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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

David Costain
"The application is in the interests it the local comMunity and the country in general and should be approved"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

Rosemary Martin
"No to park and ride at wickham market. Cut through traffic via Easton will be dreadful."

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"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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"

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"

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

Tim Hannon
"Concerns over traffic management, social and environmental impact during and post construction, long term impact on the local economy"

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

Elliot Chart
"I'd prefer a renewable solution to a nuclear one. Furthermore I oppose Sizewell C."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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.""

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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?"

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."

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"

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"

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"

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. ______________________________________"

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]"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

Martial Pardoen
"I am interested by the protection of environment, biodiversity, well-being,..."

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!"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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"

Anthony Franklin
"I am fully supportive of the plan to build Sizewell C"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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?"

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"

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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 ."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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)"

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"

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."

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."

Great Bealings Parish Council
"Our concerns include: Traffic Environment Cost Suitability"

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."

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"

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."

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"

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"

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."

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;"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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"

Lynne Barrett
"I believe that damage to our protected wildlife and their habitats would be so severe that this project should not go ahead. "

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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!"

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!"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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"

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"

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"

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."

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)."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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"

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"

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."

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?"

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?"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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?"

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"

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"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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.."

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]"

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"

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."

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."

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"

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!"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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?"

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"

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"

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."

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,."

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."

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."

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."

Josephine Cutts
"The proposal will be an unacceptable intrusion on the exceptionally beautiful landscape."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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"

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"

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."

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"

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"

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."

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."

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"

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.”."

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."

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 Damian Carrington; 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."

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."

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"

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"

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"

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."

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."

Sara Cozens
"I object to the planning application due to the environmentsl imoact."

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."

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."

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?"

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

David William Green
"I am concerned about the environmental impact of the project during and after construction"

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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?"

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."

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."

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?"

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."

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."

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 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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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"

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"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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?"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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)."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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]"

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."

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"

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"

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."

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."

Anne Carter
"My concerns are numerous. Costs. Environmental impact. Erosion. Flood risk. Time. Disruption. RAB. Disposal. Risks involved."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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'."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

Hannah Wilder
"nuclear energy (& waste) detriment to surrounding nature - fish, birds, wildlife etc"

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?"

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."

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]"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

Mark Woolnough
"Lack of meaningful engagements - understanding landowners concerns Alternative options - have these been adequately considered Concerns over environmental impact of the project"

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."

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."

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."

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!"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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!"

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."

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]"

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."

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."

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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)"

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"

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."

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."

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 ."

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."

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."

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"

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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]"

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."

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"

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]"

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."

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"

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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"

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"

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."

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."

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"

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"

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"

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."

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"

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."

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]"

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."

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."

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."

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]"

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."

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. Without prejudice to detailed matters which may be raised in subsequent representations, SC has consistently identified the following key concerns: • Narrow scope of assessment - the singular focus of the policing impact assessment on recorded crimes is inadequate. Whilst the CSMP calls for SC to play an active role in managing community safety, which is to be welcomed, no consideration is given to the associated assessment of wider community safety impacts requiring police involvement (whether in terms of emergency preparedness, prevention, deterrence, safeguarding, incident response or investigation). The role of SC in addressing community safety impacts beyond recorded crime should have been recognised and addressed; • Limited consideration of demographic risks – the published assessment of effects on population dynamics does not appear to have been factored into the assessment of policing impacts, as this only considers crime impacts quantitatively on a per capita basis. Coupled with the narrow scope of assessment, it is therefore difficult to determine whether the mitigation proposals set out in the CSMP will be effective in avoiding significant adverse community safety impacts; and, • Sufficient information has not been provided regarding the range of potential transport impacts likely to require a net additional police response. To help address these concerns, SC has undertaken a demographic analysis and is currently using SZC workforce and traffic data provided by EDF to model the wider scope of likely community safety and policing impacts. SC has also sought clarifications from EDF regarding the assessment of potential transport impacts. Next Steps SC welcomes the opportunity to participate in the SZC Examination as an Interested Party. Building upon this DCO Relevant Representation, in due course SC intends to submit a detailed Written Representation covering the following two substantive elements: • Detailed comments regarding the assessment and acceptability of likely community safety impacts presented in the published SZC DCO application; and, • SC’s own assessment of likely community safety and policing impacts arising from SZC. Based on information provided in the SZC DCO application, an early draft has been issued to EDF in order to facilitate discussions around the preparation of a SoCG. Once finalised, this will provide a fuller understanding of community safety impacts and will support the quantification of net additional policing resource requirements. In tandem SC intends to continue working with EDF to ensure that likely community safety and policing impacts from SZC are appropriately identified, assessed and mitigated. This will include working to agree a SoCG and Strategic Relationship Protocol (SRP) between EDF and SC. Should you wish to clarify any of the matters raised above, please direct any communications in the first instance to Natalie Maletras of Stantec UK Ltd, which is providing planning and technical advice to SC in connection with the SZC DCO application. Yours sincerely, David Cutler Detective Chief Superintendent Suffolk Constabulary"

Suffolk County Council
"Please note that Suffolk County Council's Relevant Representation will be submitted separately by email to [email protected] Please see attached"

Suffolk Local Access Forum
"Local Access Forums are statutory bodies established by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to comment and advise local authorities and other decision-making organisations on access issues for outdoor recreation and sustainable travel. They also respond to consultations and draft policy documents. Since the start of consultation on a possible Sizewell C power station, the Suffolk Local Access Forum (SLAF) has had regular presentations from EDF at their meetings. We have welcomed these opportunities for dialogue and have subsequently made constructive comments to them at each phase of the consultation process. We are however concerned that although some of our comments have been taken into account, there are still outstanding issues we feel that still need to be addressed. Summary The main issues that we have been concerned about throughout the consultation process are: 1. The impact on the local and wider public rights of way network that the long construction phase will have, due to closures and diversions, and the consequential damage to the local tourism economy. 2. The impact of the suggested road schemes, and the increased traffic on the A12 on the rights of way network. 3. The need for a public access strategy during construction and a robust access legacy package to include all permissive routes and diversions to become definitive rights of way. An expanded version of our response will be forwarded to you. Please see attached"

Susan Morrice
"I believe that Site Selection is wrong because of the impact it will have on the environment and biodiversity the areas are designated as A.O.N.B and S.S.S.I The development is sited next door to internationally recognised RSPB Minsmere reserve and will impact on the wildlife of the area. I am concerned that local communities will be adversely impacted by the huge increase in road traffic, the increase in noise and dust pollution for at least ten years.The spoil heaps and borrow pits will destroy a rural landscape the surrounding areas will become industrialised. The impact of 6,000 workers on the hamlet of Eastbridge and the village of Theberton will be devastating on the local residents and the way of life of these communities. People living in the area will find it increasingly difficult to access Health care the current journey time to the nearest hospital is already between 45 minutes and an hour. Increased road traffic will mean this increases exponentially as will response times from emergency services.Should the only route the A12 a mostly single lane road be closed or grid locked then there is no way emergency services can reach the local communities. There will be an adverse impact on the tourist industry a major employer in the area and while the development does offer some employment opportunities it is doubtful if the number of new jobs will replace those lost. I am extremely concerned that if permission is given for Sizewell C to be developed prior to the successful completion by EDF of similar reactors we could find that costs continue to spiral and the development started and then abandoned. This would mean that local communities would be left with all of the negative impacts of the construction and none of the supposed benefits. I am concerned that we are leaving a legacy of nuclear waste for future generations to manage and them of the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the remote and beautiful area ."

Ashtons Legal on behalf of The Arlidge Representation
"1. We, [Redacted]. It has been in our family for some 50 years. We wish to be registered as an interested party for the Sizewell C DCO. 2. We object specifically to EDF’s proposed alignment for a bypass for Farnham and Stratford St Andrew and we support the alignment put forward by the Parish Council for a more easterly route. It has been obvious for years that these villages should have a bypass but also so should Little Glemham and Marlesford. We appreciate the need to free up homes and businesses on the existing A12 but that should not be at the expense of imposing the burden on 20 other dwellings, when there is an alternative which does much less harm to the built and natural environment and will be cheaper and easier to build. It will also better enable an extension to the south for the benefit of the other two villages, if a Four Villages Bypass really cannot be achieved now. 3. The Farnham Hall residences are part of the village too. We are located in a historic setting to the oldest building, which at least dates back to at least 1602 and is Grade II* listed. There has long been a farm estate here and we own one of the agricultural buildings which was converted to residential use. More regard should have been paid to the heritage asset by EDF. Its alignment is being brought far too close to this part of the Farnham community and EDF’s own documents demonstrate just how devastating will be the impact on our property. Indeed EDF has failed to represent properly how many dwellings will be affected by its proposed alignment. 4. To date this has been a lovely area with delightful walks. That peace will be shattered and it is highly regrettable that the footpath network so close to the village should be disrupted. We object also to the proposed large bund, which is an intrusion into the landscape. Putting in a deep cutting is highly risky for the hydrology of the area; Foxburrow Wood is a prime natural asset and should not be put at risk, and nor should Pond Wood (also ancient woodland). 5. Even for its proposed alignment, EDF’s mitigation measures are woefully inadequate. Indeed, its environmental assessment work is incomplete and was poorly done. 6. EDF has demonstrated no good rationale for not accepting the more easterly alignment, which solves many of the problems. EDF should not be allowed to proceed with its Sizewell C project without moving the Two Villages alignment. 7. The public interest is not best served by EDF’s proposed alignment. The proper planning balance is clearly in favour of the more easterly alignment. 8. We therefore object to the Sizewell C DCO but reserve the right to amend, add to and expand on our objections during the DCO process"

Trevor Brame
"I was told by one of the organisers at the recent mobile unit that no bypass or road improvements would be started for at least 2 to 3 years after the build of Sizewell C had been started. Of course if they run out or get short of money road improvements will not be given the go ahead. That means we will have lorries thundering through our part of the county for years . This was never mentioned or it was well hidden in the consultations. If this is true we have again been sold up the river. I will personally be leading a campaign to block the A12 either legally or illegally if this is true. In 1980 we were promised a bypass, and we have campaigned since it was put on the back burner. Sizewell C is needed for kinds of reasons by the welfare and health of local villages communities from traffic pollution is more important. Think again EDF"

Trevor Lockwood BSc
"I have already registered, so I suppose this is a dross-clearing exercise. The county of Suffolk has always been an unsuitable place for nuclear power. Nuclear power remains dangerous, and will take years to clean up after it has ravaged our world. It is far TOO expensive."

Vivien Mason
"3 main parts: 1. There is no evidence that a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) has been carried out. A search of SCC documents for papers to include the words Sizewell and public health draws a blank. A full HIA would address the issues of water supply, new jobs versus those lost, a loss of amenity land etc. • Local guidance: The Suffolk CC and the local Health and Well Being Board’ state that “It is helpful if the Director of Public Health is consulted on any planning applications (including at the pre-application stage) that are likely to have a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of the local population or particular groups within it”. This would allow them to work together on any necessary mitigation measures. • National guidance: Planning guidance: Paragraph: 001 Reference ID:53-001-20190722 Revision date: 22 07 201 States the following: “A health impact assessment is a useful tool to use where there are expected to be significant impacts. Public health organisations, health service organisations, commissioners, providers, and local communities can use this guidance to help them work effectively with local planning authorities to promote healthy and inclusive communities and support appropriate health infrastructure” • International guidance prepared by World Health Organisation(WHO) 2020 “HIA seeks to improve the quality of policy decisions by evaluating the likely positive and negative health impacts from proposed programs or policies, and making recommendations to improve positive health impacts and mitigate negative ones. HIA stresses the participation of public stakeholders and provides for a social model of health and well-being in which there is an explicit focus on equity, sustainability and social justice, and a commitment to openness” 2 I believe renewables will produce sufficient energy. What evidence that solar power is insufficient? During the next few years battery storage facilities will be improved with which to store both solar and wind power. In Q1 2020, global use of renewable energy in all sectors increased by about 1.5% relative to Q1 2019. Renewable electricity generation increased by almost 3%, mainly because of new wind and solar (“International Energy Agency” Global Energy Review 2020) Although not as warm as South Australia, There is an increasing demand for solar and wind powered electricity in UK. The following recent quote shows the possibilities in the next decade [Redacted] 13/09/2020 · Over the past week, the share of wind and solar in South Australia’s main grid has been high, accounting for more than 100 per cent of state demand on occasions, and 79 per cent of total production. That brought the average price for the week to just $4.37 a megawatt hour. 3. Plans suggest the direct loss of nationally important and protected land on Sizewell Belts, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The loss of this nationally rare fen habitat would be devastating, irreplaceable and in contravention of ” Wildlife and countryside act 1981 as amended” It is feared the building work will increase erosion. It will affect the water levels, hydrology generally and the clean versus dirty water ratio in Minsmere’s ditches, impacting its rare wetland wildlife. The ‘real effect is largely unknown when climate change and the speed of that change are considered."

Wade Allison
"I am an academic physicist at the University of Oxford who throughout my career has studied the subjects of energy, nuclear physics and the impact of radiation on life and society, but have never had any connection to the nuclear industry. Nuclear power, such as could be provided by Sizewell C, would be the safest and most environmentally beneficial available. The alternative powered by fossil fuel would have an unacceptable impact on the environment. The alternative powered by renewables would be highly unreliable and be environmentally destructive. Fear is very expensive. The excessive and unjustified concern about safety has made SizewellC costly, but that is no reason to not build it. Nuclear waste has never killed anyone. SizewellC will have no negative health consequences due to radiation whatever."

Alan Collett
"I fully endorse the Stop Sizewell C’s Relevant Representation and that of the Aldeburgh Town Council. For the sake of brevity, I will not restate them here but support their request that all their points be considered. My specific concerns are: Environment: It is proposed that Sizewell C be built on a formally designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and will impact on Sites of Special Scientific interest. This is wholly unacceptable – why designate these areas and then allow their destruction? These areas are our ‘Rainforests’ and should be preserved to help tackle Climate Change and their protection should override economic considerations. EDF’s failure to submit an Environmental Assessment during the public meeting stages has denied many people the opportunity to seek clarification on issues relating to the impact on the environment. Economic and Employment impact: The potential impact on the local economy is unacceptable. This development would be a betrayal of the contribution and commitment that the local community, businesses and wildlife volunteers have put into developing a sustainable tourism industry on which the region has developed its unique appeal. It will destroy the very essence of what makes East Suffolk the county it is - i.e. one of leisure, open skies and a valuable refuge for those in need of a place to find health and mental well-being. Throughout the world, the nuclear industry is in decline and to boost employment in this sector will give false hope to our young people as they find many of the skills they might acquire are not transferable to the fast growing renewables’ industry. Pollution: Sizewell C will bring extensive air, light and traffic pollution to the lives of local people and present a major risk to their health and way of life. Pollution levels will rise dramatically with the traffic congestion and construction over an unacceptably long period. Nuclear energy is erroneously described as low carbon - as well as emitting extensive pollution during construction, it relies on the high CO2 emitting mining of uranium overseas and will produce a dangerous toxic legacy which will remain buried on a crumbling coastline for future generations to resolve. The impact of these aspects has received scant consideration by EDF. Social Impact: Inadequate analyse has been carried out on the social impact that this scheme will have on local residents and services. To place so many workers in a campus in a rural environment is a recipe for unacceptable social disruption as was evident during the construction of Sizewell B. Sizewell C will have a significantly greater impact particularly on the elderly residents in the area who will be unable to adjust to the changes that this scheme will bring to the area. Insufficient consideration has been given to this aspect. Overall, the disadvantages to the region considerably outweigh the advantages. I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process given the complexities and people’s wish to express their concerns in an open forum."

Alan Goodridge
"Like many residents I am most concerned about the plans for Sizewell C. I am of course concerned about the disruption, the impact on wildlife & habitats, the marine environment and the visual impact on an area of outstanding natural beauty. The dangers of building such a site on a coast that is subject to erosion and with the unpredictable risks associated with rising sea levels also a very big concern. I know that many local residents will already have raised these issues with you and argued the case better than I can but I would like to make two particular points. 1. It seems to me that nuclear energy is a very expensive option. The price of renewables is falling and now make nuclear look much less attractive. Energy storage options are improving rapidly and and reducing in cost thus removing the main argument in favour of nuclear. I can foresee the terrible situation in which we go through all the pain of building this monstrous eyesore on our beautiful coast only to find that it is no longer economically viable and may not even be ultimately commissioned. 2. The expected operational life does not justify the years to build, decommission and store spent fuel. Sizewell is expected to be operational for at best 60 years but take 9 to 12 years to build and several years to decommission. An optimistic forecast is that the nuclear waste will remain dangerous for at least 200 years. It seems irresponsible to burden future generations with these dangers for such a long time for such a relatively short period of operation."

Anna Cockburn
"I believe that Sizewell C will be extremely damaging to the local tourist industry whilst it is being built and afterwards. There will be an unsustainable increase in traffic, light, noise and air pollution which will damage wildlife at Minsmere. A disproportionate spike in male population will mean an increase in sex work trade and crime. The site is prone to erosion over time."

Anna McCreadie
"I am writing to register my interest as a local resident in East Suffolk. I believe there to be significant concerns in selection of the site for Sizewell C which is subject to sea level rise, climate change and coastal resosion with knock on flooding risk at the site and along the further coast for coastal communitites. The economic impacts for an area depepndent on trouirsm will be significant as tourism is adversely impacted for years during construction. Air pollution will increase with teh increase in heavy goods vehicles on the roads passing close to residentail areas and through villages. This is not acceptabel when we know so much mmore on the impacts of poor air quality on health and particularly in a post pandemic period. The area around Sizewell is an AONB and supports numerous species which are being lost to this country. With other technologies fast becoming viable and preferable alternatives, the ongoing use of nuclear power is not sustainable. I beleive our coastal area is already a hub for alternative echnologies and we should be pursuing the best of the latest such as hydrogen usage rather than nuclear that leave such toxic waste. There is still no long term solution to the storage of spent fuel which will be a problem for the children of our children. I am also concerned about the wording of the Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement. I believe the representations by Suffolk Wildlife Trust, the RSPB and Stop Sizewell C to be fully valid."

