and economically destroyed. All our investment and expertise must be directed to alternate forms of electricity production. We have the skills and infrastructure already in place to support wind farm and solar electricity generation. The construction of another power station will further the housing and commercial development of a whole swath of the east coast from Ipswich to Sizewell. On top of which it will be another English utility whoa management and ultimate ownership is in the hands of a foreign power. Nothing about this proposal make ant sense."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Poll
"Noise, dust and light pollution from the main site will be a problem for local residents. Security will be problem. The accommodation block is sited in the wrong place in a rural area. The transport system will not cope with the volume of traffic which will cause congestion, pollution, rat running and movement of agricultural vehicles will be very difficult. Local traffic will struggle to operate with the extra volumes expected from Sizewell C. Farmland will be divided up into unviable land areas due to the road and railway line. Emergency services may have problems in the traffic flow to get where they are needed in a timely manner. The environmental impact has not been fully examined - such as fresh water supply, wildlife mitigation etc. Local businesses may loose staff to Sizewell C making it impossible to survive."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanne Atkins
"The main development site would be entirely within the protected landscape of Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and Suffolk Heritage Coast, designated largely for its natural beauty and tranquillity. Vegetated shingle is a scarce habitat with rare flowers, Suffolk Shingle Beaches County Wildlife Site (CWS) would be totally destroyed due to new defences. Nearly all the trees will be felled and the area concreted on Goose Hill construction site, meaning a loss of habitat for scarce White Admiral and Grayling butterflies and destruction of nesting sites of Hobby and Crossbill. The hydrology in Sizewell marshes SSSI and Minsmere Southern Levels, that sustain many rare species, is very finely balanced. Work required for SZC foundations could damage this. SSSIs are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Minsmere sites under The Conservation of Habitats & Species 2017 (EU Habitats Directive now in English law)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Gwynne-Vince
"I believe that EDF have not shown due deference to the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and wildlife that exists in this area, and have not shown how they will mitigate the destruction of nationally important and varied habitats. EDF have chosen to nominate road transportation over rail and sea for the thousands of trucks that will deliver aggregate etc to the site. The infrastructure in this region is in no way adequate to deal with this level of additional haulage vehicles and will cause major disruption to the many small communities surrounding the site and on the roads into Sizewell. The existing Sizewell sites employ few local people, I do not therefore believe the estimates quoted by EDF for new jobs at Sizewell C to be correct. I would like proof of the jobs that will be available LONG TERM not just for construction. Worker sites will affect the struggling tourist economy in this area and create eyesores on the edges of our villages."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kate Colchester
"The appropriate research into the impact of this infrastructure on the local area has not been done. The environment for small businesses in the local area has not been evaluated and the ramifications of this development, for the long term, on those businesses has not been understood or quantified. The assertions of the co developers and government have been shown to be wrong. The jobs promised will not be for local people or the long term benefit of the local population. The decimation of the areas true value is all the current plan can expect. The current plan for the development is archaic, the designs are still unproven and modern nuclear theory is moving toward smaller and more efficient designs. The local road infrastructure disallows the road based development plan. The sea access plan was never given appropriate consideration, based on monetary cost, rather than cost to the population."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lee Webb
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C: This is the wrong project in the wrong place as there is a risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding. Detrimental impact on international designated sites of ecological importance. In the near future it could become part of an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste as there are 8 other uncoordinated energy projects planned for this locality. Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. The environmental impact of this project is vast and mostly unconsidered: risk of flooding; unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice and Marsh Harriers Special Protection Area; resulting pollution from light, noise and traffic; the impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill has not been fully addressed; unclear supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond; and there won’t be any offset CO2 from this construction for at least the first 6 years. I also wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Carswell
"As a home owner in the village of Marlesford I am writing to you to express my main concerns about the proposed building of a new nuclear power station at SizewellC.? ? The main concerns are as follows:? ? The plans include the construction of a Park and Ride just off the A12 and overlooking the village of Marlesford.? The proposed siting of this would be very detrimental to Marlesford.? As well as the proposed 1,250 cars that would use the site and the numerous buses used to transport the workers to and from the building site, it is also proposed that the P&R should act as an emergency lorry park.? The necessary lighting of the site would be an unpleasant, continuous and highly obtrusive blight on the rural landscape, as would be the greatly increased noise levels.? No amount of shielding would prevent the light ruining the dark skies of Marlesford.? Similarly, the proposed attempts to muffle the noise emanating from the site (bunds and hedges) would have very little real effect and constitute mere window dressing.? Further and better information is required for the proposed traffic incident management area and the vehicle movements both day and night in the postal consolidation facility. EDF states that the construction period would be some 12 years.? Unfortunately, judging by the experience of Flammanville and Finland, the reality will be that the estimated time will be considerably more than this. ? The proposal to build a 2-village bypass, instead of bypassing all four villages, has not been properly thought through.? As proposed, the 2-village bypass would make it extremely difficult, if even possible, to enlarge it in the future to a 4-village bypass.? The expense alone of such a strategy means that it will almost certainly not be built any time in the foreseeable future. We understood that the A12 was to be improved as a key strategic corridor for Suffolk, part of the SEGWay plan. A 2-village bypass would make this a nonsense. Quite apart from the effect of traffic noise, the difficulties for Marlesford residents, and other drivers, to access the A12 at Bell Lane will increase enormously.? The increased danger to pedestrians, including children, trying to cross the A12 at that point is self-evident.? Finally, it would seem that the technology of the proposed EPR reactor is not yet proven, as demonstrated by the multiple problems in construction, rising costs and extreme delays demonstrated in Finland, Flammanville and Hinkley Point.? Thought should be given to investing in newer nuclear power generation – such as is being developed by Rolls Royce, rather than investing a lot of time and money on a soon-to-be obsolete technology. Margaret Carswell 446 words"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Gray
"However high a defence wall may be built to protect the reactor from the sea, with sea levels rising it will never be high enough. It has been shown in A and B that the concrete is disintegrating, and that will happen with C."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marie Rolfe
"I am concerned about the disruption of habitats at a time when ecosystems are severely under threat and species are being lost through climate change and human activity. I am not convinced that the European Pressurized Reactor is a reliable, safe option. I find the Community Newsletter misleading on several points and particularly it's claim that the Suffolk coast at that section is 'stable and secure'. Sizewell C will take 10 years to build and we need to address the level of carbon emissions immediately. The cost of construction has escalated to £20 billion from the original £6 billion, this is not a sound expenditure at this difficult time when Covid has resulted in severe national debt and the future is still unknown. I believe the local community will be severely disrupted during construction and the nature of the area will be affected for the future, damaging tourism . The project is out-dated, expensive and damaging."
Parish Councils
Marlesford Parish Council
"Submission to Planning Inspectorate Relevant Representation as Interested Party On behalf of Marlesford Parish Council Regarding NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited DCO Application For Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station and Associated Works Lord Marlesford Chairman Marlesford Parish Council Melanie Thurston Parish Clerk [email protected] 22nd September 2020 Introduction 1. Marlesford Parish Council (MPC) MPC is very worried by the impacts on this village as a result of EDF’s proposals for SZC. We believe that quality of life will be impaired over the likely 12 year build period and for many of the older residents, the impacts will be felt for the majority of their remaining lives – that is a sad prospect for those who have long enjoyed the relative tranquillity of this village. 2. Whilst we acknowledge some benefits to the East Suffolk community from Sizewell C (SZC), for example, employment opportunities, opportunities for local businesses and the inflow of substantial business rates, we feel that these benefits do not outweigh the huge burden that this area will have to bear on behalf of the rest of the country. The impact of SZC in the construction phase will be felt in East Suffolk on many fronts, including increases in traffic (particularly HGVs) using the A12, pressure on rented accommodation and adverse effects on tourism. 3. At Stage 4 consultation MPC withheld its support for SZC on the grounds that insufficient information had been provided on the proposals. MPC’s position has now shifted to one of opposing the EDF proposals for Sizewell C in their current form. MPC feels that key areas such as freight strategy, various aspects of ecology and general impacts on the communities and landscape of East Suffolk have been dealt with in insufficient detail and despite engagement in the consultation process we feel that the concerns of this, and neighbouring parishes have not been addressed by EDF. 4. MPC and neighbouring parishes of Wickham Market, Hacheston, Campsea Ashe, Pettistree, Little Glemham and Parham have identified areas of common interest and many of the issues set out below are shared concerns with our neighbours. We have confined our comments to the four topic areas below which we believe will have greatest impact on our community. We will leave others who may be more directly affected or have greater specialist knowledge to comment on other issues, amongst which we would expect to see concerns about EDF’s ability to deliver the whole project, the impact of SZC on the Suffolk Coasts and Heath AONB, its impact on coastal processes in the Sizewell area, concerns about potable water supplies and impacts on tourism and the local economy. Topic Areas of Concern Two Village Bypass 5. MPC does not support the proposals for the Two Village Bypass (TVB). This is on the grounds that the proposals do not allow for a comprehensive long-term strategic bypassing solution for the A12 at Marlesford and Little Glemham which would provide the only conceivable long term solution to the growing traffic problems faced by these communities. 6. It is accepted by the highways’ authority that the alignment of the TVB and particularly its southern junction with the A12, will preclude the eventual delivery of the Four Village bypass of Marlesford, Little Glemham, Stratford St Andrew and Farnham (Suffolk County Council’s SEGway). Strategically we believe this is a gross error. Southern Park and Ride - Hacheston 7. The elevated position (DCO Application Documents, Book 6, 6.5, Volume 4, Chapter 6, para 6.4.12) of the Southern Park and Ride (SP&R) makes the site an inappropriate one and is the reason that we have opposed its location. The site is located between the two Special Landscape Areas of the Rivers Deben and Ore (Policy AP13 Special Landscape Areas, Suffolk Coastal Local Plan, Saved Policies July 2013). That policy states that “The District Council will ensure that no development will take place which would be to the material detriment of, or materially detract from, the special landscape quality”, we contend that the development of the SP&R in this location will detract from the quality of the landscape. In the event that the site is consented we will require screening commensurate with its sensitive landscape location. 8. Important aspects of the site are shown on plans as “Not for Approval” including detail on buildings, signage, drainage and lighting (see DCO Application Documents, Book 2 Plans, 2.7 Southern Park and Ride Plans). MPC will want positive assurances that these areas will be properly conditioned and discharge monitored. 9. There are significant visual impacts that do not appear to have been fully considered. As a minimum, we will be pressing for bunding to be reinstated to what was shown at Stage 4 (see DCO Application Documents, Book 5, 5.1 Consultation Report, Appendices F1-F2, Appendix 1 Stage 4 Consultation Summary Document Pg 19) and we would expect our concerns regarding old and new hedgerows and existing specimen trees to be addressed. 10. The construction start date for the SP&R is scheduled for Year 2 of the project. We believe it should be started in Year 1 to ensure the earliest and maximum capture of A12 SZC traffic. 11. EDF claims that in general, noise from the construction, operation and removal phases will have negligible impacts on the identified receptors (see DCO Application Documents, Book 6 Environmental Statement, 6.5, Volume 4 Southern Park and Ride, Chapter 4 Noise and Vibration) - we will challenge this. We do not believe all receptors have been considered. 12. As part of EDF’s noise and air quality mitigation we will press for EDF’s contractors to use electric buses. 13. Marlesford is a “dark skies” area. We will argue that EDF must mitigate the illumination of the SP&R site to ensure that dark skies are protected. Wickham Market and Surrounding Area Traffic Issues 14. The inappropriate proposed location of the SP&R will put enormous pressure on already congested local roads. Wickham Market is a service centre for its neighbouring villages. MPC has been working closely with its neighbouring parishes to ensure that traffic issues in and around Wickham Market are addressed by EDF. Dialogue is ongoing with EDF, but we will expect to see commitments to improvements secured early in the Examination process and enshrined in the Decision. 15. We will need to see evidence that EDF is taking seriously the need to direct all traffic via A14/A12 in order to alleviate pressure on the B1078. 16. We expect innovative solutions to be applied to tracking of LGVs and private cars using the SP&R to ensure that the A14/A12 objective (above) is met. 17. We consider the cycle and pedestrian access to the SP&R is lacking detail. As a legacy issue we will press for a cycle and pedestrian route from the Marlesford Road/A12 junction to the SP&R. A12, Freight Strategy and Traffic Numbers 18. MPC regards the A12 through Marlesford as wholly inadequate to carry the increased traffic arising from SZC and Scottish Power Renewables construction projects. We will challenge assumptions made on cumulative impact. 19. The lived experience of Marlesford residents suggests that the junctions of Bell Lane/A12 and Marlesford Road/A12 are dangerous and MPC disagrees with EDF that, “As no capacity problems are foreseen no mitigation is proposed or deemed necessary at the existing junction” (see DCO Application Documents, Book 8, Other Documents, 8.5 Transport Assessment 9.29.1 - 9.29.17). 20. MPC will argue for A12 baseline studies of noise, air quality and vibration before construction. Monitoring should continue during construction and for an agreed period after the construction phase ends. 21. The unimproved A12 through Marlesford creates community severance. This will increase with the SZC and other projects’ traffic. A safe crossing will be required as a legacy benefit. 22. MPC will want an explanation of why a predominantly road led strategy has been preferred over marine or rail led. 23. The list of issues outlined above is not exhaustive and we will seek full and appropriate mitigation of these and other issues for the benefit of local residents. Conclusion 24. This community will suffer heavily as a result of the direct impact of the SP&R, increased HGV, LGV and bus use of the A12 through Marlesford, and will be affected by the expected congestion in Wickham Market. This is a high price to pay over the anticipated 12 - 15 year build period and, EDF should be held responsible for the considerable costs involved in making life bearable for the residents of Marlesford and Little Glemham and providing legacy benefits in the event that the two villages are not bypassed. 25. We expect the establishment of a forum through which community concerns can be voiced during the construction and operation phases. o0o Lord Marlesford Chair 23rd September 2020 Marlesford Parish Council"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Clarke
"Sizewell C. Relevant Representation I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C: Stored waste: This site was never designed to store nuclear waste. It is extremely concerning that all the nuclear waste is destined to remain close to my home. The negative impact on the local community will be huge. Influx of workers will overwhelm the local area. Lorries will cause chaos on local roads making it impossible to carry out normal journeys like going to work, shopping, taking kids to school etc. Thus negative influence on local businesses. Emergency evacuation has not been addressed. Our one access road would be gridlocked immediately and vulnerable people stranded. New by-pass proposals will cut swathes through agricultural land and no doubt be followed by new-build housing projects. Local lanes will be used for rat runs every time there is congestion. This is a very quiet area so all construction noise on the new site will be audible for miles. Light pollution from the site will have negative impact on the area which is renowned for its lack of ambient light at night time. I don’t believe the impact from the spoil heaps and borrow pits has been addressed adequately It will have a catastrophic impact on this AONB The construction will lead to massive CO2 emissions The costs are astronomically absurd and it is still not clear where funding will come from"
Parish Councils
Martlesham Parish Council
"SIZEWELL C PROPOSALS: BACKGROUND Martlesham and the surrounding parishes are experiencing economic and housing growth putting increasing pressure on the local highway network. With its expanding retail and business areas plus BT Adastral Park, congestion levels continue to rise. Martlesham Parish sits astride the A12 with several important junctions. Households are planned to double to nearly 5000 by c2027-28. The business and retail areas (including BT Adastral Park create about 5000 daily commuters and very large (unquantified) numbers of shoppers and other visitors. All this traffic loads the A12. Sizewell’s accessibility is wholly dependent on accessibility via the A12. At Martlesham, that accessibility is threatened. SIZEWELL C PROPOSALS: OVERVIEW We feel there is insufficient information to support Sizewell’s expansion. Therefore, we do not support the proposals for many reasons, including: • Failure to assess and mitigate the impact of construction traffic on congestion, quality of life and environmental parameters on the areas surrounding the A12 where it passes through Martlesham (and Woodbridge). • Insufficient evidence to consider a cost-v-benefit analysis. • Insufficient information to assess whether alternative emerging technologies will displace the need for Sizewell C in the timeframe for Sizewell to come on stream. • With progress in cost effective renewable energy storage, and recent investment in connector infrastructure to achieve more effective National Grid balance, we question the economic viability of Sizewell C. • These proposals should not be assessed in isolation but within the context of an overarching energy strategy for the East Suffolk coastline, incorporating all renewable and nuclear projects, assessing their cumulative impact on local communities. • Within the local East of England Energy Zone there are opportunities and proposals for the area to produce more renewable energy through low carbon technology, biomass and anaerobic digesters, wind farms, wave power and solar power which are more environmentally and climate emergency friendly than nuclear power. • The project fails to generate any desirable long-term legacy for the region – economic, transport, housing or otherwise. • The decommissioning proposals are untried and untested. • The long-term hazards in handling, transporting and storing nuclear waste are unknown and the plans do not offer adequate health and environmental safety assurance. • Contingencies for medical care for a temporary workforce, emergencies and evacuation are inadequate and overstretch existing local resources, presuming hospital access via the A12 is guaranteed. • The special qualities of the Suffolk Coasts and Heath as AONBs and SSSIs are being ignored. This is home to a unique mix of habitat and protected species (flora, fauna and wildlife), which demands protection, not relocation or mitigation. • Work on understanding the potential effects of a nuclear plant on marine ecology and fisheries is still being considered whereas mitigation measures are only promised “where appropriate”. What is appropriate has not been established. • The transport of nuclear waste cannot be secured against terrorism activity and accident, which poses a major threat as it travels through Martlesham. • Secondary damage to local archaeological sites is under- recognised, contrary to emerging national recognition for the local Anglo-Saxon history."
Parish Councils
Melton Parish Council
"SZC - RELEVANT REPRESENTATION BY MELTON PARISH COUNCIL The following summarises Melton Parish Council’s (MPC’s) main points/issues. Crucially, Melton does not want its already significant traffic congestion to be exacerbated by SZC -[Redacted] MPC’s major concerns are: 1. The current A12 is inadequate to cope with additional traffic generated by the new energy projects at Friston and Sizewell. EDF’s plans for improving the A12 do not solve the problem. Our supporting evidence contains suggestions for road improvements on the A12 and A1152 (paragraphs 17 to 19). 2. The Friston and SZC energy projects will also lead to an explosion of rat-running through Martlesham, Woodbridge and Melton when drivers seek alternative north-south routes that avoid the A12 or the Southern P&R (supporting evidence paragraphs 13 to 15) 3. We note the proposal to locate the Southern Park & Ride north east of Wickham Market and insist that the Stage 2 consultation option for it to be located adjacent to the Woods Lane(A1152) roundabout with the A12 remains off the table (supporting evidence paragraph 12). 4. We welcome the decision to use rail and sea transport to reduce the number of HGV journeys. We urge that more be done to maximise rail freight over road transport, as the levels of proposed HGV movements are still too high for Suffolk’s limited road network. 5. Sizewell night-time goods trains (speed-limited to 10mph) through Melton will cause noise disturbance. Melton homes likely to be adversely impacted should now be identified and appropriate mitigation measures secured as part of any consent. 6. SZC will need 2-3m litres of freshwater daily, from an area of low rainfall where the frequency and severity of drought will worsen with climate change. We are concerned this will impact adversely on agricultural and domestic supplies and cause ecological problems in the region. 7. It is inappropriate to install new pylons for SZC in an AONB. This invasive approach was avoided in the 1980s for SZB, as it should be in the 21st century for SZC. We suspect this is a cost saving measure, not an unsolvable technical problem - and it should be reversed. 8. We believe the community dis-benefits of SZC outweigh the benefits. This mirrors MPC’s view following its community consultation event in March 2019. The community will incur severe dis-benefits to transport, the environment and pollution, tourism, accommodation and community safety. While the economic benefits to the supply chain and jobs are welcome, in the latter case they fall short of expectations. For new jobs, only a small proportion of the higher graded, senior, posts will go to local people. 9. SZC strategies for delivering benefits and mitigating dis-benefits appear to have good governance arrangements. But there is still much uncertainty. Will all partner organisations sign-up to the strategies? Will SZC put in sufficient investment? There are huge risks to Suffolk’s £2bn tourism industry. SZC’s large transient workforce will inevitably place strain on existing housing and community infrastructure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Taylor
"Sizewell C Personal Relevant representation to PINS. Despite 4 consultations and this DCO application I believe EDF have not supplied adequate information and I wish to highlight certain issues. I believe that the carrying out and co-ordinating of all permissions and licences, alongside and feeding into the DCO process, in accord with PINS guidance Annex 11 is essential. The Wylfa planning case has had little or no input from Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and regardless of any planning decision from the SoS (due soon) the Wylfa site cannot be considered to be suitable for nuclear generation until a site licence is finalised by ONR. Missing criteria/lack of information. CO2 Impact:- Carbon Footprint studies exist for the SZB dry fuel store which can be used as a basis for considering the construction impact of SZC. Town Water:- raised this issue at all consultations. Critical aspect of IAEA siting criteria. It has been known since the 1993 application for SZC that there would be no further water abstraction permitted.[Redacted] Poor Landscape photomontages :- eg Aldeburgh to Thorpeness, RSPB Minsmere. Downplays long distant landscape impact. Wrong locations. No redline layout of the whole development site including OS gridlines and contours. Previously Layfield and the SoS planning consent for SZB had rejected a second access road and highlighted the green (later added blue) planning lines which are included in the Royal Haskoning/British Energy scoping opinion for SZC dated 2008. It is estimated that the proposed eastern limit of the SZC site could be over 100 metres beyond the blue line. The western boundary is on a marsh. Insufficient historic mapping, particularly post Sizewell A, post Sizewell B. Aids understanding of the build-up of land and underlying geology. Need for review of the ONR site licence and boundary for Sizewell B NPS. It is directly adjacent to Sizewell C site and the height of the station platform is also different leading to increased flood risk. Issues concerning EN6 NPS July 2011 Vol 2 ref. planning policy Deployability and Need. C.8.3, C.8.83, C.8.59. Any 2025 Deployment impossible. Need should be addressed by a new energy policy. Grid connection and grid stability. C.8.5, C.8.74, C.8.86. Impact on grid stability and future need for additional lines in Stour valley AONB, possible Electromagnetic Radiation issue at Aldringham Park. Landscape impact AONB. Inflexible one turbine/ one reactor design of the EPR, unlike two turbine SZB, one turbine switched off due to National Grid request. Major issue needs to be resolved by National Grid. Size and location. C.8.2, C.8.37, C.8.42, C8.61-65, C.8.68, C.8.70, C.8.73, C.8.74, C.8.75, C.8.76, C.8.78, C.8.82, C.8.85, C.8.89. Site too small and constrained in an AONB and designated sites. Major Landscape impact of reactors and pylons. Reactor centrelines not aligned with SZB. Demographics. C.8.7 ONR licencing process/Emergency planning. SZA used remote site criteria. Need to account for up to 30km Outer Emergency Planning zone, affecting emergency plan for Sizewell B particularly during construction of SZC. Flood risk and coastal erosion. EA and ONR, C.8.18-21, C.8.25, C.8.27, C.8.29, C.8.34, C.8.40, Flood zone 3, sea level rise, storminess, site lifetime of spent fuel store needs to be confirmed. Potential impact of jetty/AIL facility on coastal process. Cooling Water systems. EA. C.8.92 on. CEFAS Station 10 Sizewell public information on sea temperature trend out of date. Fish mortality. Fish deterrent system unresolved at HPC. C/W system impact on coastal erosion. Possible impact of dredging material needs study. HPC issues unresolved. Transport and Access. C.8.69. EDF have recently indicated they may wish to review the modes of transport. No motorway, 47kms to A14, risk to Orwell Bridge, potential delays at Felixstowe Port compounded by Brexit. Borrow pit use unclear. Rail noise, air quality, safety and capacity due to heavy freight trains 2000 tonnes. Use of sea dredged aggregates needs careful study. Minerals Authority planner SCC, has not allowed for SZC. Ecology. C.8.52, C.8.53, Impact on groundwater, connectivity, red data book species, purpose of AONB and designated sites. Cannot be mitigated. Spent fuel and disposability. C8.23, C8.24. No Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) site. Hi Burn fuel, Cask storage unproven lifetime. Security and location of proposed dry fuel store. No understanding of how to move off site to any GDF even for SZB casks. Health Impacts C8.106. Historic detectable increase in local health impacts from past operations particularly leukaemia and cancers. In view of the above I wish to strongly object to the plans for Sizewell C."