Anna Virgoe
"I am extremely concerned about the environmental impact of the proposal. The beauty of the Suffolk coastline is precious. The proposal threatens landscape and wildlife. Moreover, our business depends on visitors who come to experience places such as Minsmere. These visitors come here to experience the unspoilt beauty of the area. It needs protecting against the Sizewell C proposal."

Anthony Ellam
"I am opposed to the proposed development on the following grounds: The Site: 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) that prized by residents and visitors to the area. 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, in particular through villages like Wickham Market. There will be significant increases in noise, light, air, dust pollution and disruption effecting local communities. Tourists to the area will decline to visit, severely harming the tourist 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 put pressure on local services including NHS and emergency services. The siting of worker campuses will disturb existing residents and increase local traffic. 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. Business case: Consideration must be given the economic advantages of investing in and developing wind farms and solar energy instead of nuclear energy."

B Chocolates Suffolk Ltd
"I have an interest in the Sizewell C development consent sent to the Planning Inspectorate. I am a local business that will be directly and adversely impacted by the proposed development. These are the issues of concern to my business: Environmental impacts to an AONB which has nationally significant nature and wildlife reserves directly in the vicinity of the development. Health impacts - we have a higher incidence of respiratory disease in the region and the increased leveles of particulates from road congestion and high volumes of heavy goods vehicles will have an advers impact on respiratory health. Economic impacts - local studies and lessons from Dorset indicate a significant downturn in tourism during construction. it is clear that when a large part of the coastal area that draws vistors is subject to road disruption, congestion, noise and buiding dust pollution, people are not attracted to it as a holiday destination. My business is significantly relliant on visitor sales. Clean technology - nuclear reactors provide technology that is in decline and presents us with appalling problems (as yet not solved) of nuclear waste. When we are in a climate emergency, we cannot continue to behave as if nuclear is a viable option. Other technologies have come on fast and provide for a green economic bounce that is more sustainable."

Belinda Ann 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."

Bungay Town Council
"Concerns have been expressed by Bungay Town Council regarding increased traffic through this Town & the detrimental effects on the Environment Planning Act 2008: Receipt of Representation Thank you for submitting your Representation on the application for development consent by NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited for The Sizewell C Project. [Redacted]"

Carole Taylor
"- The site for which this development is proposed is entirely unsuitable: too small for the size of 2 reactors planned; disastrous effect on neighbouring sites of ecological importance RSPB Minsmere has long been a site of international importance; The development will cause irreparable harm to the wild life; the necessity for millions of litres of potable water has not been sufficiently considered as to the effect on the local environment; no consideration has been shown of potential coastal flooding. - As far as we can see no consideration has been made for the legacy this development will leave. More dangerous nuclear waste buried for hundreds of years on top of that already sitting in adjacent sites. - The admission of over 900 lorries per day will cause untold damage on local communities along the A12 which is already unfit for its present purpose. New proposed roads will divide communities and farmland and cause a high level of light, noise, air pollution. These disruptions have not been thought through by the Applicant. - Tourism will be severely effected thus losing the economy of the area millions of pounds and hundreds of jobs. (Even EDF admits to the harm it will do). - Local community will be severely effected by the housing of over 2000 workers in one campus, causing unsociable behaviour, excess traffic, light and noise pollution."

Charles Manby
"I believe Sizewell C is the wrong project in the wrong place. The site is vulnerable to climate change, sea level rises. It is also an ecologically important location. While it may have made sense to locate nuclear plants in such places originally, now it could become a flooded island of nuclear reactors and waste. There also seems to be power projects everywhere locally with no coordination. The technology is unproven and there is no working example in the world. There is a real risk of irreparable damage to Minsmere, a place which brings pleasure to thousands, is sustainable as a tourist attraction, a Special Protection Area and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The so called local benefits in terms of employment are not credible. Temporary jobs will be imported and destroy long term sustainable jobs in tourism, food and agriculture. Enormous negative impacts in traffic, noise, light pollution and disruption. Quite clearly a big negative overall. There will be pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector, and all local people will get will be lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in “Site Support” as EDF says The decision not to be able to build from the sea means road based transport plan will have enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic. Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed by EDF. It's a smash, grab and leave strategy by EDF. 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."

Christopher Wilson
"I wish to register as an interested party regarding the Sizewell C (SZC) DCO examination. For the following reasons, I ask that PINS recommend to the Secretary of State that the application be refused:- The site:- - is too small to safely house twin operational EPR reactors and its attendant infrastructure and waste storage - is vulnerable to rising sea levels, increased storm surges and more extreme weather events during the 150 years of operation/storage/decommissioning and EDF have not demonstrated the site can be protected - is in the heart of Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB (which will be cut in two by the new link and access roads), adjacent to and close to numerous areas which form part of a mosaic of wildlife-rich habitats that have evolved over millennia- EDF’s proposals will fragment and degrade this valuable network causing cumulative net biodiversity loss- the precautionary principle needs to be applied - including the Sizewell B (SZB) relocation works, there will be 12-14 years of 24 hour per day noise, light, dust, vibration, air pollution (directly conflicting with the tranquillity attribute supporting the AONB’s designation) putting the health of Suffolk’s environment and people at risk, not just over the 900 acre development site but throughout the network of Suffolk roads leading to the A12/site and at the locations of the supporting infrastructure such as park and rides/freight management areas - hard sea defences will negatively impact coastal areas north and south of SZC - construction will be too great a hazard for the operation and staff of SZB - needs an access road over the SSSI causing unacceptable loss of habitat and risk of pollutants and water negatively impacting flora and fauna dependent on certain groundwater conditions - SZC’s buildings and pylons, being built on a raised platform, will have a hugely negative impact on the visual appearance of the AONB for miles around, directly conflicting with the landscape value attribute justifying the AONB’s designation - no realistic visualisations of construction activities in the DCO - DCO understates impact of the Beach Landing Facility on environment and coastal processes Other Concerns - unacceptable impact(including cumulative with SZB) of cooling intake pipes on marine life and wildlife that rely on them for food - unsustainable use of fresh and potable water - economic and employment benefits overstated and impact on existing businesses understated - carbon claims overstated- earliest that SZC could possibly help to contribute to carbon targets is 2040, totally undermining any claim for ‘urgent need’ to justify build - no calculation of full cradle to cradle carbon footprint lifecycle provided - road led construction strategy is unsustainable and totally unacceptable for residents and businesses impacted- existing rural roads unsuitable so any new infrastructure needed pre commencement of development - no statutory basis for build as EN6 not applicable as SZC not deployable by 2025 - intolerable burden of 6,000 workers on the health and lives of local communities - loss of access to footpaths, bridleways and cycle routes - no amount of mitigation or financial contributions could adequately compensate for the landscape and ecological damage SZC will inflict"

Clare Rizzo
"I am completely opposed to the Sizewell c proposal on innumerable accounts. It is innapropriate to place a nuclear power station here, with coastal erosion and predicted to be an island within 100 years while there is still highly toxic material on site. Not something I am willing to put on my children /their children etc.The thousands of fish killed daily in the cooling system and the use of increasingly scarce drinking water which will be scarce already for farming and domestic in the future with global warming. The large scale industrialisation of Suffolk. Roads cutting communities in half and threatening wildlife in the AONB. The huge negative impact on Minsmere and Sizewell Belts-these cannot be mitigated against.Although we live near Woodbridge we like many others spend a huge amount of time in this area, also educating our children to care for wildlife in this highly respected, Worldwide, reserve and area.The resulting impact on tourism ,as a wildlife artist this affects me personally on both accounts.The huge increase in traffic. Funding this expensive white elephant ad infinitum while the renewable energy revolution is already here. Thats all without the cost of clear up of nuclear waste longterm (To where) and the always present threat of nuclear accident -doesn’t bear thinking about with this colossal amount of nuclear material. Not wanted, not needed."

Councillor Alexander Nicoll
"I am the County Councillor for the Wickham Division in Suffolk. There are six civil parishes within the Division. On behalf of myself and having sought to understand how Sizewell C would impact on local residents, businesses and visitors I object to the proposed development for the following main reasons: A) Sizewell C site to be served for ten+ years primarily by HGVs travelling on Suffolk's roads with resultant congestion, potential reduction in access and mobility for other road users and significant increase in carbon emissions as bulk of HGVs, and other supply chain vehicles, will be diesel fuelled. B) failure to plan for greater use of East Suffolk Line, suitably upgraded, for movement of construction materials by day to leave less to be moved by road. C) landscaping of the proposed Southern Park & Ride site including a reduced bunding from previous indicative plans coupled with incomplete details for lighting and impact on existing landscape features including significant oak and whin belt woodland. D) failure of proposals to include required mitigation works on the A12 with a focus on the stretch from Martlesham to north of Wickham Market and despite problems being set out in detail by Suffolk County Council as Highways Authority during previous rounds of public consultation undertaken by the applicant."

Dr Kate Thompson
"I am concerned to raise the following issues about the Sizewell C application for planning: 1. The power station is planned for a site that is at risk of rises of sea level and flooding (especially with the ongoing impact of climate change) so is the wrong site to choose. I am also aware that the site is not of the recommended size for a reactor of this type. 2. This is an area of Britain with a unique ecology, home to rare species of birds and plants in need of conservation. The use of this site puts these things at risk, particularly in terms of the conservation of marsh harriers. During the build there will be disruption and dust causing damage that EDF have not adequately accounted for, as well as an impact on the minsmere sluice that could be unpredictable and environmentally taxing. The construction requires 3 million litres of potable water and it is unclear from where this will be found. So far, the enviromental impact assessment provided by EDF is sketchy and provides no grounds for reassurance on these issues . 3. A number of other projects (Scottish Power, National Grid) are also being planned and there is no coordination between them to minimise environmental impact (e.g. coordinating transport) and quality of life for local residents. 4. The environment of this special areas will be under severe strain from traffic, pollution and a significant inflow of people and goods - 6000 workers coming into the area and 2400 living on worker campuses - Eastbridge will be unrecognisable. The proposals do not make fully clear how this is going to be accommodated, and planning for extra roads will not start until some years after the impact is already being felt. This will be really diffiuclt for local residents. 5. The situation with regard to transport is a particular problem - the numbers of HGVs that are planned are going to be the same as those that were mooted for the Road-Led proposals EDF proposed early in the process and which were rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. The new roads they have propoesd will not be built for 2-3 years making it impossible to move around for local residents, but the new roads also drive through an area of significant natural beauty, carving out the area around Pretty Road, a country lane that I have loved since childhood. EDF does not seem interested in designing a better road proposal, perhaps with roads that would have a legacy value for local residents after construction, and be less destructive to areas of natural beauty. 6. Perhaps most ironically, a project that has attempted to push forward using the argument that it is less environmentally damaging, has been shown to require at least 6 years (perhaps longer) before the gains to CO2 emissions it creates will offset the additional CO2 from its construction - a truly questionable degree of benefit. 7. The costs associated with construction are also unclear - I have learned today that the sister project - Hinkley Point - is now the most expensive object on planet earth. Again given all the areas of uncertaintly above, should these costings be examined in light of the potential for ballooning costs. 8. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by the organisation: Stop Sizewell C. I would also like to endorse those organisations who are raising additional enviromental concerns given the importance of preserving coastal ecosystems and recognising the fragility of our planet more generally. 9. Finally, I wish to state that the Sizewell C application is too complex and multifaceted to be considered in a digital examination process. This is the planning process that would benefit from detailed consideration in a live hearing."

E Burrows
"I believe this project does great harm to the Suffolk Coast, the wildlife in the area and the wellbeing and safety of generations to come. It is foreign built and owned which could represent a threat to future national security. Similar projects have been over budget and out of date before completion. Nuclear waste is a threat for generations Rising sea levels and environmental change impacts are not addressed Any jobs generated by construction will be confined to the life of the build It will be to the detriment of those living nearby without any long or short term benefits"

East Suffolk Liberal Democrat Party
"East Suffolk Liberal Democrats wish to register our interest in the Sizewell C Project. We are greatly concerned that the construction of a new power station at Sizewell: will cause significant environmental, economic and social damage to the East Suffolk area and consequently to the wellbeing and livelihoods of its residents. Specifically, the construction: will be the cause of a very significant increase of HGV, bus, LGV and car traffic on single carriageway A and B roads in the East Suffolk area to the detriment of communities and residents - the traffic will cause pollution, congestion and present a very real threat to road safety; these traffic impacts will also ripple across the main roads in the region. The Link road and the 2-village bypass will not alleviate the congestion, pollution and road safety concerns. proposes only limited use of rail and sea transport; but even so, the bulk of the rail transport will be at night and so cause disturbance for residents notably in Woodbridge, Melton, Saxmundham and Leiston will cause extensive noisy, dusty and unsightly development in an area where a large part of the economy is dependent on tourism attracted by the beautiful coastal environment which includes the Minsmere RSPB nature reserve, Sites of Scientific Interest and which is a designated Area of Natural Beauty will take place on an eroding coastline which is threatened by sea-level rises will bring thousands of workers to an area which already experiences pressures on housing, blue-light services, health services and recreational facilities; it plans to accommodate 2,400 of them in a campus completely out of keeping, in size and form with the local area. will not generate the stated local economic benefits as most of the workers are expected to be employed from outside of the area; and the employment and income generated will not compensate for the loss of tourism as a result of the construction. Moreover, EDF has reduced its planned local apprenticeship and worker opportunities will not leave legacy benefits: it will not leave significant rail network improvements, will not leave any legacy affordable housing, will not leave improved car parking at Darsham, and possibly will not leave the Link road. We are greatly concerned that the power station itself will prove to be a very costly white elephant: the agreed price/KWhr is significantly more expensive that the current cost of renewable power generation and by the time the power station is completed the price difference will greater still the national debate on energy has also moved on significantly since the project was first announced; given renewable electricity generation trends it is questionable whether there will be a need for the comparatively very expensive electricity that Sizewell C is planned to eventually generate. More broadly we are concerned that: thorough scrutiny of the impacts has proved difficult throughout EDF’s consultations due to a lack of detailed information; this remains the case. the proposed construction is in parallel to a series of other energy projects which require significant infrastructure in the area (Scottish Power’s EA1N & EA2). The planning process must consider the detail and implications of each of the projects together to understand the cumulative impact that this extensive construction will have on the area."

Hacheston Parish Council
"SIZEWELL C: Application for Development Consent Order Relevant Representation: Hacheston Parish Council (HPC) 1. Introduction Hacheston is a small village 14 miles from the site of Sizewell C. The Southern Park and Ride facility, (SP&R) will be sited within the parish on elevated ground close to the A12. Whilst HPC accepts that park and ride facilities reduce the number of workforce vehicles on local roads, we are opposed to the proposed location. The visual impact of the site and the noise and air pollution will have an adverse impact on the lives of local residents and light pollution is likely to have a serious detrimental impact on the dark skies of the surrounding area. The combined impact of over one thousand vehicles 7 days a week on local roads plus a large increase in HGVs on the A12 will seriously affect the daily lives of Hacheston residents for 12 to 15 years. 2 Southern Park and Ride 2.1 Location The Southern Park and Ride should be situated further south on the A12 at Martlesham where an under-used P&R exists. On the basis that 1 bus can replace up to 50 private cars, this location could remove hundreds of cars from the busiest section of the A12 around Woodbridge. 2.2 Visual and Environmental Impact The proposed site for the SP&R is inappropriate. It is a rural setting, a special landscape between 2 protected river valleys. The SP&R will be an industrial development of 26.4 hectares of parking, service buildings and dense lighting. The site is elevated and it will be visible from many local properties in the area. We believe that the ecological and environmental mitigation measures proposed are inadequate, for example the bunding around the site has been reduced from that proposed at Stage 4. 2.3 Light Pollution The facility will operate 20 hours in 24 and at night, with lighting columns 6 metres high on site and 10 metres high on the access roads, light spill and loom will considerably detract from the valued dark skies of the area. 2.4 Noise Levels Despite the conclusions reached in the DCO application, HPC does not accept that noise will have negligible impact on the neighbourhood during the construction of the SP&R. 2.5 SP&R Traffic The operation of the SP&R site will generate 1,784 vehicle movements in the day in addition to 900 at night. Workforce traffic in the village will have a serious impact on the lives of Hacheston residents. 3 Traffic Impact 3.1 Re-routing Up to 1000 HGVs a day carrying materials to the construction site will cause serious congestion on the A12. Drivers seeking alternative routes will re-route along unsuitable narrow lanes in the district and will be tempted to speed along the B1116 through the village. 3.2 Fiveways Roundabout Fiveways roundabout links the B1078 and B1116 with the A12 and Hacheston residents use it for most of their journeys. All the SP&R traffic including buses and the light goods vehicle associated with the postal consolidation facility will use the roundabout. The junctions and slip roads onto the A12 are inadequate and provision for walkers and cyclists non existent. Without comprehensive mitigation measures the roundabout will be the site of dangerous congestion and delay. 3.3 Traffic in Wickham Market Traffic using the B1078 to access the SP&R will cause serious congestion in Wickham Market and no realistic mitigation measures have been proposed. With its shops and medical centre the village is an important service centre for Hacheston residents. 4 Other areas of concern 4.1 Quality of life HPC is concerned that SZC power station will irreversibly damage the coastline and landscape and have profound impacts on the wildlife, beauty and tranquility of East Suffolk which residents cherish. 4.2 Sustainability HPC has consistently advocated the use of sea and rail for the transport of heavy construction materials and we are not convinced that the transport strategy has been exhaustively researched or is accurately presented in the DCO application. A larger proportion of construction materials can be carried by rail and improvements to the East Suffolk line will remain a valuable legacy for the community for years to come."