Parish Councils
Middleton cum Fordley Parish Council
"The negative impacts of the proposed Sizewell C development are so severe that adequate redress is not possible. Several measures could be taken to make the scheme less unacceptable, though EDF seem reluctant to do so. Throughout every stage of the Public Consultation process, EDF have signally failed to adequately address, or provide sufficient detail of, the majority of major issues arising from their proposals. This has been highlighted by their September release of a pamphlet entitled “Sizewell C – What it means for you”. Its ‘Key Facts’, listed on page 3, serve to illustrate the yawning gap between their aspirations and reality: • “Sizewell C will be located right next to a stable and secure section of the Suffolk coast”. EDF do not have any facts to substantiate this claim. The East Suffolk coast is eroding - notoriously prone to damaging storms and surges. • “The design of the station is a replica of one EDF are building at Hinkley Point [and one in France and another in Finland]….and will take 9-12 years to build”. In fact, all are behind schedule and over budget – the foreign ones horrendously so. EDF’s specific claim that Hinkley C “is on schedule” is simply risible. • “They [UK EPRs] are proven to work”. The only ‘working example’ of the basic PR design is in China. Its safety regime and compliance to ONR scrutiny are not known, nor whether it is/was plagued by the complex building delays, structural and valve problems being experienced in France and Finland. • “25,000 job opportunities will be created”. It would be more factually correct to say 25,000 activities, where many of these are performed by a single individual and could be very short-term. • “At least a third of the workforce will be local”. It is expected that the vast majority of these local jobs will be filled by people ‘poached’ from existing positions in tourism, social care and building trades, rather than providing ‘new’ openings, since current unemployment is low. And with EDF construction workers expected to take up much of the potential accommodation in the area, ‘replacement’ staff for those lost to EDF will be difficult to recruit without the potential of somewhere to live. • “At least 40% of the construction material will be delivered by sea or rail”. This is a strange claim, given that at each stage of public consultation, the number of HGV movements has increased to now almost double the original estimates despite the supposed use of sea and rail. It is strongly believed that much more material could be brought to site by both these means, the dismissing factor in EDF’s case undoubtedly being cost. • “A net increase in land for wildlife will be created”. No mention is made as to how flora and fauna will be re-directed to these new sites, after they have been scared off by the noise, dust and light pollution or totally destroyed by the construction site. • “The carbon emissions during construction will be offset within 6-8 months.” This is totally misleading. In fact, EDF have previously conceded the true figure could be 6 years, meaning it will be well into the 2030s before electricity from Sizewell C can truthfully be considered ‘Low Carbon’. The various pledges that EDF have outlined on page 4 concerning noise, light and dust are inadequately explained and couched by terms such as ‘reduce where possible’, ‘as little as possible’, and ‘minimise’ – hardly likely to provide any comfort to the thousands of local people who will be affected, and for which no amount of mitigation or compensation will suffice. The damage to the fragile Sizewell/Minsmere ecosystem will be considerable. Reinstating some of the land and providing alternative sites for wildlife will not do. The cumulative effects of pollution, massive works and intense human activity will cause irreparable damage. The provision of a Community Fund by EDF (without sufficient explanation of how it would be applied or how much it would be) is most unlikely to address the issues that will be raised. EDF’s pledge to support the growth of the local economy is effectively wiped out by the loss of tourism – vital to the region – even EDF admit this could cause a reduction of approaching one third. Their proposed Tourism Fund (as yet unquantified) is unlikely to be sufficient in terms of quantity, or flexibility in its application, to compensate for the destruction of years of careful investment in, and development of, East Suffolk’s tourist economy. It is earnestly hoped that EDF’s pledge to ‘require all workers to sign a code of conduct and enforce it’ will be rigorously enacted. This was far from the case during the construction of both Sizewell A and B, despite assurances being given at that time. Comparisons with Bridgwater, the nearest town to Hinkley C, are meaningless as it has eight times the population of Leiston, which will simply be overwhelmed by the SZC workforce. There are several extremely important issues not addressed either within the brochure or during any of the stages of prior consultation. • There is great concern about EDF’s ability to secure a sufficient supply of potable water, both during construction and operation. Discussions with the local water provider have been inconclusive, and proposals by EDF to build a reservoir are seen as too little, too late if construction is to start when envisaged. Given the low rainfall in the locality (projected to become even less in the future) there is little likelihood of a reservoir being able to contribute meaningfully to the huge expected demands. • Traffic, from the Seven Hills junction with the A14, all the way to the site, regardless of projected by-passes and a new link road (both of which are seen as hopelessly inadequate, badly sited but nonetheless needed to be in place before work commences), will increase to such a level that the daily lives and livelihood of people along the route will be severely disrupted by delays and excessive pollution – noise, light and airborne matter. Also the ability of the Emergency Services to speedily answer calls will be prejudiced to a life-threatening degree. In the event of road repairs being required, or a traffic accident, the intended roads leading to Sizewell have no viable alternative routes, which would not only hold up work at the site but seriously threaten the life of the local population. • As presently and very sketchily portrayed, EDF’s plans for protecting the site from ingress by the sea are woefully inadequate. Years of experienced observation of the coast of East Anglia amply illustrate that the ‘double whammy’ of (a) building another nuclear plant, and (b) storing its waste for centuries to come, on a stretch of coastline subject to erosion, the extent of which cannot be foreseen or defended, is of itself indefensible. It is difficult, if not downright impossible, to identify what benefit the local area and population will gain from the construction or operation of Sizewell C. The two previous nuclear plants have left Leiston as one of the poorest towns in East Anglia – there is no certainty that SZC will produce anything other than a short and unsustainable boost to the local economy, largely if not wholly offset by losses in tourism income. • There will not be a net gain in employment for local people. • There will be a tangible loss of amenities and the quality of life, regardless of EDF’s efforts to ‘minimise’. • There will be a serious threat to tourism, through traffic delays, loss of availability of accommodation and degradation of attractions such as Minsmere and the Suffolk Coast and Heaths. With the profusion of windfarm projects and trans-continental power cable feeds destined for the area immediately surrounding the Sizewell site, there is the very real possibility that the Nation’s energy requirements can be met much sooner and far cheaper than the inordinately costly and slow-to-build nuclear plant proposed. However, having said that, all these alternative power projects represent a threat not only to each other, but to Sizewell C, in terms of conflicting traffic flows – they will all need to use the same inadequate road systems. The A12, not even a trunk road north of Ipswich, offers neither the capacity nor the inherent strength to support the envisaged hyper levels of usage. Yet nowhere can it be seen that any provision is being made by the companies involved or government to invest in the significant improvements (new roads, doubling the East Suffolk Line rail track etc., which should be carried out before the projects commence) that would be necessary to allow such major concurrent works to take place, let alone the life of local people to carry on with any semblance of normality. We endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by “Stop Sizewell C”, Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council and the B1122 Action Group. We wish to state categorically that the consideration of the Sizewell C Application by a digital examination process is totally unacceptable."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Ministry of Energy, Agriculture, the Environment, Nature and Di
"I comment on the following subjects: Controllability of a core melt-down The influencing Human Factor Terrorist attacks Implications of the British Euratom withdrawal. In Detail: Beherrschbarkeit einer Kernschmelze Kernkraftwerken der sog. III. Generation, zu denen der EPR gehört, wird von ihren Be-fürwortern „inhärente Sicherheit“ attestiert. Im Gegensatz zu Kernkraftwerken der I. und II. Generation sollen sie angeblich über ausreichend Sicherheitseinrichtungen verfügen, um eine komplette Kernschmelze zu beherrschen. Die Behauptung, dass es möglich sei, einen Druckwasserreaktor mit „inhärenter Sicherheit“ zu entwickeln, zu bauen und über Jahrzehnte zu betreiben, ist schon Jahrzehnte alt. 1989 schlossen sich ein Unternehmen aus Frankreich und ein deutsches Unternehmen durch die Gründung einer gemeinsamen Firma zusammen. Diese sollte ein, wie es damals hieß, „konkurrenzfähiges Produkt für den Weltmarkt“ entwickeln, den Europäischen Druckwasserreaktor (European Pressurised Reactor, EPR). Ziel war, selbst hypothetische Störfälle auf das Innere des Kernkraftwerks zu begrenzen. Strahlenbelastungen der Bevölkerung oder gar Evakuierungsmaßnahmen sollten ausgeschlossen sein. Erreicht werden sollte dieses Ziel dadurch, dass ein für alle Betriebszustände kurz- und langfristig integrer Sicherheitsbehälter entwickelt werden sollte, in dem eine etwaige Kernschmelze stabilisiert und langfristig gekühlt werden könnte. Der Ausschluss schwerer Stör- oder Unfälle sollte ohne Rückgriff auf aktive Komponenten und ohne Eingriffe durch das Betriebspersonal des Kernkraftwerks sichergestellt werden. Diese Bestrebungen haben bis heute nicht dazu geführt, dass in Europa ein Europäischer Druckwasserreaktor ans Netz gebracht werden konnte. Projekte in Finnland (Olkiluoto), Frankreich (Flamanville) und Großbritannien (Hinkley Point C) sind z.T. durch erhebliche Planungs- und Bauverzögerungen gekennzeichnet und sie zeichnen sich dadurch aus, dass sie nur mit erheblicher Unterstützung der Staatskasse in den jeweiligen Ländern aufrechterhalten werden können. Zwar gingen im chinesischen Taishan 2018 bzw. 2019 zwei EPR ans Netz. Aber der Be-weis dafür, dass es sich um inhärent sichere Reaktoren handelt, ist bei so kurzen Laufzeiten längst nicht erbracht. In aktuellen EPR-Projekten werden Laufzeiten von 60 Jahren vorgesehen. Hinzu kommt, dass es sich bei den Europäischen Druckwasserreaktoren – verglichen mit Kernkraftwerken der I. oder II. Generation – um Kernkraftwerke mit sehr hoher Leistung und deutlich höherem Aktivitätsinventar handelt. Das ist auch jetzt wieder der Fall bei den beiden Reaktorblöcken von Sizewell C. Niemand kann belegen, dass die Integrität der jeweiligen Sicherheitsbehälter über sechs Jahrzehnte Volllastbetrieb gewährleistet sein wird und dass es deshalb nicht zu schweren Stör- oder Unfällen kommen wird. Weltweit gab und gibt es kein Kernkraftwerk, das auf 60 Jahre Leistungsbetrieb zurückblicken kann. Außerdem gibt es keine längeren Betriebsbilanzen von Kernkraftwerken, die mit einer so hohen elektrischen Leistung betrieben worden wären wie die geplanten Reaktoren von Sizewell C. Wie sich diese Betriebsbedingungen auf die Eintrittswahrscheinlichkeit und auf die Beherrschbarkeit einer Kernschmelze auswirken würden, ist unklar. Insofern ist aber keine solide Grundlage dafür gegeben, substantielle Umweltauswirkungen in Nachbarstaaten durch einen kerntechnischen Unfall am Standort Sizewell C von vornherein auszuschließen. Einfluss des Menschen Wie bereits dargelegt, darf inhärente Sicherheit nicht davon abhängen, dass die Betriebsmannschaft des EPR im Anforderungsfall in der Lage ist, zeitgerecht die richtigen Maßnahmen zu treffen. Es ist aber weder möglich noch wäre es sinnvoll, den Einfluss des Menschen auf die Sicherheit des Reaktorbetriebs gänzlich auszuschließen. Entwickelt, errichtet, betrieben und beaufsichtigt werden Kernkraftwerke von Menschen. Genügend fachkundiges und zuverlässiges Personal, das auf diesen Gebieten tätig wird, ist in Deutschland zunehmend schwieriger zu gewinnen. Das gilt besonders für geeignete Nachwuchskräfte. Dafür, dass sich diese Situation in Großbritannien deutlich günstiger gestaltet, liegen keine Anhaltspunkte vor. Die Mehrzahl der Bauverzögerungen und Betriebsstörungen bis hin zu kerntechnischen Stör- und Unfällen kommt weltweit nach bisheriger Erfahrung durch menschliches Versagen zustande. In Fukushima war ein Naturereignis (die Höhe des Tsunami) erheblich unterschätzt worden, in Flamanville bewirkten zahlreiche Fertigungsmängel (z.B. fehlerhafte Schweißnähte) mehrjährige Verzögerungen und den Reaktorunfall in Tschernobyl lösten u.a. eigenmächtige Experimente des Betriebspersonals aus. Solche Einflussfaktoren können nirgends ausgeschlossen werden und es muss damit gerechnet werden, dass auch die Reaktorblöcke von Sizewell C ihnen nicht gewachsen wären – selbst wenn man diese grundsätzlich als inhärent sicher ansehen würde. Terroristische Angriffe Von noch ganz anderer Qualität als menschliche Fehlleistungen, wie sie im vorangegangenen Kapitel beschrieben sind, wären Einwirkungen, die gerade darauf gerichtet sind, den sicheren Reaktorbetrieb zu gefährden. In dem Dokument „Major Accidents and Disasters“ geht die Vorhabenbeschreibung zu Sizewell C zwar auf terroristische Handlungen, u.a. auf „unautorisierte Fahrzeuge, die sich dem Kraftwerksgelände nähern“ ein. Hierzu wird allerdings lediglich die Information gegeben, dass insoweit Sicherheitsvorkehrungen getroffen und „angemessene Maßnahmen“ für einen sicheren Anlagenbetrieb getroffen werden. Es ist zwar einerseits verständlich, dass die Öffentlichkeit in dieser Materie keine sehr detaillierte Beschreibung von Abwehrmaßnahmen erwarten kann. Andererseits bleibt dadurch die Ungewissheit, ob tatsächlich ausreichende Vorkehrungen getroffen werden, erhalten. Stetig wachsende Bedeutung bekommt für die zuständigen Behörden in diesem Zusammenhang die Berücksichtigung des Problemfelds Cyber-Kriminalität. Das Dokument „Major Accidents and Disasters“ äußert sich zwar auch hierzu, allerdings in nahezu identischer Weise wie zu Terrorangriffen im Allgemeinen (siehe vorhergehender Absatz). Abgesehen davon, dass Außenstehenden insofern auch zu diesem Problembereich nicht deutlich wird, ob die Sicherheitsvorkehrungen ausreichend sind, bleibt noch ein weiterer Aspekt zu beachten: Wenn die Überwachung der Reaktorsicherheit und die Initiierung von Sicherheitsmaßnahmen weitgehend über ein digitales System erfolgt, ist dieser Umstand auch bei Verwendung modernster Sicherheitstechnik schon für sich genommen mit dem Risiko verbunden, dass diese Technik auch einmal ausfallen und möglicherweise nicht zeitgerecht durch ein adäquates System ersetzt werden kann. Insofern wäre von Interesse, in Bezug auf welche Anwendungsfälle und inwieweit in Sizewell C ggf. der Rückgriff auf externe Notfallmaßnahmen notwendig werden könnte. Folgen des britischen Euratom-Austritts Der britische Euratom-Austritt kann sich negativ auf die Reaktorsicherheit und den Strahlenschutz auswirken, in Bezug auf bestehende Anlagen, aber auch auf geplante Projekte. Dies ergibt sich im Einzelnen aus Folgendem: Es ist nicht erkennbar, wodurch die Regelungen des Euratom-Vertrages zu den Kontroll-befugnissen der EU-Kommission in Großbritannien ersetzt werden sollen. Mit diesen Re-gelungen sind z.B. innerhalb der Euratom-Gemeinschaft Kontrollbesuche durch Euratom-Inspektoren etabliert, die eine unabhängige Überwachung des Sicherheitsniveaus in den einzelnen Mitgliedsstaaten gewährleisten. Mit welchen Mechanismen diese unabhängige Überwachung in der Zukunft sichergestellt werden soll, ist unklar. Gemäß Euratom-Vertrag hat die Europäische Kommission das Recht, die Arbeitsweise und Wirksamkeit der Einrichtungen zur Überwachung der Radioaktivität in der Umwelt und der Einhaltung der Grundnormen nachzuprüfen. Hierbei werden stichprobenartig die Einrichtungen zur Kontrolle der Emissionen kerntechnischer Anlagen und darüber hinaus die Umgebungsüberwachung sowie das staatliche Überwachungssystem und die Qualitätssicherungsmaßnahmen überprüft. Es wäre von großem Interesse zu erfahren, in welcher Form die diesbezüglichen Euratom-Inspektionen ersetzt werden sollen. Nicht erkennbar ist außerdem, durch welche Regelungen das zwischen den Euratom-Mitgliedsstaaten vereinbarte Überwachungssystem in Bezug auf die bestimmungsgemäße Verwendung spaltbarer Stoffe und auf die grenzüberschreitende Verbringung radioaktiver Abfälle, insbesondere abgebrannter Brennelemente, gleichwertig abgelöst werden soll. Eine Euratom-Richtlinie verpflichtet überdies alle Euratom-Mitgliedsstaaten, nationale Entsorgungsprogramme zu erstellen. Damit soll die verantwortungsvolle und sichere Entsorgung abgebrannter Brennelemente und radioaktiver Abfälle innerhalb eines europa-rechtlichen Rahmens sichergestellt werden. In Bezug auf hochradioaktive Abfälle werden innerhalb der EU nach derzeitigem Stand der Wissenschaft geologische Tiefenlager favorisiert. Dabei ist es auch möglich, dass einzelne Euratom-Mitgliedsstaaten sich zusammentun und ein gemeinsames Endlager anstreben. Welche nationalen Planungen in Großbritannien in dieser Hinsicht bestehen, die die Regelungen in der EU-Richtlinie ablösen werden, ist nicht transparent. Die Lösung dieser Frage ist für Großbritannien von großer Bedeutung, da das Volumen abgebrannter Brennelemente durch die neuen Kern-kraftwerksvorhaben in Hinkley Point und in Sizewell, wenn diese realisiert werden, sich noch deutlich erhöhen wird. Hinzukommen werden noch die Abfälle aus der Wiederaufarbeitung. Zum Vergleich: Das Bundesumweltministerium rechnet damit, dass in Deutschland „rund 10.500 Tonnen Schwermetall in Form von bestrahlten Brennelementen aus dem Betrieb der Atomkraftwerke“ werden endgelagert werden müssen. Unterstellt man, dass die beiden Blöcke von Sizewell C tatsächlich – wie angestrebt – je 60 Jahre lang im Leistungsbetrieb sein werden, würde das dazu führen, dass allein aus diesen beiden Reaktoren hochradioaktives Schwermetall in einer Größenordnung von etwa 4000 Tonnen endgelagert werden müsste. Unklarheit besteht – über das Projekt Sizewell C hinaus – darüber, wie sich nach dem Euratom-Austritt das britische Verhältnis zu der Internationalen Atomenergieorganisation IAEO gestalten wird, welche Vereinbarungen mit der IAEO getroffen worden sind und in-wieweit diese geeignet sind, die von Großbritannien als Partner des Euratom-Vertrages übernommenen Pflichten inhaltlich zu ersetzen. Es ist den zur Verfügung gestellten Unterlagen nicht zu entnehmen, welche Auswirkungen das britische Ausscheiden aus dem EU-Binnenmarkt auf die Zulieferungen für den Bau der Reaktorblöcke von Sizewell C haben wird. Zu erkennen ist auch nicht, welche Folgen das Ausscheiden Großbritanniens aus dem Euratom-Vertrag auf die Brennstoffversorgung für das geplante Kernkraftwerk haben wird. Hieraus folgt, dass sich gegenwärtig weder die finanziellen Folgen für das Projekt noch die Auswirkungen auf die Sicherheitsstandards bei Sizewell C seriös abschätzen lassen. Was die Bereiche Forschung und Entwicklung angeht, gibt es innerhalb der Euratom-Gemeinschaft Projekte zur Aufrechterhaltung und Fortentwicklung der Reaktorsicherheit, außerdem z.B. zur Entwicklung langfristiger Entsorgungslösungen, zur Kompetenzentwicklung durch Ausbildungs- und Mobilitätsmaßnahmen oder auch zur Verbesserung des Strahlenschutzes. Hierfür werden bis zum Jahr 2027 absehbar mehr als 2 Milliarden Euro EU-Forschungsmittel zur Verfügung stehen. Es gibt keine Erkenntnisse darüber, inwieweit sich Großbritannien in der Zukunft an solchen Euratom-Programmen ggf. als Drittland beteiligen bzw. ob Großbritannien insoweit eigene, gleichwertige Forschungsprogramme auflegen wird. Besonders für diejenigen Espoo-Vertragspartner, deren Staatsgebiet sich in relativer Nähe zu Großbritannien befindet (z.B. Deutschland), wäre es sehr wichtig, umfassende Informationen darüber zu erhalten, inwieweit die hohen Sicherheitsstandards auf den Gebieten Reaktorsicherheit und Strahlenschutz zukünftig von Großbritannien eingehalten werden und inwieweit es Abstriche geben wird. Das betrifft nicht nur die Verpflichtungen aus dem Euratom-Vertrag, sondern insbesondere auch die vielfältigen Pflichten aufgrund von EU-Sekundärrecht. Weitere Konsequenzen aus dem britischen Euratom-Austritt bzw. derzeit noch offene Punkte hat die EU-Kommission ausführlich beschrieben in ihrer „Notice to Stakeholders – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and the EURATOM Acquis“ vom 24. August 2020. Empfehlung Es wird empfohlen, dass die britische Genehmigungsbehörde das Vorhaben Sizewell C im Lichte der vorangegangenen Hinweise noch einmal kritisch betrachtet. Es spricht Überwiegendes dafür, dass nicht auszuschließende schwere Stör- oder Unfälle in Sizewell C durch radioaktiven Fallout substantielle Auswirkungen nicht nur auf Großbritannien selbst, sondern auch auf Nachbarstaaten wie Deutschland hätten. Zu einem solchen Risiko sind die finanziellen Folgen noch hinzuzurechnen. Bereits das Kernkraftwerksvorhaben Hinkley Point C wird Großbritannien aufgrund von regierungsamtlichen Verpflichtungserklärungen in zweistelliger Milliardenhöhe mitfinanzieren müssen. Es wäre fragwürdig, wenn das Projekt Sizewell C eine ähnliche Konsequenz hätte. Es ist festzustellen, dass die Stromerzeugung aus Kernenergie sich zu einer Energieform entwickelt hat, die weltweit nirgends mehr privat finanziert werden kann. Es könnte deshalb eine Überlegung wert sein, sich von dieser Energieform zu trennen und stattdessen sich anbietende nachhaltige Alternativen zu nutzen und weiterzuentwickeln. Es liegt nicht nur im nationalen Interesse Großbritanniens, sondern auch im internationalen Interesse, eine nachhaltige, umweltschonende Energiewende zu etablieren. Mit relativ geringer finanzieller Unterstützung dürften sich in dem windreichen britischen Königreich noch deutlich mehr Anlagen zur Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien errichten und betreiben lassen als das jetzt schon der Fall ist. Großbritannien strebt erfreulicherweise bereits einen 40%-igen Anteil der erneuerbaren Energien an der Stromerzeugung an. Es ist der britischen Regierung zu raten, diesen Weg fortzusetzen. Die Steigerung des Atomstromanteils hätte dagegen zur Folge, dem Risiko der Klimakatastrophe mit dem Risiko einer Atomkatastrophe zu begegnen. Das sollte vermieden werden."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miss Gemma Hockley
"I am extremely concerned with the affect EDF's Sizewell C project will have on our already busy little village of Campsea Ashe. On a daily basis (excluding cars) we already have 50-60 different heavy duty vehicles such as tractors/HGV & LGV lorries/articulated lorries/dump trucks/field cultivators/combine harvesters/construction vehicles. This large vehicles travel through the narrow road of Ashe Row each day at high speeds, only breaking at the last minute round the tight bend next to my house. When there is two large vehicles on both sides of the road, they mount the kerb or plough into overhanging shrubs at the side of peoples gardens. My house on [Redacted], is on approach to a sharp turn, and even though our road is 30 MPH throughout, huge vehicles pushing 50 MPH on approach to this turn, break only at the last minute right near our house. It's very frightening as I worry vehicles will not stop in time, and vehicles coming the other way, have to crazily mount the kerb outside our front garden to avoid hitting the vehicle on the opposite side. I will not allow my son to play in the front garden, because I don't trust the tractors that fly down here, or the farm trucks carrying thousands of kilos of potatoes or corn, loosely packed in the back of their lorries. My concern with Sizewell C, is that traffic and HGV's will increase even further, damaging the roads of Ashe Row which are not meant to take such daily heavy weight, also damaging the kerbs when mounted in order for vehicles to pass one another. Ashe Row used to be a quiet road and over the last three years has become progressively worse, due to increasing HGV/tractors etc. When there is an issue with the A12, traffic is currently diverted through Ashe Row, causing increased traffic flow, like a dual carriageway. If the A12 causes traffic to be diverted during Sizewell C construction, I do not know how the roads will cope with it. Quiet villages such as Campsea Ashe should remain as so, and not allowed to become small cities, to accommodate the daily traffic flow created by Sizewell C. Sizewell C will seriously affect the village's way of life, adding noise, pollution, environmental damage, road damage and misery to its community. Please consider the lives of the villagers here, as well as preserving Campsea Ashe as it currently is."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr A Noble
"It is a sad indictment of the worlds decision makers that it has taken a 16yr old girl, (Greta Thumberg) to point out the reason for our planets environmental depletion; mainly emphasis being put on investment, jobs, and so called economic progress. The same arguments are being used by EDF energy. But we now have a chance to reverse this trend. Many of the claims being made by EDF have now been questioned by an independent enquiry EDF argue that building this power station is carbon neutral. Of course this is not true as we will embark on a ten year build with new roads that destroy countryside and an ancient forest. Future generations will be left with three crumbling buildings an a hundred years of Nuclear Waste. We have been told that the three wind farms of the eastern shore will account for85% of our energy; with three new farms planned why do we need a Nuclear Station? Nuclear power is outdated and we should now be pursing the new environment sensitive alternatives. It particular Sizewell beach is an area with important flora a fauna. The beach and its environs are much used by people, whether walking,riding ,or walking dogs. On some days it has proved very popular with people coming from far and wide resulting in full car parks. Of particular worry is its affect on Minsmere an internationally renowned nature reserve that attracts thousands of people from all over the world.This area is an A.O.N.B. making it equal to a National Park. I urge you tyo reject this application"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Burfield
"In response to the 27 May 2020 application by EDF to the Planning Inspectorate, I urge you not to support the demand for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to build Sizewell C. It is surely unrealistic to pretend that any meaningful consultation could have taken place until the coronavirus restrictions were entirely ended. Under the current conditions for example public displays and meetings and thus any serious debate and consideration of the proposals will have been severely compromised. It is the responsibility of all tiers of government to ensure that major project proposals are properly and openly scrutinised and at present that has been impossible. Given the scale of the proposal for Sizewell C it was crucial that any DCO process should not have been in any way compromised, and it has been. Furthermore the consultations held by EDF over the past 8 years have provided very little in the way of detailed information, especially on environmental, economic and community impacts, making it absolutely essential that the current and any future processes and considerations are and will be exacting and robust. In any case the DCO application, the current proposal by EDF to develop Sizewell C is unwelcome. Were it to proceed the project would: • Desecrate the Suffolk Coast and physically divide the remainder of the AONB; • Have a hugely negative impact on internationally-protected habitats including RSPB Minsmere (designated SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar), the Sizewell Belts and Dunwich Heath; • Cause immense harm to significant populations of rare birds, animals and plants (for example marsh harrier, bittern, bearded tit, otter); • Drastically reduce our natural capital; • Permanently damage Suffolk’s very significant and thriving tourism sector; • Hollow out and destroy, for limited and short term benefits, any local businesses unable to pay competitive wages; • Reduce and deflect other business stability and investment otherwise attracted to remain or locate in the area for the high quality of life; • Completely overload the A12 and the local road system with catastrophic environmental, social and economic consequences; • Position new nuclear operational capacity and the long-term storage of waste on an unstable and insecure site; • Divert public and private investment to support a technology and industry that is failing elsewhere and is in decline; • Fail to deliver significantly on local jobs, despite EDF's claims; • Undermine the Government’s policies to level up the UK economy; and • Almost certainly rely on financial support from Government, or the introduction of a Regulated Asset Base funding model, in straightened economic times. I urge you to reject the application and I wholeheartedly endorse the Relevant Representation from Stop Sizewell C."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Naylor
"As proposed, Sizewell C Power Station’s biggest impact on the environment will be its intake of seawater for cooling. The proposed seawater intake is massive, with a flow greater than the average flow of any river in England or Wales. Only one British river (the Tay in Scotland) is larger than the Sizewell C intake. Millions of fish would be sucked in and killed every year in the Sizewell C cooling water intake as proposed by the developer. A low velocity intake will not protect fish without a deterrent providing a behavioural cue for the fish to swim away. The proposed fish recovery and return system for Sizewell C would, at best, protect a fraction of the most robust fish species. Even for those fish, however, return to the sea through such a long and convoluted system in a state where they are capable of long-term survival and reproduction is uncertain. The fish recovery and return system will offer no protection at all to many fish species, including those that are most numerous. For example, all sprat, herring and similar fish that enter the cooling water intake will be killed. If they are not fatally harmed by pressure changes in the intake tunnels, they will die on the intake screens. Killing millions of fish (sentient vertebrate animals) in this way is morally wrong, damaging to vital ecosystems and incompatible with Government objectives for protecting and improving the environment, such as those in its 25 Year Environment Plan. Killing millions of fish also runs contrary to the overall objective of new nuclear power, which is to help safeguard the environment. Comparisons of fish kill in the intakes of new nuclear power stations with the impacts of fishing are misleading. Fishing impacts can be adjusted and regulated on an ongoing basis in response to environmental, societal or other changes. There will be no way to reduce fish kill in a power station intake once operating. The killing will continue unchecked for the power station’s 60-year life. Direct seawater cooling of large power stations must only be permitted if effective fish protection measures can be applied. They are currently not proposed for Sizewell C. The developers of Hinkley Point C, a similar station to Sizewell C and now under construction, maintain that additional fish protection measures such as an acoustic fish deterrent are impractical on a large nuclear power cooling water intake. This is disputed but, if it is the case and proper environmental protection cannot be applied, an alternative method of cooling must be employed for Sizewell C. I am a marine biologist, underwater photographer, writer and conservationist. I have worked in environmental regulation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
PAWB, Pobl Atal Wylfa B/People Against Wylfa B
"EdF's planning application for building two huge EPR reactors at Sizewell is totally misguided. The National Policy Statement in favour of building new nuclear power stations is now hopelessly outdated and almost a decade old. The economics of nuclear power have become even more unattractive since then. The other side of the coin is that various renewable technologies are beating nuclear power clearly on cost. Almost a year ago, it was announced that four proposed off shore wind farms in the North Sea were quoting prices on electricity they would generate in the £40 to £50 range per megawatt/hour. Compare this to the ridiculously expensive deal agreed between the Conservative government and EdF for EPRs at Hinkley Point C of £92.50 per megawatt/hour, index linked to infalion for 35 years. The cost of electricity from Sizewell C EPRs would be similarly expensive. The history of developing EPRs doesn't make happy reading for EdF. Both the Olkiluoto and the Flamenville projects are wildly over budget and schedule. Construction started at Olkiluoto in Finland in 2005 with the empty boast that work wolud be completed by 2009. These reactors are still not in operation. Similar delays and cost overruns have blighted the Flamenville project in Normandy. The Planning Inspectorate should pay particular attention to the geographical low lying nature of the coastal site at Sizewell. Building these monster reactors here is asking for trouble in the context of the prospect of rising sea levels. EPRs would produce high burn-up radioactive waste that would have to be stored on site for at least 150 years. That waste would be doubly hot and radioactive compared to legacy nuclerar wastes. Sea water breaching the site and entering waste storage facilities for this high burn-up waste would be catastrophic. We learn from our fellow campaigners in Together Against Sizewell C that a significant area of land would be trashed including a well known woodland to make way for Sizewell C. We also share their concern about adverse impacts on wild life and birds in particular. This resonates with our concerns about the large tern colony we have at Cemlyn that would have been impacted seriously by plans to build 2 new ABWR reactors at Wylfa. This particular area of Suffolk doesn't deserve the extensive heavy construction traffic that would come with construction and all the air, dust, sound and light pollution associated with it. The tourism sector in the area could be hit badly by the presence of such a gigantic project. With the economy reeling following months of COVID-19 and with months of restrictions ahead of us, the last thing needed now is squandering money, much of it from long suffering taxpayers, on such an unneccesary, extortionately expensive, dirty and dangerous vanity project. The European Union has clearly stated its intention to rebuild green without nuclear power to recover from the COVID-19 crisis. It is high time for the British State to follow suit."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Professor Stuart Checkley