Hasketon Parish Council
"Hasketon Parish Council wishes to be registered as an interested party and presents the following representation: - Hasketon is a rural parish 2 miles to the eastern side of the A12 at Woodbridge. It sits roughly halfway between the proposed Seven Hills Freight Management Facility and the proposed Wickham Market park and ride. The DCO does not appear to fully consider the impact of the increased traffic movements in the local area and in particular the affect on the Parish of Hasketon. Specific concerns are as follows: - 1 Increased traffic flows within Hasketon Parish (especially B1079) resulting from main road closures i.e. Orwell Bridge (A14), A12 (Woodbridge By Pass), and use of 'short cuts', particularly the park and ride site at Wkm Mkt, to avoid resulting delays. 2. The narrow and single-track roads within Hasketon Parish and the unsuitability to cope with heavy traffic flows and commercial traffic i.e. HGVs etc. 3. The increased traffic flows on the A12 resulting in: - i) Difficulty with access to and from the village at the A12 / B1079 junction ii) Difficulty with access to and from the village at the A12 / Manor road junction iii) An increased risk posed to school children crossing the A12 to access schools in Woodbridge due to the increased traffic volumes. iv) Increased noise pollution v) Increased air pollution 4. Light pollution from the Wickham Market park and ride and the Seven Hills Freight Management facility. 6. Knock on effects of congestion in the Woods lane, Melton and Wilford Bridge, Melton area, due to increased volume of traffic in this area. Access to and from the A12 is already difficult at times with regular tailbacks in both directions. The two-way section between Seckford Hall road junction and B1079 junction already creates a bottleneck with a knock-on effect for access to and from Hasketon. Further bottlenecks at Melton, i.e. Woods Lane, traffic lights and a rail crossing, also impact on Hasketon residents accessing employment (Bentwaters et al), social and leisure facilities. A12 delays already exacerbate this problem. This area is already subject to regular traffic congestion and delays throughout the day. Delays and road closures on the main roads increases traffic pressure on the B1079 causing people to seek shortcuts to the proposed Wickham Market park and ride via the junction between the B1079 and B1078 would further impact on access for villagers to and from the B1079. The East Suffolk Council has declared a climate emergency. Any increase in air, noise or light pollution is unacceptable in view of this. The Parish Council considers significant improvements to traffic signage on B1079 and the A12 is required to address the identified traffic issues for Hasketon. A pedestrian footbridge over the A12 in place of the existing pedestrian crossing at Hasketon road would eliminate the risk to pedestrians and facilitate traffic flows. Dualling of the A12 between Seckford Hall road junction and B1079 junction is necessary to reduce traffic delays on the Martlesham bypass and the further knock-on impact of traffic on Martlesham Heath."

Henry Thoresby
"I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by RSPB and Stop Sizewell C but add below some of my own. 1. Tourism. East Suffolk is an important National Resource for visitors, especially those interested in natural history, now that foreign travel is so difficult. 2. Noise Pollution. The effect of noise on health and well being cannot be overstated and it can become a problem for home workers. 3. Energy mix. It is important that alternative energy sources such as Hydrogen are fully evaluated as to the contribution they could make to the Mix. 4. Suitability of a digital examination to the consideration of such complex issues."

Hilary Hill
"I wish to raise my concerns re Sizewell C: On a constantly eroding coastline, defences for Sizewell C will alter coastal processes elsewhere with subsequent increased flood risk. There will be adverse affect to internationally important wildlife habitats especially at Minsmere. Any impact on the Marsh Harriers in the area threatens the integrity of the Special Protection Area The current transport plan not sustainable. The impact on a rural landscape is immense. The A12 already has pinch points with severe congestion at times causing traffic to using minor roads which are totally unsuitable for high volumes of traffic. The HGV numbers are as high as those under proposals already rejected by all statutory consultees."

Isla Campbell
"I might be only 18 years old but hearing about these future plan of Sizewell C project is not only extremely distressing for me but for many others. The negatives will overpower the positives in this project and it’s very worrying that our government and major companies are unable to see it. We have come to a point in time where our planet is being destroyed but climate change and Sizewell C will only make it worse, an irreversible change. Think of the nature, our countries beautiful landscape, the animals that inhabit the area... all will be killed by Sizewell C. We can’t afford to build something so risky, so capable of destruction in an area so beautiful and rich of life. There are so many other, nature friendly, cost effective options for energy sources. Think of the locals of the area, the pollution and everyday life they will have to endure. It’s a selfish and dangerous idea building Sizewell C, stop thinking about money and think of the people, their best interests, their lives. We shouldn’t be thinking of ways to destroy our country’s beautiful countryside, we should be thinking of how to preserve it, to look after it. We are already killing our earth, don’t be part of the problem, help us in bringing back the nature and the life. Sizewell C will do nothing but destroy and it will be too late."

Jannette Brenchley
"Size well C should not go ahead 1 Unacceptable impact on local communities. Traffic increase in noise. 2. 6000 workers will come and live in the area. Which can increase crime. 3. Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. 4. Negative impacts from traffic and pollution 5. It will put pressure on health and social emergency services 6. Irreparable harm to the beautiful Mimsmere 7 catastrophic impact on landscape and to wildlife 8 it will impact on marine ecology Need I say anymore"

Jean Hatt
"How can we the UK be horrified at global destruction of the planet by others when we ourselves are going to tear down forests, destroy sensative marsh habitat, AONB land, RSPB bird life (harriers, avocet, stone curlew, SSSI areas all for a power station that is not needed in the blind persute of an energy policy that was construed 12 years ago when wind and solar was 4 times the price it is now!!! For us in East Suffolk who enjoy the biodiversity of heath ,moorland, beach and sea this build is an ecological and environmental disaster and damned dangerous on an eroding coast which has killed one person in a cliff collapse a mile south of Sizewell. Flooding is inevitable and cannot be mittigated against. The madness of a road led strategy will lead to horrific traffic jams as 1000+ lorries a day choke our roads. Suffolk and Norfolk have no major motorways and the A12 and A14 are single track roads in many places. Air and noise pollution is inevitable. The bypass at Farnham and at Theberton will be built at the same time as construction of SZ C&D so for 3 years or more build traffic will be using "B" roads such as the B1122. The reported problem of extensive fish and marine invertibrate kill on the filter screens as the cooling pipe sucks in millions of liters of sea water a minute has been solved. The solution as was found at Hinkley as a variety of deterrances were proffered and rejected was do nothing! Let them be killed and get a tame NGO write a report that it did not matter it has no effect. The effects to the local populace as we have seen at Hinkley has been devastating. Bridgewater is gridlocked, thousands of contractors bussed in from there, with covid is rife. Mental health is now an increasing problem so much so that the government is giving the Bridgewater council extra millions to help. EDF consultation during lockdown. A shambles. 56000 pages of generalities Nothing specific as stated on their thousands of plans. Experts in planning, engineering, rail, road who have been engaged by local pressure groups all say the same nothing specific we can work on with numbers unverified or unexplained. The amount of carbon emissions during and after the build. Lifetime emissions of a power station must include build, running including shutdowns, waste disposal, decommissioning. EDF Stats on this "lower then wind or solar" but they will not show them. NDA says disposal is solved????. The storage sheds are increasing at Sizewell and must be there for 100years before waste can be moved from C&D sheds. This build is in the wrong place and as a resident I urge you to take action and reject this application. yours Jean Hatt"

Jen Coates
"I believe this project will have a massively detrimental affect on both human and environmental issues in an area of the UK which is both beautiful, with a vibrant tourist economy, but also irreplaceable natural sites, such as Minsmere adjacent. This development would sever the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, never to be restored. It would be impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage. Social impact will be enormous: A vast increase in traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, the Worker campus is in a location that I and many others oppose for social and environmental reasons. The RSPB reserve will be significantly impacted and this area of coast is important ecologically and for tourism. This coast is already subject to significant erosion and the threat of climate change, sea level rise and flooding is of great concern to me. Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. Villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic and new roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. 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. Please reconsider this irreversible damage to our wildlife, ecology and environment Jen Coates 26/9/2020"

Jennifer Blackbourn
"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"

John M Filmer
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about EDF’s proposals for Sizewell C: Is EDF’s proposal for Sizewell C the right option? No! ? Wrong technology: o Proposed Nuclear Reactor already outdated? o Renewable Energy from other technologies cheaper and greener. o Hydrogen powered vehicle development (opposed to battery powered) would reduce the demand for electricity. (There is now a large consensus of expert opinion that battery powered vehicles are not deliverable on world-wide, or even UK-wide, scale required to replace fossil fuel.) ? Wrong place: o Located on a Suffolk coastline threatened by erosion. o Surrounded by a designated AONB, including RSBP Minsmere. o Inadequate transport links (proved by EDF’s transport strategy). o Construction will severely damage local tourism industry. ? Wrong company: o No history to support any belief EDF can deliver – all projects of this type and technology are massively overbudget and/or massively late. The EDF proposal: ? Public consultations: o Have EDF satisfactorily addressed all of the concerns raised? Or even most of them? No. ? EDF’s Pledges: o Many are not credible or deliverable. EDF MUST become criminally and financially responsible to deliver fully on all of their pledges throughout the lifespan of Sizewell C. o Pledge 2, local employment – laudable intent, but the numbers do not make sense. At best, numbers are stated out of context. ? Transport Strategy – poor and constantly changing: o Pledge 4 – Transport - EDF claim “at least 40% of construction materials by rail and sea” – so up to 60% of many 100000s tonnes of materials will be delivered by road. A solution for EDF’s shareholders, but not for Suffolk. o New Link Road - disaster for local residents, destroying/bisecting large areas of farmland. Significant amount of commercial/HGV traffic already using the B1122 feeding the industrial estates in Leiston – improve this road, compensate/relocate impacted resident – cheaper, much better for the environment. Insist EDF document the cost and full environmental impact of the link road solution. o The A12 – Stratford St Andrew/Farnham bypass -EDF imply (inaccurately) they are funding this. The proposed bypass is another environmental disaster. Improve existing road, relocate/compensate residents. o The A12 – other areas - what about Little Glemham, Woodbridge, Martlesham? These places will not cope with EDF’s road-based transport strategy, yet no improvements are being considered. Severe impact on all of east Suffolk, blighting residents and tourism. ? Environment o “There will a net gain in land for wildlife created from the project” – no. EDF are simply recategorizing farmland to suit their sales pitch. Does this claim allow for farmland destroyed by link roads and bypasses? o “The carbon emissions during construction will be offset within 6-8 months of Sizewell’s operation (assuming it replaces a gas plant)” – this claim needs to be supported by facts and figures, it’s meaningless as written. I fully endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Judith Condon
"I believe that the proposed further development of Sizewell is on a scale and of a nature that will cause incalculable and irreparable damage to the local environment both in the medium and long term; in particular to Minsmere and to sensitive coastal and inland sites of ecological importance. The issue of climate change and potential inundation from the sea has been inadequately addressed. This is an out-dated and wrongly-sited project that will disrupt and harm local communities, both in its construction and operational phases. The dangers to public health arising from siting a large construction camp in this rural area; and from the transportation of massive plant, machinery and materials have been given insufficient weight in costing the project; likewise the cost to future generations of storing waste. I am the author of the book "Chernobyl and Other Nuclear Accidents" published by Wayland Books which considers the falsehoods and disregard of environmental risk that have characterised the nuclear industry from its inception, whether at Three Mile Island, or Windscale, or in the Soviet Union. I am a member of the RSPB. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by the campaign group Stop Sizewell C."

Kenneth Parry Brown
"SIZEWELL C I accept that the decision on whether or not the power station is built will be made by the Government, however, assuming that the decision is made to build the station, I am mindful of the likely effects upon the village where I live and in the neighbouring area. I foresee that the major impact will be pollution by traffic, both of noxious exhaust fumes, vibration and noise and make the following comments: 1. Infrastructure works The plans submitted note the effects on properties of the construction of works such as the roundabout at Yoxford, but then ignore the on-going consequences. 2. HGVs I note that there will be a Delivery Management System (DMS) controlling all vehicles over 1.5 tons unladen weight. There needs to be a strict and enforced ban on HGVs use the A1120 both going to and returning from the development site. In addition there should be a ban on non-essential LGV traffic using A1120. The DMS will monitor HGVs travelling to the site but the proposal fails to indicate similar strict controls on vehicles leaving it. There should be an installation of an ANPR camera in Peasenhall linked into the DMS to back up contractual controls. 3. Workforce Accommodation and Travel The proposal indicates that there will be required 5,500 workers not in campus accommodation plus another 600 associated personnel living at home. The Gravity model used to assess the likely location of the their accommodation is flawed. The model indicates travel of up to 90 minutes travel to site (including 30 minutes from arrival at a Park and Ride facility to start on site). The model indicates travel from north of Norwich and South of Colchester. It almost totally omits the instance of travel from the west: 6 workers may live in Earl Soham. Use of Route Planners would indicate that places such as Bury St Edmunds to the west and Stradbroke to the north-west are all within the time parameter and the planner indicates that the shortest route from these places is via A1120. Many of the construction workers will choose to live in such places as Stonham Barns, just as those employed by BT and its contractors have been doing for some time. The traffic analysis in the proposal documents indicates an extra 250 movements per day on A1120 including white van traffic. The assumption is therefore that must be that there will be almost no worker traffic – I believe that this is wrong and that there will be much more use of A1120. 4. Shift Hours It appears that the shift times proposed will mean worker traffic through the village both early in the morning (from 5.00am) and late at night (after midnight), increase during daylight hours is of lesser interest as the increase will not be too significant. The village of Peasenhall is strung along the A1120 with many houses opening on to the road without front gardens. Measures are needed to stop noise pollution, such as sound insulation grants. I also suggest that a Speed camera be installed."

Lynne Fish
"Planning any building on a site that is threatened by flooding is inappropriate but to plan a nuclear reactor there is totally irresponsible. Global warming means that this site may suffer up to 3 metres of flooding if current predictions prove correct. Nuclear power is neither clean (waste needs to be stored for centuries) nor economic so why is it even being considered?"

Marie-Anne Mackenzie
"I jointly share my partner's views which have already been submitted. I am therefore posting a similar registration as outlined below: 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."

Mary Shipman
"East Suffolk already has two nuclear power stations at Sizewell both within the AONB. Although Sizewell A is no longer generating electricity, its physical presence will be apparent until the end of the 21st century. Sizewell B is planned to generate electricity for another 15 years after which will follow another lengthy decommissioning programme lasting well into the next century. The current proposals for Sizewell C involve the construction of two further nuclear reactors along this Heritage Coast and in the AONB. creating a graveyard of dangerous structures and radioactive waste for two centuries. The beautiful Suffolk Coast is already being threatened by numerous other energy projects resulting in the building of enormous electricity sub-stations within a valued landscape, where tourism is very important to the local economy. The huge influx of thousands of workers for Sizewell C will overwhelm local facilities and impact negatively on those who live here. In addition the A12 and local road networks simply cannot handle the vast increase in traffic generated by the construction process. The local area has many valued wildlife sites, including the world-renowned RSPB Minsmere, who will find Sizewell C its neighbour. In this age of climate change and the loss of valued species, it is essential that wildlife is given a priority over man's greed."