"1.Safety of the site and its radioactive materials over the period of its use. No engineering drawings have been published for the planned sea defences: only some preliminary sketches, with no dimensions of the defences. No prediction of changes to the coast North of the Minsmere Sluice or South of Orford Ness has been completed , as the Secretary of State has instructed There is no plan to ensure the safety of the site over the 140 years of its expected use. 2. Threats to the water levels of the wetland habitats. No details have been given of effects upon water levels in the Sizewell and Minsmere Marshes of the following proposals: Extraction of water to make concrete for the proposed buildings Division of the Sizewell and Minsmere Marshes by the proposed causeway for the next 10- 12 years Extraction of water to keep dry a trench that is 30 metres deep, and encircles an area the size of a football pitch, for the construction of foundations around the perimeter of the site of the proposed reactors. 3. Threats to wetland habitats There is no assessment of the cumulative effects of the above changes on the wetland ecosystems of the Minsmere and Sizewell Marshes There are no plans to mitigate the loss of wetland habitats. The provision of hunting grounds for Marsh Harriers is now known to be insufficient. There are no plans to mitigate the effects of change in water level on aquatic species. I agree with the view of the RSPB that the risk to wildlife “could be catastrophic” 4. Threats to residents and tourists from traffic congestion. EDF has predicted that 750 HGVs will travel along the B1122 each day EDF has predicted that 750 HGVs ,10,000 cars, 700 vans and 700 buses will drive down the A12 each day and that two thirds of these will cross the Orwell Bridge every day Traffic congestion will deter tourists Traffic congestion will increase the time it takes for emergency services to reach local communities. 5. Threats to local communities Noise levels will rise by 600 fold in parts of Eastbridge Sand will be blown from the 30 metre high spoil heaps Beaches and footpaths will be closed Light pollution will render invisible the night sky The antisocial behaviour of construction workers that was a feature of the construction of the first two nuclear reactors at Sizewell will return 6. Costs EDF does not have sufficient funds to complete the project The UK taxpayer is asked to subsidise this project EDF has a very poor track record of predicting the costs of similar developments The economic and environmental costs of renewable sources of energy are lower 7. I endorse the position statements of the RSPB and The Stop Sizewell C Campaign 8. In view of the complexities of the proposal and the concerns that so many have raised about the inadequacy of the consultation process, I think that a digital examination of the proposal would be insufficiently rigorous"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Roberts
"In my view the proposed site is unsuitable due to the threats of rising sea levels, coastal erosion and likely effect on the coastline further south and north, with added frequency of storm surges due to climate change. The perceived benefits are outweighed by these risks and the threat to waste storage. Allied to this unsuitability is the impact on the SSI, and the AONB and the importance of the charcter of the area and its wildlife, rare species together with the long-term damage likely to affect the local economy which is essentially dependent on tourism and the beauty and relative isolation of this part of the region. Short-tetm economic benefits will not compensate. Proposed mitigation is inadequate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Flindall
"Sizewell C DCO Relevant Representations of Robert Flindall 1.Site • Site at risk from climate change, sea level rise, flooding • Impact on coastal processes • Impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value • Site could become an island containing 4 nuclear reactors and stored waste. • Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned locality 2. Community, economic, social • Impacts on communities - severance, traffic, noise and light pollution and disruption • 6,000 workers will live in the area; 2,400 in a campus location that I oppose. • Visitor economy may lose £40m p.a. and 400 jobs. EDF surveys expect 29% of visitors deterred • Pressure on local housing especially private-rental • EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in “Site Support” • Negative impacts from traffic and losing staff on local businesses • Pressure on health, social and emergency services • Impacts on vulnerable people. • Local supply chain advantages/disadvantages • Leiston regeneration • Tourist accommodation impacts • Jobs and skills, during construction • Impacts on local businesses outside the nuclear supply chain • Impact on the environment and the future natural capital and tourism value of area 3.Transport • Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations • Marine-led materials transport strategy abandoned • Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means communities would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic • New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system, disrupt and divide farmland • Rat-running and disruption not adequately considered • Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed by EDF 4.Environment/Landscape • Flooding. • Impact on Minsmere Sluice • Pollution from light, noise and traffic • Dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles • Impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill • Irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance in history of conservation. Impacts on Marsh Harriers threaten integrity of Special Protection Area • Uncertainty of drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond • Risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology • Flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site • Impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs AONB • Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage • No offset of CO2 from construction for 6 years 5.Marine/Coastal processes • Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature. No complete design of defence available • Rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable • Impacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes • Impacts on marine ecology • Monitoring/contingency strategy 6.Application • Content of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement. • Planning conditions I endorse the Relevant Representations of Stop Sizewell C, Theberton and Eastbridge PC, NT, RSPB, SWT, MLSG. I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Davies
"I wish to represent my concerns over: potential for significant increase in traffic volume, density and vehicle size. This will have a negative impact on safety, (road and pedestrian use)' road repairs, noise, light and emissions pollution. I live on a road which will be adversely impacted by the proposed car park plans. This will exaserbate an existing problem with little evidence of action being taken to address problems noted in my concerns. I would wish to see infrastructure built to support the movement of people an materiel by rail, updating the existing infrastructure where necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Tugwell
"1. The impact of the access road across from my Grade 2 listed cottage, volume and noise of HGV traffic during construction, light pollution, all destroying the tranquillity of the area and a negative impact on my life All local roads are not suitable for this traffic even with proposed new road infrastructure leading to years if misery for local residents. 2. The site could be at risk from further coastal erosion and sea level rise and has an adverse impact of surrounding SSI. The unresolved issues of the long term storage of waste is a big problem. 3. The whole community will be disrupted for years by the build, the influx of so many workers, a campus just down the road from my property with thousands of workers. The loss of tourism which is so important to the local economy. Undue pressure on all local services and housing. Doubts about skilled jobs going to local people. 4. There will be huge impacts on the local environment, possible flooding, pollution from light, traffic and construction, dust from the spoil heaps and risks to habitats and ecology. Harm will be done to Minsmere which is the flagship of the RSPB and of international importance and vital to the community. It will be impossible to make good the local landscape and damage to ecology. 5. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth
"This project must not go ahead. In-depth studies by Friends of the Earth demonstrate that the proposed Sizewell C construction works would cause permanent damage and destruction to designated habitats and protected wildlife, both within and outside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Mitigation and compensation offered is ill-judged and inadequate, taking little account of the special needs of rare species. * Threats to the eco-hydrology of Sizewell Marshes SSSI: Experts have confirmed that the large-scale interventions (i.e. cut-off wall, Sizewell Drain realignment and SSSI crossing) would cause significant interruption to the hydrological dynamics of the system, bringing fundamental change to critical water flow and therefore quality. This would result in major effects on the sensitive M22 fen meadow habitat, threatening the SSSI status. Options for a remedial Water Level Management Plan requiring detailed technical assessment for feasibility have not been carried out. * Loss of rare invertebrates: Sizewell Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest is cited by Natural England as being of 'exceptional interest for their invertebrate fauna'. Yet direct loss of their designated habitat would result from the building of Sizewell C. EDFE's Aldhurst Farm habitat creation is supposed to compensate for this loss. However, our research demonstrates that many of the rarer specialist species would not thrive here due to high nutrient levels in the water. *Misleading claims for Biodiversity Net Gain: Professional ecological consultants, Bioscan UK Ltd, have re-run for us the biodiversity loss/gain calculations based on the Defra 2.0 metric and used by EDF Energy in their claims for net gain. Problems with misclassification, numerical error and unjustified discounting of impacts have been identified. *Negative permanent effects of three new roads: The proposed access road to the station platform would fragment Suffolk's protected landscape, dividing the AONB completely in two and forming a wildlife barrier between Minsmere - Walberswick Ramsar, SPA, SAC, SSSI and Sizewell Marshes SSSI. In addition to direct mortality, there would be a loss of bird life of up to 30% extending to 1 km both sides of each new road, due to noise, lights and fumes. Established commuting routes of bats and other animals would be cut off and dispersal of species obstructed. * Coastal erosion and flooding: With climate change and rising seas combined with frequent storm surges and the persistent erosion of Suffolk's coastline, the expert literature demonstrates that Sizewell is not sustainable in the future as a safe and suitable site for nuclear power and long-term storage of nuclear waste. * Destruction of Suffolk Shingle Beaches County Wildlife Site: Sizewell beach would be completely dug up for new defences and a beach landing facility, destroying scarce flora and fauna. Proposals for restoration are sketchy and unconvincing. * Impacts of the cooling system on marine wildlife: Despite fish deterrent and recovery systems many tonnes of fish would be killed and the habitat of protected harbour porpoise impaired. The technology for offshore intakes is not yet sufficiently advanced to guarantee the safety of marine biota."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Teresa Marrable
"I am very concerned about the following aspects of the construction of Sizewell C: I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place because – • The site is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding • The potential impact on coastal processes • There will be an adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value • Storing of nuclear waste. The effect on the local community will be tremendous - • Unacceptable impacts on local communities - traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. • 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a location that I oppose. • Visitor economy: Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. • Negative impacts - from traffic and losing staff - on local businesses • Pressure on health, social and emergency services, • The road based transport plan is not sustainable; enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations • Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic • New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. There will be irreparable harm done to Minsmere, a flagship area of international importance to wildlife. I am worried about • Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice • Pollution from light, noise and traffic • Inadequate dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles • Impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill not fully addressed. • Impacts on Marsh Harriers threaten integrity of Special Protection Area • Uncertainty re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond. • Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species. • Risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology • Flood risk • Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB • Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature • Rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable • Impacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes • Impacts on marine ecology I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB and SWT. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Veronica Worrall
"A few Key concerns 1. Degradation of an important space designated AONB - impact on ecology, wild life, 2. Degradation of an area renown for well being - tourism and leisure - loss of natural beauty and space for walking etc 3. Local infrastructure insufficient - necessitating new roads and housing not needed longer term - unless the whole are becomes an industrial site - negating AONB status ! 4. Local services not able to support high influx - e.g. medical care already under pressure 5. Long term environmental issues of nuclear waste - increased with coastal position and sea level rise. 6. Governmental cost effectiveness of project now not viable with alternate energy sources 7. Major concern - putting UK nuclear and energy supplies in control of foreign powers. .....and so on"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wickham Market Parish Council
"Dear Sirs: SIZEWELL C: Application for Development Consent Order Relevant Representation: Wickham Market Parish Council (WMPC) 1. Introduction 1.1 Wickham Market is situated to the west of the A12 about fourteen miles south west of the main development site. Located at the junction of the B1078 from Needham Market to the west and B1438 from Woodbridge to the south, the village is a key service centre for many neighbouring villages most notably Pettistree, Hacheston, Marlesford and Campsea Ashe. 1.2 Full information on the Council’s stance to the Sizewell C proposals and evidence regarding the WMPC area’s demographics, heritage, character and location is available on the WMPC web site: [Redacted] And the Neighbourhood Plan web site [Redacted] 1.3 WMPC believe that the parish, will suffer significant and negative impacts from the construction phase of the SZC project. WMPC expect EDF to provide fully funded mitigation measures for the highway network but remain concerned that these will not resolve the issues created. 1.4 The claim by EDF of providing zero carbon energy by 2036 is unlikely to be achievable given the entire construction process and the damage to the Suffolk environment. 2. Southern Park and Ride Site (SP&R) 2.1 Adverse Traffic Impacts 2.1.1 Additional traffic volumes during construction of Sizewell C are expected to lead to significant negative impacts for local road users and residents as they will: a) involve 700+ daily HGV and 700+ bus and van movements on the A12, and significant extra LGV and private car movements on the B1078, the High Street - and other local roads; b) entail up to 1050 cars travelling through the village additionally each day over the construction period, - these figures could be higher due to the shift patterns for a seven day week / 20-hour working day at the main site; c) result in a significant increase in noise, vibration, air and light pollution affecting properties and residential amenity; d) further exacerbate the increase in traffic evident in recent years, and adverse cumulative traffic impacts expected from planned additional housing in Wickham Market, nearby towns and villages, and the construction of other major energy projects within the area; e) compromise the safety of cyclists and pedestrians using promoted leisure routes and accessing the SP&R; f) result in any benefits to retail outlets in the village centre (from worker purchases) being outweighed by the detrimental impacts arising from increased traffic, parking, and fly parking on waiting restrictions; and g) affect the slip road from the B1078 Fiveways roundabout to the SP&R access making it inadequate to accommodate vehicles needing to access the site or join the A12 north, with tail backs likely to occur around shift change times and creating detrimental impacts on local traffic movements. 2.1.2 Mitigation requested: a) Provision of car parks further south on the A12 to reduce the need for one large SP&R. The existing Martlesham Park and Ride site (A12/A1214) could be used for workers from that area taking some cars off the A12 northwards. b) Use of electronic tracking systems to track cars, LGVs and HGVs to ensure drivers use the preferred routes to the SP&R, i.e. A14 and A12 wherever possible. c) Use of smart cameras and number plate recognition to exclude Sizewell traffic from specific routes when travelling to/from the SP&R. d) EDF to design and fund (capital and revenue costs) a scheme of pedestrian, cycle and public realm improvements at Wickham Market (as stated in their DCO documentation) in accordance with the emerging draft Neighbourhood Plan (NP) Policy Wick10. This policy highlights existing issues of pedestrian safety in the centre of the village which EDF related traffic will exacerbate. e) EDF to design and fund (capital and revenue costs) a scheme of pedestrian, cycle and public realm improvements on the B1078, High Street, gateway entry points and other specific areas on the village road network. All agreed traffic mitigation measures should be carried out prior to the use of the SP&R and the construction of SZC. f) At the time of writing no firm proposals (detail, scope, or specific measures) have been tabled by EDF despite regular meetings since December 2019. No provision for either cycle or footway routes to the SP&R site are indicated on the DCO plans. 2.2 Adverse Landscape and Visual Impacts 2.2.1 WMPC is concerned that: a) the location and size of the SP&R in an elevated prominent location will result in it being visible over a wide area, affecting the setting of the Special Landscape Areas of the River Deben and River Ore; b) insufficient assessment of landscape and visual impacts from a limited set of receptors has resulted in poor design with inadequate mitigation proposals; c) no viewpoints for visual assessment have been selected from Wickham Market despite the Zone of Visual Influence encapsulating extensive parts of the village; d) the proposed site and highway lighting will create adverse impacts on current dark skies viewed from the village and its countryside setting including Hacheston, Marlesford, Loudham and Campsea Ashe; e) the proximity of the development to the Whin Belt woodland and the loss of a section of ancient hedgerow and oak on the southern boundary will result in adverse landscape impacts which have been inadequately assessed. 2.2.2 Mitigation requested: a) A scheme of boundary landscape mitigation through hedges with trees be provided on the site boundaries in order to secure a long-term legacy of landscape improvements to remain following removal of the SP&R and the restoration of the land back to agricultural use. b) Temporary bunding provided close to all site boundaries to minimise views. c) Landscape restoration and aftercare should be secured through planning conditions and legal agreement. d) The associated SP&R buildings, signage, drainage, and lighting have been indicated on a suite of ‘indicative’ plans titled “Not for Approval” apparently without an assessment of visual impacts arising. These plans need prior assessment to any DCO being granted with ancillary structures conditioned and strictly controlled. Wickham Market Parish Council 21st September 2020 Note: Documents setting out WMPC’s specific concerns regarding the adverse impacts from the SP&R and a traffic ‘Wickham Market Problem Statement’ were issued to EDF at a meeting on 9th December 2019. A joint parish document ‘Parish Traffic Mitigation Proposals Working Document’ was presented to EDF at a meeting on 13th July 2020, specific comments relating to a WSP document regarding traffic mitigation were tabled on 24th August. WMPC are concerned at the lack of any positive mitigation being offered by EDF in response to these documents, and to discussions which have taken place at a series of five meetings (to date) and the PC responses submitted during the consultation period and pre-DCO submission. WMPC web site: [Redacted]"
Local Authorities
Woodbridge Town Council
"Woodbridge Town Council (WTC) presents the following representation. The DCO application does not consider the impact of contractor/subcontractor, consultants or EDF off site facilities on road usage, local employers and accommodation in the greater Suffolk area. There will be potential for such facilities to be developed at Rendlesham Business Park at the end of the A1152 where office and lay down areas are plentiful and temporary accommodation is feasible. It is on a direct non A12 route to Sizewell C. The study of road-based transportation does not address the impact on Woodbridge and its environs or propose any avoidance or mitigation as it fails to a) consider the use that site staff, visitors and delivery drivers can make of non A12 routes to Sizewell or any off-site facilities. Traffic enabled GPS often directs this route b) the route likely to be directed is via the A1152 and B1069. This has pinch points at the junction with the B1438 and at Melton railway level crossing. There are no options to improve traffic flow. Significant additional traffic flow will cause queues to extend over the level crossing. c) the impact of additional traffic on extending periods of current queuing on the A12 south of the B1079/A12 roundabout to the B1438/A12 roundabout d) the use of B1438 through Woodbridge to the A1152 or onto the A12 southern park and ride and lorry park holding facility via Ufford and Wickham Market, known rat runs. e) The impact of diversion due to accidents between the A1152/A12 junction and the southern park and ride and lorry park holding facility. Use of Rendlesham Business Park will attract employees from Woodbridge to Rendlesham increasing traffic issues. Further it will attract new employees to live in Woodbridge exacerbating current limits on low cost and tourist accommodation. This will impact on local employers, employees, tourist related employment, a key employment sector. The DCO study of rail transportation assumes night-time delivery trains as train paths are currently restricted to one track from Woodbridge to Saxmundham. The railway passes through urban residential areas at Woodbridge, Melton, Campsea Ashe and Saxmundham with pedestrian crossing requiring use of klazons and noisy passage over jointed track. No means of avoidance or mitigation for such impact is investigated/proposed. The Council consider night-time trains could be avoided by incorporating a length of dual track in the Campsea Ashe area, effectively doubling line capacity during the day. Further extension of continuous rail from Bealings to Saxmundham would reduce noise impact and maintenance of many life expired timber sleepers. WTC also wish to register concerns on other aspects that will impact residents, and the regional setting a) EDF's coastal process assessment, HCDF design, FRA findings, the suitability and practicality of an ‘adaptable’ coastal defence approach at Sizewell C on site safety and regional coastal erosion b) ii. the impact of the traffic movements to/from the Seven Hills lorry park on the A12 and the A12/A14 interchange WTC will seek to assist Examiners if they request further particulars on these matters."
Members of the Public/Businesses
A A Brown
"I am concerned with the following environment pollution transport effects on established employment in East Suffolk inadequate mitigation serious concerns about billeting 3000+ young people in the hamlet of Eastbridge and in particular reference to what has happened to Covid19 incidence in Glasgow at the start of university term track record of EDF in France and with EPR in Finland"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Allan Warner
"Relevant Representations of Stop Sizewell C (the campaign name of Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell Ltd) 1. Application Explanatory Memorandum We wish to raise concerns about the Planning Statement generally including Status of DCO plans and proposed use of ‘Not for Approval’ plans Consents and Powers in the Draft DCO Approach to environmental mitigation, management and development flexibility Approach to Subsequent Approvals Planning conditions and legal agreements Approach to Environmental Mitigation and Management The Approach to Flexibility (Rochdale Envelope) NPS EN-1 and NPS EN-6: Applying the Policies to the Sizewell C Application Compliance with Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and relevant national policy statements for major infrastructure Regional and Local Planning Policy UK Marine Policy Statement 2011 Construction worker Social/Community Mitigation Transport and Freight Management strategy Planning Assessment – Benefits and Assessment Principles Common Law Nuisance and Statutory Nuisance 2. Site Selection The UK Government’s 2011/existing National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation EN-6 concludes that Sizewell is a potentially suitable site for new nuclear power stations before 2025. This conclusion is out of date as the EN-6 assessments predate government acceptance of the Paris agreement on climate change and legislation to make the UK Zero Carbon by 2050 We believe this is the wrong project in the wrong place because The development cannot be operating before 2025; The site is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and fluvial flooding; It will have an adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance; It will have an adverse impact on coastal processes; It will have an adverse impact on sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value; The carbon footprint of Sizewell C’s construction will have an adverse impact on carbon targets; it cannot positively contribute to UK’s carbon neutral timetable until 2040 at the earliest; The 32 ha twin reactor development (c.f. Hinkley Point C 45ha) requires unacceptable increased coastal exposure, relocation of existing Sizewell B facilities, other design compromises and is well below the EN-6 presumption of 30ha for a single reactor installation; There are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality; resulting in significant cumulative impacts to the East Suffolk environment and economy; There is no sustainable solution for the safe disposal of nuclear waste. Spent fuel and high-level waste from Sizewell B and C would stay on this eroding coastal site until at least 2135. Climate change and rising sea levels mean that the site is likely to become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors. There are major concerns over flooding and overtopping during storm surges, and ultimately the site will become an island if sea levels rise to predicted levels. 3. Local communities The development would have unacceptable impacts on local communities, in particular Leiston, Sizewell, Eastbridge and Theberton; and settlements along the B1122 and A12. Residents of our Parish will experience noise increases of 600 times ambient noise including Old Abbey Care Home can expect noise to increase 200 times current levels. 4. Worker Campus The campus would have significant impacts on local communities during construction and thereafter because of noise, light, pollution, traffic and social pressures. The developer does not provide sufficient justification for its location and impacts. Following a consultants’ study on site options Suffolk CC suggested consideration of relocation of the proposed campus to alternative locations. EDF has not adequately responded to this suggestion. 5. Transport EDF’s transport strategy has rejected a marine/jetty component due to environmental and geomorphological concerns but the extensive use of rail has also been rejected with insufficient justification. The “integrated” road based transport strategy is not sustainable and would have an adverse impact on local communities and result in significant damage to the East Suffolk visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as under EDF’s “road led” strategy rejected at Stage 4 consultations. Significant upgrades to the A12 and B1122 are not proposed to be started before site preparations and significant earthworks start. Several of the other energy projects are likely to be in progress at this time with the Sizewell B facilities relocation likely to be at its peak of HGV movements. The proposed timing of these upgrades needs to be brought forward to avoid significant impacts to communities along the A12 and B1122. The current proposal for the Sizewell Link Road will isolate and sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland threatening viability. The proposed route has little legacy value for communities and would perpetuate damages and community severance. Sizewell Link Road alternative routes have been dismissed as options by EDF with insufficient justification. 6. Landscape & Heritage The proposed development, by virtue of locality, design and scale, would have a catastrophic long term impact on landscape character. It would have an adverse impact on integrity of the AONB and many nationally and internationally important nature conservation areas. The planned mitigations for landscape and ecological damage are inadequate and would not compensate for the damage done during construction and for the lifetime of the power station. The proposed development would affect the settings of 90 heritage assets. 7. Environment Impacts on Minsmere Sluice cannot be assessed due to the combination of changes in ground and surface water combined with an incomplete plan for access to potable and construction water supplies. The environmental implications of the proposed stockpile and spoil storage areas is unclear with contradictory statements and assessments The construction phase of the development would result in unacceptable levels of environmental pollution, including from light, noise, traffic and dust. Mitigation of the environmental impact of the proposed borrow pits and subsequent landfill and other areas of landfill has not been addressed. The development does not address the potential adverse impacts on the ecological value of species and habitats in the marine and terrestrial environment. Implications for the integrity of designated sites, including internationally designated sites - European sites and European marine sites - nationally designated sites - SSSIs, the AONB - and impact on local, regionally and nationally significant natural history is not adequately addressed. RSPB Minsmere is of international significance. We are concerned that Minsmere would be irreparably harmed by the proposed development. This would damage the UK’s reputation for conservation as well as the visitor economy. EDF recognises that there could be impacts on Marsh Harriers which are protected species The proposed development does not fully address the need to provide an adequate drainage and water supply for the construction period and beyond. Abstraction of water will have impacts which will need to be managed to avoid risks to the environment and to protected species. The risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology have not been adequately assessed and mitigated. Proposals increase flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the main development site footprint. 8. Marine and Coastal processes The effect of Sizewell C on coastal processes is unclear as its current hard coastal defence structure is incomplete and therefore cannot be assessed. Site safety, ecological and flood risk impacts by an incomplete hard coastal defence feature cannot be assessed. The rates of erosion and recession along the site frontage, to the north and south of the site cannot be understood until there is a completed design for the hard and soft coastal defences The Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, being discussed with local authorities, needs to be made public for assessment at the examination and the Marine Technical Forum responsibilities, powers and transparency need to be defined. EDF predictions of when the hard coastal defence will be exposed cannot be taken seriously when no finalised design has been made available and any adaptation strategies for the incomplete design have been specified. EDF have not justified the assertion that coastal effects to the south will not extend beyond the coralline crag to the north of Thorpeness. EDF cannot justify the assertion of shingle accretion north of the site until a complete design of the hard coastal defence is presented for assessment. The impacts on marine ecology during construction and operation has not been adequately assessed. 9. Economic and social impacts EDF’s own surveys show that a significant percentage of visitors will be deterred from visiting the area during construction, thereby damaging the Suffolk coast visitor economy. Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation found that tourism could lose up to £40 million a year, with the potential loss of up to 400 jobs. Unacceptable pressure on local housing accommodation. Inadequate information to address local supply chain advantages and disadvantages. Does not address the funding of a Leiston economic development/ regeneration programme. Does not address the impact of the development on the availability of tourism accommodation, particularly during construction. Does not adequately address the impact on jobs and skills, during construction and operation. Does not address the issue of locally based employment. Sectoral work is inadequate and does not help to explain what jobs, at what skills/remuneration levels, will be available to local people. Socio economic aspects of development are not adequately addressed by the developer. Details of proposed housing and tourism funds inadequate. Minimal consideration of potential negative impacts on local businesses outside the nuclear supply chain whether through competition or disruption to investment. No account of the long term negative impact on the environment and the future natural capital and tourism value of the site, i.e. no long term view emerging of the economic legacy of a comparable project other than jobs created in the nuclear sector. Applicant fails to explain how vulnerable children and adults in the local area might be impacted in the short, medium and long term. 10. Associated Development Impact of the Yoxford roundabout on local residents and traffic Location of the Park and Ride facilities The Two Villages ByPass Location of the Freight Management Centre"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrea Russell
"Sizewell is the wrong place for the proposed new development. It is in an AONB with many environmental protection orders because of the unique habitats surrounding it. The construction work itself will discourage the many visitors who come to this area for its peace, tranquility and wildlife for a period of several years, which will harm the local economy. The proposed development doubles the size of the existing site. The transport links, even with the proposals for improvements, are inadequate given the remoteness of the site from major infrastructure. Climate change is going to have an impact on a coast which is already prone to erosion. It is in an area which regularly suffers drought and no meaningful solution has been offered for the provision of potable water. Regardless of the debate over the green credentials of nuclear energy, the construction process itself will be environmentally damaging in several ways. EDF have failed to address issues surrounding disruption of habitats for some of the most endangered species in the U.K. The internationally renowned reserve at RSPB Minsmere will be degraded. Insufficient consideration has been given to serious alternatives to provide our future energy requirements in a sustainable way given supposed commitments to building a green future. There is evidence suggesting that the socio-economic benefits put forward in the proposal are inaccurate and over optimistic. There are still outstanding issues from the consultation period which have not been addressed. Too many of the mitigations outlined in the proposal are basically “it won’t last long” or “it won’t affect many people” which is not adequate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Turner