Michael Laschet
"My Concerns about Sizewell C nuclear power station Longterm storage of waste on site * highly toxic radioactive waste kept so close to local people is unacceptable * a dangerous legacy for future generations * no progress made in storage and disposal of waste safely in the long term Negative impact on the local community * a campus for 2400 workers close to small villages is unacceptable * increased traffic will cause significant noise, pollution and disruption * tourism could lose up to 40 million pounds a year as visitors will be deterred * threats of drugs and prostitution with 6000 workers in the area Damage to the environment * threats to Sizewell Marshes SSSI status due to interventions affecting water levels * loss of rare invertebrates there too * the legally protected AONB will be divided into two by new roads disrupting the movements of bats and other creatures * scarce flora and fauna on the shingle beaches will be destroyed by the beach landing facility * the cooling system will adversely impact marine life * Minsmere Nature Reserve will be seriously disrupted by the proximity of Sizewell C power station * Aldhurst Farm is an unsatisfactory mitigation for delicate habitats that have evolved over thousands of years The poor track record of EPRs * Paul Dorfman argues EPRs are too complex to build to time and budget * the EPRs in Finland and France are not working efficiently or not at all * there are safety issues with the quality of welding in the high pressure boilers * a major fault in the design of one reactor will call into question all the others Sizewell C is the wrong project in the wrong place in my opinion"

Mick Hart
"I object to the Sizewell C Project progressing further for the following reasons: 1. It is morally unsustainable to condemn planet Earth to the long term hazard and legacy of this Project. 2. Large nuclear plant building in the UK should be scrapped before further generational issues are incurred. A moratorium on all nuclear plant building should be imposed. 3. It is incumbent upon government and regulators to pursue the future of SMR (Small Modular Reactor) generation as a matter of urgency to mitigate against the danger of large plants. 4. This Project is riven with negative externalities and ecologically unsupportable on account of the thermo-dynamic inefficiency of build materials (e.g. concrete), the unsustainable resources of nuclear fuel to power the plant, and the integrity of nuclear waste facilities to support this Project and the industry as a whole over time. 5. The Project is a disproportionate security risk in a volatile and uncertain political world. 6. The Project will be economically unsustainable due to escalation of costs involved, and this in a time of national and global uncertainty, unprecedented economic recession, and inevitable long term transition. 7. The Project is technologically unnecessary in light of less hazardous/more sustainable renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, tidal and hydrogen cell generation. 8. The Project does not offer substantial long term employment prospects in the region in the numbers that other generation methods do. 9. It is undesirable and damaging to the locality, the community, the social well-being and the natural environment of East Suffolk. 10. Stop this Project Mick Hart"

Miss Helen Lesley Taylor
"These are my concerns about Sizewell C: Site suitability • Development too large. Two new reactors will double the size of the existing nuclear site. • Coastal location presents flooding risk. Impacts on the whole Suffolk coastline are unknown. • Site adjacent to RSPB Minsmere, Sizewell Belts Nature Reserve, Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB. • Eight other energy projects already planned for the East Anglian coast, all will impact Suffolk. No apparent national energy production strategy.. Community, economic and social impacts • Negative impact from increased traffic, light pollution and disruption to residents. • Impact of 6,000 extra workers in a rural area. • Loss of tourism and impact on local businesses and employment. • Demand for private rented housing and effect on local people seeking accommodation. • Loss to local businesses from delays caused by traffic congestion. Loss of employees to Sizewell employment opportunities. • Extra demand on Suffolk’s Health, emergency and social services will impact all residents, in particular vulnerable local people. Transport • Road based transport plan proposed produces extra 1,000 HGV’s per day at peak of construction. Negative impact from noise, vibration and poor air quality. • A12 between Ipswich and Lowestoft has several existing congestion points. Housing development built or planned in Melton, Wickham Market, Saxmundham, Framlingham and Leiston will impact A12. Additional HGV traffic from Scottish Power’s Wind Farm construction in Friston using A12. • Impact on B1078 – already an unofficial “North Ipswich relief road” and route for traffic travelling from West to East. Traffic passing through Wickham Market on B1078, narrow streets and pavements, parked cars, HGV’s and busses unable to pass due to narrow roads in village. • Traffic generated to and from Southern Park and Ride to local shops in Wickham Market will use High Street, narrow streets and pavements, parked cars, existing pinch points, bus route, congestion. • Light, noise and visual impact on residents due to size and activity levels at Southern Park and Ride. Few design mitigation ideas suggested locally have been adopted by EDF. • Scant detail from EDF on traffic management and mitigation for Wickham Market. • Concern that vans and cars will not use EDF “preferred route” of A14/A12 to reach site and will be using B1078 and other minor roads. How will EDF prevent this happening? • Potential for more vehicles using “rat runs” to avoid congestion and delay. Environmental • Damage to nationally important neighbouring RSPB Minsmere Reserve. • Destruction of SSSI land within Sizewell Belts Nature Reserve by construction of site access road. Impact on wildlife, particularly bats. • Effect on Sizewell Belts water levels. • Loss of public footpaths and local access areas. • Additional pylons should be undergrounded. • Impossible to compensate for loss of landscape and ecological damage in this exceptional area. I support the relevant representations made by Stop Sizewell C, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and Wickham Market Parish Council. The size and impact of this development means a full examination hearing is essential."

MR Peter E Cogar
"The proposals for rail infrastructure to accommodate up to 3 freight trains a day in each direction do not include any infrastructure changes on the Ipswich to Lowestoft line. One of the trains is planned to run during the daytime and consequently prevents the provision of a regular hourly passenger train timetable. My representation advocates some relatively minor changes to the signalling at Saxmundham, and the introduction of an intermediate signalling block section near Wickham Market for which passive provision was made at the time of resignalling in 2012. In addition, consideration should be given for some line speed improvements for freight trains where feasible. These measures should enable the timetable to accommodate an additional daytime freight train path without severely impacting on the passenger train timetable. For reasons of pedestrian safety at Darsham, my representation will also advocate the provision of direct footpath access between the southbound platform and the park and ride layout. Also, the retention of a small part of the layout for use as a permanent station car park when its park & ride use is finished."

Mrs Catherine Palmer
"Consultation: Having followed the Sizewell C consultation from the start, many issues had not been addressed adequately or at all when the DCO was submitted. The Inspectorate has accepted the consultation process as being satisfactory. I have issues with the consultation regarding the interpretation that the developer has put on some responses in terms of making subtle changes in emphasis which I regard as “spin”. The obvious example is the pylons which were introduced because the cables could not be undergrounded as initially planned. The universal response to this was NO! no more pylons in the ANOB. This was spun by the developer response to issues of height and numbers. There are other examples of spin most notably about the reactor design being used successfully around the world. Considering the French and Finnish experiences this is dubious. A more recent example is the claim that the developer has saved on space with Sizewell C vs Hinkley Point. The site was chosen by the developer from a list of “suitable” sites as defined by HMG. This site was for the unbuilt second “B” reactor and is significantly smaller than the Hinkley site. The developer has chosen to put two reactors here. This “squeeze” on space has led to such issues as the pylons and in my opinion is no reason for the developer to boost of saving space when in fact land has had to be taken to move “B” facilities as well. From the start a bad choice of site! Other: Transport: The developer only seems to worry about HGV traffic going to the site there no mention of managing traffic from the site. The southern transport facility is a welcome initiative but are HGVS from the North to drive there and then drive back - it doubles trips along the A12. LGV/car traffic had barely been mentioned until the DCO was submitted, although it has been brought up at the last two consultations. The DCO response seems not to even start addressing this issue. For towns like Aldeburgh this is a large concern because of overlapping NSIPs. Socio - Economic: There is no nett benefit calculation over the complete life cycle of the development from spade in ground to last grass laid. Worker numbers keep increasing – no mention of extra mitigation. Environmental: Most mitigation is not evidenced or guaranteed even though there have been similar projects (SZA, SZB) from which mitigation efforts could be judged for efficacy. Nuclear waste: The nuclear waste store on site will be there for probably 200 yrs + – this without any local agreement. 500 words are inadequate to address all remaining issues on such a large, complex project. My notes cover 3000! Conclusion: I believe the DCO does not adequately address the impacts of a project of this size and duration (12years+ construction, 60 years generation and 120+ years of storing spent nuclear fuel, at least until 2130). I therefore believe that the DCO should not be approved as submitted."

Olivia Laing
"I have serious concerns about the expansion of Sizewell and the Sizewell C project. This area is at grave risk of flooding as sea levels rise, which makes it a dangerously unsuitable location for a nuclear reactor. It is far too close to the nature and bird reserve, which is a treasured place for locals and an important tourist location. EDF's own survey suggests 29% of visitors may be deterred because of the power station. This is unacceptable in an area that depends on tourism. The ecological impact, especially on Minsmere, will be devastating. Marsh harriers are a protected species, and the impact from water abstraction will be considerable, damaging this beautiful area. The traffic during building will put an unbearable strain on the local area."

Paula Kerr
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C: 1. Site Selection • Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value • Site at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding. 2. Community, Economic and Social Impacts • Unacceptable impact on local communities including traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption • 6,000 workers will come and live in the area with 2,400 in a worker campus which is likely to affect community cohesion • Effect on visitor economy with tourism potentially losing up to £40m a year and 400 jobs as visitors are deterred • Pressure on local housing • Pressure on health, social and emergency services including impacts on vulnerable people (especially during the Covid pandemic). 3. Transport • Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous and adverse impact on both local communities and the visitor economy • Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means nearby villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic • New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. 4. Environment and Landscape • Construction severs the AONB • Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale • Irreparable harm to Minsmere, a flagship destination of international importance • Impossible to compensate adequately for landscape and ecological damage. 5. Marine and Coastal processes • Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes • Rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable • Impacts on marine ecology."

Peter Smith
"Sizewell 'C' will be unsafe, uneconomic, is unecessary & unwanted. The nuclear waste from the site will remain highly radioactive for 200,000+ years. There is still no proven satisfactory disposal method for plutonium & other highly radioactive isotopes. The UK's existing stockpile of plutonium, the largest in the world, has been poorly managed & its storage methods at Sellafield have been severely criticised by the governments own national audit office & other independent bodies. Water cooled reactors have a poor safety track record. Design criteria claim that a major disaster should occur less than 1 in 10,000 years around the world, yet history shows this to be a myth as reality is little more than 1 in 10 years. The EPWR will be vulnerable to cyber terrorism & a determined physical terrorist attack. Latest climate models by leading world scientists have shown we are currently above what is the 'high emissions' scenario, in fact what the Eurooean Env. Agency call the upper bound prediction. At these runaway CO2 & CH4 emissions we are predicted to reach disastrous sea level rise of 2 metres by 2100 & 5 metres rise or more by 2200! It is utterly irresponsible to build nuclear power plants on the coastline anywhere around the UK with these sea level rise predictions. We are currently on a +4°c temperature rise trajectory by 2100 & all major countries around the world are failing to meet their IPCC Paris Agreements to limit temperature rise to 2°c let alone 1.5°c! With clear evidence of worsening weather extremes from 1°c temperature rise, the result of 2, 3 & 4°c rise could be catestrophic. The last thing we need is for nuclear power plants to be inundated by rising sea levels or affected by any other extreme weather events beyond nuclear plant design criteria, leading to fuel melt & major nuclear accident. Sizewell 'C' will have a design life of at least 60 years & with spent fuel having to be stored on site for at least 100 years, due to high fuel burn design, the highly dangerous spent fuel stores will be at serious risk of flood from unpredictable extreme rising sea levels. There is no satisfactory economic or energy justification for nuclear power. Renewables costs continue to fall greater than all predictions. Britain has massive renewables resources, the best winds in Europe, third highest tides in the world and adequate sun levels. Distributed & diverse renewables with diverse, battery, hydrogen, compressed air & water energy storage systems, can supply all the UK's future energy needs. Nuclear power supporters call their industry a low carbon energy supply system. This is highly questionable when the full nuclear cycle is taken into account. Mining of uranium is a high energy process & toxic to workers. Construction is highly energy intensive, decommissioning taking 100 years currently is highly energy intensive & storage over 200, 000 years is very energy intensive. Stores will have to be rebuilt many times over 200, 000 years with all the radioactive risks & precautions necessary to handle some of the most dangerous materials known on the planet. Finially, the government & most local authorities have declared a climate & ecological emergency. This requires urgent action now to reduce emissions to zero by 2050 or as many eminent & better informed scientists believe, by 2030. New nuclear power plants take far too long to build to have any impact on emissions reductions. In fact construction will sadly massively add to emissions."

Piers Pool
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection Site at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding Potential adverse 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. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts Unacceptable impacts on local communities - traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area 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 isolate 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 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."

S Hall
"I wish to register my objection to Sizewell C: 1. Scientists warn that climate change is happening faster than expected. Rising sea levels and more frequent, extreme and unpredictable weather represent an existential threat to nuclear reactors built on a fragile coastline and to nuclear waste stored there. East Anglia is likely to lose land and become a series of islands in the future. The Sizewell C proposals don’t take full account of the climate change risks and impacts for the coastline and for the lives of current and future generations. 2. I’m also concerned about the requirement of Sizewell C for large amounts of freshwater. We are already identified as a Water Stress area and The Environment Agency has predicted future water shortages locally. 3. Looking at the large Hinkley EPR site it appears that EDF are trying to cram far too much into the comparatively small Sizewell C site. I am concerned about the safety implications of this for Sizewell and also that EDF may later on ask for more land at Sizewell. We’ve already had a request to fell Coronation Wood – and this is even before Sizewell C has been given any go-ahead. 4. The massive industrial complex of Sizewell C would be completely out of scale and context to the beautiful, precious AONB landscape and amenities. It would destroy local wildlife and biodiversity in the site area itself and impact adversely on adjacent designated wildlife sites in Minsmere and Suffolk Coasts & Heaths AONB. It would also lead to significant losses of marine wildlife. 5. The proposal would have a detrimental impact on recreation, tourism and associated local businesses, destroying the very amenities that people visit the area to enjoy. 6. The road-led transport option would put huge pressure on local roads. 7. Roads, housing and other local services/facilities/infrastructure would be pushed beyond breaking point. 8. A high proportion of workers on short term contracts would be brought in from outside the area with specialist skills rather than long term permanent jobs created for local residents. 9. In the face of climate threats we urgently need to reduce carbon emissions/pollution. EDF understates the large emissions of Sizewell C which include: uranium sourcing/processing; the quarrying/extraction/processing of construction materials; thousands of HGVs bringing in aggregates/ materials to the site; emissions from the construction work itself and the creation of roads/park and ride sites; site workers’ travel to and from the site each day, flights from international workers; the storage of nuclear waste and decommissioning when the site ceases operation etc 10. The spiralling costs of the EPRs in Finland, France and at Hinkley make nuclear energy very expensive compared to the cheap, clean, green, renewable energy which is expanding to meet demand. Sizewell C is simply not needed and would be an expensive White Elephant by the time it came into operation. It would destroy our local environment/ habitats, incur net costs and leave a detrimental legacy rather than net benefits to local residents, visitors, consumers and taxpayers."

Sarah May
"As a homeowner along the Suffolk coast as well as an owner of holiday rental I would request to see a robust analysis of the impact of sizewell C on tourism. Environmenta impact in terms of destruction of ancient woodland and rspb Minsmere, increased light pollution, disruption to local residents and specifically use of an inadequate access road namely the b1122 and a12. Lack of thought as a to emergency evacuation using said routes. Lack of use of rail as an alternative, consideration on the local economy that is massively reliant on tourist income year round- inability to offer unspoilt views, inability to access coastal towns without lengthy queues and hgv traffic. Disruption and destruction of rural village life - one example being the proposed worker ‘accommodation’ in Eastbridge. This list is by no means exhaustive but indicative of how strongly I feel that sizewell c would cause untold financial and environmental damage that is not reversible and so I would love to see measured, specific, representative evidence and analysis to the contrary. Thank you"

Simon Kerr
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C: 1. Site Selection • Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value • Site at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding. 2. Community, Economic and Social Impacts • Unacceptable impact on local communities including traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption • 6,000 workers will come and live in the area with 2,400 in a worker campus which is likely to affect community cohesion • Effect on visitor economy with tourism potentially losing up to £40m a year and 400 jobs as visitors are deterred • Pressure on local housing • Pressure on health, social and emergency services including impacts on vulnerable people (especially during the Covid pandemic). 3. Transport • Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous and adverse impact on both local communities and the visitor economy • Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means nearby villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic • New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. 4. Environment and Landscape • Construction severs the AONB • Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale • Irreparable harm to Minsmere, a flagship destination of international importance • Impossible to compensate adequately for landscape and ecological damage. 5. Marine and Coastal processes • Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes • Rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable • Impacts on marine ecology."

Steel Sculptures Limited
"As a business we are concerned about; the destructive impacts on the local economy. Tourism brings us clients who will be put Off visiting. the access to our materials deliveries to run the business with the huge swell of traffic in our rural area it will bring. the economic benefits it would bring to Suffolk are questionable it will damage Suffolk’s existing local economy which we rely upon Working from home we are concerned about internationally-protected habitats; it is not the solution to net-zero, being a slow and expensive “bridge to nowhere” that would suck resources away from investment in renewables and hydrogen storage. EDF cannot say how much SZC will cost or be funded, but wants consumers to pay for it through a “nuclear tax”. The location in “blue” Suffolk will not help level up the UK. Sizewell C is mired in controversy through China’s involvement."

Susan Robinson
"I live in London but have enjoyed holidays in Suffolk and have been struck by the magic of the wild landscape which is home to so many species (many of them endangered) at Minsmere, and which has been immortalised on Springwatch. I am appalled at the thought of two nuclear reactors being installed so close to Minsmere, with the accompanying noise, pollution and degradation of the area that that will inevitably involve. The RSPB, who represent 1,000,000 people, have said that such a development would be “catastrophic” for Minsmere and its wild life. Otters, dragonflies, migrating birds and a myriad other creatures depend for food on the mudflats, where the stability of water levels and salinity of the marshes are managed to favour the flourishing of shrimps and other acquatic life, which support the ecosystem. The RSPB have raised multiple concerns with EDF, which EDF have consistently ignored. Minsmere is an international flagship reserve which was pioneered in the 1940s; it is unthinkable that it should be ruined through EDF’s cavalier treatment. They have published no predictions as to how water levels will be affected by their proposal to drive a causeway between Minsmere marshes and Sizewell - which will raise water levels at Sizewell and deplete them on the marshes, nor the proposal to extract huge quantities of water to make the concrete for such a huge building project. More water will be pumped out to dry a trench that will be 30 metres deep, around an area the size of a football pitch. Moreover, EDF plan to run a road right through the AONB between Sizewell Marshes and Minsmere. This whole proposal will make the area infinitely less attractive to holidaymakers. I have stayed in the peaceful hamlet of Eastbridge, where noise levels are predicted to rise 600 fold; residents are expecting a massive dust pollution from the spoil heaps 30 metres high that are planned, and on many of the beaches and footpaths that we have walked. Travel to the area will become a nightmare, with 750 HGVs travelling along the B1122 by day, as well as along the A12, along with cars, vans (700) and buses (700). The congestion this will entail will put people like me off visiting the area. Most shockingly, EDF have no plans to ensure the safety of the nuclear reactors long term. With coastal erosion, the two nuclear reactors will eventually sit on an island, and EDF’s only strategy for nuclear waste disposal is a hole in the ground! Amazingly, EDF have not published a strategy for ensuring the safety of the site for the 140 years that the reactors are expected to be in use. In all, I urge you to reject this insane proposal. I support Stop Sizewell C’s campaign against it. Finally, the issues involved are far too complex for a digital investigation: please give it the proper consideration it needs."

The Galpin Family
"We wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. Major damage and disruption to the local communities including increase in traffic, pollution levels, noise and unsightly developments that are totally unsuitable for this area. Closure or rerouting of ancient footpaths and coastal walks. Disruption to beach access. Adverse impact on wildlife and major irreparable harm to local habitats. Influx of construction and operational workers from outside this area that will cause major pressure on local services. Damage to local tourism industry We consider the application totally unsuitable for digital examination process. We wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C."

William H. Howard
"I am concerned in the following points:- 1. The use of nuclear and the legacy for future generations 2. The maps presented by EDF are I find nearly unreadable 3. As a past local councillor in Leiston we investigated the availability of potable water and were told by the water company that our local supply was only just in balance 4. All infrastructure should be in place before work on the site commences. 5. We are not told the source of building materials. How do we know if rail improvements are needed from the North or South. As an ex rail signalman I have views on the improvements needed. 6. I am concerned at proposals for beach alterations and the effects they will have on the coast either side of the site. 7. Most of all I am concerned at the detrimental effects the site will have on our town of Leiston"

Alan Hargreaves
"I have for a long time had serious concerns about the proposed construction of Sizewell C When first planned the need for and cost of nuclear seemed plausible. Now the need is less and will be met by Hinkley point. The cost is now already uncompetitive, far too high and likely to rise. As a local resident I have very serious concerns about the damaging effects of Sizewell C. The recent EDF newsletter with 11 "pledges" summarises them and confirms the damage and havoc this construction will cause. 1 Noise, dust, light ,Sizewell beach, property 2 Jobs - imported from Hinkley, loss of present tourism jobs 3 Effect on existing local firms 4 MAJOR concerns about the roads and up to 1000 HGVs per day Irreparable damage to the Heritage coast, Minsmere and Dunwich Heath 5 Huge 'temporary' construction site spoils etc. with subsequent environmental damage 6 Destruction of AONB 7 Large unwelcome accommodation caravan and park and ride sites 8 Visitors deterred for many years, possibly permanently 9 Overburdening the already stretched local Health and community services 10 Conduct of thousands of temporary workers with money and nothing to do. Existing Sizewell workers have total disregard of village speed limits. Locals remember the problems with Sizewell B 11 Damage to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing. EDF do not say what will happen to the nuclear waste which will be here well into the next century, and we still have B waste. Nor do they point out that in the 12 years of construction they will be seriously ADDING to CO2 before any nuclear power is produced To summarise Sizewell C is the wrong project, in the wrong place"

Andrew Davis
"I would like to raise the following issues of concern regarding Sizewell C 1. Site Location - vulnerable to climate change, flooding , sea-level rise - impact on delicate coastal processes - possible effects on near-by ecological sites 2. Social impact - traffic, noise, pollution, disruption - negative impact of worker influx 3. Transport - Road-based plan not sustainable and will have unacceptable impact - New infrastructure with legacy value not sufficient 4. Environment - Unknown effects on nationally important Minsmere - Groundwater, drainage and flooding impact possibly great - Light, noise and traffic pollution unacceptable I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C."

Anna George
"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 – 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 – 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 HGV’s. 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. Sizewell C’s daily fresh water demands will require up to 3 million litres during construction and up to 2 million litres during operation, in an area which is the most water-scarce in the country Spoil 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 and drainage 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, further east of existing building lines, 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."

Anna Wakerley
"I am a home owner in the town of Aldeburgh, I pay council tax there and support many local retail industries and arts organisations in the area. I support green, eco- friendly and renewable agencies who are currently growing in this area. I support the ecologies of the area which include bird sanctuaries at Minsmere and the forests around, the incursion of the expanding complex area and the unsupportable increase in traffic is extremely detrimental to the environment. I do not support the expansion of nuclear energies - post Chernobyl and Fukashima accidents it is clear that there is no 100% safety record possible in this industry. I am concerned about the escalating costs which are unclearly defined concerning this complex. I am also concerned that the ownership of the complex, with the potential for ownership passing to countries beyond our own government and thus beyond our own the representation. I do not feel that this nuclear development should be allowed to go forward."

Antony Bowring
"Nuclear power is not environmentally friendly. Apart from the vast destruction and pollution that will take place over the years of building Sizewell C, the technology is flawed in that there is still not the means to dispose of the large quantity of radio active waste which results from nuclear power. Along with the existing changes to climate through years of environmental negligence, future generations will have the clean-up of radio active material to contend with. There should be enough energy in nature (wind, sun and tide) to provide all our need cleanly. If not, we should adjust our consumption to balance our use of nature with real sustainability. Sizewell C is not the answer. Excuses such as providing local population and businesses with work was promised when they built Sizewell B. The vast majority of contracts went to non-local businesses and workers. Sizewell C will be the same."

Audrey Boyle
"Reasons for concern: 1. Fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat and disturbance of key BAP species as specified by Suffolk wildlife trust 2. Noise and light pollution again impacting wildlife and local residents 3. Increased traffic and associated pollution in AONB - one of least spoilt areas of Suffolk - increasing health concerns for children and those with heart and lung disease. 4.Loss of tourist revenue due to impact on AONB - a major source of income for Suffolk 5. Concern regarding waste storage on site until a suitable geologically appropriate site is found 6. The effects of coastal erosion and its impact on power stations and waste sites 7. Deleterious effect on Minsmere RSPB reserve one of the most high profile reserves in Britain which brings in significant visitors and revenue 8. Loss of woodland and other attractive and classic landscape features and a diminishing of unique character of east Suffolk"

B1122 Action Group on Sizewell
"Relevant Representations of the B1122 Action Group on Sizewell The B1122 Action Group represents the communities along the B1122 in relation to the issues raised by Sizewell C. It includes parish councillors from Middleton, Theberton and Yoxford Parish Councils as well as residents living on or near the B1122. Transport strategy - EDF’s road-based transport strategy is not acceptable. It would have an unreasonable adverse impact on local communities, and significantly damage the important tourism economy. - The strategy will overwhelm eastern Suffolk’s already challenged road network, especially at the Orwell Bridge, notwithstanding the limited bypasses proposed. - There has been insufficient justification for the rejection of extensive rail use. - There has been insufficient consideration of the combined traffic impacts of up to eight other energy projects planned for the area which would use the same road network. Sizewell Link Road - EDF has failed to justify their choice of route for the Sizewell Link Road adequately. - The route proposed will have a significant negative impact on the landscape and heritage assets with substantial embankments and cuttings. It runs too close to the villages being by-passed, will divide parishes, damage the rights of way network, make farms and fields uneconomic and will have no legacy use after construction of Sizewell C. - Alternative routes with a lesser impact and greater legacy value have been dismissed by EDF with insufficient justification. ‘Early years’ use of the existing B1122 - EDF proposes to run high numbers of HGVs along the existing B1122 to the site for at least two ‘Early Years’ before the proposed Link Road is available. These numbers are close to those planned once the road is complete. This would place an unreasonable burden on residents along and near the B1122, with consequent road safety dangers, noise, pollution and vibration damage to properties. - Mitigation and compensation for these impacts have not been sufficiently detailed in the application. - These high ‘Early Years’ HGV numbers were not presented in the Consultations. - Any Link Road needs to be operational before Sizewell C site preparation and construction starts. Worker accommodation ‘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. - Alternative locations offered by Suffolk County Council C have not been seriously considered. - No legacy use for the ‘campus’ buildings or site has been proposed other than a return to farmland. We wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, and Middleton and Theberton Parish Councils. We wish to state that we consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Catherine Belsom
"I reject Sizewell C"

Chadwick Family
"1. Site Selection Sizewell is not the place for two more nuclear reactors when changing technology may make such proposed development obsolete • Too close to, adversely affecting internationally designated sites of ecological importance, local landscape, amenity, heritage sites • Climate change, rising sea levels, flooding risk jeopardise the site, which could end up an island of five nuclear reactors and their waste • Coastal processes may change north and south - fragile coastline • Eight other uncoordinated energy projects proposed for this part of east Suffolk. Cumulative impact must be properly assessed 2. Community, Economic and Social Impacts • Intolerable impact on local communities – huge traffic increase, landscape destruction, noise, air, light pollution • 6,000 workers living here will cause social disruption, take up tourist and local private rental accommodation. 2,400 worker campus at Eastbridge, near Leiston, only three times that population, completely unacceptable • Tourism, a major local economy, will be severely impacted. Up to £40m a year, 400 jobs lost • EDF plan to use local people for 90% of lower skilled/paid roles in site support. Management, ie higher salaried, people will be brought in • Additional pressures on hard pressed local health, social and emergency services • Local businesses will lose staff to EDF, commerce reduced by increased traffic 3. Transport • Road based transport plan is unsupportable, badly impacting local communities and tourism on inadequate road infrastructure. HGV levels unacceptably high. Rat runs will develop, eg main road through our village, Snape • New, badly planned roads will divide communities and farms, disrupt local footpaths and provide no legacy value (so EDF suggested removal after construction!) 4. Environment and Landscape • Landscape and ecological damage will be permanent, irreplaceable • Destruction of wonderful landscape, dark skies, tranquility in huge construction area around Sizewell, well beyond • Construction bringing heavy traffic, noise, dust, light pollution • Spoil heap, borrow pit, landfill management inadequately addressed • Water level disruption cannot be properly assessed; could cause flooding; drainage problems for protected sites and their ecologies • Permanent damage to Minsmere, SSSIs. Unsettlement of Marsh Harriers, other protected species; inadequate mitigation • Construction CO2 releases not compensated for until 2040 5. Marine and Coastal processes • Impacts on coastal processes cannot be properly assessed with no complete design of proposed hard coastal defences • Beach Landing facility will impact the constantly changing and eroding coast 6. Other • EDF financial status questionable. China Nuclear Power partnership dubious • EDF notorious for late delivery of nuclear power – Hinkley 3 years, Flamanville, France, 11 years late • EPR technology not reliable. Problems in Finland and Flamanville • Application should not have been submitted while Covid-19 still rampant. This will do nothing for local economy recovery. • A digital examination process would not be suitable for examination of this application. Too much has not been assessed or made clear by EDF, too many elderly people would be excluded; too much could be missed. • We fully endorse Stop Sizewell C’s Relevant Representation."

Christine Collett
"I wish to register as an Interested Party in the hearings on the Sizewell C planning application. I fully endorse the Stop Sizewell C’s Relevant Representation and all that is contained therein, and in no way should my representation, which may not cover all the points mentioned therein, be taken as an indication that I am not concerned about those points. On the contrary I support the request that all their points to be considered. The concerns that I would like to be considered primarily relate to the social impact that the construction of Sizewell C will have on the local population. Given the size of the development and the huge number of workers who will be living on campus and in the area, the negative impact on this rural community is unacceptable and the risk of social disruption and disorder is significant. The pressure on local services and those who run these facilities will be unmanageable at a time when medical services are already under severe pressure and in many instances already failing to meet the needs of the local elderly population. During the construction of Sizewell B many years ago there were significant social problems including drugs and prostitution and it would be unacceptable to impose these problems on the local community again, particularly on the elderly who are the least able to adjust to these pressures. As EDF has failed to consider the considerable social impacts of the development the Inspectorate needs to address these. I also wish the Inspector to consider how EDF can guarantee that no adverse impact will be caused to Minsmere and if this cannot be provided then the scheme should not go ahead. This is an internationally important wildlife reserve and it must not in any way be damaged by the building of Sizewell C. Mitigation of the risks is insufficient – the risks must be proven to be avoidable. Finally I wish to state that I believe the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process given its complexities and the need for people to express their concerns in an open forum."

Christine Silver
"I oppose the building of Sizewell C on the following grounds:- 1. Safety issues - Fukushima, Chernobyl etc. No safe way of disposing of radioactive waste. 2. Site - unstable coastline, AONB, Minsmere, climate change. Impossible to compenhsate for landscape damage. 3. Communities - Will destroy Suffolk and devastate many local families. 4. Pollution - traffic, noise, light. 5. Tourism/economy - who would want to come here next to huge building site and potential devastation?"

Darren Halford
"Sizewell C The B1112 was closed for a stretch of 20m for 2 days at Theberton. This meant an additional 10km and 20mins drive diverted along tracks not meant for two-way traffic nor wider vehicles. There are no pavements on these tracks nor on most of the B1122. Now Theberton is to be turned into an island, effectively isolated at the centre of a giant roundabout. Surrounded and imposed upon by noise, light, pollution for YEARS. What on earth excuses such cavalier, wreckless and careless approaches? Money. There’s nothing else in the consultation process and documentation to suggest it’s about anything but profit. My housebound patients have virtually no voice. They and I worry that such diversions make it difficult for me & other healthcare professionals to get to housebound patients. With an aging patient demographic, more patients will need to be seen at home, more will become housebound by traffic, diversions and (most importantly) choice. Home visits take 30mins longer than 10mins appointments at the surgery. I worry that by wasting professional time travelling, I will be forced to add to the environmental surge in deathly omissions. My own health will suffer for it. Who covers the costs in extra fuel, vehicle maintainence, extra professional hours? One can only see so many patients in a day. Who covers the shortfall? Where will EDF find those professional clinicians to put in the extra hours? Where in the consultation has this been addressed so that our patients know they will be as safe tomorrow as they are today? What calculations have been for harm in delayed care provisions? And for reduced life expectancies? If there is nothing to fear why does the EDF publicity machine feel the need to spin?eg. Local jobs where ‘local’ is defined as ‘within a 90minute commute’. Why is this not shown as offset against existing job losses? More spin. ‘Perceived tranquility’ - I include this because it made me laugh out loud. I worry that EDF is marching on, unconditionally & without a coherent SAFE plan, to its destiny of a ridiculously expensive and, more importantly, unnecessary blight on the landscape at a time when all the evidence points away from wiping out part of Suffolk for a perilous eyesore that may never be completed, is likely to break and be redundant before it’s completed and long before its damage to the environment can be offset. Who’s going to clean it all up post failure? This year, EDF were paid to turn Sizewell B output DOWN. Renewables continue to cheapen with a far less dangerous footprint. I worry that in the middle of a pandemic, EDF wants to import up to 6000 workers from everywhere. The virus has arrived. This is a long-term fight. It will take just one CoVid spike to grind parts of the reactor build chain to a stop. Deadlines will be pushed back. What corners will be cut to prevent this happening? Costs will soar. Is this why EDF needs RAB? There will be secondary pressures on local NHS Services. How do we protect everyone? Constant noise, constant traffic noise and pollution, constant light - these take a toll on good health. Where are we supposed to walk, run & cycle safely in fresh air? Environmental viral load will increase. Pollution will be forced upon us. Predicting average levels of contamination over years does not mean safety! The peaks are dangerous and could kill us. Local mortality rates are at risk of increase like never before. Where is the evidence that says we are safe or worth the sacrifice? I am suspicious that counsellors, when presented with such compelling evidence, choose to vote for it UNCONDITIONALLY. Too big. Too harmful. Too wasteful. Wrong time. Too imposing for too long. We all have a right to a healthy and peaceful life. EDF expect us to surrender this along with our very longevity in the name of energy provision. I am not throwing myself on any swords whilst there are other less harmful methods which, for selfish greed and political gains, appear to be marginalised beyond consideration. I wholly endorse ‘Stop Sizewell C’s Relevant Representation. I am not anti-nuclear. I am pro sense. In my professional clinical role, I must do what I can to prevent deterioration, promote recovery and preserve life. We are sworn to it. Please don’t make this impossible."

Daryl Ash
"Site position. The Proposed site is in AONB and is just too big. This is a potential flood area so increase in water from site increases this risk. Impact on RSPB, a world renowned nature reserve will be devastating and will never recover. Loss of revenue for this charity. Other energy projects are planned for this area and therefore impact of all of these will be too great. Community, social and economic Impact on Eastbridge and Theberton would be catastrophic. The quality of life in these two villages would be destroyed. EDF have shown no concern about this impact, loss of farms, livestock and livelihoods. The noise, dirt, dust and light pollution would be unbearable. The site workers campus is just unacceptable. 6,000 workers descending on a hamlet of 50 people! EDF are very short sighted to think that workers would stay on campus. Traffic will increase with workers driving to towns for social life. Tourism will be devastated in this area. Jobs and businesses will be destroyed through lack of tourists. The jobs proposed by EDF will not compensate for this. Pressure on services with impact of extra people in the area. Not enough consideration has been given to how the fishing industry in this area will be affected. Former environment secretary, Ed Davey , believes Sizewell C is too expensive and more investment should be made in renewable energy. Transport EDF have had nine years to fully explore sea or rail transport but appeared to have failed to do this with road being the cheaper option but the greatest impact on the communities. New roads will not be a legacy, however improved rail links would have been beneficial. Farms would be divided by the new roads, footpaths would be destroyed. The increase in traffic and HGV. Environment Risk of flooding Water supply to communities could be affected because of amount of water required for proposed building works. More consideration for drainage, especially in respect of RSPB. Impact on minsmere sluice. Damage and impact to the environment will never be repaired. Application I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and RSBP. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

David Moodie
"I wish to register the following concerns: 1. The nuclear industry has a history of delays and cost increases. We would be better advised investing further in renewable energy as those projects come online much quicker and are much more affordable and cost effective. The cost of the electricity produced is a concern for SZC. 2. As a resident of Suffolk I am concerned by the safety risks of nuclear power both in the operational phase and their toxic legacy. It is wrong to build these reactors without a plan for what to do with the mounting stocks of nuclear waste in this country. The current challenging economic outlook only increases the chances of mistakes due to cost cutting. I do not want this part of the country to become an exclusion zone around a nuclear disaster site as has happened around previous nuclear disasters. 3. The low elevation poses additional safety risks due to sea level rise. The climate may change faster than models used and I found the precautions unconvincing. 4. The optional 20% investment rights held by a company from a communist country with ongoing human rights abuses is a major cause for concern in itself and also a risk to the smooth progress of the project. For the UK economy it would be better to spend taxpayers money on schemes involving UK technology. 5. Increased levels of traffic along the A12 will degrade the local environment due to air and noise pollution. 6. The destruction of an area of natural beauty involved in this proposal would not only be bad for local wildlife but would greatly sadden those who appreciate it. Sizewell already diminishes the beauty of the Suffolk coast. 7. SZC would be vulnerable to terrorist attack."