"As a resident of Westleton, I am concerned that the construction of Sizewell C will have a severely detrimental impact on the local area and wellbeing of residents: - the HGV, bus, LGV and car traffic will create significant pollution and congestion and road safety concerns on the local roads, the A12 and main roads in the region (the 2 village by-pass and Link Road will have minimal effect) - Westleton is already a rat run used by Sizewell workers and speeding through the village is common as reported by a VAR and our Speed Watch team; the project anticipates significant increase in traffic through the village - this will increase the road safety concerns, pollution and will negatively impact the wellbeing of villagers - the construction site will be the cause of 10+ years of noise, dust and light pollution in this Area of Natural Beauty - the site is susceptible to significant damage as it is on an eroding coastline liable to sea level rises - 2400 workers are expected to live on campus putting extreme pressures on local health, policing and recreational services - others are expected to rent locally impacting on the local housing market to the detriment of the local community - all of these factors will deter tourism which is the main local industry - neither the construction nor the plant will create employment anywhere near sufficient to compensate for the anticipated loss of tourism. I am also concerned that the plant will not be necessary once it is built as electricity generating trends show a significant move to solar and wind generation; moreover, the price/kwhour agreed with the Government for its electricity is grossly uncompetitive - consumers will end up paying much more than necessary for their power. - the impact of the construction needs to be measured up alongside the other energy projects underway for the windfarms - the cumulative impacts needs to be considered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Carter
"My concerns are numerous. Costs. Environmental impact. Erosion. Flood risk. Time. Disruption. RAB. Disposal. Risks involved."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ben Coulter
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection Every projection for climate change scenarios shows the rate of change (including sea level rise) accelerating. Within the active (let alone post-use) lifetime of the project, sea level is likely to compromise the site, possibly causing it to be an island. This is a poorly planned element of the Sizewell project and at odds with a society preparing for a resilient, adaptive approach to climate change through the 21st century. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts I am concerned about the impact on the visitor economy. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. That would have a significant negative impact on the local tourism economy and my family’s business specifically. 3. Transport I don’t feel that the road based transport plan is sustainable. I’m concerned about the adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy (the latter of which my family relies on for income). 4. Environment and Landscape I am concerned that the project will negatively impact on the local environment (noise, dust, light, water and air pollution). Minsmere is a particularly sensitive local receptor. Supply (including abstraction) of fresh water - in an area already under significant water supply stresses. 5. Marine and Coastal processes We don’t yet know what the hard coastal defence features will be as there is no complete design of HCDF available. The risk is that in protecting the power station, erosion and flooding could be exacerbated elsewhere - on a very fragile coastline. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C; the RSPB and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Mason-Gordon
"I'm writing to you as an 18-year-old resident of Saxmundham, Suffolk, deeply concerned about the future of the county I have grown up in and the wider implications that this nuclear plant will have on the climate crisis that threatens every aspect of our world.  I passionately believe that it is the government's duty at this time to commit to building a green future to protect the people it is meant to serve. I feel that those in power have horrifically failed me and other young people in fighting for and ensuring a better future for us to grow up in; the decision to continue with the construction of Sizewell C exposes this. Every pound invested in SZC could be spent on cheaper, faster renewables, investment in energy efficiency, storage, CCS, dal and vital flexibility adaptations to the grid plus efficiency adaptations to our homes which would secure the government's commitment to net-zero by 2050. Furthermore, the destruction of our coastline Sizewell C proposes deeply shocks and saddens me: loss of rare invertebrates, misleading claims for Biodiversity Net Gain, threats to the eco-hydrology of Sizewell Marshes SSSI, destruction of Suffolk Shingle Beaches County Wildlife Site, negative permanent effects of three new roads, coastal erosion and flooding, impacts of the cooling system on marine wildlife. This nuclear power plant represents a fundamental disregard for the wonderful nature of this county and of the whole world, and thus willful neglect to create a better future for myself every young person. That is why it cannot go ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Price
"I am strongly opposed to the proposed Sizewell C development on the following grounds: Its effect on the natural habitat, wildlife and unique quality of this stretch of Suffolk coast would be devastating. It would be situated in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) (purpose: "to conserve and enhance natural beauty") and destroy much of the Sizewell Belts, granted SSSI status for the exceptional importance of its particular habitat: the importance of preserving lowland heath is recognised nationally. It thus makes a mockery of such designations. Less than 10% of the British countryside is free for people to walk in and enjoy. East Anglia is a predominantly agricultural region and there is very little land that is genuinely wild, natural and accessible to everyone. The Suffolk coast draws people from all over the country who come to experience tranquil walks, dark skies and exceptional wildlife. The RSPB reserve at Minsmere is one of the best known nationally. The projected development would cut right across the AONB, would have a severe impact on sensitive views and an equally severe impact on existing habitats and their wildlife. I have a particular interest on lepidoptera and there is one species of butterfly - the Grayling - which exists in only two places in Suffolk, one of which is the Sizewell Belts. It is designated as a protected species in Suffolk - and yet if this project goes ahead, much of its habitat will be permanently destroyed. A butterfly colony cannot survive a 10-12 year hiatus. Insect and animal species, and natural habitats, in the UK are declining all the time. The UK is already one of the more "de-natured" countries on the planet, with plummeting levels of the biodiversity that all experts agree is essential for the survival of the human species. How can we justify making this situation worse if we don't have to? EDF has a track record of not keeping environmental promises. Its mitigation measures have been forced out of it and don't go anywhere near far enough or compensate in any way for the irreplaceable loss of this unique habitat. I believe that this development would have a detrimental impact on the tourist industry that has flourished precisely because of the unique quality of our Suffolk coast. And, speaking personally, I am one of many, many people I know who walk regularly in the Kenton Hills, Eastbridge and Sizewell Belts area for the richness, well-being and sheer quality of life that the landscape offers. I believe that these benefits, not quantifiable in monetary terms, far outweigh the mainly short-term economic benefits arising from the construction project. I am also extremely concerned about the level of traffic and associated construction that would be generated by this project, the pressure it would put on our narrow country roads and the villages and towns that would be detrimentally affected by it. I feel we should be making far more effort to reduce our energy consumption and developing renewable energy rather than committing an extortionate amount of money to a project that I fear is being promoted primarily to save France's nuclear reputation. I think it is quite possible (as demonstrated in previous cases) that this new station, if started, might never be finished, in which case our precious landscape and all the species that depend on it , to say nothing of its immeasurable human value, will have been destroyed for no reason."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Celia Allaby
"That allowing this area to develop into an 'energy coast' is both an overdevelopment of the area and does not indicate an infrastructure strategy. By the time the power station is complete, other solutions may well have been found that do not involve the risks associated with foreign jurisdictions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christian Figg
"This project must not go head as it would cause permanent damage and destruction to nationally and internationally designated landscapes, habitats and protected wildlife within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The mitigation being offered is not adequate enough to compensate for the losses, and takes little account of the extent of the special needs of the rare species affected and unique landscapes. 1. Destruction of Shingle Beach and County Wildlife Site: Sizewell Beach is a variegated shingle beach - a rare and protected habitat and landscape feature. The beach would be completely dug up for new hard sea defences and a beach landing facility, destroying scarce flora and fauna. Proposals for the restoration of the shingle beach and dune system behind that are insufficient and unconvincing, and show little understanding or concern of the habitat. There is not enough evidence of a complete and total restoration of the habitat and landscape. 2. Coastal erosion and flooding: Climate change with rising sea levels of 4mm a year combined with more frequent and powerful storm surges, and the history of erosion and natural change of the Suffolk coastline, makes Sizewell an unsustainable and unsuitable location for further nuclear power stations and any long-term storage of nuclear waste. Even after the expected lifetime of Sizewell C/D in 60 years, the site will need to be protected from flooding and erosion for centuries more. This can not be guaranteed when long term climate change and sea level predictions beyond 2100 are taken into account. 3. Sizewell Marshes: A Site of Special Scientific Interest and cited ny Natural England as being 'of exceptional interest for their invertebrate fauna'. Yet there will be direct loss of this habitat and landscape as a result of building Sizewell C/D. EDFE's Aldhurst Farm habitat creation outside the AONB is not large enough and does not compensate for this loss, and in turn will be subject to extensive disturbance during the construction period. There will bill significant interruption to the hydrological dynamics of Sizewell Marshes, bringing fundamental changes to water flow and quality. This would have a major effect on the sensitive M22 fen meadow habitat, threating its SSSI status. 4. Division of the Aare of Outstanding Natural Beauty: The proposed construction area and new access road would divide the AONB in two forming a wildlife barrier between Minsmere / Walberswick RAMSAR, SPA, SAC SSSI and Sizewell Marshes SSSI. There would be a increase in direct mortality of birdlife of up to 30% due the new road, noise, lights, fumes and general disturbance. 5. Negative effect on Tourism: Tourism is the most important industry for the Suffolk coast. Tourists came to the location because of its undeveloped landscape, its tranquillity and solitude, low population, habitats and wildlife. EDFE's position that tourism will be largely unaffected by the construction of Sizewell C/D is unfounded, as the very things tourists, visitors and indeed residents come here for will be directly and negatively affected the project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Woodard
"I object to this proposal. It is improper to make any decision on this proposal at a time when it cannot be subject to proper public scrutiny due to Covid restrictions, precluding proper meetings. There are numerous reasons why Sizewell C should NOT be built, including; Inadequate provision for waste storage and decommissioning, Ambiguity and uncertainty as to all parties who will fund the development, As a nation we should be focusing on renewables, Potential negative impact on tourism, Two thirds of the jobs created will not go to local people, Loss of amenity for Suffolk residents, Undue disturbance for Suffolk residents living close to the railway line, Excessive congestion and pollution on Suffolk’s roads, at a time when we are being encouraged to reduce vehicle pollution. And many, many, more reasons. We don’t need this nuclear power station, and the residents of Suffolk should not be made to suffer such detrimental impact."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Buttle
"I live in kelsale and would like to say how worried I am about both the construction phase and future running of Sizewell C nuclear power plant, my worries are as follows. Severe disruption to everyday life from excessive road and rail traffic , noise, pollution and Shere amount of lorry movements. Severe effect on the biodiversity of this beautiful area. The mental health of residents coping with traffic , noise The adverse effect on our tourist industry The destruction of wildlife habit.both inland and off shore I would like to say that I strongly object to this proposed development and feel that it should NOT go ahead. Claire Buttle"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Hawes
"This project is insupportable in this area on numerous points. The issue of coastal protection has not been considered by EDF. The impact of the extraordinary increase in traffic on our roads, and workers on our services, is totally unsustainable. Plans for a new road carving up the beautiful Suffolk countryside have been taken up by EDF instead of the suggestion for a more long-term positive one that might at least give something back. Our economy will be devastated in the future when we lose our tourism (remarkably increased since covid) both short term when the roads will be too busy and long-term when the tranquility and serenity of Minsmere and Dunwich are no longer there to attract them in the first place. There has been no proper assessment of the impact on other areas like Walberswick or Southwold. We do not have the structure or services in this part of the country to support this massive project and I urge you to reject this proposal on all grounds."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Andrews
"I strongly believe the Sizewell C project will cause damage to the local and general environment both short term and long term and consume resources better used elsewhere. For the 12 years of its construction it will only contribute to increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Further it would be 20years before its CO2 debt is 'repaid'. During this time and in the longer term rising sea levels and accelerating coastal erosion will render the site difficult, if not impossible to defend for its useful working life and the 300 years needed to return it to habitable status. Resources will be more quickly and effectively used increasing and establishing renewable power generation . It will damage a well established and nationally valued AONB and overload the resources available to the local human and wildlife. Health and Policing will be overloaded. And in the present circumstance of Covid19 the 'importation' across the country of personnel from Hinckley Somerset must be considered unwise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Humphrey
"Damage to this part of Suffolk will be incalculable; loss of peace, protected habitats, tranquillity and dark night skies. Locals and visitors are attracted to this area for precisely those reasons and will be driven away by the noise, pollution, closures of beaches and footpaths, traffic congestion and general disruption. My areas of concern are: 1. Location • If you were starting from scratch there is no way you would choose this site • Coastal erosion and possible risk of flooding, including the possibility of the site becoming an island housing five nuclear reactors. • The catastrophic impact and implications for the ANOB and local wildlife. • The toll on local infrastructure of eight other totally uncoordinated energy projects 2. Local Impacts • There has been a failure to conduct vital studies including Health and Community. The proposals must not reduce quality of life or access to emergency services or healthcare. This area is already a ‘black spot’ for emergency services as it is between the major response hubs and in a rural setting and already struggles to cope at the moment. • There has been no proper assessment of the impact of on the thriving tourist economy. It is estimated tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. • EDF states that the project will create employment for local people but these will be mainly lower skilled worked all other workers will need to be ‘imported’. • The campus is single occupancy and workers must leave the site to socialise with non-EDF personnel. There is no impact analysis of the impact this will have on the surrounding area. • The impact on local communities in terms of traffic, noise light pollution and general disruption has not been given sufficient consideration. I strongly oppose the 2,400 capacity a Worker campus. The campus will destroy the local environment and amenity. • The park and ride planned north of Darsham Station has increased from 800 vehicles to 1250 vehicles. This park and ride will run 24/7. This will be a significant detriment to local residents in terms of noise, light pollution, traffic pollution and congestion. The installation of a roundabout on the A12 in Yoxford will further exacerbate the situation. 3. Transport • The proposal to adopt a road-based transport plan is the easiest and cheapest for EDF whilst being the most disruptive for the local community. The number of HGV vehicles visiting the site under the are equal to the “Road-Led” proposals which has already been rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations • The road proposal cuts through and splits communities and farm land leaving ‘islands’ of unproductive land and severed communities. There will be loss of amenity as the footpaths become unusable. There is no legacy of benefit to the local community. • There has been a complete failure to properly consider the impact on local traffic including the additional traffic on local roads and people turning rural roads into ‘rat-runs’. • There has been no impact assessment on the effect on property. Many rural properties are sited very close to the road and are already shaken as large vehicles pass. The potential for lasting damage to these properties has not been considered nor the adverse impact on health from fuel emissions. 4. Environment and Landscape • The effect on the local environment will be devastating has been given insufficient consideration, in particular the adverse impact on RSPB Minsmere and the wetlands. • The position, design and scale of the construction will be a true ‘blot on the landscape’, changing the landscape for ever and destroying precious habitats for rare birds, animals, flora and fauna. The AONB will be dislocated and destroyed. • The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (ANOB) will be dissected for at least a decade. This threatens the fundamental aspirations and reason for existence of any ANOB. • Where did those four giant proposed pylons suddenly spring from? The reason the pylons are necessary is because EDF have identified it unacceptable to bury the cables, further evidence that this site is unsuitable. In Addition, by choosing overhead cabling you are making terrorist threats that much easier. • The project is far too big for the location and land available. Government guidelines suggest that a single nuclear power station should occupy 30 hectares, Sizewell C&D are squeezed into 32 hectares. • Significant dust pollution will be caused to the ANOB by the spoil heaps, which are estimated to reach 10 storeys high! 5. Coast • Building a nuclear power station on an eroding coastline is just not sensible. The flood risk is totally unpredictable. • The impact on the marine life has not been properly considered. I endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB and National Trust. The Sizewell C application is totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deborah Golden
"The area is beautiful and a place of natural diversity which will be destroyed in the building and running of the power station."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashtons Legal on behalf of Diana Hinton
"1. I, Diana Hinton[Redacted] which consists of the oldest part (at least 1602), the walled garden, tennis court and separate garden, two fields to the west and Pond Wood. My late husband purchased the property in the early 1970s. I wish to be registered as an interested party for the Sizewell C DCO. 2. I would rather that this new nuclear power station was not proceeding but otherwise will not comment on the principle. I entirely support the need for communities on the A12 to be bypassed but the wrong route has been chosen for bypassing the A12 in our villages of Farnham and Stratford St Andrew and, if A12 relief is confined to these villages, the route should follow the alignment put forward by the Parish Council, further to the east. 3. The age of my house is evidenced by dates on external plasterwork and a fireplace. The house was extended substantially in the 1920s. Under a building scheme in the 1960s, the rear wing was converted into other dwellings and several buildings in the farm complex have also been converted to residential use. 4. Farnham is an ancient settlement (in Domesday 1086). In the late 12th century the church and manor were given to the new Butley Priory. No other site is a candidate for having been the medieval manor. It is evident that there was a very old farm estate around Farnham Manor. My property is listed Grade II*. Pond Wood has been accepted by Natural England as Ancient Woodland, with quite possibly medieval carp ponds. 5. The need for Farnham and Stratford St Andrew to be bypassed is clear; relief will be afforded to listed buildings directly fronting the A12 in Farnham and Elm Tree Farmhouse close by and for the people who live and work on this busy road. It is wrong, however, that the problems along the A12 should be relieved at the expense of the 20 dwellings affected by EDF’s western alignment, whereas an eastern alignment would have much more limited effect on the built and natural environment. The public interest is best served by an eastern alignment, which will be both cheaper and easier to build. 6. EDF is wrong in not also providing for relief for the villages of Little Glemham and Marlesford. If they will not get relieved now, the design should accommodate further extension for them, which an eastern alignment more readily accommodates. 7. EDF has paid insufficient regard to the built environment, in particular that of historic heritage value. Farnham Hall represents a long-standing house and manorial farming estate of historic heritage value. EDF have failed to recognise the significance of the built and natural setting of the Farnham Hall complex, which would be much better protected from serious harm by moving an alignment further to the east. 8. As an owner of an Ancient Woodland, I am deeply concerned about the impact on my Pond Wood, and also on Foxburrow Wood. To put a deep cutting in will produce high risk to the hydrology of the area, as opposed to a largely flat bypass to the east. Ancient Woodland is scarce in England and should be better protected. 9. I was not approached by EDF for consent to investigate Pond Wood. The environmental assessment is woefully lacking e.g. under-estimating the importance of the area as a wildlife corridor. The western alignment will cause unnecessary harm to the natural environment. 10. I reserve the right to amend, add to and expand on my objections during the DCO process"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diane Humphrey
"Damage to this part of Suffolk will be incalculable; loss of peace, protected habitats, tranquillity and dark night skies. Locals and visitors are attracted to this area for precisely those reasons and will be driven away by the noise, pollution, closures of beaches and footpaths, traffic congestion and general disruption. My areas of concern are: 1. Location • If you were starting from scratch there is no way you would choose this site • Coastal erosion and possible risk of flooding, including the possibility of the site becoming an island housing five nuclear reactors. • The catastrophic impact and implications for the ANOB and local wildlife. • The toll on local infrastructure of eight other totally uncoordinated energy projects 2. Local Impacts • There has been a failure to conduct vital studies including Health and Community. The proposals must not reduce quality of life or access to emergency services or healthcare. This area is already a ‘black spot’ for emergency services as it is between the major response hubs and in a rural setting and already struggles to cope at the moment. • There has been no proper assessment of the impact of on the thriving tourist economy. It is estimated tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. • EDF states that the project will create employment for local people but these will be mainly lower skilled worked all other workers will need to be ‘imported’. • The campus is single occupancy and workers must leave the site to socialise with non-EDF personnel. There is no impact analysis of the impact this will have on the surrounding area. • The impact on local communities in terms of traffic, noise light pollution and general disruption has not been given sufficient consideration. I strongly oppose the 2,400 capacity a Worker campus. The campus will destroy the local environment and amenity. • The park and ride planned north of Darsham Station has increased from 800 vehicles to 1250 vehicles. This park and ride will run 24/7. This will be a significant detriment to local residents in terms of noise, light pollution, traffic pollution and congestion. The installation of a roundabout on the A12 in Yoxford will further exacerbate the situation. 3. Transport • The proposal to adopt a road-based transport plan is the easiest and cheapest for EDF whilst being the most disruptive for the local community. The number of HGV vehicles visiting the site under the are equal to the “Road-Led” proposals which has already been rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations • The road proposal cuts through and splits communities and farm land leaving ‘islands’ of unproductive land and severed communities. There will be loss of amenity as the footpaths become unusable. There is no legacy of benefit to the local community. • There has been a complete failure to properly consider the impact on local traffic including the additional traffic on local roads and people turning rural roads into ‘rat-runs’. • There has been no impact assessment on the effect on property. Many rural properties are sited very close to the road and are already shaken as large vehicles pass. The potential for lasting damage to these properties has not been considered nor the adverse impact on health from fuel emissions. 4. Environment and Landscape • The effect on the local environment will be devastating has been given insufficient consideration, in particular the adverse impact on RSPB Minsmere and the wetlands. • The position, design and scale of the construction will be a true ‘blot on the landscape’, changing the landscape for ever and destroying precious habitats for rare birds, animals, flora and fauna. The AONB will be dislocated and destroyed. • The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (ANOB) will be dissected for at least a decade. This threatens the fundamental aspirations and reason for existence of any ANOB. • Where did those four giant proposed pylons suddenly spring from? The reason the pylons are necessary is because EDF have identified it unacceptable to bury the cables, further evidence that this site is unsuitable. In Addition, by choosing overhead cabling you are making terrorist threats that much easier. • The project is far too big for the location and land available. Government guidelines suggest that a single nuclear power station should occupy 30 hectares, Sizewell C&D are squeezed into 32 hectares. • Significant dust pollution will be caused to the ANOB by the spoil heaps, which are estimated to reach 10 storeys high! 5. Coast • Building a nuclear power station on an eroding coastline is just not sensible. The flood risk is totally unpredictable. • The impact on the marine life has not been properly considered. I endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB and National Trust. The Sizewell C application is totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Dominic Woodfield
"I wish to make submissions in respect of the impact of the project on biodiversity and nature conservation considerations, including likely significant effects on supporting processes for impacted ecosystems. In particular, Bioscan has been commissioned by Friends of the Earth (Suffolk Coastal) to look into the claims around 'biodiversity net gain' advanced by the project proponents and I have already entered into correspondence with them and PINS on this issue. My submissions on this issue cannot be outlined fully at this stage as investigations are being hindered by EDFEs refusal to provide essential evidence in support of their position. However it is already clear that EDFEs claims of net gain are open to challenge. The precise focus of challenge can and will be further particularised as and when the information requested from EDFE is forthcoming. PINS have been asked to intervene to ensure this information is offered up in a complete and timely fashion. I wish to reserve the option to appear either as a representative of FOESC or in my own capacity. In order to assist the smooth and efficient running of the examination I will be liaising with FOESC to ensure any submissions I make (on their behalf or independently) are coordinated with and do not replicate those made by other interested parties."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Bron Lipkin
"I wish to raise the following issues of great concern about the Sizewell C project . I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place  with significant sea flooding risk  from climate change. There will be unacceptable adverse impact on the adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and cultural heritage value. I am particularly concerned about the harm to Minsmere which is of international importance and significance. There are no less than eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality  and these are completely uncoordinated There will be unacceptable impacts on local communities, greatly increased traffic, significant increases in noise. 6,000 workers will be coming to live in the area, no less than 2,400 in a Worker campus in a rural location which establishment will mean the death knell of an entire village (Eastbridge) The inevitable increased pressure on health, social and emergency services do not seem to have been adequately planned for .   Road transport planning is inadequate ; there will be enormous and adverse impact on local communities. HGV numbers are as high as those under the “Road-Led” proposals already rejected .   In closing I also wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and RSPB, and finally I wish to say that I consider the Sizewell C application to be singularly unsuitable for a digital examination process like this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Ian Patterson
"I have a number of concerns about the projected Sizewell C: the main ones are as follows. 1. It is ecologically very damaging. The impact on Minsmere bird life (a habitat and reserve of international importance) and the ecosystems supporting it, first of all, and then the potentially damaging and detrimental impact (both of the long construction process and of the power station itself) on the whole coastal ecology, including marine life, flood levels, water levels, habitats, and landscape. 2. It will bring an enormous increase in very heavy traffic to a network of completely unsuitable roads; and the planned new roads, when they are built, will damage the landscape further, as well as destroying the homogeneity of communities and farmland. The impact of this, and the very large number of workers brought in from elsewhere—with consequential demands on housing and services—is estimated to reduced income from tourism, on which the area largely depends, by 29% to 40%. 3. The location itself is not well-chosen, in light of the above and of the rate of coastal erosion likely with projected degrees of global warming. There are dangers in this both to the generating capacity and to the safe storage of waste. 4. The construction process itself, which may well take considerably longer than the time EDF have estimated for completion, will have an adverse effect on the environment, increasing CO2 levels radically. I would also like to say that I would wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by 'Stop Sizewell C'."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Thomas
"When one considers the extent of the development planned for this area of Suffolk the construction of Sizewell C will impose unprecedented damage on an already fragile stretch of East Suffolk Coast. When this is taken in conjunction with all the other projects planned for this area this project will herald the end of a precious and unique part of Suffollk. It is unacceptable it should go ahead"
Parish Councils
Farnham with Stratford St Andrew Parish Council
"The parish council is not contesting the case for a new nuclear facility in principle but we do contest EDF’s transport proposals and in particular the route alignment for a bypass of Farnham and Stratford St Andrew villages. We strongly feel that further consideration should be given to marine and railway led provision for construction in order to relieve the already busy roads in this part of East Suffolk. The East Suffolk coast has always been a very popular tourist and second home destination and our local economy very much relies on this income. Our roads have become even busier this summer owing to the coronavirus pandemic with people holidaying in this country rather than going abroad. Increases to local traffic caused by the construction of Sizewell C may put people off travelling as well as causing serious delays for local traffic. The parish council welcomes the proposal to build a bypass around the two villages which is long overdue and absolutely necessary. Our principle objection is to the proposed alignment of the new road which we have highlighted in our previous responses to EDF’s public consultations but which have not been addressed. We are wholly dissatisfied with EDF’s intransigence in continuing to single-mindedly pursue a bypass route to the west of Foxburrow Wood, to the exclusion of a more easterly alignment which has the support of our residents, this parish council, our County Councillor and others. Natural England have recently removed the Ancient Woodland designation from the narrow band of trees connecting Foxburrow Wood and Palant's Grove, through which we have consistently maintained the bypass can and should be routed. This completely undermines EDF's argument that they must pass to the west of Foxburrow Wood in order to avoid destroying Ancient Woodland, which was one of their principle inputs for route selection and objection to an eastern alignment. In their documentation EDF mentions Farnham Hall as if it is one property. In fact it is ten separate properties. This means that the current road proposal will affect around twenty properties and not eleven. Nineteen residential properties (and three business properties) will see the A12 move closer to them, fourteen of these residences will be adversely affected by the new road’s proximity (including Grade II listed Farnham Manor and the five dwellings which fall within its curtilage), five of them will be significantly affected. Conversely, should the bypass go to the east of Foxburrow Wood then only three properties will be adversely affected (two of which will nonetheless be better off than with EDF’s proposal). Of these, only a single dwelling will be significantly affected (a bungalow in isolated countryside that is only occasionally occupied). In addition, an easterly alignment would enable the linking up of a future four village bypass which would greatly benefit Marlesford and Little Glemham. The latest proposal is for an increased speed limit of 60mph rather than 50mph which will cause more noise and pollution and which we object to. We also highlighted constructional and in-life benefits of an easterly route, as well as beneficial implications for vehicular access to properties and preservation of Public Rights of Way. None of these factors have been acknowledged by EDF."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Finn Dowley
"The project at Sizewell threatens the continued viability of the farm in Theberton and therefore the employment of our 3 farm workers who have been there for many years. On top of their reliance on the jobs to support their families, they are an important part of the local community."
Parish Councils
Friston Parish Council
"Friston Parish is home to circa 450 people who live in a pretty, peaceful and tranquil environment surrounded by green pastures. Therefore, its residents enjoy a high-level sense of well-being, safety and security in a pastoral setting. Until the early part of this century the parish was run as a private agricultural estate in the ownership of the Wentworth family. The roads are in the main narrow country lanes and there is an acute shortage of parking in the village itself. It is particularly prone to bouts of heavy flooding, especially in bad weather. The parish has a small number of heritage buildings including a beautiful well-known grade II listed parish church. There is also a much needed youth centre connected with the local Baptist church and a popular pub with a restaurant. The parish is conveniently situated close to the AONB and there are a number of businesses in and around the village that are connected with, and dependent upon, the thriving tourism trade in this region. Transport: roads Friston can be approached from the A1094. This is a single track road about 7 miles long. It starts at Friday Street off the A12 and finishes at Aldeburgh, on the coast. There are a number of junctions, including Rights of Way, along the route which are very dangerous to cross. There is a plethora of credible evidence to support this assertion. It is feared SZC workers and its suppliers will use their cars and vans to drive on this road and this would seriously impact Friston infrastructure and residents. In addition, Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) intends to build an enormous substation very close to Friston village and within its boundary. This company will rely on the A1094 for to transport supplies and workers to the Friston sub-station site. This would include Heavy Goods vehicles as well as cars and vans. Should SPR succeed in its planning application, its use of the A1094 would embolden SZC worker and suppliers to also use the A1094 instead of the A12. This cannot be allowed to happen on the single track approach road to Friston, and with dangerous junctions along its route. SZC Tourism Fund It is feared that although Friston is close to, but outside of, the AONB, its businesses will not derive much benefit, if at all, from the tourism fund SZC is to provide; SZC seems to be concentrating on the AONB tourism area. Should this be the case then Friston's businesses of all types and sizes would be severely impacted, and this too cannot be allowed to happen. Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation found that tourism could lose up to £40 million a year, with the potential loss of up to 400 jobs. As tourism provides a large percentage of jobs in this area, this cannot be allowed to happen. RSPB Minsmere is of international significance. We are concerned that Minsmere would be irreparably harmed by the proposed development. This would damage the UK’s reputation for conservation as well as the visitor economy. Environmental Impact The construction phase of the development would result in unacceptable levels of environmental pollution, including from light, noise, traffic and dust. The mitigation of the environmental impact of the proposed borrow pits and subsequent landfill and other areas of landfill has not been addressed satisfactorily by EDF. The development does not address the potential adverse impacts on the ecological value of species and habitats in either the marine or terrestrial environment. The proposals increase flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the main development site footprint. In summary Friston Parish Council are urging the Planning Inspectorate to refuse permission for SZC, this small part of Suffolk is beset with ill-conceived and uncoordinated energy projects that will devastate our fragile home beyond any form of mitigation and landscape renewal promised by energy companies."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashtons Legal on behalf of Gail Lee
"1. I, Gail Lee, [Redacted], which is one of the dwellings created out of the [Redacted]. I wish to be registered as an interested party for the Sizewell C DCO. 2. I understand the rear wing was added to the very old part of the manor house in the 1920s. Being of American birth and upbringing and conscious of shared history, I have taken delight in living in a historic setting, as did my husband who sadly passed away last year. I am aware that Farnham and Stratford St Andrew are ancient settlements and that the Farnham Hall complex may well have medieval origins, being also close to a very ancient church site. In consultation documents, EDF has misrepresented the number of residential dwellings in the Farnham Hall area and its DCO submission still does not take proper account of the heritage legacy here. 3. I accept a justified need to bypass the A12 through our villages but EDF has simply chosen the wrong route for a bypass; the more easterly route proposed by our Parish Council is much to be preferred. 4. I feel for people in Little Glemham and Marlesford, who are being denied relief from traffic conditions, which will get so much worse. If they cannot be bypassed now, that should not be precluded for the future and the design of our bypass should reflect the highway authority’s continued commitment to achieve relief to those villages. That objective would be met better by the more easterly alignment, with an easier curve than for the alignment EDF has promoted. 5. Others will deal with EDF’s justification for a new nuclear facility but traffic impact must include that generated by the Scottish Power wind farm projects, which are passing through the DCO approval process more rapidly. 6. EDF has had no good basis not addressing the eastern alignment properly and instead simply shifting the burden of traffic from the existing A12 to affect 20 dwellings; the easterly alignment does much less harm to the built and natural environment. 7. EDF’s environmental assessment work has been very poor; failing to identify properly all that will be lost or damaged by its western alignment. Its project should not be allowed to proceed on the basis of the work it has done so far. 8. The public interest is not best served by EDF’s western alignment and quite the contrary. A proper planning balance clearly weighs in favour of a more easterly alignment. 9. I therefore object to the Sizewell C DCO but I reserve the right to amend, add to and expand on my objections during the DCO proc"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Tomalin
"I have carefully followed the pre planning consultations for the Sizewell C project over the last three years and attended local meetings held by EDF which explained the outline plans for the power station. In principle i do not have an objection against the construction of a power station at Sizewell, because of a number of factors such as energy security within UK and the requirement for non weather related carbon neutral energy production to ensure adequate energy supply if the wind/solar production is insufficient to supply demand in the future. However i have a strong objection to the construction process, in particular the movement of materials to and from the site. It has been repeatedly noted by the applicant in all the consultations i have attended and read that the view of the attendees have preferred the rail option for the movement of materials. I also strongly hold that view. Repeatedly EDF say they listen but to propose only 40% by rail and sea with up to 325 HGV movements a day to site (paperwork doesn't mention that's 650 trips including return) is not adequately taking into account the consultation. The main road to and from this area, the A12 north of the A14 is mostly single carriageway and not suitable. In addition the far more environmentally sensitive way to move materials is rail. The tracks are unused at night and are already constructed. This must be taken further into account by the developer."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hannah Wilder
"nuclear energy (& waste) detriment to surrounding nature - fish, birds, wildlife etc"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hubbard family
"I have the following concerns about Sizewell C: Transport • Road: a construction transport strategy which is largely based on road transport shows limited understanding of local conditions: o The A12 is a key road for local residents for trips to work, school, shopping and socialising, as well as being a key artery for tourists and business: long tailbacks happen regularly, given that it is only dualled in places. I cannot see how it will cope with 650 HGV movements on peak days (and 1,000 movements on the busiest days) in addition to all those additional 2,000 “local” workers who EDF expect to live up to 90 minutes away from Sizewell. o The B1122 is busy, particularly at times of shift changes at Sizewell B. Whilst the Sizewell Link Road may mitigate traffic flow challenges from the north, I remain very concerned that many workers will continue to drive through Leiston from the South which will make the town’s roads even more congested and the noise/pollution along Abbey Road intolerable. o The two park and ride sites are proposed by EDF to reduce traffic coming into Leiston/Sizewell: how will the Planning process ensure that these park and ride sites are used? • Rail: whilst recognising that the intention is to use landscape buffers to reduce the noise of the freight trains along the Green Rail route, I am concerned that the residents in Abbey Road and ProCorda music school will be impacted by the dual menace of the noise of the trains, and the noise and air pollution caused by traffic waiting to cross the temporary level crossing. Have options to reduce the potential impact by tunnelling the line under the B1122/Abbey Line been considered? Environment • I understand that the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust have significant concerns that the construction of such a large development taking up to 12 years could have a irreparable adverse impact on the rich, but fragile, local environment. I look to them for guidance on such matters and endorse their comments. Coastal hydrodynamics/climate change resilience • The coast is eroding: are the designs sufficiently detailed and robust to mitigate this risk? Do the costings reflect the mitigation measures required? • Sea level increases are expected to lead to flooding along the coast: how safe will Sizewell C be during its 60 years of operation? The cost of risk mitigation in the long term • By developing Sizewell C in an environmentally sensitive and fragile coastal location, there will be a requirement for long term monitoring and risk mitigation. Given the long term trends away from nuclear power, is there a danger that the profitability of Sizewell C will decline over time, resulting in a need to start cutting operational costs, including risk mitigation costs?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Rowlands
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern: Environment & Landscape I believe there will be an irreparable impact on our landscape because of locality, design and scale; we are in AONB and this development is entirely inappropriate? There will be enormous landscape and ecological damage Minsmere - a site of international importance and significance for wildlife and huge tourism draw - will be hugely impacted. What of the integrity of the Special Protection Area? ? Pollution from light, noise and traffic will have enormous adverse impacts on eco-systems and landscape ? Flooding risks and abstraction of water adds to the risks to the environment and to protected species - what of groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology?? The use of nuclear fuel and inadequate long-term plans for storage of waste is an environmental hazard for countless generations to come and for wildlife Site Selection  I believe this is the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time for reasons stated above In addition there are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for this area  On a site that is proven to be at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding  What will future generations make of a site that could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste??? Community  Without doubt there will be huge negative impacts on local businesses Tourism: EDF’s own surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred from visiting the are - it is likely to be a far higher figure, especially given that this is just one of many large-scale proposed energy developments Tourism has proved - especially air a time of coronavirus - to be of enormous significance for the area. Projections suggest that we may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs in tourism ? Local communities and visitors will be landed with traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption - a powerful disruptive and long-term legacy? This is not a project for our local community - 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a peaceful rural location? “90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in Site Support” is what EDF expects local people to fill - we have ample historical evidence that the community will see no long-term resultant prosperity of up-skilling? Coastal processes  No complete design of the HCDF is available and hard coastal defence features have a proven impacts on coastal processes with ecological damage and inherent flood risks? Erosion and recession rates and episodic and unpredictable - this is the wrong site for development of this kind, with no regard for the future? This is an area of importance for marine ecology that will be adversely impacted by this development - especially when combined with the other proposed energy projects in the area ?? I endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trusts and Stop Sizewell C. In addition I think the Sizewell C application is totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Rettie
"May I draw your attention to my concerns as follows about the proposed new Sizewell development: *Proposed Site: sea levels are rising, putting the site at risk from flooding and 'hundred year' tidal events. -The ecology and amenity of the coastline are at risk, as is the cultural heritage of the coast and its value to tourism -The density of the site with five reactors and concomitant stored waste, is simply too great a burden -There is not proper coordination between this proposal and other local planned energy projects *Impacts: -The area is simply unable to sustain the increase in traffic, noise and disruption related to the building project and the new power station -Thousands of new workers will put an unacceptable strain on local facilities, healthcare, roads, schools and commercial services -Tourism will be adversely affected - EDF's own s would be surveys suggest nearly a third of visitors would be put off . - Especially in the light of Covid and the Government's warnings regarding the end to the brexit transition period, businesses cannot sustain the impact and disruption - Local jobs are predicted by EDF to be low-skilled, so the boost to our economy is minimal and will not remotely offset the disbenefits * Transport: The infrastructure plans designed to deal with the increase in traffic are entirely unsustainable. HGVs are predicted to be as high as previous proposals which relied on roads -What road plans there are will not be ready in time, leading to a huge increase in congestion, pollution and traffic for several years - The new roads are not environmentally sound and will cause irreperabe damage to our wildlife - There is simply not enough consideration given to construction traffic impact and what there is is unrealistic *Environment: Minsmerer bird reserve will be irreparably damaged - site of international and historic significance and a vital home and feeding ground for rare and endangered migrating birds in an area of outstanding natural beauty - Very little or inadequate consideration has been given to in the increase in noise and light pollution -There is insufficient planning for dealing with construction waste or stockpiling of materials - There is nowhere near enough consideration of the effects on ground water levels or contamination of drinking water - The construction is an inefficient way to produce power compared with other, renewable resources, which will also be insufficient in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in line with targets - The detrimental effect on marine biology in this delicate coastal area *Cost: The calculations for the cost of this project simply do not take into account the bill for clean up or eventual decommissioning, as there is no adequate plan - nor can there be - for safe very long term storage of nuclear waste I would also ask you to take into account Stop Sizewell C's Relevant Representation at [Redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeremy Bodkin
"I support the Sizewell C application as overall it is and will ultimately benefit the local area and UK plc as a whole. . With a reduction in carbon emmisions Security of electrical supply Be part of a balanced portfolio of energy for the next 80 + years"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John C Walton
"As a Fellow of UCL, I am aware of the research of its Energy Institute and specifically the work of Dr Paul Dorfman who is a member of several bodies concerned with nuclear power, including INRAG, NTW and CERRIE; he led the European Environment Agency response to Fukushima, and is also a member of the European Network for Social and Environmental Responsibility. He has characterised Nuclear as an old 20th Century industrial failure and has pointed out massive cost and time overruns whenever this type of reactor has been built. This raises two immediate questions: the timescale for construction projected by EDF ignores this history of catastrophic delays: in the case of Flamanville completion seems likely to be at least a decade late. This implies that the environmental damage could be even worse than EDF suggest. Second, a highly sceptical report by the French National Audit Office casts doubt on EDF's involvement in Sizewell C, not least because the (UK) National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have been highly critical of Hinkley Point's high energy price guarantee, which is not likely to be extended to Sizewell C. EDF effectively requires the support of the French State (83% owner) which is already hugely embarrassed by Flamanville. What happens if, some way into construction, the French Government pulls the plug citing an embarrassment too far, either for profitability, delay or safety reasons? The German government is indeed in the process of phasing out all nuclear. EDF point to Sizewell's savings on carbon footprint but this is very back- loaded. Initially, and through construction, there is a hugely negative carbon impact and this is precisely the crucial period when we do not want to risk a "tipping point". During the past few years, the extraordinary collapse in the cost of renewables has completely undermined the economic case for Sizewell C. Its supporters have cited carbon (but admitting that it is no better than renewables) and energy security (grey days with little wind) I have reason to believe that a technology to store renewable energy at an extremely attractive, highly economic price is about to be revealed and prototypes built. Why would we persist with a project which, because of associated high energy prices, is bad for the economy? Given these cost/benefit assumptions; the German Government's decision to focus on safety and withdraw from nuclear; and, bearing in mind the possibility of a "black swan" safety incident (probably at least as "probable" as the current Covid pandemic) which would be a catastrophe for East Anglia, the case against proceeding seems overwhelming."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jon Iles
"1. The construction of Sizewell C will have an unacceptable impact on the nature conservation and landscape value of the immediate area. This impact cannot be adequately mitigated against elsewhere. 2. An unacceptable impact will also occur to wildlife areas in the vicinity of Sizewell C including Minsmere and other nationally important sites within this Area of Outstanding Beauty. 3. Alternatives to such a massive project should be properly considered including energy conservation measures and alternative green generation. 4. The build infrastructure during the construction phase will permanently negatively affect an area which is supposed to be an A O N B. 5. The long term legacy of nuclear reactors is still unclear - more benign methods of power generation and energy saving should be a top priority."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joshua Eycott-Martin
"Sizewell C is a damaging project, destroying an area of protected nature reserve. It is also a waste of millions of pounds which could be invested in renewable technology that would allow a more sustainable approach to the issue of providing energy to a rising population. Substituting Sizewell C for renewable projects will not cause job loss, as it may bring new innovation and involve more interested parties to communicate to produce such projects that are less damaging ecologically, financially and socially than wave, wind, solar and so on. Building a nuclear power plant is disregarding democracy, as a large proportion of the UK and indeed the globe are against projects that use isotopes that are hard to dispose of: it is not ethical to contain radioactive waste or export it, whether it be Uranium glass or disused rods. The step forward is to scrap this project and seek other alternatives. Like HS2, the rewards do not outweigh the costs of construction as there wil be massive political backlash and tension as well as a huge financial injection that is better spent on other existing issues."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kate Laydon
"I object to the proposals to uses the singlectrack railway, not 50yards from ny house in [Redacted] for the purposes of constructing sizewell C Noise at least 5 trains a night Risk of accidents with dangerousc waste movement Longevity of disruption over many years is quite unreasonable will have a ong tdrm imoact on the health of residents Imoact on house values Lack of consultation and oiffer of any compensation and or mitigating arrangements for noise reduction"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Dowley
"1. The site will have a serious negative impacts on the local environment, including causing flooding which has a knock-on impact on the local ecosystem and marine ecology. The site is right next to the Minsmere natura reserve, and could affect the water levels in Minsmere’s ditches, impacting its rare wetland wildlife, which includes bitterns, otters and ducks. Also, building works will likely cause erosion, further harming the local ecosystem. 2. The site will also have negative impacts on the local community. The building work and huge influx of people will cause extra traffic and increases in noise and light pollution. Currently, lots of tourists come to the area every year. Many of these tourists could be deterred, and the local tourism industry will lose out. 3. The new roads being built for the site will divide farmland and ruin the local footpath system."
Parish Councils
Levington and Stratton Hall Parish Council
"The Parish Council has participated in all four stages of public consultation over eight years. This application concentrates on the site for the proposed Freight Management Facility [FMF] in the context of the overall Freight Management Strategy options [6.1 Environmental Statement – plate 3.3 page 12]. This releases 325 one-way HGV movements on a typical day [13.5 deliveries per hour = 1 every 4 minutes] and 500 on the busiest days [21 deliveries per hour = 1 every 3 minutes] over 24 hours. This will have a significantly detrimental impact on the local roads and the environment around the FMF. It is regrettable that SCDC did not support a web-based Delivery Management System [Volume 9 – 6.9 – Chapter 3 – 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 refers]. The Parish Council supports more emphasis being placed on the rail led option for the delivery of goods to the construction site. FREIGHT MANAGEMENT FACILITY 1. Book 6.9 Volume 8 – Local Environment Proposals to mitigate the harmful impact of this site set within the countryside and on a flat topography comprise a 3m high landscape bund [only to the west and partially to the east of the site], a 10m buffer zone and native trees/shrub planting [it is noted that a 1.8m security fence will encircle the site]. This is insufficient mitigation not to cause a nuisance: • Visual – as almost all the HGVs and buildings will be above the height of the bund there will be a visual impact. • Light – the lighting lanterns being 8m high at 4m spacing will clearly tower above the bund. Further mitigation is given to the use of a Central Management System, but it is difficult to assess effectiveness. Further mitigation relies on partial blockage by existing trees [mainly to the south] but this will be ineffective after leaf fall. • Noise and Vibration –background noise is mentioned but this is low level and constant. HGVs stopping and starting, cab doors banging, will be jarring. • Air Quality – Particular concern for nearby residents, along with other pollutants [above]. • When will planting take place and how long will it be before it matures to be an effective screen? 2. Book 8 [8.5] Traffic Assessment • Junction with A1156 [Section 9.30 – pages 472 to 478] – Junction 41 is described as “a simple priority T-junction” which is the problem. It will become dangerous with slow HGVs crossing the sweeping bend of a 60mph A-road. There is a ‘ghost island’ providing negligible protection for right turning vehicles. • Traffic from Port of Felixstowe using A14 Junction – on the busiest day, 75 journeys will originate form here. The junction to the Felixstowe Road is inadequate and positioned on a fast stretch of the A14. There is also concern about pollution and disturbance to residents living alongside this road. 3. 6.9 Volume 8 – Chapter 2 – 2.6.3 Return to Original Use including Felixstowe Road The intention to return the site to agricultural use AND reinstating the Felixstowe Road should be a legally binding commitment so avoiding a predatory planning authority or developers industrialising the countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Woolnough
"Lack of meaningful engagements - understanding landowners concerns Alternative options - have these been adequately considered Concerns over environmental impact of the project"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Marion
"I live within the area & feel the project is far too big for our area causing much disruption & permanent damage to our area of 'Outstanding natural beauty (AONB). Tourism will be permanently damaged which will have a significant economic impact on the are. Other concerns include: * Environmental impact & coastal erosion - strange to build here where there is strong evidence of coastal erosion. The project will be catastrophic for wildlife & the RSPB site (Minsmere) will be devastated & there will be a loss of habitats in the area e.g. birds, animals & plants. * Transport - there will be huge disruption to our roads for many years whilst this project is being built. Congestion & pollution will cause much damage to an area that has limited major roads. I understand the Government wishes to reduce carbon emissions etc. The project will be built at a time when there are other energy projects taking place in the are e.g. offshore wind farms etc. There are many more concerns and overall the cost benefit analysis of this project suggests it should not proceed. I wish to state that I consider this project to be totally unsuitable for this area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr M G Burt
"Operating any nuclear powerstation and storing nuclear waste on a coastal site which is sinking into the sea is the height of folly risking harm to health of the population and ecology of the area generally for hundreds of years. Such a massive building project will contribute huge excess carbon emissions for years without any benefit."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ms J D Clark
"I have the following concerns about Sizewell C: Overall • The scale of the development is too large: o For this fragile and environmentally sensitive location o For a site where significant reliance cannot be made on marine or rail transport during the construction period, thereby going counter to the National Policy Statement o Given the cumulative impacts of the eight other energy projects planned for the area. • The funding of the development is not yet finalised: if planning permission is granted, our region could be blighted for years for no potential benefit. Related issues are: o EDF states that the construction work could take 9 to 12 years. Has this broad range/uncertainty been reflected in the cost estimate? o Whilst vague mitigation activities are proposed to reduce the risks identified in the Environmental Statement, it is unclear whether these are designed or fully costed o Investment by the Chinese raises security issues. Short term impacts during the construction period • Transport: o Construction traffic is planned to ramp up before the proposed road improvements are made: the existing roads cannot cope with this. Shift changes at Sizewell already lead to delays at key junctions eg the B1122 and A12; o Whilst road improvements are being made, further congestion is inevitable over a 24 month period, as roads need to be closed/temporary traffic lights used etc: a recent road closure at Theberton illustrates the problem, resulting in lengthy diversions via Saxmundham and “rat running” along single track roads; o The Sizewell Link road: whilst a new road to take pressure off existing roads is sensible, the route of this road goes too close to residential properties in Theberton, Middleton and Fordham: have alternative routes been evaluated effectively? • Amenity and recreation: o The coast and hinterland have always provided tranquil space which is essential for the mental and physical wellbeing of local residents: the construction programme will adversely impact on our enjoyment of the area. Long term impacts during the operational period • Environment: o The number of European, national and local environmental designations in the area reflect the importance of the coast and its immediate hinterland. I share the concerns of the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust that the 9 to 12 year construction programme will cause irreparable, short and long term damage to the landscape and wildlife of the region due to noise, air and light pollution and changing of the ground water levels. • Coastal hydrodynamics/Climate change resilience: o If the eroding nature of the coast makes marine transportation impossible, how can we be confident that the sea defences required to protect the main platform from this erosion are adequate (and costed/funded)? Has the impact of these proposed sea defences on the coast to the south and north been taken into account? o It is not socially responsible to be proposing to develop two more nuclear reactors at a site which is vulnerable to the potential impacts of climate change/sea level increases."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Newton J
"Climate change resulting in more stormsdamaging an already moving and rapidly diminishing and eroding coastline. Destruction of the natural and marine environment, and one the largest nature reserves (Minsmere) Destruction of local infra and social structure which cannot cope with large influx of people A very negative impact on surrounding communities, an at present thriving tourist industry and the downfall of affiliated businesses, restaurants, shops and other industries High risk of pollution and security through presence of large amounts of nuclear waste Is Chinese involvement suddenly not a risk factor anymore? No 5G but ok for nuclear energy supply!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Bell
"I am greatly concerned by the proposed Sizewell C development: 1. A massive detrimental impact on one of Europe's most precious bird sanctuaries, Minismere. 2. A broader negative impact on the local rural environment with a irresponsible concentration of nuclear cement/buildings and radioactive material 3. Predicted 40cm increase in sea levels means flood risk will inevitably escalate 4. Extremely controversial technology with crazy investment and payback periods. Better alternatives exits today (eg renewables) and it is a sure bet that better technology will be developed within the next decade [Redacted] 5. Total lack of coordination with the other energy projects in the area 6. The wrong shareholders. Please see security risk re CGN [Redacted] 7. Insufficient transport infrastructure to support delivery of construction material resulting in congestion for many years Furthermore, I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process and endorse the position of RSPB and Suffolk WT."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Jill Sedge
"The proposed building of Sizewell C must NOT take place. 1)I am very concerned that Sizewell marshes SSSI will be damaged because of the change in water quality which WILL happen due to the draining of clean ground water (Due to cut off wall for platform consruction) and subsequent refilling with run off water high in phosphates. This, according to experts, will be disasterous for the ecology of the system and may threaten SSSI status. 2) EDFE have not looked after the "New Habitat" it created at Aldhurst Farm.It is a total disaster and shows that New Habitat can not just be created willy nilly and left to its own devices.How can we trust EDFE to care for nature? The Habitat that Sizewell C will destroy or interfere with, has taken hundreds of years to evolve and is unique and can not just be "recreated". That is why its SSSI and the whole area is AONB.We have a duty to protect our world's natural resources not Exploit them."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Brant
"I own the property [Redacted]. My property boundary backs onto the railway and [Redacted] crossing. The proposed use of the railway for Sizewell C will have direct consequences for my property. These include but are not limited to noise pollution. Impact on value, impact on structure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Robinson
"1 Environmental damage will be done to the area of the site, which will not be met by mitigations. Nature does not work like this. 2 Damage to the local area will equally not be mitigated by poorly thought through efforts. You cannot equate removing an established tree by planting another. There is a nett. loss of millions of species. 3 The Quality of Life, much spoken about these days will be hugely reduced by both site preparation and building, and the later operation. 4 Tourism and local visitors, the most important source of both current income and future growth in this special area, will be decimated, and is unlikely to recover it's potential, perhaps ever. 5 The quoted Economic benefits from this proposal are not quantified. This is poor economics, given that there is no explanation either of what Growth is lost elsewhere, or what Growth might equally be speculated should this project be cancelled. We know almost nothing in terms of Evidence in the case of the former, but very much more for the latter. In fact, of course every party to the Quality of Life for the inhabitants, and to those who just visit is the subject of enormous efforts from the smallest Band B, to the major Local Government involvement."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Wyllie
"I think we should be concentrating on wind farms. We also need power more quickly than can be achieved by building another power station. People need to understand how to reduce their use of power and the cost benefits for themselves. Construction of another plant at Sizewell will undoubtedly run over budget and the construction process will emit huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Gough
"I wish to raise the following concerns I have about the proposal to build two new reactors at Sizewell. This side (eastern) of England is tipping slowly into the sea. Sea levels are rising and the coast is eroding. Sea defences will not only be inadequate for the length of time needed to protect the site (100s of years), they will also have unforseeable effects on the local ecology and present a flooding risk. Where will the potable water come from needed to for construction? There is a risk to groundwater levels. Much of the adjacent land is vulnerable and protected. The AONB will be split. RSPB Minsmere is a site of world importance. Local habitats are fragile. Noise, dust and traffic pollution will be an insuperable problem for 1000s of local people. 12-15 years of construction works on a vast scale will not only change the local environment for the worse, it will also deter tourists. This area depends on tourism. People will not come any more. The local infrastructure cannot support the projected inundation of lorries, rail freight and workers (commuting from across the county through ‘rat runs’ and living on site). NE Suffolk is sparsely populated and the roads are small and circuitous, often running through villages. Communities will be split by proposed new roads. Farms will be cut in half. The way of life of people living anywhere nearby would be severely compromised. Local services (health, care, emergency services) cannot cope with the present poulation and level of activity let alone with the impact of a large new town being dumped on our rural idyll. I do not believe that the carbon emissions produced would be offset anything like as quickly as EDF claims. In addition, renewables like wind, tidal and solar are getting cheaper by the month, and battery technology is advancing steadily. By the time Sizewell C is completed (if that ever happens given the problems at Olkiluoto in Finland, Flamanville in France and Hinkley, and EDF‘s dire financial situation, plus its need to decommission and renovate dozens of reactors in France) nuclear technology may well be redundant. I wish to endorse the relevant representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust. I would like to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. Thank you for reading this!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosie Norton
"The Suffolk coast is drastically eroding. Sea levels rising and the site will be flooded by 2100. Extreme annual sea events will happen by 2050. Building on a flood risk site is utter madness. The community if Sizewell and their church are now under the North Sea, as is the town of Dunwich. The power of the North Sea has been ignored. It is dangerous to store radioactive waste on a seawater flooded site. The EPR is unproven technology and is ‘complicated with built-in risks’ (US). Only two reactors exist both in China and only recently generating. Nuclear is 20th century outdated technology. Sizewell C will be a white elephant. Renewables are the future - cheaper to build, operate, decommission, they produce less carbon and pollution, and have a cheaper electrical unit price. EDF have effectively been declared bankrupt by the French. EDF have told our government that they do not have the funds to complete the project. I do not believe that the Chinese should be allowed to invest in nuclear power stations here. The station will have to generate for many years before it is ‘low carbon’ due to its long complicated construction period. EDF are years behind on the two EPRs they are building and well over budget. They have already proved that they cannot deliver to time and cost. Hinkley has escalating costs. The electricity produced will be a high unit price due to a deal made between EDF and the government, twice the price of renewables, putting stress on consumers. If the government introduces RAB every consumer will have to pay for EDFs failings. The station will need millions of litres of fresh water daily in a county with the lowest rainfall in England. The local water company does not have it. If constructed this would cause water shortages for residents, businesses, farmers and visitors. Suffolk’s main industry is tourism and this will be effectively destroyed with a huge loss of jobs. Jobs for local people during construction will be low, low paid and temporary, and with only 900 jobs when the station is operational. So no job benefits. EDF’s ninety minutes is not local. The transport plans are exceptionally bad. A huge reliance on road. It is neither practical nor achievable. Sea and rail have been virtually ignored. The new roads, roundabouts, park and ride facilities and boarding campus will destroy acres of precious productive land, habitats and wildlife and will fragment the land. The construction phase creates massive amounts of pollution, including noise and light pollution, in an AONB and beside the RSPB Minsmere reserve. The AONB contains unique and precious landscapes with nationally and internationally protected wildlife. An example is the thriving population of the natterjack toads one of the UKs rarest animals, which live and breed at the main site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Dowding