Deborah Booth
"We live in Harrogate and for 20 years have lived in France, but over this time we and our children have had many holidays in Eastbridge from which we have visited Minsmere. We have found nothing like Minsmere in France. Minsmere is a classic example of the conservation of threatened habitats and the protection of threatened species. It is a model to the world for the engagement of children in conservation. It provided our children with hands on experience of pond dipping and bird ringing and for older chil-dren it provides the opportunity to participate in conservation projects. The threats that Minsmere faces from the proposal to build Sizewell C are enor-mous. The RSPB speaks with a measured voice, but if they say that the construction of Sizewell C “could be catastrophic” for the wildlife at Minsmere then I urge you to listen to that voice. I find it quite shocking the EDF has not done so. If you look at the successive submissions from RSPB to EDF you will see that in each submission there is a statement that the concerns raised in previous submissions have not been addressed. The success of Minsmere depends on the water levels and the quality of water in the Minsmere and Sizewell Marshes. Migrant birds depend on the mud flats, rare plants, birds and dragonflies thrive in the marshes while the Minsmere River is fished by Ot-ters. EDF will extract vast quantities of water from these marshes to make concrete for one of the largest building projects in the country. More water must be pumped out to keep dry a 30 metre deep trench, and will surround an area the size of a football pitch, in order to provide foundations for the reactors. Construction of a causeway be-tween the Sizewell and Minsmere Marshes is likely to raise water levels in the for-mer and lower it in the latter. EDF has given no information on the dimensions of the sea defences. There are some sketches of provisional plans but no engineering drawings of what they plan to do. And as sea levels rise the Sizewell site is likely to become an island at some point in the next 140 years, during which time radioactive waste from the reactors will be stored on the site. Shockingly, there is no plan for the long term safety of the site. 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. This will cause significant traffic congestion. Minsmere will be the most affected, because the traffic will be going to and from Sizewell, but this whole coastline will be much less accessible to visitors. Has there been an independent assessment of the costs to tourism of the proposed construction of Sizewell C? I fully support Stop Sizewell C and their statements and consider the examination for development consent to be too complex to be dealt with digitally."

Derek Eaton
"I am very concerned about the proposals for Sizewell C. I am concerned about the potential damage to the Suffolk coastline and the negative impact that this will have on its rare species and habitats. The environmental damage proposed is not sufficiently mitigated by the current construction plans which have been put forward by EDF. I am also concerned that EDF have done little to reduce the impact that construction traffic will have upon East Suffolk's villages. There will be a huge increase in pollution in terms of air, noise and light because of EDF’s decision to move from sea to land based delivery of building materials. The congestion to the A12 and A14 will be unacceptable and there is a real risk that rat runs will be created by vehicles using the B1078 which runs through villages, past houses with families and children rather than main roads. The villages roads are too small, narrow and picturesque to accept any extra traffic. The beauty of the surrounding villages will be negatively impacted and the park and ride will be highly visible and an eye sore. In this respect, I am very concerned that EDF has failed to listen to the views of Suffolk's parishes and communities. There will also be a negative impact on tourism in terms of the changes to the coastal appearance and the traffic congestion which will be caused by the increase in HGVs and the traffic for workers heading to the proposed park and ride."

Dominic Giles
"I oppoae the planned "sizewell c" project primarily on environmental concerns. The world needs to be transitioning towards "green", renewable, sustainable energy options. There are plenty to choose from. Nuclear energy is incredibly dangerous, as the world has seen from the Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents. If the human race wants a future, it needs to use sustainable, clean energy alternatives. If the human race wants to destroy the planet, and ourselves in the process, then nuclear energy will be the final nail in the coffin."

Dr Jed Boardman
"Relevant Representation Sizewell C I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection • New energy sources that are developing and the fact that the development will not help to reach Inability to help with Nett Zero attainment suggest this is an unnecessary development and out of proportion with its monetary and other costs. • No offset of CO2 from construction for at least 6 years – thus no effect until 2040. • Site is inappropriate – situated on an eroding coastline – puts it at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding. • Site in close proximity to an internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of cultural heritage 2. Community, Economic and social impacts • High likelihood of considerable harmful effects on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. • This will lead to rise in mental and physical health problems and loss of social capital – people who are vulnerable will be particularly susceptible • Proposed worker campus will place unacceptable burden on local amenities and economy: including health and social services, leisure services and schools • Disruption of tourism to £40m a year and 400 jobs and visitors deterred from coming • Pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. • No advantage to local jobs and businesses – newer will be lower-skilled, lower-paid roles – skilled workers will be recruited from outside the area • Higher than usual traffic for long period of time – will deter others visiting and have impact on local community and local businesses • There will be no lasting legacy of the development of Sizewell-C 3. Transport • The “Road-Led” proposals are worse that what was thought to be the original worst-case scenario • 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 • Damage caused by relief road and closure of associated words (eg Pretty Road) will impair access for local people 4. Environment and Landscape • Changes to the local environment will have effects on: flooding, Minsmere Sluice, pollution from light, noise and traffic • Spoil heaps will increase dust, toxic products, run-off • How will the borrow pits and landfill effect the environment? • Minsmere is an internationally well-known site and will face an uncertain future • These changes will not be compensated for and the likely damage has been underestimated 5. Marine and Coastal processes • Site to be built on eroding coastline – likely to be: flood risk, increase erosion and further silting down the coast, damage to marine ecology 6. Application • 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 virtual/digital examination process."

Eleanor Jenkin
"EDF Stage 4 Consultation for Sizewell C 27/09/20 I am a resident of East Suffolk and as such very familiar with the Suffolk Heritage Coast. I would like to register as an interested party to the proposed building of the Sizewell C nuclear reactor. This is a summary of my concerns: The natural environment I recently received an unsolicited ‘community newsletter’ from EDF through the post. Referring to the development at Aldhurst Farm, EDF state: ‘there will be a net gain in land for wildlife created from the project’. Given the recent report on loss of species and threat to diversity in the UK I do not believe the argument that Aldhurst Farm can possibly mitigate or compensates for the loss of species and habitat at the SSSI Sizewell Marshes or the impact on species and habitats found at Suffolk Coasts and Heaths. Sizewell C will border Minsmere Bird Reserve. Bird species do not recognise human borders. They respond to much wider features. I am very familiar with the unique natural qualities and sensitivities of the Suffolk Coastal area. For me the threat from Sizewell C is not academic or a matter of mitigation. Surely there should be no consideration given to siting a nuclear reactor here. Water Living in East Suffolk I am only too aware of the water problems of the region. These are drought in summer and flood in winter. I was interested to note that water was not featured in EDF’s ‘community newsletter’. I had to look for other sources for information. On reading the environment agency’s response to the Sizewell C Development Consent Order Stage 4 Consultation I gather that there is concern on several issues, one of which is the use of culvert watercourse crossings which increase flood risk and impact ecology. A response by Suffolk Wildlife Trust talks about water chemistry, and the impact to a fen site in changing the balance between ground and surface water. In addition there are concerns about the considerable abstraction of water necessary to the construction and operation of the reactor. This water use would significantly impact an area which is already at risk from drought. Added to this drought are problems of coastal flooding which can be severe along this coast. Apparently EDF have not provided a completed design for a hard coastal defence. This must leave the potential for a nuclear site to be at risk from storm flooding from the sea and the consequent dangers that this would entail. Given the constraints of word counts I will bullet point three more concerns: • Tourism: The Suffolk Heritage Coast rightly attracts very many visitors. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred by this development. Lack of revenue from this sector will impact the ability of the Council to function and provide their necessary services. • Transport: This will obviously have a local impact, not only because of the 60% of total transport of construction materials by road (EDF’s figures), but also travel to and from the site by the thousands of workers not housed on the campus. • Nuclear Waste: I can find no plan for how this problem will ever be addressed. It will be a constant threat during and after operation of the reactor. It is no legacy to leave to inhabitants of the area."

Emma Jackson
"I fully support the building of Sizewell C. It has been a long time in the planning and can not be built soon enough. It will bring much needed jobs to the area and stimulate the local economy. I do not see any negatives in the building of the plant."

Emma Lucy Victoria Norton
"The Suffolk coast is drastically eroding. Sea levels are 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 of 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 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. 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 UK's 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."

Fiona Curtis
"The validity of the project. The former Energy Secretary (who as I understand it approved Hinkley Point) and current leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, Ed Davey has this evening (27.09.20) appeared on the evening NEWS stating that renewables are now cheaper than nuclear and that the economic case for nuclear power no longer exists. I believe that energy consumption forecasts are also much lower than they were previously. AONB and harm to the landscape and environment from the plant itself and infrastructure and traffic generated Concern that cheaper and more efficient alternatives in areas that will have less impact on the environment have not been fully explored Safety - proximity to expanding residential areas"

Gail GordonBrown
"It is a colossal waste of tax payers money. It is very expensive electricity.No other country in the world is contemplating this type of investment as green renewable energy is so much cheaper and better for the environment.They have not taken into consideration the rise in sea level over the next 1000 years and are only looking in the short term. The investment would be much better spent on better housing ,insulation, solar and wind energy and these would also provide more permanent jobs in the area."

Gina Gow
"I wish to raise the following concerns about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection The site is unsuitable The coast is one of the fastest eroding coasts in Europe The area will see rising sea levels and increased incidents of flooding Putting another large scale development will adversely affect other areas along the coast The site is within an AONB, will affect a nature reserve and sites of Special Scientific Interest The construction will adversely affect tourism, access to amenities, cultural heritage and areas of landscape value Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality 2. Community, Economic and social impacts Impacts on local communities - noise, light and air pollution, traffic congestion, disruption of access to local landscapes. 6,000 workers will put stress on local infrastructure. Increased pressure in housing when local young people already struggle to find and afford accommodation Significant numbers of jobs for local people are likely to be lower-skilled and lower-paid Site Support. Local businesses are likely to see a fall as local people avoid the area during the construction phase. Access to nature is well documented to help mental health and wellbeing, this will be reduced. Predicted HGV numbers would be at level that other “Road-Led” proposals have rejected and will affect local villages for 2-3 years New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. 4. Wildlife, habitats and biodiversity Habitats for wildlife will be severely affected during construction and for many years to come in a time when the loss of habitats around UK is seeing dramatic decline for biodiversity Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic all severely affecting wildlife ability to move freely, communicate, find breeding mates, access food, hibernate and migrate effectively The area is an important migratory route for birds which already experiencing changing climate and reduced habitat and food Availability of freshwater is being impacted world wide the need for 3 million litres of water during construction and beyond is untenable - affecting not only the quality of water but also groundwater levels for wildlife and habitats Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage The potential of huge damage of storing nuclear waste in such an ecologically sensitive area Impact of construction will be damaging on marine ecology and habitats At a time when the planet is seeing such pressure on wildlife and natural habitats it is wrong to proceed with a project which will cause damage in an area which supports significant biodiversity. 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."

Griff Chamberlain
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. The location of the site • The site is at risk of rising sea levels and flooding as predicted by climate change studies • Academic studies of the coastal processes with increased sea levels predict that the immediate coastline will be vulnerable to erosion • Historic studies of the coastline demonstrate its vulnerability 2. The effect on local communities • Impact on the local area due to increased traffic • Impact on immediate towns which already have inadequate parking facilities and inadequate town roads • Impact on local housing and increased rents for local people caused by demand for property • Impacts on local health facilities and on the local emergency services • Impact of local area from road, noise and light pollution from both the site itself and the traffic it generates • No clear emergency evacuation procedures in the event of an adverse event during the build at Sizewell B considering the increased local population and increased traffic on local roads 3. Roads and Transport • The lack of direct road links to the major transport network such as the A12/A14 dual carriageways and no immediate access to motorway network. • The country lanes and roads that will be used as rat runs • The provision of a 90 minute commute journey will put increased pressure on roads throughout East Anglia and is not conducive to providing a green solution • The road based transport plan will have an enormous and adverse effect of the local community 5. Pedestrian access and footpath routes • Removal of well used public rights of way with no reasonable alternative • Lack of pedestrian access along local quiet lanes which will see a higher rate of traffic • Rerouting of long distance paths such as the Sandlings with no adequate rural alternative • Temporary closure of the coast path, which will have the status of being part of the England Coast path during the build 4. Local Landscape and Tourism • Damage to the ecology and environment at RSPB Minsmere, a national treasure, • The AONB will be cut in half, an area that is regularly used by walkers and visitors who use Sizewell as the base to access the coast northwards • Decline in tourism due to the area being labelled as a construction site and marketed as Energy Coast which both give the impression of an industrial estate 5. Green Policy Taking into account the enormous amount of construction, the timescales for decommissioning, the obvious effort that will be involved in keeping the sea at bay in the future, and the large distances workers will commute can this really be considered as a viable zero CO2 option. 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."

Harry Smith
"I wish to make the case that the proposed planning and development of Sizewell C would be a complete and total disaster for the natural environment and also local residents and tourism to the area. The significant reduction in cost of renewable energy sources in recent years makes this a far more attractive option for producing clean energy and yet with minimal impact to the environment and local areas. The basis of the plans put forward by EDF is fundamentally flawed and the UK governance is finally waking up to this and the significant cost burden that this would bring to the county."

Helen Hepburn
"I have been a resident of Suffolk for 50 years. I am a keen supporter of wildlife, belonging to many organisations such as the RSPB, Butterfly Conservation Trust, and Wildlife Trusts. I am also a keen walker, one of my favourite walks being from the Coastguard Cottages, and around Minsmere, which I have done for years. I am objecting strongly to the siting of Sizewell C, on the following grounds: Destruction of wildlife sites, and flora and fauna. Replacement will not work. Destruction of loved amenities, such as walks. Unsuitability due to the rural nature of the area, and destruction of countryside due to increased traffic, new roads and roundabouts, and the disruption to the lives of local people and the A12 route to Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. Redundancy due to rapid increase in green energy, such that it will be redundant before it is even built. Coastal erosion, and damage to the sea eco system through the use of sea water."

Ian Booth
"We live in Harrogate and for 20 years have lived in France, but over this time we and our children have had many holidays in Eastbridge from which we have visited Minsmere. We have found nothing like Minsmere in France. Minsmere is a classic example of the conservation of threatened habitats and the protection of threatened species. It is a model to the world for the engagement of children in conservation. It provided our children with hands on experience of pond dipping and bird ringing and for older chil-dren it provides the opportunity to participate in conservation projects. The threats that Minsmere faces from the proposal to build Sizewell C are enor-mous. The RSPB speaks with a measured voice, but if they say that the construction of Sizewell C “could be catastrophic” for the wildlife at Minsmere then I urge you to listen to that voice. I find it quite shocking the EDF has not done so. If you look at the successive submissions from RSPB to EDF you will see that in each submission there is a statement that the concerns raised in previous submissions have not been addressed. The success of Minsmere depends on the water levels and the quality of water in the Minsmere and Sizewell Marshes. Migrant birds depend on the mud flats, rare plants, birds and dragonflies thrive in the marshes while the Minsmere River is fished by Ot-ters. EDF will extract vast quantities of water from these marshes to make concrete for one of the largest building projects in the country. More water must be pumped out to keep dry a 30 metre deep trench, and will surround an area the size of a football pitch, in order to provide foundations for the reactors. Construction of a causeway be-tween the Sizewell and Minsmere Marshes is likely to raise water levels in the for-mer and lower it in the latter. EDF has given no information on the dimensions of the sea defences. There are some sketches of provisional plans but no engineering drawings of what they plan to do. And as sea levels rise the Sizewell site is likely to become an island at some point in the next 140 years, during which time radioactive waste from the reactors will be stored on the site. Shockingly, there is no plan for the long term safety of the site. 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. This will cause significant traffic congestion. Minsmere will be the most affected, because the traffic will be going to and from Sizewell, but this whole coastline will be much less accessible to visitors. Has there been an independent assessment of the costs to tourism of the proposed construction of Sizewell C? I fully support Stop Sizewell C and their statements and consider the examination for development consent to be too complex to be dealt with digitally."

Ian Castle
"In my view the forecast costs and completion time will both over run, on this sort of contract history tells us exactly that. By the time the station is generating it will be redundant. It will be redundant because renewable methods of generating electricity will have become even more widespread as a safe and cheap method of supplying electrical power"

James Eaton
"I am very concerned about the proposals for Sizewell C. I am concerned about the potential damage to the Suffolk coastline and the negative impact that this will have on its rare species and habitats. The environmental damage proposed is not sufficiently mitigated by the current construction plans which have been put forward by EDF. I am also concerned that EDF have done little to reduce the impact that construction traffic will have upon East Suffolk's villages. There will be a huge increase in pollution in terms of air, noise and light because of EDF’s decision to move from sea to land based delivery of building materials. The congestion to the A12 and A14 will be unacceptable and there is a real risk that rat runs will be created by vehicles using the B1078 which runs through villages, past houses with families and children rather than main roads. The villages roads are too small, narrow and picturesque to accept any extra traffic. The beauty of the surrounding villages will be negatively impacted and the park and ride will be highly visible and an eye sore. In this respect, I am very concerned that EDF has failed to listen to the views of Suffolk's parishes and communities. There will also be a negative impact on tourism in terms of the changes to the coastal appearance and the traffic congestion which will be caused by the increase in HGVs and the traffic for workers heading to the proposed park and ride."

James McLeod
"My concerns about Sizewell C concern the construction time and disruption that will be caused to the whole area. • The wildlife and habitat which will be lost forever • The terrible loss of amenity involved for people living here • The destruction of AONB which will impact upon the work available in the area Finally, after years of all that, any power produced may never actually be needed because of the development of renewable alternatives."