"It is my resolute belief that the SZC Project should not proceed. As time has progressed, not one of the shortcomings revealed during the four stages of public consultation has been satisfactorily addressed. The serious questions over shore defence measures, meeting its water supply requirements, the effect on flora and fauna, disruption to daily life and tourism, the real number of proper jobs being created, the route of a proposed relief road, its basic economics in comparison to alternatives – all remain either totally unanswered, supported by very debatable arguments or maths, or simply and dismissively ‘subject to further study’. The time has come to concede that there are no material benefits to East Suffolk to be derived from SZC proceeding. There is an old saying: "Two wrongs don't make a right". But SZC is the wrong project, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, making three wrongs, and raising the real prospect of creating Armageddon in East Suffolk. The wrong project: The EPR is already outmoded, over-complex, bedevilled by technical problems (valves in Finland, steel strength in France) and as yet unproven in the west. Further, it is due to be built by a company (EDF) with an appalling track record for major errors, over-runs and exceeding budgets. Such is the extent of their own uncertainty that they have stated they are unwilling to proceed unless we (British taxpayers or financial institutions) provide the funding up front, removing EDF from any risk and effectively absolving them from responsibility to manage the scheme. Even Simone Rossi -EDF's boss in the UK - has said that: “there may be better ways than nuclear to get to zero in the future"! The wrong time: Besides being yesterday's technology, it will take too long to build, even if EDF keeps to its projected completion date, to contribute to the possible shortfall as existing power stations come offline. And it would take 6 years of generation before it offsets the CO2 it created during its own construction– that’s 2040, far too late to meaningfully contribute to meeting net zero targets. Its enormous cost could be so much better spent on the advancement of renewables and storage, which could be accomplished so much quicker and cheaper. The wrong place: The double whammy of (a) building a nuclear plant, and (b) storing its waste for centuries to come, on a stretch of coastline subject to erosion, the extent of which cannot be foreseen or defended. Add to this the devastating effect on the area while construction takes place. Flora and Fauna cannot read EDF's propaganda attempting to assure us that reinstatement of desecrated land will (eventually) take place - by then the wild life will be long gone, unlikely ever to return. And the same will apply to a substantial proportion of tourists – even EDF are prepared to admit this could be a reduction of around one third - upon whose income so many small companies and individuals depend, having invested heavily to encourage visitors. And so many other factors – a prime example being traffic levels that will threaten daily life through delay, disruption and pollution, impose life-threatening delays to the emergency services in responding to calls etc., dramatically increase road accidents – all of which detract from the very aspects that have made East Suffolk the idyll it is. Roy Dowding [Redacted]"
Parish Councils
Rushmere St Andrew Parish Council
"As the main development is well distant from our area of interest our concern is mainly of Freight Management. We note that a facility is proposed located to the South-East of the A12 and A14 junction South-East of Ipswich, it would include parking for 154 HGVs. SZCs figures for HGV movements depend as to Rail LED or Road LED but to take a integrated figure a typical day at peak would consist of 325 HGVs (650 movements) and on busiest days this increases to 500 HGVs (1000 movements) Whilst accepting that not all of the HGV traffic will use the A12/A14 route’s most are likely to as there are few suitable alternatives. Traffic from Felixstowe docks is expected to increase substantially post Brexit amongst other commercial considerations. Adding the proposed Freight Management Park we could well see an additional load on the Orwell Bridge of anything between 500-1000 HGV’s daily. We are concerned as to the capacity of this bridge and its maintenance periods. Moving on to Martlesham, most of the heavy traffic will use the A12 route through there, this route at peak times is very busy, adding this additional HGV traffic plus the domestic traffic using the rapidly expanding retail park, plus the 2000 homes still to be built nearby then in our view gridlock is very possible in that area. It is concerning that with an additional 8000 people needing local services, extra strain will be placed on the Police, Fire Services and Medical Services."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashtons Legal on behalf of Sally Evans
"1. I, Sally Evans, [Redacted] since 1981. I wish to be registered as an interested party for the Sizewell C DCO. 2. My property is one of the [Redacted]. It includes a pond and a grove of old oak trees, which has harboured owls (barn, tawny and little), kestrels, sparrow hawks and bats. It is untrue that I refused EDF consent for access. EDF’s environmental assessment has been too limited and should have considered the wider area. It is inadequate for that reason. 3. I am one of those opposed to EDF’s western alignment for the Bypass. The A12 traffic burden is will be worsened significantly through construction of Sizewell C as well as the Scottish Power wind farm projects. My objection is to the damaging impacts of the western alignment on the natural and built environment, including the risk of major harm to the ancient woodland (Foxburrow and Pond Woods) as well as the loss of notable and veteran trees. I am very well familiar with the area, since I ride my horse, with the permission of landowners. It is quiet and peaceful; EDF’s own documents record how appalling will be the impact. 4. We have a residential community at Farnham Hall. The oldest part of Farnham Hall is at least from 1602 and there has been a farm complex here for a very long time. EDF has failed to pay enough regard to the historic heritage of our community. 5. I entirely support the principle of bypassing Farnham and Stratford St Andrew but EDF has chosen the wrong route, with the more easterly alignment put forward by the Parish Council being a much better option; it will have a much more limited effect, rather than imposing the burden on 20 dwellings. Any bypass to the east of the existing A12 at our villages will take farm land and have some impact in particular on the Walk Farm Barn bungalow but the balance of argument for planning for the public good is clearly in favour of the more easterly alignment. 6. EDF’s counter arguments are unsound. A little longer, true, but still a significant time saving on coming through our villages, even with lighter traffic. That route will not pose the same risk to ancient woodland and indeed does not pass through woodland of that status. Costs for EDF will be reduced, without a deep cutting and paying less compensation. The western alignment is a severe barrier to the movement of animals. EDF should be using the savings to plant more trees, especially since Foxburrow Wood has shrunk from what it once was. 7. If Little Glemham and Marlesford are not to be relieved now, then at least the design of a bypass for Farnham and Stratford St Andrew should provide for a later extension, which would be more easily accommodated by the more easterly alignment. 8. I reserve the right to amend, add to and expand on my objections during the DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashtons Legal on behalf of Sheilagh Davies
"1. I, Sheilagh Davies, am a barrister of 40 years standing and appear under that name. I was married to the late [Redacted]. Under that surname. I have had a home at [Redacted] for over 35 years. Initially we had [Redacted] and had some conversion work done. When I sell or pass on, the two dwellings could be converted back again. 2. I wish to be registered as an interested party for the Sizewell C DCO. 3. In the 1960s the rear wing was adapted to form 4 dwellings; the Hintons retained the Tudor part at the front. The rear wing was built in the 1920s in neo-Georgian style by the Stabb family, with no expense spared. We were friends with His Honour Sir William Stabb Kt, QC, whose grandfather had commissioned the building, which created a grander house, sufficient to have 16 servants before WW2. 4. Our community at Farnham Hall (with the vicarage) is a highly significant part of local history and heritage and should be protected from harm. I oppose the western alignment for a bypass and support the Parish Council’s proposal for a more easterly alignment. 5. EDF need to justify the building of a new power station and why they are not also relieving Little Glemham and Marlesford. That new nuclear facility and Scottish Power’s windfarms will worsen traffic conditions but EDF has no sound justification for simply shifting the burden of traffic from the existing A12 to affect 20 dwellings, when the eastern alignment has a much more limited effect on the built and natural environment. 6. EDF has not carried out a good enough environmental assessment and has not recognised the number of veteran and noble trees (many oaks and beech) which its alignment will destroy. It has not even investigated ponds here or Pond Wood, which is ancient. Foxburrow Wood must not be put at risk with a deep cutting. There is abundant wildlife in this area so both flora and fauna will be harmed. The western alignment is too close to this part of the village and will also damage the walking network unreasonably, as well as the wildlife corridors. 7. The western alignment is not in the best public interest and the planning balance clearly weighs in favour of an eastern alignment. That will also better accommodate a later extension to relieve Little Glemham and Marlesford, if they cannot be relieved now. extension. 8. I reserve the right to amend, add to and expand on my objections during the DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Staffan Qvist
"Dear Planning Inspectorate, My representation regards the flawed way in which EDF Energy and the Sizewell C (SZC) project have assessed the climate and emissions impacts of SZC. This representation relates specifically to the document “The Sizewell C Project, Volume 2 Main Development Site, Chapter 26 Climate Change”. The way in which emissions impacts have been calculated in this document (page 30-34), if generally employed, risks calling in to question the climate-related motivations for all future low-carbon energy projects that are planned and proposed in the UK, renewable and nuclear. The method employed to calculate the carbon savings from the project implies that the project reduces emissions per unit of electricity generated according to the difference between the project’s own lifecycle emissions and the integrated assumed grid-average emission level over its entire period of operation. This is an unrealistic and misleading way of calculating emission impacts in at least three major ways: 1. The calculation method assumes that every new project is additional to the capacity that is included in the counterfactual mix. This clearly can’t be true – if every new project is additional – what is providing the reduced emissions that are assumed in the model? Grid emissions are forecast to drop because the modelling assumes new projects will come online to deliver the modelled level of decarbonisation. In addition, the modelled counterfactual mix includes 9 GW of new nuclear after Hinkley Point C (HPC). Given the current situation, this very clearly already includes SZC. Therefore, according to the flawed calculation methodology, Sizewell C is actually displacing Sizewell C. 2. No account has been made for the supply stack in terms of marginal cost of power production. Once built, a low-marginal-cost generator (such as wind, solar PV or nuclear) will drive down the generation of higher-marginal-cost generators. In the UK context, a new wind, solar PV or nuclear plant will selective reduce generation from a high-emissions fossil power source such gas or coal. This happens simply due to the merit order and is the actual way in which a grid decarbonizes. A new nuclear plant will never “displace” generation from a near-zero marginal cost generation source such as wind, solar PV or run-of-river hydro, since their marginal cost of production is lower. Ignoring this basic fact of how the electricity market functions, drastically understates the actual emissions reductions. 3. Even in the hypothetical scenario where all domestic demand in the UK is already met by low-carbon sources, additional generating capacity can and would be used to displace higher-marginal-cost high-emissions fossil generation in the larger grid to which the UK is connected through its interconnectors. It is irrelevant for climate considerations whether the avoided emissions occur within UK borders or not. In the methodology employed, an assumption has been made that the UK grid very rapidly decarbonizes while also filling a higher total annual demand – this requires a very large expansion of low-carbon generation capacity. However, the emissions impact of any project that may contribute to this decarbonization is calculated as though the same decarbonization will happen without any such projects. The result is that there is little incentive to build the low-carbon capacity that will actually deliver the decarbonization. The method of calculating emissions reductions needs to be thoroughly revised to not be misleading and potentially very harmful to decarbonization efforts in the UK. Best wishes, Dr Staffan Qvist Managing Director, Qvist Consulting Limited Expert in low-carbon technologies and decarbonization"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Norton
"The Suffolk coast is drastically eroding. Sea levels rising and the site will be flooded by 2100. Extreme annual sea events will happen by 2050. Building on a flood risk site is utter madness. The community if Sizewell and their church are now under the North Sea, as is the town of Dunwich. The power of the North Sea has been ignored. It is dangerous to store radioactive waste on a seawater flooded site. The EPR is unproven technology and is ‘complicated with built-in risks’ (US). Only two reactors exist both in China and only recently generating. Nuclear is 20th century outdated technology. Sizewell C will be a white elephant. Renewables are the future - cheaper to build, operate, decommission, they produce less carbon and pollution, and have a cheaper electrical unit price. EDF have effectively been declared bankrupt by the French. EDF have told our government that they do not have the funds to complete the project. I do not believe that the Chinese should be allowed to invest in nuclear power stations here. The station will have to generate for many years before it is ‘low carbon’ due to its long complicated construction period. EDF are years behind on the two EPRs they are building and well over budget. They have already proved that they cannot deliver to time and cost. Hinkley has escalating costs. The electricity produced will be a high unit price due to a deal made between EDF and the government, twice the price of renewables, putting stress on consumers. If the government introduces RAB every consumer will have to pay for EDFs failings. The station will need millions of litres of fresh water daily in a county with the lowest rainfall in England. The local water company does not have it. If constructed this would cause water shortages for residents, businesses, farmers and visitors. Suffolk’s main industry is tourism and this will be effectively destroyed with a huge loss of jobs. Jobs for local people during construction will be low, low paid and temporary, and with only 900 jobs when the station is operational. So no job benefits. EDF’s ninety minutes is not local. The transport plans are exceptionally bad. A huge reliance on road. It is neither practical nor achievable. Sea and rail have been virtually ignored. The new roads, roundabouts, park and ride facilities and boarding campus will destroy acres of precious productive land, habitats and wildlife and will fragment the land. The construction phase creates massive amounts of pollution, including noise and light pollution, in an AONB and beside the RSPB Minsmere reserve. The AONB contains unique and precious landscapes with nationally and internationally protected wildlife. An example is the thriving population of the natterjack toads one of the UKs rarest animals, which live and breed at the main site. Surveys of wildlife are poor, many are years old and desktop studies, and have inaccuracies, particularly for amphibians. East Suffolk is known for its walking. Footpaths would have to be diverted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashtons Legal on behalf of The Brindley Representation
"1. I, Eric Brindley, live at [Redacted] and own the property along with my brother [Redacted]. I wish to be registered as an interested party for the Sizewell C DCO on behalf of myself and my brother. 2. We are opposed to EDF’s proposal for a western alignment for the Two Villages Bypass. The Sizewell C project should not be considered in isolation and should take into account Scottish Power’s wind farm projects, which will add to the traffic burden. Serving wind farms in the North Sea will have a less environmentally damaging effect, compared to a new nuclear power station, and therefore likely to be approved. 3. I am part of the residential community in the Farnham Hall area. My property is half of an Arts and Crafts type building, obviously associated with the Farnham Manor estate. The manor went with the church to Butley Priory until the Dissolution and is of great antiquity. The community in buildings close to the listed building at Farnham Hall should be treated as part of the historic heritage fabric of the area and protected from serious harm, as evident from EDF’s own documents. 4. It has been clear for many years that Farnham and Stratford St Andrew should be bypassed. It is unfair on Marlesford and Little Glemham that they are not being relieved as well and their future should be better catered for. Any bypass to the east of the existing A12 will take farm land but it can hardly be said to be the least worst option to shift the increased traffic burden from the existing A12 to a route which affects 20 dwellings, rather than one further to the east, which affects directly only one, a more modern bungalow of low architectural quality, used for holiday lettings. 5. EDF’s arguments against a more easterly route are specious. It is a little longer but will still be faster than coming through the two villages. It does not go through ancient woodland. It will obviously be less expensive, without a deep cutting and bunding and with reduced compensation costs. It will pose less risk to the flora and fauna of the area, particularly the very fine Foxburrow Wood. It will give opportunities for further tree planting, as some recompense to the loss of the southern part of Foxburrow Wood to farming in past years. 6. When considering the weight which should be attached to an eastern alignment for the Two Villages scheme, there are significant planning benefits for a design which caters better for a later extension past Little Glemham and Marlesford, if they are not to be relieved now. 7. I reserve the right to amend, add to and expand on our objections during the DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vanda Rettie
"My concerns about this proposal are:- Unsuitable site as rising sea levels already threaten the land. Hazardous nuclear power station surrounded and pounded by rising sea levels is a threat to life of so many on this island. The nuclear waste will add to that already not processed and stored. A future blight. The need to protect our diminishing natural woodland and coastal area from development. Assets we depend on in a world where future features like these will be rare. The beauty of our landscape has survived because we are not easily reached. Our roads are not coping now with the existing heavy traffic. More going through our villages and precious farm land makes no sense. This has been explored and turned down as not viable. The fact that foreign money and ownership is involved in such an important British utility is a threat to our national security. This is a threat to our internationally revered Minsmere Wildlife Sanctuary. Which would not survive the workings of such a major development. The cost of such a major scheme and its later decommissioning is far more than increasing the sustainable renewable projects which we can develop and market internationally as we are renowned in this area."
Parish Councils
Waldringfield Parish Council
"Waldringfield Parish Council wishes to raise the following issues for the Sizewell C Examination: LOCATION • The project is far too big for the setting and land available. • It is unsuitable for the nationally important AONB. • Climate change and rising sea levels mean that the site will be prone to flooding and is likely to become an island containing vulnerable nuclear reactors. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • The environmental impact during the construction phase will cause an unacceptable loss and fragmentation of habitats, resulting in reduced biodiversity. • The water levels in the area will be changed, damaging the adjacent fragile ecosystems. • The proposed ‘town’ for workers and enormous spoil heaps will have a devastating impact on nearby protected areas. • Construction noise and vibration will cause serious disturbance to wildlife. • Light pollution during the construction phase will cause disorientation to birds, particularly during the winter months. • There will be an adverse impact on the coastline and its marine environment. • The CO2 produced in the construction phase will take many years to offset. NUCLEAR WASTE • There is a lack of information on how the nuclear waste will be stored, how long the decommissioning phase will take or what will be done with the waste at this stage. • There will be environmental and security threats into the distant future. • No information is provided about the dangerous and long-lived high level waste produced by the reactors. • There is a lack of information on transportation of the nuclear waste. THE ECONOMY • Eyesores, noise, dust and lorry traffic will deter visitors to the coast and the AONB, impacting tourism on which the local economy depends. • It will take many years to entice these visitors back. ACCOMMODATION • There is a need for affordable housing in the area, but the proposal does not provide for that need. • The large residential blocks with car parks and leisure facilities will have a damaging impact on local residents’ quality of life. TRANSPORT • Insufficient justification has been provided for dropping the ‘marine led’ transport option. • The proposed Sizewell Link Road runs too close to many homes and listed buildings. It will be of little use once the power station is built. • The high number of HGVs on the A12 will have a massive impact on the area around Martlesham, which is already congested much of the time. • No account has been taken of the extra traffic that will be generated by the 2,000 new dwellings planned for Brightwell Lakes. • No account has been taken of the extra traffic from the Felixstowe port expansion, impacting the Seven Hills roundabout, the A14 and the Orwell Bridge. • There is no mention of cumulative impacts of overlapping energy projects (such as the East Anglia offshore wind farms). APPLICATION PROCESS • The application is unsuitable for a digital examination process. • Waldringfield Parish Council wishes to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Howard
"I reside at [Redacted], my private residence. The property directly abuts the Ipswich/Lowestoft Rail line where is lies is a shallow cutting. The line would be used to transport construction materials with freight overnight. Transportation of all materials between Ipswich and Woodbridge sections of the line will occur at the bottom of my garden resulting in vibration to my land and buildings if heavy loads and heavy trains are involved with the risk of structural damage and increased environmental issues such as noise and sleep deprivation. Such transportation will have an adverse affect on the Freehold Value of [Redacted] and my enjoyment of its current amenities. On Environmental grounds, I would prefer the source of electricity needed is derived and generated, not from nuclear power but other renewable sources as many experts have suggested it could be and this is where Government funding and policies involved in spending Tax Payers monies and borrowings should be directed. I therefore strongly object to the grant of Planning Application to build Sizewell C."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Cook
"I am totally against EDF plans in building another nuclear plant SIZEWELL C! This would cause tremendous devastation to the wildlife and countryside in the area and further surrounding areas. I am an East Suffolk resident and i regularly visit Theberton, Eastbridge, Leiston etc and to build the monstrosity would be criminal. It would kill of tourism, the wildlife and beautiful woodlands we have here. We have RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve just down the road. This is a conservation area, an area of Natural Beauty, I say NO to SIZEWELL C. The beach is already overshadowed by SIZEWELL B and spoils the whole area, to have another would just kill it completely. No one would visit, why would they if they have to see this concrete eyesore. The roads and traffic would not be able to cope. The thought of 600+ lorries and not to mention the extra influx of cars would just make the villages a living hell. These are quiet lovely villages. We have been through this before and lived with for years. I do not want this again."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Atsuhide Ito
"I am concerned with the following points: 1) destruction of natural habitats for animals and birds, 2) drastic increase of noise pollution due to increasing traffic and construction, 3) a disturbance to the local community by a large contingency of workers arriving to the area, 4) carbon foot prints produced by the construction, extraction of materials for the construction, 5) the resulting powerplant's need for mineral extraction and transport."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Blackwater against New Nuclear Group
"The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) wishes to be represented as an Interested Party at the Examination of the application for development consent of Sizewell C for the following reasons: 1. We are fundamentally opposed to development of major infrastructures on the vulnerable East Anglian coast. We consider the site for Sizewell C to be unsuitable and unviable and should be opposed in its own right and in terms of the precedent it would set for future coastal sites, including Bradwell B. 2. We have opposed the development of Sizewell C at Stage 1 and Stage 2 Pre-Application stages and do not consider the application has satisfied our objections. We therefore wish to present our fundamental objections at the Examination. BANNG objects to the proposed development as a whole. We understand the choice of the site is determined by the Government and is not open to question at this examination. However, we would point out that the Sizewell site was identified as a ‘potentially suitable’ for deployment of a new nuclear power station by 2025. Therefore, the potential suitability of the site is a fundamental issue to be explored at the Examination. We do not consider the site to be potentially suitable because: 1. The site is unsustainable. It lies on a vulnerable coast and is subject to the impacts of coastal processes, erosion, storm surges and flooding. In the longer term but within the operating, decommissioning and waste management lifetime of the plant, the impacts of climate change are indeterminate and the condition of the site unknowable. In deteriorating circumstances, sea defences and mitigation measures may be unable to sustain the site. Therefore, the project should be abandoned. 2. Radioactive waste is unmanageable. It is intended to store spent fuel and highly active wastes on site until well into the 22nd century, perhaps indefinitely, if a repository does not become available. BANNG believes it both impractical and unethical to store dangerous wastes indefinitely on a site where conditions could become unmanageable. In the absence of evidence and credible plans for the long-term management of wastes the proposals should not proceed. 3. The site is unacceptable. Sizewell C would be operating in close proximity to substantial population and in its wider hinterland is a densely populated rural area and several major towns including Ipswich. It is, therefore, imperative that credible and implementable emergency planning processes are in place before a permission is granted. BANNG intends to challenge the adequacy of arrangements. 4. The site is unsuitable. The scale of the proposed new nuclear power station will result in irreparable harm to environments and have a detrimental impact on the well being of local communities. The proposals will intensify and consolidate the wholesale transformation of the area from a peaceful, rural environment with exceptional assets of habitat, landscape and coast into a massive, intrusive and alien nuclear industrial complex. BANNG believes the long-term environmental degradation and continuing radioactive legacy will impose a detrimental burden of risk, cost and effort on present and future generations which will far exceed any short-term economic benefits. BANNG will support these objections with detailed criticism of the proposals and evidence confirming its view that the proposed Sizewell C nuclear power station should be refused Development Consent. We attach our earlier responses to pre-applications which indicate the scope of our interest and objection to the proposals: Response to Stage 1 Pre-Application Consultation (BANNG Paper 18, 2 February 2013); Response to Stage 2 Pre-Application Consultation (BANNG Paper 32, 7 February 2017)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Boden
"• Lack of meaningful engagements – difficulty of understanding landowners concerns • Concerns over environmental impact of the project • Justification of the need for the scheme – i.e the link road or rail route • Scheme design concerns – provisions for severed land etc • Alternative options – have these been adequately considered • Mitigation measures – have these been adequately considered • Funding – lack of information provided • Catalogue of errors – agreed access arrangements for surveys have not been adhered to amongst other problems"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cath Norton
"The Suffolk coast is drastically eroding. Sea levels rising and the site will be flooded by 2100. Extreme annual sea events will happen by 2050. Building on a flood risk site is utter madness. The community if Sizewell and their church are now under the North Sea, as is the town of Dunwich. The power of the North Sea has been ignored. It is dangerous to store radioactive waste on a seawater flooded site. The EPR is unproven technology and is ‘complicated with built-in risks’ (US). Only two reactors exist both in China and only recently generating. Nuclear is 20th century outdated technology. Sizewell C will be a white elephant. Renewables are the future - cheaper to build, operate, decommission, they produce less carbon and pollution, and have a cheaper electrical unit price. EDF have effectively been declared bankrupt by the French and EDF have told our government that they do not have the funds to complete the project. I do not believe that the Chinese should be allowed to invest in nuclear power stations here. The station will have to generate for many years before it is ‘low carbon’ due to its long complicated construction period. EDF are years behind on the two EPRs they are building and well over budget. They have already proved that they cannot deliver to time and cost. Hinkley has escalating costs. The electricity produced will be a high unit price due to a deal made between EDF and the government, twice the price of renewables, putting stress on consumers. If the government introduces RAB every consumer will have to pay for EDFs failings. The station will need millions of litres of fresh water daily in a county with the lowest rainfall in England. The local water company does not have it. If constructed, this would cause water shortages for residents, businesses, farmers and visitors. Jobs for local people during construction will be low, low paid and temporary, and with only 900 jobs when the station is operational. The transport plans are exceptionally bad with a reliance on roads. It is neither practical nor achievable, and sea and rail have been virtually ignored. The new roads, roundabouts, park and ride facilities and boarding campus will destroy acres of precious productive land, habitats and wildlife and will fragment the land. The construction phase creates massive amounts of pollution, including noise and light pollution, in an AONB and beside the RSPB Minsmere reserve. The AONB contains unique and precious landscapes with nationally and internationally protected wildlife. An example is the thriving population of Natterjack toads, one of the UKs rarest animals, which live and breed at the main site. Surveys of wildlife are poor, many are years old and desktop studies, and have inaccuracies, particularly for amphibians. East Suffolk is known for its walking and it is likely footpaths would have to be diverted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Keyes
"Headings : Safety Environment and Business 1.) Safety. Evacuation of all workers, numbering thousands, local inhabitants, schoolchildren and visitors would be impossible in an emergency, the infrastructure as planned is simply not adequate. 2.) Environment. Due to the polarised nature, for and against, of this planning application, EDF have failed to hire any environmental experts or naturalists who carry any weight with SWT, RSPB or Natural England, resulting in mitigation projects that are not suitable for the job in hand, being over enriched with nitrogen, phosphorous and other pollutants and unlikely to fulfill the stated aim of compensating for the enormous damage tthat will be done to the AONB, SSSI and other reserves should the project go ahead. 3.) Business. Local firms are by no means all for this project and some hundred of them have written to the PM saying so. The only people in favour appear to be Union bosses worried about jobs and educators wishing to provide nuclear trained workers for the defence industry, for which they will be, no doubt handsomely rewarded."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Laschet
"There are many reasons why the building of Sizewell C and D is totally unacceptable, in this area. * The adverse effect on local tourism, employment and local communities will be immense . * The thousands of skilled people needed for construction will swamp this small location and provide only a small amount of employment for less skilled work for local people. * The whole area and road system is unsuited for the volume of additional traffic and will continue for several years. * It will destroy the fragile eco system where rare habitats and places of beauty exist at present -it be will be affected by light and noise pollution caused by much increased traffic , building and human activity. All of which will affect both animal and human mental health and general well being. * Building 2 more nuclear power stations on a crumbling coast line where dangerous radio active waste will be stored, perhaps for ever. * We are aware that precious habitats cannot be replaced easily - and therefore the possible extinction of flora and fauna. I wish to endorse the relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, Aldringham Parish Council, SWL, RSPB, the Ramblers and Sandlings Safer Cycling Campaign. I do not think the Sizewell C application is suitable to be held as a digital examination ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Morris
"1. Long term impact on the environment. Storage of nuclear waste, destruction of natural habits and AONB. 2.Immediate impact on the environment. Increased traffic noise and pollution, upheaval during construction to the whole are and anti social behaviour . 3.Questionable financial benefit to the local community. Unrealistic promises for new employment opportunities, short term incentives inadequate to cover detrimental impact on the heritage coast , tourism and community well being. 4. Outdated, flawed and expensive technology."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cipher Crystal
"This project has been labelled as the biggest building site in Europe yet Suffolk has no motorway and a road network struggling with current capacity without the additional 1000 daily lorries plus buses and vans not sustainable This will make travelling in the wider area difficult for our employees. Additional strain on blue light services to access emergencies. Combined impact of other major energy projects constructed at the same time. proposed link road will severe communities and certainly cut us off from our village. The site is at great risk of flooding and the sea defense described in the DCO does not have any detail and appears to be inadequate. Coastal processes will also be interrupted beyond Southwold to the north and Thorpeness to the south which has not been addressed in the DCO Our business has a bore hole for water supply with no mains available for 1 mile we are concerned that the extraction of millions of litres or water per day will impact on our supply. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. and those fof the RSPB and SWT. I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Boden
"• Lack of meaningful engagements – difficulty of understanding landowners concerns • Concerns over environmental impact of the project • Justification of the need for the scheme – i.e the link road or rail route • Scheme design concerns – provisions for severed land etc • Alternative options – have these been adequately considered • Mitigation measures – have these been adequately considered • Funding – lack of information provided • Catalogue of errors – agreed access arrangements for surveys have not been adhered to amongst other problems"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
David Newbery
"My note sets out how I consider it would be appropriate to calculate the displaced carbon from operating Sizewell C with its implications for the number of months of full time operation required to offset the carbon released in construction. ----------------------------------- Please see attached"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Peter Napier Grant
"Transport strategy - EDF’s road-based transport strategy is not acceptable in the 21st century with an unreasonable adverse impact on local communities, and significant damage to the important local tourist and agricultural industries. - East Suffolk’s already challenged road network is unable to accommodate the road-based strategy; the Orwell Bridge and the A12 north are already at capacity at peak times. - The limited bypasses proposed simply join bottlenecks and destroy communities. - There is insufficient justification for the rejection of extensive rail use. - There is insufficient consideration of the combined traffic impacts of several other energy projects planned for the region and proposing to use the same road network. Sizewell Link Road (SLR) - EDF has not justified their choice of the routing of the SLR in preference to the old D2 route, preferred by Suffolk County Council. - Landscape and heritage assets will be damaged by substantial embankments and cuttings. SLR is too close to, and will physically split the villages being by-passed, making farms and fields uneconomic with absolutely no legacy benefit/use to the local communities following project completion. - EDF has dismissed alternative routes with a far lesser impact and greater legacy value with insufficient justification. - SLR needs to go 'over' the existing Fordley Road to allow rapid access for residents of Middleton, Middleton Moor, Theberton and Westleton to Doctors surgeries, supermarkets and the train station in Saxmundham. - The current access/egress proposed to/from the SLR onto Fordley Road is ill-conceived and impractical. Fordley Road is a single track road with no Passing Places and totally unsuitable for HGV's. - Under EDF's proposals, Fordley Road will simply become a highly dangerous 'rat run' for construction traffic with absolutely no benefit to local users. - The SLR has not been thought through operationally in terms of traffic leaving the project site and going north on the A12 or west on the B1120. Shift changeover traffic will present a very real danger at the unmanned railway crossing on the B1122 and proposed new roundabout on at Yoxford Use of the existing B1122 in the ‘Early Years’ - High numbers of HGVs will use the existing B1122 to the site for at least two ‘Early Years’ (as defined by EDF) before the proposed Link Road is useable. These numbers are close to those planned once the road is complete. This begs the question as to whether the SLR is really needed at all.... - High ‘Early Years’ HGV numbers were not presented in any of the Consultations. Ecology Issues - EDF has conducted 'surveys' (using ARCADIS) - these are of lamentable depth or quality. I have commissioned my own independent surveys of the same issues to demonstrate that EDF's are 'box ticking' at best. Substantial damage to wildlife habitats is inevitable if SLR proceeds on the current basis. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, and Middleton and Theberton Parish Councils. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Francoise Cresson
"I believe the construction of 2 nuclear reactors at Sizewell is totally the wrong Project in this part of the country. - the Suffolk coast is at great risk of coastal erosion. We know the sea levels will be rising this century due to climate change and flooding on this low landscape is inevitable. And yet EDF would store the radioactive waste on this site! - Sizewell C would have a very detrimental effect on tourism. The area thrives on tourism because of the beautiful coastal villages and towns, National Trust owned heaths and woodland, the internationally known Minsmere RSPB bird reserve, the internationally known Aldeburgh music Festival, food festival, the beaches too. - Sizewell C ‘s project will deface the AONB on which it would be built. The government recently said AONBs are to be protected but this construction will cut the AONB in half. - How can EDF think they can just put 2400 workers in accommodation blocks on the edge of the bird reserve in this unique tranquil landscape : it is unique because unlike other coastlines that have coastal roads, there isn’t a coastal road therefore creating a landscape full of flora and wildlife hence this coast was AONB designated. - the construction of such a massive project would have an enormously negative impact on the economy of Suffolk. - the dust and pollution of the quarries adjacent to Minsmere will compound the negative impacts on wildlife and local population. - there is no unemployment in Coastal Suffolk. So it doesn’t need to be turned into an industrial county. - The transport plan for this project is totally unsustainable in an area of small country roads. Not only will visitors stop coming but local residents will not be able to get onto the roads for the amount of trucks driving to Sizewell. There should have been a plan drawn to link the A12 to Leiston and not the inadequate link road that EDF has proposed that would cut footpaths and villages in half. - 1000 trucks and buses driving to the site each day for many years won’t exactly help cut the carbon footprint! EDF claims nuclear is Green Energy but it makes very little of the pollution if the construction of the plant goes ahead! - villages would have years to endure the increased traffic, noise, pollution, 24 hour light pollution which would also cause mental harm to the affected population. The project of building these 2 nuclear power stations on the Suffolk coast is in the wrong place, would be so costly and take far too long. The negative impacts far outweigh the benefits. The Heritage Coast must be saved from destruction. It is not an industrial coast."
Parish Councils
Great Glemham Parish Council
"Great Glemham lies 10 miles west of the Sizewell site, about 1 ½ miles north of the A12 between Saxmundham and Framlingham. The council accepts the general principle of nuclear development on the site, but has concerns about some of the negative impacts of the proposals. Our main points are set out below: 1. It is particularly concerned that the prolonged construction will have a detrimental impact on tourism within the area, on which a number of annual events and businesses within the village depend for their livelihood. 2. We prefer the rail-led transport strategy. It foresees significant negative impacts on the A12 corridor and other routes to the site (particularly from the A14). 3. It is disappointed the facility to bring material to site by sea has been dropped without adequate supporting rationale. 4. We note Sizewell B was built pre-satnav era, yet EDF's transport strategy fails completely to note that traffic heading to Sizewell from the A14 is 'directed' along the A1120 or B1077/8 by such devices (see below e 'rat-running'). 5. The council believes the southern park and ride facility should be situated alongside the freight management facility at Sevenhills, reducing the intolerable pressure on Wickham Market. 6. The council has persistently voiced concerns regarding the main access point for the village at the A12 in Marlesford with villagers wanting to turn right to head south towards Woodbridge, Ipswich and beyond. Despite this, at no stage has EDF proposed any mitigation during periods when convoys leave the site from the southern park and ride or freight management facilities. It requests the Inspectors impose suitable conditions and, if necessary, junction mitigations e.g. traffic lights to ensure that villagers can continue to join this critical artery safely. 7. The council doesn’t believe EDF be capable of managing 'rat-running' effectively with the current proposals. There is no detail of proposed signage, directing Sizewell-bound traffic of all kinds) to agreed routes and no mention of either use of ANPR systems (to identify vehicles heading to the site or other designated areas) or how modern vehicle satnavs will react when the site's postcode is entered from afar. The council believes both should form an integral part of the proposed vehicle management strategy. 8. EDF defines local workers as those living within 90 minutes travel time to the site and, together with its deferred accommodation construction (also in the wrong location), it foresees substantial numbers of workers seeking to access the site from local minor roads. It requests the Inspectors handle this via conditional consents which are managed independently to ensure compliance by EDF. 9. The council requests the Inspectors address the location and sequence of construction for the accommodation unit(s) and ensure these include relevant services such as GPs and welfare support, rather than workers seeking these from the tightly-stretched local facilities. 10. It requests the Inspectors take full account of the cumulative impact of all energy-related projects planned for this small area of countryside, and their impact on the A12."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gwen Erskine-Hill
"Suffolk coastal simply doesn’t have the infrastructure to cope with an industrial project of this size nor the amenities to support 8000 workers. It is a rural backwater geared for agriculture, tourism and retirement. 6 fallacies 1. "The environment, the area of AONB, SSSI and RSPB minsmere will not be damaged". You cannot build a massive structure over 45 hectares of land for 12 years creating 30 meter high spoil heaps and expect the surrounding area to remain unaffected. “The Appraisal of Sustainability has found that there is the potential for some long lasting adverse direct and indirect effects on landscape character and visual impacts on the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, with limited potential for mitigation.” National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6) Volume II of II – Annexes 2. "The road network is more than sufficient to handle the traffic for the biggest industrial project in the UK" The A12 is already at critical levels of pollution and the B1122 is a narrow country B road yet it is expected to take more traffic than some motorways. The proposed bypass of some of the B1122 is ill thought out with no legacy value and will do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the people unlucky enough to live on the B1122. 3. "Great local employment opportunities". Indeed there are - for low skilled jobs such as cleaning and catering! The skilled workforce will be imported from Hinkley and other parts of the country. The demographics of the immediate area mean that there is very little unemployment to start with. Local businesses may be forced to close as the staff are poached for higher wages by EDF. This includes anyone connected to tourism and, worryingly, care homes. As for creating opportunities for employment further afield people are not prepared to commute for an hour each way when the shifts are 10 or 12 hours long, never mind the 90 minutes EDF suggests is possible. 4. "Big boost to the economy of the area". Zero evidence of that in either Leiston or Saxmundham who have allegedly benefited from the presence of Sizewell A and B. 5. “well-managed and effective mitigation package via a Tourism Fund” They suggest that a tourism fund will keep people coming to Suffolk Coast area. I fail to see how as there will be no accommodation left for tourists, no staff to work in the tourism sector and who wants to come to an industrial site for their holidays? 6. "The area can cope with the influx of workers". The numbers EDF are quoting fail to take into account the numerous other major energy projects proposed concurrently for this area. This alters the number of workers coming to the area, the volume of traffic on the roads, the amount of accommodation available and adds to the strain on existing amenities. The EDF workforce alone will be more than double the population of the nearest town, Leiston."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Ransome
"We live just off the A12 trunk road and our greatest fear is that all the additional traffic caused by the building of Sizewell C will force even more drivers to find alternative routes and our road is already a rat run, so the situation could be made even worse. Why is the lorry park to the eat of the Seven Hills junction ? This will cause even more problems at that roundabout. The threatened footpath closures have been removed, thank goodness and we do not want more night-time trains. The A12 must be upgraded to accommodate the proposed increase in traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Blyth
"• Lack of meaningful engagements – difficulty of understanding landowners concerns • Concerns over environmental impact of the project • Justification of the need for the scheme – i.e the link road • Scheme design concerns – provisions for severed land etc • Alternative options – have these been adequately considered • Mitigation measures – have these been adequately considered • Funding – lack of information provided • Catalogue of errors – agreed access arrangements for surveys have not been adhered to amongst other problems"
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Richards
"APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER BY NNB GENERATION COMPANY (SZC) LIMITED FOR THE SIZEWELL C PROJECT, SUFFOLK REF. EN010012 OUTLINE OF PROPOSED WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OF JAMES MICHAEL RICHARDS My representations will comment on: Inappropriate location. Detrimental effect on ecology and wildlife. Danger and disgrace of lengthy “temporary” storage of nuclear waste. Outmoding of nuclear power, in particular nuclear fission. Mode of delivery of construction materials. Effects on the public rights of way system. Necessity for huge planning gains through agreements under s. 106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990. My support for arguments made by various groups. JAMES MICHAEL RICHARDS [Redaced]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennie Greenhalgh
"I am opposed to EDF building a nuclear power station at Sizewell and would like the following answers: 1. Where will be nuclear waste be treated and stored? How safe will it be? 2. How will the roads be sufficiently improved to deal with the very heavy traffic throughout coastal Suffolk area? Communities will be divided by extra roads and roundabouts. There is too much dependency on HGV's using our roads, adding to climate crisis. Little provision for sea and rail. 3. How will light, noise and air pollution be addressed? Poor air quality will have a severe detrimental affect on local residents. 4. This is an Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty, with diverse and unique wild life and flora and fauna. How will this be protected? 5. The construction will demand fresh water in an area that relies on this for farming foods. How will you obtain water needed? 6. Marine life will be devastated, again affecting national and local fish supplies. How will you protect our precious seas? 7. Climate change - Is inevitable in the next 10 years, does the risk of rising sea levels not affect the safety of building a nuclear power station so close to coast. 8. How much will fuel bills be increased to reflect the actual cost of building, if ever completed? 9. Is this still to be financed by French Government through EDF? We need to be mindful of world markets and how these may affect us in future years. 10. The tourist industry will be badly affected by increased traffic, workers, pollution, destruction of a huge coastal area of the county. 11. EDF's application is not suitable for being examined digitally, and their documents and responses have been inadequate to date. 12. What compensation is being offered to local villages, is does not seem like anywhere near enough at present, considering quality of lives will be disrupted for next 10-15 years. I would also like to endorse Stop Sizewell C's Relevant Representation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jessie Boden
"• Lack of meaningful engagements – difficulty of understanding landowners concerns • Concerns over environmental impact of the project • Justification of the need for the scheme – i.e the link road or rail route • Scheme design concerns – provisions for severed land etc • Alternative options – have these been adequately considered • Mitigation measures – have these been adequately considered • Funding – lack of information provided • Catalogue of errors – agreed access arrangements for surveys have not been adhered to amongst other problems"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joan Girling
"Relevant Response to PINs for EDFE DCO application for Sizewell C The NPS at EN6 states that the Sizewell C Site is a potential site, for the development. It does not state it is a certainty. As a local person I base my response and objection to the EDFE DCO proposals for Sizewell C on the many reasons why after 8 years of Consultation it is proven that the SZC site is totally unsuitable. The development would cause a substantial adverse environmental impact upon the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and have a serious detrimental effect on biodiversity and sustainability. During the long construction period of up to twelve years, and when operational. 1) AONB Policies The AONB at Sizewell has two nuclear power stations, the proposed SZC with two reactors and the many extraneous buildings will exacerbate the industrialisation of the area and the Heritage coast, intruding on the many designations which surround the site. The AONB landscape quality and tranquillity will be lost over a wide area also the impact of the nuclear frontage to the North sea which will cover 1000 metres damaging the long distance views of the Coast. 2) EN6. The size and scale of the proposed development is not in line with what is included in EN6. Without increasing the land take, the size of the proposed site in EN6 is 32hectares, (Hinkley is 52.4ha) this will not contain all required buildings 2 reactors and 4pylons. It exceeds all suggested boundaries and intrudes into the SSSI to the west and seaward to the east, damaging the SAC and approximately 100+ metres forward of the Green building line of SZA and B approved by SoS in SZB’s Planning Consent. SZC site is to be built up onto a platform raising it higher than SZB. The chimneys and pylons will add to the clutter in the AONB landscape. 3) Access Road and AONB Policies (Avoid Mitigate Compensate) The four lane permanent Access Road (to be reduced to 2 lanes after construction) is approximately two to three kilometres long This part of the AONB is remote and environmentally sensitive. It includes Fen meadow SSSI. A 4 lane road in this area would be extremely damaging dividing the AONB for its total width causing a barrier and loss of connectivity for the many creatures which BAP species which live breed and forage in the area, and the web of life will be inextricably damaged. It is recorded that Sir Frank Layfield Inspector for the Sizewell B Inquiry pronounced that development in this area was “a totally inappropriate intrusion into the Suffolk Countryside” The then Secretary of State upheld those views. Along side which is the proposed Lay-up area and concrete batching plant which will massively intrude into the AONB and will leave a permanent scar. All the above will create, light, noise and dust pollution in the AONB and affect RSPB Minsmere. EDFE have never recognised the major significance of this damaging proposal. It will change the ambiance of this precious area forever. Mitigations suggested by EDFE are in no way adequate in size or quality and do not reflect the loss of habitat and the damage it will cause to this unspoilt area. The Access Road and all accompanying ancillary works can and should be avoided as the mitigation or compensation can never replace that which will be lost. EDFE have never considered an alternative access route. 4) Culvert onto the Development site The Access Road leads to the Culvert onto the main site. It is obvious that this method of water management is not satisfactory and will not be successful in protecting Sizewell Belts or Minsmere Levels which rely solely on the quality and depth of the water Any changes will cause untold irreparable harm as all life in the area is dependant upon these factors. There should not be any impediment to the flow of water in this area. Yet it is quite clear from what is suggested that this will undoubtedly happen. Again these matters have been raised with EDFE at every consultation. I submit that Access Road and Culvert are inappropriate and PINS should recommend a refusal of both. 5) Sea defence On the seaward side, east of the proposed development EDFE plan to build a sea defence/ berm 14 metres high and much forward of the site line of SZB and fronting the North Sea. The aim being to defend the SZC site from climate change, storm surges and rising sea levels during the lifetime of the plant. This proposal not only insults the AONB but also the Heritage Coast and shows no understanding of how the coast north and south of the berm will react, this is particularly concerning for RSPB Minsmere and the villages of Thorpeness, Sizewell and Eastbridge. 6) Surrounding Area of SZC Proposed Site. Transport Strategy is inadequate. The proposed SZC is many miles from a major road (A12) and is a remote and very rural coastal site. It has become apparent that many changes will have to take place to facilitate the amount of traffic needed for the build programme. Changes to the existing B, C, and Unclassified roads, by the many round- abouts, crossings and junctions and the building of new roads/ bypasses, and many Rights of Way and designated Cycle routes are unacceptable The environmental impact on both wildlife and humans beings has not been properly addressed, All road and rail building prove the inaccessibility of the proposed SZC Site. Much of what is suggested worsens the problems and many more studies and explanations are needed before the Transport Strategy is acceptable. Other major concerns which have not been addressed by EDFE Potable water quantity and source Unknown. Sewage disposal during construction and operational. Unknown. Marine habitat Unclear. Inlets/ outlets for cooling water, raised sea temp. Not clear. Fish stocks entrainment and loss. Unresolved and not sustainable . Damage to Coastal Processes. Unresolved. CO2 Pollution during build programme. Unknown Impact on tourism income value. Emergency Plan next to working SZB Unknown. Quantities and source of bulk material. Unknown Joan Girling [Redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Kilpatrick
"dear sirs, I would like to register my vote against another nuclear power station sizewell C. 1. Nuclear energy is storing poisons for future generations, who will have enough to cope with with global warming. 2. Whilst a big thing is made about employment, this is only in the short term - a few decades- then more money has to be wasted in decommissioning these plants. 3. The vehicle traffic will be dreadful for local small villages and wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Woolnough
"Lack of meaningful engagements – difficulty of understanding landowners concerns Concerns over environmental impact of the project Justification of the need for the scheme – i.e the link road or rail route Scheme design concerns – provisions for severed land etc Alternative options – have these been adequately considered Mitigation measures – have these been adequately considered Funding – lack of information provided Catalogue of errors – agreed access arrangements for surveys have not been adhered to amongst other problems"
Parish Councils
Kelsale-cum-Carlton Parish Council
"Relevant Representations of Kelsale-cum-Carlton Parish Council on Sizewell (Please look at a map of the location of our Parish - as it seems I cannot include it here) As a directly impacted Parish we wish to raise concerns about: 1. Application • The approach to ‘subsequent approvals’ and how they will be managed. e.g. at Hinkley Point significant changes to HGV volumes being applied for, relatively shortly after DCO given. 2. Site selection • We believe this to be ‘too big’, in the wrong place with the wrong ‘materials’ delivery strategy, as outlined in our previous responses to Consultations 2,3 & 4, but also, as currently there are up to 8 other potential energy projects it would result in significant and unacceptable cumulative impacts to the East Suffolk environment and economy. 3. Local Communities • The development will have significant impacts on Kelsale-cum-Carlton in addition to neighbours in Leiston, Eastbridge & Theberton, Middleton-cum-Fordley and Yoxford - seriously impacting the life, wellbeing and mental health of residents, and all communities adjacent to the A12. • At our southern boundary is the Leiston branch line, proposed to be uplifted generating significant noise and pollution nuisance for nearby Parish residents, in addition to many more across open fields. • At our northern boundary, the Parish is proposed as the site for the SLR (Sizewell Link Road) A12 western roundabout. The impact of the SLR’s construction and operation being loss of amenity, vibration, light, noise, traffic pollutants, visual, and dirt/dust nuisances on nearby residents, farms and businesses. • In the west the impact of significantly heavier traffic will increase severance in part of our Parish - Rendham Road and significantly increase road noise and pollutants in Curlew Green, Dorley’s Corner and the properties at Hedgehog Hall. • To the east, Theberton Bypass, the blocking-up of Pretty Lane and SLR means the Parish is completely encircled by aspects of development. The direct impact is cumulatively reducing the ability of; local businesses, residents, visitors, tourists, carriers and couriers to go about their respective activities without hindrance. Aspects directly impacting these users include; o Any recreational journeys by campus/caravan park residents and weekend trips for workers back home o Up to or over 700 (peak construction) daily additional LGV journeys o Up to or over 600 additional bus journeys o Close to 2,000 (peak construction) daily additional HGV Main Site movements • The level of amenity and enjoyment provided by the Parish’s lanes, footpath networks and agricultural landscape by residents of both Kelsale cum Carlton and neighbouring communities (as highlighted and evidenced during the COVID-19 lockdown of Spring & Summer 2020) will be significantly impacted. We need mitigation and compensation as a consequence, but ideally measures to ensure Sizewell traffic does not use the Parish as a rat run, self-routing etc. 4. Transport EDF’s transport strategy omits sufficient justification on a number of aspects. • The starting point for the Main Construction Traffic route (Planning Statement Appendix A 7.2.1) remains unjustified and pre-supposes no new/additional haul route from the outset • A SLR appeared for the first time in Consultation 3, with a limited number of alternative routes being dismissed with little analysis or justification demonstrated. This brings traffic further north than needed, increasing all forms of pollution unnecessarily. • The EDF SLR selection process remains unclear and unjustified, despite the Peer Review • The Peer Review of the EDF SLR Selection Process lacks; detail, transparent weightings, a sound rationale for decision making and seemingly relies heavily on 1980’s reports and analysis. • The SLR is too close in proximity to the existing access road of the B1122 thus still drawing traffic unnecessarily to one area and providing little overall relief. • The SLR will isolate and sever our Parish by impeding access to Public Rights of Way during its construction • The SLR will remove from cultivation prime arable farmland and threaten farm viability. • Unacceptable impact when the forecast daily car and LGV traffic carried mainly on feeder network will contribute to “an unacceptable impact on highway safety…”. i.e. unmanaged EDF traffic funnels from 90 minute travel radius onto a progressively limited number of narrower roads & lanes onto A12 and then to site. (NPPF (Ref 3.7) updated 2.19 Promoting Sustainable Transport Chapter Para 109) • Insufficient consideration has been given to traffic level analysis for both weekends and holiday periods for a tourist destination. ‘Good practice’ would be to include this analysis, confirmed in DoT correspondence 4.3.2019. The later use of selective historic data to justify the impact assessment is undesirable. • There are inadequate mitigations specific to the Parish and its’ neighbours. Requirements for “…safe, secure and attractive…” and proposals that “…minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles” and the mitigation of detrimental impacts on the ecology and local communities, appear to have been totally ignored as an expedient measure. NPPF (Ref. 3.7), updated in February 2019 under ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport Chapter’, Para 110(c). We highlighted 70 impacts in our response to Consultation 4, many were also raised in 3, and 2 and they have not been addressed. • Insufficient consideration has been given as a responsible employer, to safeguard; the public, individual workers, other road users and fellow worksite colleagues when the working day of a ‘local’ Sizewell C worker could conceivably comprise a 90 minute drive to either of the Sizewell Park and Ride sites (or directly to the Main Site Car Park), a bus ride, security/alcohol and drug testing, a full shift, a return bus ride and another 90 minute drive back home. Particularly as fatigue causes multiple safety issues. Sources: *DVLA ‘Tiredness Kills’ INF159 and ? Various through the BRAKE road safety charity • There is no Freight management facility to the north and it is unclear what would happen in the event of an issue on the A12 north of the site. • Planned road maintenance is referred to, but unplanned road maintenance is not. The A12, a de-trunked road is the one key route for traffic seeking to pass through the majority of Coastal Suffolk, (parts being single carriageway) and the impact on the A12 of HGVs will be higher carriageway ‘surface and bed’ attrition than other traffic. • The Traffic Management Plan includes HGV’s (inward journey only) but excludes LGV, Cars, Motorcycles, Buses thus giving insufficient consideration to the overall impact. • Car sharing plan is unambitious and inadequate causing more traffic issues as described above. The impact of traffic on our Parish could be reduced by contractual obligations routing all Sizewell workers through an agreed route to site. This could also result in a reduction in the amount of land used for car parking. 5. Landscape & Heritage • Unmanaged traffic including 10,000 new daily car movements (at Peak) will seriously impact the Parish which largely consists of single track, unpaved lanes giving access to arable farmlands, and hamlets leading to a Conservation Area via roadside nature reserves (in addition to many listed buildings). 6. Environment • Unsustainable impact on water supplies in the driest part of the country. • Impact on nationally significant natural history in the Parish and surrounding area i.e. Bats, Great Created Newts and many other flora and fauna assets (Suffolk Biodiversity Information Service) 7. Economic and social impacts • Impact of local business losing trained staff • Negative socio-economic impacts of the development are not adequately addressed by the developer • The detail of the proposed housing and tourism funds is inadequate, our Parish is not specifically named as one which would receive mitigation/compensation. • Tourists come here to enjoy the countryside/wildlife, easy access to beaches and Minsmere. Our responses to consultation 2,3&4 together with a Parish survey in 2019 indicated Parishioners are very concerned about the impact of the development on these issues together with transport. The DCO proposals bring more traffic and concerns. • Main site car parking for ‘home based workers’ based on a quarter of workers being categorised as local, and defined as up to 90 minutes away may not relate to many Suffolk workers actually benefitting in economic gain but taking environmental and social impacts."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Leiston Labour Party
"Leiston Labour Party has 30 years’ experience of nuclear power in development and operation. We believe that EDF’s proposal to build and operate another nuclear facility at Sizewell (Sizewell C) lacks credibility. EDF’s current poor financial position, its record of failing to complete other projects, in UK and worldwide, on time and within budget make us fearful of the consequences of a decision to allow this proposal to proceed. The government’s energy policy has not been updated to reflect the increasing cost of nuclear power and to recognise the much more cost efficient and sustainable wind and solar power production. Leiston Labour Party believes strongly that there is a need for new investment in jobs, education, skills and the environment in Leiston and the surrounding area. However, Leiston Labour Party is not convinced, despite assurances, that EDF can meet these. Leiston Branch Labour Party opposes this project on the following grounds:- • THE infrastructure required to minimise the damage and disruption to the area during the construction period of the more than 10 years quoted in the plan (and possibly much longer period) will not be provided by the EDF proposals. E.g further road and rail improvements, sufficient funding for health, education, emergency and other services. • The proposal threatens the AONB, which in addition to its role in preserving the eco balance of the area, attracting visitors and supporting the local economy epitomises coastal Suffolk’s unique contribution to the diverse landscape of the UK • The proposal will cause irreparable damage to the world class nature reserve at RSPB Minsmere • The building of another nuclear facility on the Sizewell site will be vulnerable to the flooding and erosion already causing damage along the Suffolk coastline • EDF’s cost cutting approach to the building of Sizewell C threatens the food production and visitor economies of the area, and any increase in employment brought by the construction and running of Sizewell C, in no way makes up for the resulting damage and loss Furthermore, Leiston Labour Party is very concerned about the cumulative effect of the number of energy projects along this fragile coast - each bringing further disruption to travel and destruction of valuable environments. Taken together the threat to our area and way of life is immeasurable. We believe strongly that an overarching planning approach is necessary to minimise local disruption and environmental degradation and to make sure that developments are in line with an updated and affordable energy policy, designed to deal with climate change."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Liz Jones
"The building of the site will cause enormous environmental and aesthetic damage to an area of outstanding natural beauty. This will impact on the wildlife, local biodiversity, including endangered species and the consequent knock on effects to biodiversity of other areas and the local people through the building, transport links, heavy traffic, loss of tourism and the job losses through the decline in tourism. The position is unsuitable for a plant of this type considering the risks of flooding and a possible nuclear disaster through the contamination of water caused by damage to the site through floods (cracked pipes, erosion etc) and rising of the water table. At a time when we are trying to reduce our carbon footprint and the consequent damage to the environment such a huge carbon-greedy project is clearly wrong. The environmental damage it causes is not wholly offset by the production of oil-free energy especially as it will likely cause an increase in building of houses with yet more environmental detriment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynn Elizabeth Beaumont
"I wish to raise the following issues of great personal concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection ? I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place o Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value which are also vital for our local tourism industry o Site is already and could become a worse “island” now containing five nuclear reactors and historically stored low- and medium- level radioactive waste o Site at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding and potential impact on coastal processes o Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality which are all about to kick off at the same time with even greater combined impacts on our communities in East Suffolk 2. Community, Economic and social impacts ? Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption ? 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a campus in a location that I also oppose and the anti-social and criminal aspects associated with Sizewell B are legendary in Leiston ? Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred but it is unclear how this will be compensated by EDF ? Pressure on local housing and especially low-cost rentals in the areas, including holiday parks ? EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in “Site Support” but these people and skills do not exist around here currently and no apprentice scheme of any size will be sufficiently effective in time ? Negative impacts - from traffic and losing staff - on local businesses, not least as EDF is a high payer with locally, highly competitive terms & conditions, including its pension scheme ? Increased pressure on our health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people which have only been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic 3. Transport ? Road-based transport plan clearly not sustainable for the delivery of over 13 million tonnes of materials; enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV and LGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations ? Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic – Kelsale and the hamlets at North and East Green will be severely impacted by the proposed SLR which only emerged under phase 3 of the consultation process, which is deeply unfair on a small parish such as Kelsale-cum-Carlton (KcC) ? The SLR would sever our community, damage our rural footpath system and divide our high-grade farmland - these relief road routes without any legacy value have not been adequately assessed by EDF ? Rat-running and disruption on village such as Kelsale-cum-Carlton not adequately considered ? Rail and sea delivery options have been largely ignored 4. Environment and Landscape ? Water supply – we simply don’t have enough potable water in East Suffolk and current plans to extend it using the well in Peasenhall are already proving insufficient and before any construction impacts from Sizewell C which will require about three million litres of potable water for the construction period etc. Abstraction of water will compound risks to the environment and to local protected species ? Development would result in pollution from light, noise, traffic and dust, and especially in KcC and Eastbridge - the dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles is totally inadequate ? Irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. Impacts on Marsh Harriers threaten integrity of Special Protection Area ? Uncertainty re drainage and local flooding impacts on Minsmere plus risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology due to the loss of flood storage from the development site ? Impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill not fully addressed ? Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB which can never be reversed as EDF suggest, therefore making it Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage ? Sizewell C will not offset the CO2 involved its construction for at least 6 years once it ever starts generating 5. Marine and Coastal processes ? Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature HCDF. No complete design of HCDF available ? Rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable ? Impacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes ? Impacts on marine ecology 6. Application ? Wording of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement – plus how can we possibly trust a French parent company supported by a Chinese power concern backed by a communist regime over a fisty year period, minimum? I also wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by our councils, namely SCC and ESC, as well as Stop Sizewell C, the RSPB, SWT and all other bodies who are seeing the truth here. I also wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process and particularly in the midst of a continuing coronavirus pandemic – it’s far too important an issue to be dealt with in this way."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Madeleine Wynn Higgins
"the huge increase in road traffic, -the despoliation of the AONB, -the strain on local services (already stretched) from an influx of workers, -the threat to the marine life, -the viability of building a nuclear reactor on a fragile and eroding coastline prone to flooding, -the inevitable worsening of air quality from traffic and the massive dust heaps from digging the site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Brett Boden