James Youngman
"The site selected is unsuitable. Rising sea levels over the next 100 years are likely to make the site an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and their waste. The impact on nearby international nature reserves could be catastrophic and irreversible. No rigorous environmental impact assessment has been undertaken ( if so ,it has not been published ). Potable water use of 300 cubic metres per day during construction and 200 cubic metres per day for operation are required. Where is this amount of water to come from and who will bear the opportunity cost."

Jane Blore
"- Lack of meaningful engagements and results from landowners concerns - Concerns over environmental impact of the project - Scheme design concerns – provisions for severed land etc, access - Alternative options need adequate consideration - Mitigation measures need further consideration - Funding – lack of information provided - Utilization of excess land"

Jeff Higgott
"Impact on adjacent and nearby Sites of Special Scientific Interest Projected and actual cost and funding"

Jennifer Wilson
"I request PINS recommend to the Secretary of State that EDF’s application be refused because of the cumulative impact the project will have on the environment, people and businesses of Suffolk, for the reasons set out below:- Please note Suffolk residents have had immense strain put on their mental health due to the number of consultations regarding the many energy projects in East Suffolk. The overall impact if Sizewell C proceeds, on East Suffolk and the AONB will mean industrialisation of a rural area which is supposed to be protected by its many designations. It is no surprise that EDF did not postpone the process due to the Covid restrictions as it suits them that residents cannot properly scrutinise their plans. Maps have no grid references, the keys impossible to read. Information and detail are missing with excessive use of the Rochdale envelope, meaning it is impossible to make an informed opinion, therefore totally unsuitable for a digital examination. The Site:- At 32ha is too small to house 2 EPR reactors, its infrastructure and dry fuel store. Is in flood zones at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding with the possibility of it becoming a nuclear island. DCO documents fail to show how it can be kept safe for the 150 years of operation, storage and decommissioning or the impact of its hard sea defences on its neighbours. Located in Suffolk AONB with many national and international designation causing irreparable damage to RSPB Minsmere. Access road will devastate Sizewell Marsh SSSI cutting the AONB in two. Coupled with the Sizewell B (SZB) relocation, construction could take 12/14 years of 24/7 noise, dust, light, vibration, visual and air pollution spread over 900 acre main development site, accommodation blocks, spoil heaps, borrow pits, concrete batching plant all impact on the statutory purpose of the AONB to conserve and enhance natural beauty and tranquillity. Will degrade the Suffolk environment and health and wellbeing of residents. EDF underplay many aspects ie pylons, raised platform, Beach Landing Facility and close proximity to SZB site. Other Issues:- Sizewell was nominated as a potential site, EN6 is no longer applicable as SZC is not deployable by 2025. EDF rely on IROPI to justify build but urgent need for nuclear no longer applies. Many red-listed and endangered species at risk eg Marsh Harrier, Natterjack Toad and Barbastelle Bat. Considering how much mitigation and compensation is needed, EDF’s claim of net biodiversity gain must be challenged. The impact the cooling pipes will have on the marine environment and wildlife that rely on them for food eg Red Throated Diver, Harbour Porpoise is unacceptable It is impossible to compensate for SZC’s landscape and ecological damage. The road-led transport strategy is unsustainable and totally unacceptable. New roads, rail, park and rides are not mitigation, they are more environmental damage, meaning the destruction and pollution is spread throughout East Suffolk. Loss and diversion of many footpaths, bridleways and cycle routes. Employment and economic benefits overstated. Impact on existing businesses especially tourist industry and farming understated. Influx of 6000 workers highlights jobs are not for locals and puts resident’s health and well-being at risk. No calculation of full cradle to grave carbon footprint lifecycle evidenced in DCO. Which dept in government is responsible for checking this? EDF admit that earliest contribution SZC can make to carbon targets is 2040 making mockery of urgent need to justify build. Sizewell C makes a complete mockery of the government’s 25-year environmental plan. EDF admit that they do not have the Finance to carry out the project. Effect on residents of increase in low level radiation should be a consideration. Use of large amounts of mains water during construction and operation. Source still unknown. Impact on Emergency Plan."

Jill Bowring
"To continue with technology that uses fuel which is unable to be cleaned up safely at the end of its useful life is unacceptable. To further scar some very delicate and nationally important landscape is also not acceptable."

John Horsnell
"Why is the Government allowing the Chinese General Nuclear involvement to be a major State Holder in Sizewell C Project will State Security and Technology be an Issue which is highly controversial Sizewell C are proposing TWO trouble prone European Pressurised Reactors (ERP's) which are still to be proven either reliable or cost effective Why do we need another Nuclear Power station on the lovely Suffolk Coastline when there are so many Solar, Off Shore Wind and Renewable Projects being built by EDF I believe its NOT acceptable for the Government to APPROVE the building of Sizewell C which will cause 9-12 years of TOTAL TRAFFIC CONGESTION & POLLUTION loss of Tourism for Suffolk and Norfolk EDF have NOT provided sufficient detail in there submissions to date regarding lessons learned from Hinkey Point the OVERALL PROJECT RISKS, S106 Mitigation measures to cover infrastructures local community issues also Road/Rail led Transport to from site DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION issues with Pylons Power Cables routes across the countryside with all manor of Environmental issues remaining unanswered and lastly major concerns with numerous OPEN ISSUES still to CLOSE OUT EDF have not been transparent with their non attendance of meetings to work and liaise with Local Committees, lack of providing insufficient detailed design & technical information and feed-back which is greatly lacking in this DCO submission I understand by APPROVING Sizewell C will create many Construction Jobs in the building Phase and many in the operational Phase of Running the Power Station i welcome these opportunities for the future of our youth and the skills that this project will create but this will not outweigh the Economical Cost to the area and with losses of AONB and BIODIVERSITY this project should be NOT BE APPROVED"

John Stebbing
"I want to add my name and my support to ALL of the representations made by the following organisations: The STOP SIZEWELL C group The RSPB The SUFFOLK WILDLIFE TRUST and to support the Suffolk County Councils objections to the EDF proposals"

Joy Castle
"My points of concern about Sizewell C are:- I believe the proposed construction in this place is wrong because:- • It will cause irreversible damage and destruction to this AONB • Which will be catastrophic for wildlife • Fragile ecosystems will be destroyed for ever • Construction on this scale despoils the structure of the land: soil, marshland levels etc which are unique • The plan is too big for the area available • There is still no long term solution for the spent nuclear waste here or even in the wider world I believe the project would cause unacceptable community pressures • Strain for the health services • Significant increase in noise, light pollution, heavy traffic and an unacceptable long term disruption to communities who live, work and visit here."

Ken Baugh
"I have many concerns about the construction of and need for a nuclear power plant at Sizewell C. Below are my main concerns which are the same as those submitted by my wife. LOCATION This is the wrong project in the location. The Suffolk coast is at a greater risk than most other parts of the UK from climate change which are causing sea levels rise and flooding. Coastal erosion is unpredictable and, as we can see right now, is happening almost daily on this part of the coast. Sizewell C would have a massively adverse impact on internationally and nationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value in the East Suffolk area. At the same time as this application, eight further energy projects are planned for the area. There is no joined up thinking taking place and, with the variety of other types of energy projects, it seems that there is no confidence in what is the right way forward for our energy needs. What is clear is that if all of these projects move forward then an AONB will be destroyed forever. It makes a mockery of giving any area AONB status if it can be ignored in this way. DETRIMENTAL AFFECT TO OUR COMMUNITY, ECONOMY AND PEOPLE. Local communities will be subject to unacceptable side effects if Sizewell C goes ahead. We will suffer unacceptable increases in traffic (talk of up to 1000 HGV movements per day), dust, noise and light pollution and interruption of our every day lives. East Suffolk residents will suffer very badly as a result of this proposal. 6,000 workers will move to the area, with 2,400 in a Worker Campus sited in a location that is unsuitable. The tourism industry which is a vital part of the Suffolk economy will be extremely hard hit. EDF suggest 28% of visitors could be deterred from visiting - I think that number will be much higher. Who wants to go on holiday in a building site and, worse than that, a building site where a nuclear project is being constructed? The Suffolk tourism industry could lose up to £40m a year and hundreds of jobs. Many small businesses will be decimated with livelihoods destroyed. The East Suffolk infrastructure cannot cope with such a project: there is a lack of private housing stock, our schools and health service cannot cope with such an influx of people. EDF’s road based transport plan is not sustainable and will have an enormously adverse impact on both local communities and the visitor economy. The HGV numbers under the “Road-Led” proposals have been rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. The new roads being proposed will cut communities in half, divide farmer’s properties and ruin the footpath and byway network. There has been little consideration of or care about the effects of the road transport proposal on local communities, the local economy and our countryside. ENVIRONMENT The harm to Minsmere, an internationally important wildlife site, is irreparable, let alone the damage to other wildlife sites in the area. EDF cannot be allowed to ignore the importance of our wildlife reserves and our flora and fauna. To use one example, the impact on Marsh Harriers threatens the integrity of the Special Protection Area. The impact on the character of the East Suffolk landscape would be catastrophic due to the locality, design and scale of Sizewell C. This area is an AONB for a reason and this cannot be ignored simply because it suits EDF. It is absolutely impossible to compensate for the landscape and ecological damage that Sizewell C would cause. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the RSPB and the Suffolk Wildlife Trusts and to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Kirsten Hecktermann
"These are my concerns about the proposed Sizewell C development, I wish to register them: Having attended the last three consultations by EDF, reading the changes and discussing my concerns with various representatives, combined with attending other independent talks, meetings and films regarding EDF proposals, plans and the efficacy of their projects. I have formed these judgments opposing the development on the following grounds: The site: 1.The Site identified is too small. Environment: 2. This is the driest county in The UK, the fresh water needed for Sizewell C is likely to seriously impact this region, especially as forecasts are for hotter, drier summers. 3. Coastal erosion on this coastline is a huge issue for the future of a nuclear plant on this site. 4. The whole construction scenario will contribute to huge increases in carbon emissions and are worrying considering G4 summit targets…… Marine Issues: 5.The sea water intake system will undoubtedly kill millions of fish and marine life with its processing of the water. Amenities: 5. Both the construction and future running of Sizewell C will overwhelm and severely impact the surrounding ANOB area of this international as well a nationally important ecological site. I am very concerned about the long lasting and in some cases permanent damage to Minsmere reserve, and surrounding heritage area. It has taken years of work and nurturing to enable this deeply enriched area to thrive. It has become even more apparent during this pandemic how very important this region has been as a place of refuge for its beautiful coast and countryside. Some of these areas will be acquired by EDF and destroyed permanently. 8. The incredible amount of tourism and many cultural events that happen annually throughout this area and which are vastly important to the local economy will be substantially harmed. People will be deterred from coming here due to the high traffic, pollution and noise. Hotels and guest houses will be taken over. Traffic: 7. There are many small lanes and single track roads in my area which will undoubtably become rat runs, lethal lanes for cyclists and pedestrians as well as being gridlocked around the A12 with motorists trying to avoid the huge increase in construction traffic every day. These are dangerous unacceptable impacts to local residents and businesses plus severe road degradation. Access: 9. During Covid 19 it has been very difficult to view any documents, and almost impossible for those who have no access to computers. This review period should not have been allowed to proceed during these times. Yours Sincerely, Kirsten Hecktermann,[Redacted]"

Letheringham Parish Council
"Letheringham Parish Council Are concerned that the original EDF proposals proposals for the transport of materials to the the Sizewell construction site, was an integrated Sea ,rail and road system. These proposals have subsequently been watered down and that a much greater use of the road system is now proposed we would wish to see the plans revised and the use of rail significantly increased to alleviate the traffic on the A12 . Many of the business in Letheringham are dependent on tourism and the prospect of worsening traffic on our roads will have a detrimental impact to the local economy unless serious and concrete proposals to mitigate the problem are forthcoming from EDF. We have highlighted a number of issues of concern through the consultation which we do not believe have been addressed and or sufficient mitigation measures proposed by EDF. Issues of concern specific to Letheringham 1) The location of the Southern park and ride location at Wickham market which we believe should still be co located with the existing public park and ride at Martlesham where there would be much less loss of agricultural land, damage to the landscape and which would minimise the pull factors to that will considerably increase ( non HGV ) traffic volumes on the B1078. 2) The location of the park and ride at Wickham market will drive much of the non HGV works traffic ( workers / vans etc ) to access the P&R via the B1078 this will lead inevitably to the single track country lanes in Letheringham, Easton and Charsfield villages being used as rat runs to avoid the significant congestion that will occur at the pinch point on the B1078 as it passes through Wickham Market. We understand a proposal was submitted by Sizewell ( EDF) to bypass this problem by routing traffic off of the B1078 to the Tank Road at Easton/Glenham which proved to be totally impractical however, still no alternative proposals have been submitted to mitigate the problem. 3) The consequent increased (non HGV) traffic on the B1078 could be mitigated by reducing the current 60 mph speed limit to 30 or 40 mph throughout its length however this will not solve the problem of (2) above"

Lindsay Carrier
"I am very concerned about the proposals for Sizewell C on environmental grounds ,the impact on local communities ,tourism in the local area and businesses which depend on this .Sea levels and erosion also concern me in terms of the safety of planning a new reactor I am concerned about the damage to the coastal area through increased traffic in local villages and the destruction of wild life habitat for a project which is behind its time ,almost anachronistic .This area is currently important for birds and wildlife and this project risks this area becoming industrially focussed and destroying this important aspect of Suffolk life which draws people here .The knock on effect of this will be damage to tourism which many communities locally rely on,in Orford where I live this is certainly so .The nature of the coast will be changed and alongside this the traffic which will spread across the East of the county due to tailbacks and rat runs .Once new roads to cope are in place ,the destruction will be complete . I am also concerned about sea levels and erosion and the dangers inherent in this plan which has not been fully considered I realise that we Energy but we need to be focusing on other forms of energy generation"

Margaret Davis
"I would like to raise the following issues regarding Sizewell C 1. Selection of site - Risks from flooding due to climate change and sea-level rise - Potential impact on neighbouring or near-by areas of great ecological importance - Possible impact on the coastal processes of this beautiful region 2. Impacts on the community - Unacceptable levels of pollution and disruption to local communities - Massive influx of workers will disrupt current balance in local communities 3. Transport - Current road-based plan is not sustainable and would have a massive adverse and unacceptable impact on local communities. - Insufficient legacy value offered by relief roads 4. Environment - Potential harm to Minsmere unacceptable - Impact on AONB I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C."

Margaret Grenham
"I feel that the proposed building of two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell is really not necessary. The thinking behind the move is old thinking and we to develop smarter types of energy producers. Helping climate change is not true as the finish date is beyond the problem date (7 years) for climate change. 'Local' workers can come from as far away as Cambridge, there are very few jobs after the build phase. Finally, we leave an awful legacy for future generations to clean up, that can't be right. And the money spent should go on insulating existing properties instead."

Marilyn Hands
"I am writing to object to the construction of Sizewell C. I endorse the representations made by Stop Sizewell C. There is no doubt that the negative impacts of the proposed development of SZC are catastrophic for this beautiful rural and coastal region. There are no adequate mitigation measures which EDF might take to make the scheme less unacceptable. The publication recently circulated by EDF, has reinforced my view that EDF makes misleading statements which bear very little resemblance to reality. For instance, 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. Comments about Hinkley being on schedule fly in the face of informed reports. In all the whole of this consultation process has been a farce with very little thought for the long-term consequences for this area. EDF tells us, the site is potentially suitable. I 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 to living near a nuclear power station. Should the scheme go ahead, I 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; I believe it is being economical with the truth. As I 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. Looking at the impact study the benefits are questionable at worse and short term at best. The local area has seen very little long-term benefits from Sizewell’s earlier development. It is tourism and food production that has sustained the local economy over the years. It would appear to me that the benefits to this scheme are either national or regional – not local. All the disbenefits fall on the local community. Specifically, I 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. I believe that EDF’s insistence in going ahead with this application at a time of crisis, when local consultation is particularly difficult, just reflects EDF’s attitude to this whole process – lip service to local consultation and local needs. It is totally inappropriate and unfair that the examination of this application should be conducted digitally. Marilyn Hands"

Mark Goyder
"1) The proposal is unsafe in the light of the latest scientific understanding of the rate of climate change. By 2050, says the International Panel on Climate Change, extreme sea events will be happening every year. Before the end of the century Sizewell power station may have become Sizewell Island. The best-laid plans for 200-year storage of nuclear waste may be looking less robust. Recent evidence about the acceleration in the melting of the polar icecaps, extreme weather events, and a compounding effect in global warming render EDF's current assumptions about the stability of the site unsafe. 2) It is simply imprudent to propose any new power station, let alone a nuclear one, on this fragile and fast-eroding coast. The proposal is unsafe because, unlike the land under sites A and B, there is not the same solid foundation. 3) EDF has admitted it may walk away. EDF is proposing this development without guaranteeing that it will continue to own the site. In addition to the current named investors it has admitted under questioning that it envisages selling out to other investors who may take a different view of their obligations. We have no idea what entity or entities will control this site. No permission should be considered unless there is a guarantee from EDF that it will be continue to be the majority owner and that it will accept responsibility for the impacts of the site for at least the first 10 years following completion and it will only be allowed to reduce its stake below 51% with explicit UK government permission after a further public inquiry 4) EDF's Pledge 5 about preserving the Suffolk Coast and minimising impact is misleading. The mining company Rio Tinto promised ‘Net Positive Impact’ when developing a mine in Madagascar, but abandoned its plans in the face of falling commodity prices. There is a critical size of major construction or extraction projects beyond which it becomes impossible to restore biodiversity and natural ecology and this project is well beyond that critical size. Minsmere as we know will be lost for ever and with it will go a major plank of the platform for the tourist economy. The fact that ownership of Sizewell C may change hands makes EDF's promises even more unachievable. 5) Not only is the storage of renewable energy now becoming possible - thus eliminating the imperative for large quantities of nuclear energy in the energy mix. We are entering an age where miniaturisation of nuclear energy ('pocket nuclear' ) becomes possible. Under questioning, EDF admits this, but feels unable to stop this now-obsolescent proposal because it has taken so long to get to this point. That is not an acceptable reason for continuing."