"• Lack of meaningful engagements – difficulty of understanding landowners concerns • Concerns over environmental impact of the project • Justification of the need for the scheme – i.e the link road or rail route • Scheme design concerns – provisions for severed land etc • Alternative options – have these been adequately considered • Mitigation measures – have these been adequately considered • Funding – lack of information provided • Catalogue of errors – agreed access arrangements for surveys have not been adhered to amongst other problems"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marie Brennan
"I would like to know how nuclear waste will be made safe and stored especially with regard to climate change and think that this site is unsuitable. Visitor economy will face further downturn: Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. I would like EDF to consider the impact on the local community and the transport of goods too and from the site - will this increase traffic and how will rural communities be kept safe? What about pollution of light and noise? i am very concerned about the impact of pollution in the local area esp. Minsmere and how the infrastructure will impact on biodiversity in the area - I am not convinced that this development will be good for long term safety of the ecology of the area. the rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable and there are huge negative mpacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes. In this age of mass extinction and plastic pollution the impacts on marine ecology would deteriorate further. I am very worried that the country is investing in old fashioned and obsolete 20th c. technology and needs instead to invest in greener more efficient forms of energy. i feel that this sort of site belongs in the decades of the past and has no part to play in contemporary industry. Thank you"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Anne Woolf
"I wish to register as an interested party as a resident of Leiston. Apart from a few years living in Ipswich, I have lived in Leiston for forty years and here in Westward Ho for longer than anywhere else in my life. Leiston is my home and East Suffolk a place I have come to love. The main concerns about Sizewell C that I wish to address here are on two levels. Firstly, the long-term issues which will affect future generations to whom we have a responsibility. Spent fuel (3800 tonnes of uranium in the spent fuel packages -EDF’s estimate) and other high level radioactive waste would be stored on this fragile coast for at least a hundred years. There has been little consultation locally about whether we want to live near a nuclear waste store. Would such a store be safe from known and unknown threats – flooding, erosion, stability or casings, terrorist attack, loss of records of what is there and how it is managed? The adverse impact on the environment and the irreversible change in the nature and character of this beautiful area is a further long-term concern. Whilst EDF’s assessment that the actual site is safe from flooding for the duration of operation may be correct, what effect would SZC defences have on flooding and coastal processes north and south of the site? EDF identify adverse impacts of the project on many environmental issues from visual impacts to effects on rare flora and fauna. Most they claim are insignificant, temporary or mitigated by creation of new habitats. The cumulative effect of apparently minor concerns may make irreversible changes to the environment and to the character of the area. The second level of concern is personal. I live here because I enjoy the proximity to the countryside. I like to walk, to observe wild flowers this year I have counted more than 160 different plants in flower on my walks in the local area. This development would spoil or block many of these walks - up the lane from my house, across the fields on footpaths, along the beach at Sizewell, through Kenton Hills and Goose Hill to the sea .. Further afield it would spoil walks from Eastbridge to the Sluice or to Dunwich Heath and increased traffic the traffic would make driving to quieter places more difficult and less pleasant. Sizewell beach has finally recovered from the building of Sizewell B; it has looked very beautiful this year. At night I hear the owls from my bedroom. At dusk I can walk up the lane and see bats flying. By the time the construction is over and the “temporary” parts of the project restored, I will be over 80 and may no longer be able to enjoy my current pursuits. I would be very sad to move away but not as sad as if I were to stay and experience the destruction of all I love day after day in the noise and dust."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Karen White
"I would like to register my strong objection to the Sizewell C Project My reasons cover many topics which will be raised by others: - Unsuitable site because of likely rising sea levels etc - It will cut Suffolk off from the rest of the country being virtually inaccessible by road - Economic disaster due to escalating costs - CO2 offset won't start for years - Environmentally a tragedy for the entire area However, my personal objection is for the use of the railway for transporting goods to the site - none of the potential problems to track-side residents have been mentioned let alone addressed. - Currently no trains use the line during the night - the proposed 4 or 5, 20-carriage freight trains running every night for at least 10 years will completely destroy normal life for those of us living alongside the line. - There has been no mention of investigating sound deadening - e.g super-quiet trains, no idling or use of horns, ensuring all track is welded or replaced etc.etc - There has been no offer to offer sound insulation to home owners although this would be of no use in the summer months when windows are open, or offer of compensation from resulting property de-valuation. All these matters should have been addressed by EDF prior to the application. A fair public consultation was impossible during Covid 19 as a digital examination of the application was impossible to a layman."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Oliver Perkin
"Dear Sir/Madam I am strongly opposed to this development. I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place entirely, The site is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding. I am concerned about the potential impact on coastal processes There will undeniably be adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value. This site could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. I believe there are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality which need explaining and further scrutiny. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts There will be unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a location that I oppose. The Visitor economy will suffer heavily: Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys already suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. There will be huge pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in “Site Support”, so these are not necessarily high standard jobs for local people. There will be negative impacts - from traffic and losing staff - on local businesses. In addition there will be pressure on already short and underfunded health, social and emergency services, as well as serious impacts on vulnerable people. 3. Transport The road based transport plan is not sustainable and would have enormous and adverse impacts on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. The suggested delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic. New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. Rat-running and disruption have not been adequately considered. Also, alternative relief road routes with legacy value have not been adequately assessed by EDF. 4. Environment and Landscape There are huge considerations concerning potential flooding. The effect on the Minsmere Sluice is unclear and could be damaging. Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic. Dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles have been inadequately assessed. The impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill have not been fully addressed. There will be irreparable environmental harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. Part of this impacts on species such as Marsh Harriers, threatening the integrity of Special Protection Area. The plans are uncertain re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond. The abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species. There are major risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology. There is a flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site. This scheme would have a catastrophic impact on the landscape character because of locality, design and scale; this construction severs the AONB! It is impossible to compensate for the prospective landscape and ecological damage. The site won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 5. Marine and Coastal processes There are ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence features- HCDF. No complete design of HCDF is available! The rates of erosion and recession are episodic and unpredictable. There are serious impacts of the Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes. There will be serious impacts on marine ecology. 6. Application Wording of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. And I fully endorse the Relevant Representations of the Suffolk Wildlife Trust and the RSPB. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. PLEASE STOP THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM DESTROYING OUR COUNTRYSIDE IN THE NAME OF PROGRESS. IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE, AFFORDABLE OR SENSIBLE. Your sincerely Mr O Perkin"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Owen Woolnough
"Lack of meaningful engagements – difficulty of understanding landowners concerns Concerns over environmental impact of the project Justification of the need for the scheme – i.e the link road or rail route Scheme design concerns – provisions for severed land etc Alternative options – have these been adequately considered Mitigation measures – have these been adequately considered Funding – lack of information provided Catalogue of errors – agreed access arrangements for surveys have not been adhered to amongst other problems"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Dent
"My concerns over Sizewell C include: Is this the best site for a nuclear power station? With rising sea levels, this area could become swamped in a matter of a few years, threatening the safety and ability of the power station to operate. This will also create a headache regarding access to the site. Destruction of habitat in and around Minsmere, including Coronation Wood. Once habitat is destroyed it can take decades for it to recover it's natural biodiversity. The new roads infrastructure is inadequate. For example, the A12 through Yoxford is already at breaking point. This road and village cannot possibly take the extra traffic that the site will create during the building phase, even with a pathetic new roundabout. With respect to new roads and routes and traffic, have cycle paths been included on the plans? If not, there has been inadequate forward thinking. Has the impact to the area of the inevitable rat runs that the new car parks will create been considered? Has a comparative costing been made with clean energy alternatives such as tidal power? Nuclear power is not green: it creates waste that we don't know how to deal with. That is not green"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patrick Dawe
"Outline of the main points to be made in relation to the application. The hazard of nuclear energy. The generation of nuclear power from nuclear energy needs the storage and disposal of radioactive materials. These materials carry the risks of misuse and of contamination. Planners of a nuclear power plant should not be encouraged by giving them planning permission, whereas people who plan to use more safe methods of generating power should be endorsed and encouraged. The availability of green energy. The wind, the tides, the sun, rivers and dams can supply the energy needs of this country. An ordinary member of the public can see by the number of wind farms that the wind can be used. Tidal energy appears to be untapped. The use of sun energy can be seen by the presence of solar panels and a simple calculation shows that a modest solar panel on every second dwelling will match the kilowatt hours from Sizewell C. Rivers and dams are not as evident as a source of energy in this country as they are elsewhere. The need to give opportunities to British talent. This country is not short of people who can employ ingenuity and innovation to harness green energy. These people should not be bypassed and left with their talents untapped. They should be given priority over French and Chinese engineers who aim to provide nuclear power with all its risks. Hazard of centralized power generation. Failure of a major plant would cause catastrophic, countrywide power loss. This risk can be avoided by using many and varied scattered foci of power generation. Money spent here would make Sizewell C redundant. Hazard of a deadline imposed by global warming coastal erosion. The building of a major nuclear power generation plant on a coastline that may erode as a result of global warming is an insecure investment. There is a risk that the coastal erosion timescale will place a deadline on the safe dismantling and removal of nuclear material from Sizewell A, B and C that is impossible to meet. The money spent on Sizewell C would be better spent on tapping green energy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peta Whiting
"Relevant Representation, Sizewell C, Peta-Jane Whiting, My Main Concerns are; Minsmere and Ecology of the area • Unique there are more species per acre on the Minsmere Reserve than on any other reserve in the UK. • Habitat Special Protection area of International importance. Many years of hard work and dedication in bringing species such as the Marsh Harrier back from virtual extinction, the Little Tern colony which nests on the shingle beach and so many other carefully nurtured species, all this will be destroyed. • Pollution Noise, dust, 24hour lighting, excavated mega heaps of soil will make life unbearable for people and all species who live there. • Water Supply for all the concrete required, this endangers the water table and the carefully regulated water levels in the Marshes • Flooding and Erosion this coast is unstable, changes in sea level because of climate change are unpredictable, making building a nuclear reactor on this site dangerous and irresponsible, leaving a problem for future generations to inherit. • nuclear wasteland will be the result of this plan by EDF to build on Suffolk's greatest Gem, it won’t even offset CO2 emissions for at least six years. Tourism and Heritage Economy • I am a holiday let provider, I am concerned that tourism will be devastated, up to £40 million a year, highly detrimental to Suffolk’s overall economy. People will not want to visit the Suffolk coast any more. East Bridge • Peace will be destroyed by the planned accommodation for 2,400 workers, the Eels Foot Public House, the unique and Historic traditions of aural folk song and Suffolk Step dancing, all will loose their ancient home Area of Outstanding National Beauty International designated sites of ecological importance, there will be irreparable destruction to; Ancient heaths Marsh habitats Quiet Lanes for walking and cycling Bird and Wildlife Watching on land and sea Unspoilt and Tranquil distinctive character inspires artists , musicians and writers Transport and Population changes • Jobs workers will be brought in temporarily from elsewhere • Current road network is insufficient to support all the heavy lorries required, the A12 gets congested at times already and it threads through small villages; the new road plans sever ancient footpaths and communities further impacting the area • Sizewell C is completely unsuited to a digital examination process because it is far too complex and important. • I endorse Stop Sizewell C’s Relevant Representation"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philippe Taylor
"This project appears to offer consumers the most expensive energy ever generated. Even so, experience suggest that significant cost overruns and delays are the norm. There appears to be no provision for dealing with radio-active spent nuclear fuel other than leaving it on site indefinitely as at Sizewell A. In the light of the huge environmental social and above all financial costs of the project, the rapid emergence of cheaper less damaging technologies (wind, solar etc.) should offer an alternative."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Ramblers Association
"APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER BY NNB GENERATION COMPANY (SZC) LIMITED FOR THE SIZEWELL C PROJECT, SUFFOLK (REF. EN010012) OUTLINE OF PROPOSED REPRESENTATIONS TO BE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION We will explain that we are a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. We will recite our objects. We will explain our policy regarding changes to the public rights of way system. We will emphasize the health and economic benefits of walking. We will talk about the dangers of walking on roads. We will set out the general principles which the Ramblers say should apply to all the proposals to divert public rights of way We will say how the proposed development will affect the beauty of the countryside. We will comment on the effect of the proposed development on the public rights of way network. We will demand proportionate planning gains if the DCO is approved. We will give instances of deficiencies in the public rights of way network in the general area which must be addressed by way of obligations under agreements pursuant to s. 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Ramblers Association, Suffolk Area, Part of The Ramblers’ Association, A company limited by guarantee, registration number 4458492 Registered Charity number 1093577 Registered office address 2nd Floor 89-90 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TW [Redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Solomon
"Damage to this part of Suffolk will be incalculable; loss of peace, protected habitats, tranquillity and dark night skies. Locals and visitors are attracted to this area for precisely those reasons and will be driven away by the noise, pollution, closures of beaches and footpaths, traffic congestion and general disruption. My areas of concern are: 1. Location • The possibility of the site becoming an island housing five nuclear reactors. • The ongoing impact and implications for the ANOB and local wildlife. • The toll on local infrastructure of this and other proposed totally uncoordinated energy projects 2. Local Impacts • There has been no proper assessment of the impact of on the thriving tourist economy. It is estimated tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. • It has been stated that the project will create employment for local people but these will be mainly lower skilled worked all other workers will need to be recruited from other areas of the country. • The campus is single occupancy and workers must leave the site to socialise with non-EDF personnel. There has been no analysis on the impact this will have on the surrounding area. • The impact on local communities in terms of traffic, noise light pollution and general disruption has not been given sufficient consideration. I strongly oppose the 2,400 capacity a Worker campus. The campus will destroy the local environment and amenity. • The park and ride planned north of Darsham Station has increased from 800 vehicles to 1250 vehicles. This park and ride will run 24/7. This will be a significant detriment to local residents in terms of noise, light pollution, traffic pollution and congestion. The installation of a roundabout on the A12 in Yoxford will further exacerbate the situation. 3. Transport • The proposal to adopt a road-based transport plan is the easiest and cheapest for EDF whilst being the most disruptive for the local community. The number of HGV vehicles visiting the site has already been rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations • The road proposal cuts through and splits communities and land leaving ‘islands’ of land that will be uneconomic to farm. There will be loss of amenity as the footpaths become unusable. There is no legacy of benefit to the local community. • There has been a complete failure to properly consider the impact on local traffic including the additional traffic on local roads and people turning rural roads into ‘rat-runs’. • There has been no impact assessment on the effect on property. There are a number of properties sited very close to the road and are already shaken as large vehicles pass. The potential for lasting damage to these properties. I am particularly concerned of the adverse impact on health from fuel emissions. 4. Environment and Landscape • The effect on the local environment will be devastating has been given insufficient consideration, in particular the adverse impact on RSPB Minsmere and the wetlands. • The position, design and scale of the construction will be a true ‘blot on the landscape’, changing the landscape for ever and destroying precious habitats for rare birds, animals, flora and fauna. The AONB will be dislocated and destroyed. • The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (ANOB) will be dissected for at least a decade. This threatens the fundamental aspirations and reason for existence of any ANOB. 5. Coast • Building a nuclear power station on an eroding coastline is just not sensible. The flood risk is totally unpredictable. • The impact on the marine life has not been properly considered. I endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB and National Trust. The Sizewell C application is totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."
Non-Statutory Organisations
S.A.G.E. (Suffolk.Alternative.GreenEnvironment) Community Group (S.A.G.E. (Suffolk.Alternative.GreenEnvironment) Community Group)
"Relevant Representation: Sizewell C DCO 25.09.2020 From: Regan Scott for S.A.G.E. (Community Monitoring Group). Following our posted correspondence on the likely standard of this DCO (2.4.20) and acknowledgement of same by Suffolk County Council (9.6.20) in their Statement of Community Consultation, we suggest the following as principal is which may be considered within the three relevant pillars of planning consideration, namely site suitability (construction, operation and decommissioning), project need and project sustainability. The complexity of these issues and variety of opinion and spread of evidences suggest that open issue hearings are appropriate. Deficiencies in the DCO in respect of proposals for decision, statements and reports, evidences, reasonings and the draft Order itself reinforce our view. These shortcomings of the draft DCO have been well established in the consultations and public narratives, most notably by Suffolk County Council. We wish to contribute on some principal issues where we believe that environment regulation has not been applied fully or in a resolved manner with respect to the precautionary principle, proportionality and practicality of mitigation, the duty of pursuing reasonable alternatives and consequent compensation proposals. We further believe that in important respects the DCO’s proposals and reasonings do not conform with Government policy and law. NPS-EN1 and EN6 are the base referents, but we note that there is an ongoing and partially determined review of EN6, with a declared new “standalone” status from NPS-EN1, that the review is to reflect “changes in law and policy” and “to be consistent with current law and policy” (EN6 Review 12.2017). Policy change has been pursued by Government from 2015, while Court decisions have changed definitions of lawful duties in planning, most notably in respect of climate change Net Zero and associated imperatives. On the third pillar of sustainability, we believe there are principal issues arising from the full life-cycle of the project. These arise in numerous relevant ways, from legal duties to sustainability to policy developments concerning aspects of energy security, value for money and funding models; to ecology in respect of biodiversity net gain and natural capital preservation, to governance and ownership of a strategic resource, and ESG doctrine including the “no harm” principle. Issue Specific Hearings on principal issues might be grouped to reflect the three pillars of planning consideration: • Site suitability – construction stage and life-cycle, including nuclear waste storage, size of site, water supplies • Transport strategy, logistics: sustainability/resilience of community and road infrastructure • In combination effects: energy projects and housing development plans • EIA issues – construction period e.g air pollution • HRA, ecology, natural capital preservation – large scale of protected habitats and species - IROPI • Community amenity, structural life-cycle change, economic/social impacts • Governance, draft DCO provisions - EIA licence variations, licence assignment (ownership) and funding model • Climate change, decarbonisation and Net Zero in full life-cycle. We will make a written contribution on these issues."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sally Ilett
"I run an alpaca breeding enterprise here at Moat Farm, some of my stock are kept off farm, this necessitates travelling to fields in the village to check, feed and move my stock. The proposed road system to bypass Theberton will effectively cut our farm off from the village and create the situation where I shall have to take a hazardous route with livestock trailer or quad bike amidst the lorries travelling to and from the construction site."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Sandlings Safer Cycling Campaign
"APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER BY NNB GENERATION COMPANY (SZC) LIMITED FOR THE SIZEWELL C PROJECT, SUFFOLK (REF. EN010012) OUTLINE OF PROPOSED REPRESENTATIONS TO BE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE SANDLINGS SAFER CYCLING CAMPAIGN We will explain that we are a constituted but unincorporated non-profitmaking group active in the area of East Suffolk known as the Suffolk Sandlings. We will recite our objects. We will say who we represent. We will emphasize the health and economic benefits of cycling. We will state the importance of making cycling safer. We will demand that any DCO must include proportionate provision for planning gains. We will give instances of deficiencies in the cycling network in the general area which must be addressed by way of obligations under agreements pursuant to s. 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. SANDLINGS SAFER CYCLING CAMPAIGN [Redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Barrett
"I have the following concerns about the Sizewell C plans: 1. The impact of extra traffic during construction: our roads already struggle to cope during the busy tourist season and harvest time: much more traffic could mean more delays for local business and unpleasant experiences for visitors, who then choose to go elsewhere. EDF say their modelling suggests that traffic won't be too much of an issue, but the experience at Hinkley suggests otherwise; the theory has not matched the reality, which has meant very significant congestion, noise and particulate pollution on main routes and the use of 'rat runs' on by-roads. 2. The impact of lost tourism is underestimated. Tourism in this area is well established, reliable, often high end, with a good deal of skill and autonomy for many providers (like me): alternative work offered at Sizewell would mainly be short term, insecure and low grade (e.g. cleaning); not a good replacement for my current business. 3. The damage to the delicate environment is very serious, at a time when we know we need to look after it better. Peace, quiet, beauty and protected natural areas like Minsmere are what currently makes this area a biodiverse haven and a tourist honeypot on this ever-changing coastline and EDF's suggested mitigations seem very simplistic. 4. The accommodation proposed at Eastbridge will completely change the nature of the area; a total loss of what is currently a charming and much valued destination for walkers and birdwatchers. 5. Workers will need more accomodation than will be provided by EDF, so housing costs will be inflated, making it even less affordable for young people than it is now: and yet we are an ageing population and need to help young people stay in the area. Of course most people will not be working at Sizewell and their wages will be relatively modest."
Other Statutory Consultees
Stantec on behalf of Suffolk Constabulary
"Dear Sir / Madam, I write to formally register Suffolk Constabulary (SC) as an Interested Party in the Sizewell C (SZC) Nuclear Power Station Development Consent Order (DCO) application and provide below our Relevant Representation. I can also confirm that SC is a Statutory Party (as defined by Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms And Procedures) Regulations 2009)) and was consulted by EDF (the scheme promoter) prior to submission of the DCO application in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008. Context SC is the territorial police force responsible for the county of Suffolk and has a mission to make Suffolk a safer place to live, work, travel and invest. Under the leadership of the Chief Constable, SC uses its resources to protect its communities and prevent crime happening in the first place, with a particular focus on preventing harm and protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. This is articulated in SC’s Strategic Plan 2020 - 2023. The Suffolk Police and Crime Commissioner is responsible for setting policing objectives and does this through his Police and Crime Plan. SC currently has an establishment of 1,172 FTE police officers, 40 PCSOs and over 872 police staff divided between local policing teams, support functions and specialist teams. The county is split into three operational policing areas and constituent Local Policing Commands (LPCs), with the SZC site falling within the Eastern area and Halesworth LPCs respectively. However, in an emergency situation police resources from across the county may be called upon. A number of operational and back-office functions are also provided in collaboration with Norfolk Constabulary. Areas of Interest SC holds no views as to the virtues of nuclear energy or the planning merits of the proposed development itself. In responding to the SZC DCO application, SC is solely concerned with ensuring that all likely significant impacts relating to community safety and policing arising from SZC are fully identified, assessed, and adequately mitigated. Policing is a complex and multi-faceted activity which plays a key role in responding to and managing many community safety risks, extending well beyond what may be perceived as deterring and investigating traditional crime types. It is welcomed that EDF has recognised the need to manage community safety impacts from SZC and proposed associated mitigation measures, which are broadly supported. However, from information provided in the SZC DCO application and SC’s own analysis, it is clear that the construction and operation of SZC is likely to generate a wide range of community safety impacts on both the SZC workforce and existing communities which will also require additional input from SC to manage effectively. SC’s objectives in relation to the Examination and determination of the SZC DCO application are therefore to: • Understand and address the full range of likely community safety and policing impacts from SZC. Acting as a statutory consultee, SC will be pleased to assist the Examination Authority in considering these matters fully; and, in doing so, • Secure appropriate mitigation to avoid likely significant adverse community safety impacts and any other unacceptable community safety risks. SC operates to capacity and will require additional resourcing to address the net additional impacts of SZC. Potential Community Safety Impacts SC has engaged with EDF throughout all pre-application stages of consultation and continues to do so, including ongoing work to prepare a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG). SC has also participated in, and attended, meetings of the Emergency Service Working Group and Community Forum convened by EDF. As highlighted to EDF through pre-application consultation, the nature and scale of SZC is likely to give rise to the following community safety impacts: • Substantial demographic changes (increased population and altered profile compared with the baseline situation) giving rise to changes in safety, crime and welfare and wellbeing. This includes community safety impacts affecting both the SZC workforce (e.g. risk of becoming a victim of crime or otherwise requiring police assistance) and existing communities. Community safety impacts requiring involvement from SC are likely to include mental health and missing person incidents, reduced community cohesion, a rise in anti-social behaviour, impacts associated with growth of the night-time economy (e.g. from licensed premises and drug related crime), impacts on vulnerable groups, exploitation, and increases in a wide range of crime-types being committed and detected; • Substantial traffic changes, which SC will need to help manage to protect road safety and the functioning of the transport network. This includes a requirement for SC to escort significant volumes of abnormal indivisible loads (AILs) safely and timeously to facilitate the efficient construction of SZC. Other construction traffic impacts and proposed road infrastructure works are also likely to result in changes in use of the transport network road safety and increased emergency response times; and, • Substantial changes in emergency / civil contingency planning, preparedness and response requirements. Working alongside EDF and partner agencies, SC will need to fulfil a key role in mitigating the net additional community safety impacts associated with SZC. These impacts will therefore generate net additional police resourcing requirements, which need to be addressed in full for SC to help mitigate identified community safety risks whilst continuing to provide a high quality policing service to communities across Suffolk. Alongside police officers, adequate police staff, technology, fleet, estate resources and co-ordination with partner agencies are also essential to maintain a high-quality policing service. All parts of SC would be engaged in addressing the community safety impacts of SZC, with significant resourcing implications for: • Local Policing – responding to incidents, investigations and wider community safety issues; • Command and Control – responding to 999 and 101 calls, incident response, co-ordination and emergency preparedness; • Custody – arrest and custody suite demand; • Roads Policing – escorting AILs, road safety, traffic management and incident response; and, • Public Order response and intelligence. Principal Issues and Concerns Based on our review of relevant documents including the SZC Environmental Statement (ES) and associated Community Safety Management Plan (CSMP), SC is concerned that important points made in our pre-application consultation responses have not been fully addressed and in consequence there are gaps in the published assessment of community safety and policing impacts. Withou