Martin Wilks
"What I have not liked about this series of enquiries is the way in which EDF have set the agenda. And, in appearing to be generously listening to the complaints about it: wildlife, ecological impacts, road congestion, pollution etc, we almost lose sight of how the question of nuclear power yes or no in principle seems to have no place at the inquiry table? EDF argue - prominently - that enabling NUKES for us is their contribution towards a zero carbon future? So when do we have a discussion about their contribution to a nuclear toxic East Coast. They’ve not sorted out the long term (many 100’s years) policing maintenance and security of the stockpiled Sizewell B consequence …. And now we’re contemplating them doubling up that hazard into the future? It may not come home to roost for this generation of stakeholders - but the children of the 7’th generation? (As the Lakota Indians would say in considering the long term effects of their pow-wow decisions) But whatever, it’s good to separate this out - are you for/against Sizewell C in principle? And then, are you complaining about how they are planning to do it? Trouble is, for those against it in principle - they can hardly be bothered fussing with the “how they are planning to do it bit”, - they just don’t want it to happen. Having been ‘against’ in principle ever since I started to think deeply about such things - I thought it time to re-evaluate. We all know, (don’t we?) how automatically self-affirming our beliefs can become. But into the re-evaluation process I’ll add two fresh ideas: One is the Precautionary principle (Wingspread statement 1998) - in a nutshell, “Practice precaution in the face of uncertainty” - with the burden of evidential proof placed upon the proposer of a questionable development. How can EDF ‘prove’ that highly toxic radioactive waste will obediently remain safe for many hundreds of years? The second is the proposed The law of Ecocide - Ecocide is the serious loss, damage or destruction of ecosystems, and includes climate and cultural damage. The Earth Protector initiative supports a campaign to criminalise ecocide and create legal protection for the planetary system (in the same way as human rights got it’s teeth with genocide becoming established as a crime in international law) My Woodbridge Town Council has just signed up as an Earth Protector Community - I live in an earth protector community. Uranium fuel, whilst not fossil fuel, is clearly not a sustainable fuel supply - nor is it ethically sourced. Post-colonial plundering of developing nations, pitiful miners wages with no employment rights. War mongering war lords fighting for the rights to uranium rich territory. We need to put investment into locally sourced, clean energy - and encourage the research that helps us do that."

Maureen Hales
"I have been visiting this area since the 1970s, drawn by the wildlife and the special landscapes that are so rare, not just in Britain but the whole of Europe. Since moving here permanently 5 years ago, I have volunteered weekly at RSPB Minsmere. I have been amazed at how many people visit, not only from all over the UK but Europe, US, Canada etc. These visitors are drawn by the variety and sometimes rare species to be found on the reserve but also by its outstanding beauty, not for nothing is it designated an AONB and SSSI. Tourism in all its forms plays a huge part in the financial security of this region and I know from my dealings with visitors, that they are aghast at the prospect of this development and the impact it will have over the next 10/15 years. Many have said they will not visit again if this build goes ahead. This will without doubt have an irreversible and negative impact on some of the the most rare and sensitive species that it has taken decades to re-establish and protect for future generations. These are the same species that draw visitors to this area and to lose them would be criminal. In addition, everything I have read seems to suggest that this is a hugely uneconomical and unviable development. It would appear that large reactors are now a thing of the past, with the emphasis turning to more smaller plants to serve large conurbations."

Michael Bradshaw
"I am opposed to the application on a number of grounds as follows: 1. I do not believe that we need more nuclear power stations. The pace of change in renewable generation and battery storage is such that this developments is already an expensive white elephant. 2. The environmental impact of the development will be hugely damaging to the area. The scale of traffic and the damage to ecosystems as a result of the development are unacceptable given the AONB status of the coastline. 3. The development would damage the local tourist economy and the alleged economic benefits to the area are largely illusory given that most of the workforce will come from outside the area. 4. The coastline is eroding at a pace in the area as witnessed by the recent cliff falls at Thorpeness. It has to be folly of a high order to build this structure on an unstable shore. 5. The RSPB reserve at Minsmere is of national importance. The damage caused to this could be immense. Thank you for considering my representation. Michael Bradshaw"

Mr Rhett Griffiths
"I'd like to mention the following concerns about Sizewell C. Location of Site: - at serious risk from climate change (sea level rise/flooding) - negative impact on nearby AONB areas and sites of ecological importance Community, social and economic impacts: - negative impact on local people - traffic, noise & light pollution. - thousands of workers will come and live in the area including a huge campus in a small area, negative impacts will include pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. - huge negative impact on tourism and jobs related to this sector. An EDF survey suggests 29% drop in visitors. - pressure on health, social and emergency services, knock-on effects on vulnerable people. Transport: - massive negative impact on local communities. HGV numbers at levels rejected by all statutory consultations - 2-3 years of increased traffic for local villages - new roads would split communities, damage the rural footpaths and destroy farmland. Environment and Landscape: - flooding! - impact on Minsmere Sluice unknown - negative impact of proposed borrow pits/landfill. - destruction of Minsmere, an internationally important habitat / Special Protection Area - uncertainty re drainage and supply of water during construction period and beyond. - not possible to compensate people for landscape and ecological damage + property impact - CO2 impact from construction won't be offset for at least 5 years+. Marine and Coastal processes: - impact on coastal erosion unknown - negative impact on marine ecology I wish to also endorse the representations of Stop Sizewell and RSPB. Thanks for listening, Rhett Griffiths"

Mrs Helen Bishop
"I live in the centre of Woodbridge, but am very conscious of train noises especially at night. Since the roads are already congested Any extra traffic on either would damage the town."

Mrs Joyce H Annandale
"Sizewell C does not address the near to medium term urgency in reducing carbon emissions and diverts taxpayers’ money and government time from dealing much more effectively with carbon reduction. In the time it takes to generate electricity and pay back its embedded energy other technologies will have reduced carbon and be generating at far lower cost. It burdens future generations with massive, still-unquantified clean up costs and will damage Suffolk’s tourism industry with a row of defunct nuclear power stations decaying along a heritage coast. Putting Chinese technology into vital infrastructure is unacceptable and being drawn in to taking a financial stake will mean that the government will be compelled endlessly to throw good money after bad when EDF inevitably says it’s late and over budget. So the monetary cost and delay will represent two decades’ crucial loss in actual carbon reduction. A nuclear incident would destroy not only Suffolk’s tourism but a major part of its economy."

Neil Boast MBE
"My property is directly alongside the railway line in Woodbridge [Redacted] and the increase in rail traffic, and the increase in weight/size/speed will adversely your home and our lives. It will likely damage our home, ruin our sleep (we already have noticed the Sizewell trains affect the cottage in increased track noise and vibration."

Nicholas Bridges
"APPLICATIONS TO PINS TO REGISTER AS AN INTERESTED PARTY I am a chartered architect with 35 years’ experience, specialising in heritage and expert witness consultancy, and who has lived in the area since 1969. I wish to raise the following concerns about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection • I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place • Site at unpredictable risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding • Potential impact on and from coastal processes • Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value • Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality 2. Community, Economic and social impacts • 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 may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. • Pressure on local housing • EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles • Negative impacts on local businesses • Pressure on health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people. 3. Transport • Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy • Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic • New roads would sever communities, damage rural footpaths and divide farmland. • Rat-running and disruption not adequately considered – existing roads not built for predicted weight and volume • Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed 4. Environment and Landscape • Flooding. • Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice • 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 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. • Flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site • Catastrophic impact on AONB and landscape character because of locality, design and scale • 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. • Inadequate Heritage and Visual Impact Assessments I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C – Suffolk Preservation Society , RSPB, etc. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Nigel Robson
"I wish to object to the proposed Sizewell C (and D) development for the following principle reason; the development is too large for the land available. As a consequence the adverse impact of the development is too great. In particular:- 1. It has a devastating Impact on the surrounding environment. It threatens the unique environment of the Sizewell marshes and the adjoining Minsmere bird reserve. 2. Its construction generates enormous volumes of road traffic which is not adequately catered for by the improvements proposed. Other delivery options (road and sea) and traffic routes need to be advanced to minimise the impact. 3. It requires huge numbers of construction personnel which are not adequately housed in a new campus in a tiny village, that offers no long term benefit to the area. 4. It is squeezed onto a strip of inherently unstable sea facing land which has to be protected by considerable man made defences. These appear, however, to be insufficient to address long term coastal erosion. Finally, I am concerned that the information provided by EDF to support its application is inadequate. No proper large scale images are provided of the site and its construction processes so their impact can not be properly judged; Staff numbers (erroneously described as “roles”) and therefore employment benefits are over stated; and historic landscapes are described as being replaced by newly created areas (you can not replace ancient features with new)."

Paul Chandler
"I am very concerned about the volume of road traffic this project will generate. I have particular concerns over the use of Sizewell Gap Road prior to the establishment of the new access road to the main C development site. Sizewell Gap Road is the only road into and out of Sizewell Hamlet and surrounding properties, and the two existing nuclear installations. This is of particular importance as the primary means of access for emergency vehicles. EdF state a construction time of 2 years approx. for the access road, but offer no indication how contractors and staff and their equipment will gain access to the main construction site prior to the new access road completion. This is particularly relevant as ScottishPower Renewables plan construction of offshore windfarm cabling ductwork in this area, using Sizewell Gap Road as their main access routes with some several hundred HGV, LGV and passenger vehicle movements per day at the same time. There is also refuelling outages every 18 months at Sizewell B which generated a significant volume of daily traffic for 6 – 8 weeks as 5000 contractors descend on the area. All of these projects will overlap EdF still prefer a road-led strategy and have discounted a sea led strategy for all but the very largest items of plant. More could be explored re: discharging aggregate and other materials further offshore onto smaller vessels and ferrying materials to the planned smaller shore discharge point. I am also deeply concerned over the loss of Coronation Wood, submitted as a local planning application, and not part of this DCO. This is an enabling project for this DCO relocating Sizewell B buildings to Coronation Wood from land earmarked for the C station. Coronation Wood is a well established mixed wood that has been used as noise and visual mitigation by the CEGB (Sizewell A), British Energy (Sizewell B) and latterly by EdF (Sizewell B Dry Fuel Store). British Energy / EdF had ownership of and responsibility for the upkeep and health of this wood, yet their reasoning for removing this area of woodland now is it is poor condition and needs to be felled for safety reasons. What is obvious is the wood was convenient to use as mitigation when it suited, but now the C site is found to be too small, and some buildings have to be relocated to make way, the mis-management of British Energy / EdF to properly caretake this asset offers the excuse of destruction of a 100 year old wood on health and safety grounds. Whilst many hundreds of trees are indicated be planted as compensation is insufficient. Many birds, bats and mammal species live in this wood and will be displaced. Also, any trees planted will take many years to become properly established and provide any effective species habitat and protection for local residents from noise and visual blight. There are also a number of concerns relating to the detrimental effect on tourism."

Paul White
"Apart from not wanting China General Nuclear Power Group ANYWHERE near this development, I am a life fellow of the RSPB who run a reserve adjacent to Sizewell. It is my opinion that construction of this waste of tax-payers money (EDF will be looking to UK Government to help withfinancing) may easily damage the finely balanced local ecosystems. It is a Site of Special Scientific I nterest, an SPA (European designation of rare and vulnerable birds) an SAC (European designation to protect habitats and wildlife species) and a Ramsar site (International site of wetland importance) If there would be no damage to the areas biodiversity, why would EDF say they want to create fenland to offset the damage? Here's an idea, rather than setting out on an unwanted economic nightmare and having to repair environmental damage by creating new wetlands, why not avoid any damage in the first place?"

Peter Mitchell
"It is obvious that the main problem is the amount of construction traffic to reduce this the rail network is the only answer with major sidings and land available at both Ipswich and lowestoft both these towns have ports for incoming materials or use the port area at felixstowe which also has train infrastructure There will need to be upgrade to the rail network but this could have benefits at later date for felixstowe container traffic in later years"

Radiation Free Lakeland
"Radiation Free Lakeland do not recognise the legality of this consultation. "There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of longlived, highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future." Nuclear Power and the Environment, or the Flowers Report, was released in September 1976 and by the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, chaired by Sir Brian Flowers. There is no demonstration beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to safely contain long lived highly radioactive active wastes. The wastes have to date not been adequately contained above ground with a catalogue of leaks and accidents arising from the UK's nuclear waste storage facility at Sellafield. There is no demonstration beyond reasonable doubt that the wastes would be safely contained 1000m below ground in a GDF. Sizewell C should not go ahead."

Roderick Orr-Ewing
"1. Site Selection I am concerned that the site is at risk from the effects of climate change, principally seal level rise and flooding. The site could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. I am also very concerned about the impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts As someone involved with local tourism (holiday let) I fear very much for the impact on tourism and the local hospitality sector. The huge upheaval caused by the construction of this plant will make the area far less attractive a place to visit. Even after construction is finished it will years for the area to return to it's current popularity. 3. Transport As a resident of Blythburgh I dread the impact of all the extra traffic generated by both the HGVs and site workforce 4. Environment and Landscape I fear irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. I do not believe that the issues of drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond have been adequately addressed. The probable large abstraction of water compounds the risks to the environment and to protected species and risks reducing groundwater levels with deleterious effects on surrounding habitats and ecology. It will be impossible to compensate for the consequential landscape and ecological damage. 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."

Roger Hall
"I have lived in Suffolk for all my 75 years, we have endured 2 nuclear power stations at Sizewell, the countries biggest docks at Felixstowe, the largest of shore wind farm, massive power lines, new massive underground power lines under our countryside. I am a Suffolk Wildlife member and appreciates our country life Woodlands, Animals, Insects and all creatures etc.. The sea and its beauty is very important and any fraction of nuclear water deposits going into really Abhors me and the future generations that will live by the East Anglian Coast. This notice i will put out to all so in the future the people making this serious mistake are help responsible"

Roger Holmes
"I am particularly interested in the future increase of traffic as my property is about 50ft away from the A12. But this is as nothing compared to the concerns of the long term storage of radioactive waste as a burden on a declining society as the environment degrades"

Ruth Redgrave
"My concerns re EDF's DCO application are: 1. Site Selection I believe that the site at Sizewell is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding. Coastal erosion and processes could impact on the safety of the plant in the future. There will be an adverse impact on nearby bird reserve and AONB, devaluing the area for wildlife and local people and visitors who value the area for its tranquility and peace. The site will contain 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste and other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality, will be a hideous sight and affect everyone for future generations. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts There will be unacceptable noise, traffic, light pollution and contaminants from the work, impacting on local people. Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. However, since COVID-19, I believe most people have come to value local natural environments much more than when this survey was undertaken, therefore many more people would value an un-industrialised coastline. Due to the number of extra people coming to work and live in the area there will be more pressure on health, social and emergency services infastructure, meaning more impact on vulnerable people. 3. Transport Road based transport plan is not sustainable; there will be 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. Alternative relief road routes with legacy value have not been adequately assessed by EDF 4. Environment and Landscape Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic. Dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles inadequate, with unknown affects on lung health locally. Impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill have been fully addressed. There will be irreparable damage to Minsmere and the wider area of natural habitats. loss of Marsh Harriers will threaten the integrity of Special Protection Area Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species. There are unknown risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology and flood risks due to the loss of flood storage from the development site. There would be a catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale. It is impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage caused by a major industrial construction which is proposed. 5. Marine and Coastal processes There will be ecological and flood risk impact on coastal processes from the hard coastal defence feature proposed. There is no complete design of the HCDF available. Erosion and recession is episodic and unpredictable and could affect the safety of the public by this construction. There will be impacts on marine ecology and are seas are already in peril."

Sara-Jane Eaton
"I am very concerned about the proposals for Sizewell C. I am concerned about the potential damage to the Suffolk coastline and the negative impact that this will have on its rare species and habitats. The environmental damage proposed is not sufficiently mitigated by the current construction plans which have been put forward by EDF. I am also concerned that EDF have done little to reduce the impact that construction traffic will have upon East Suffolk's villages. There will be a huge increase in pollution in terms of air, noise and light because of EDF’s decision to move from sea to land based delivery of building materials. The congestion to the A12 and A14 will be unacceptable and there is a real risk that rat runs will be created by vehicles using the B1078 which runs through villages, past houses with families and children rather than main roads. The villages roads are too small, narrow and picturesque to accept any extra traffic. The beauty of the surrounding villages will be negatively impacted and the park and ride will be highly visible and an eye sore. In this respect, I am very concerned that EDF has failed to listen to the views of Suffolk's parishes and communities. There will also be a negative impact on tourism in terms of the changes to the coastal appearance and the traffic congestion which will be caused by the increase in HGVs and the traffic for workers heading to the proposed park and ride."

Sarah Doe
"To whom it may concern I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. As someone who lives close by to the proposed site and visits the area frequently I am compelled to express my views on the effect the building of Sizewell C will have on this beautiful area of the Suffolk coastline. I believe strongly that during its construction and for the time the power station will be in use, it will have an adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value. I have still yet to understand how anything like this can even be considered in an area of outstanding natural beauty. By the governments own definition ‘An area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) is land protected by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act). It protects the land to conserve and enhance its natural beauty.’ Yet it can seemingly be wantonly be destroyed when it suits. As a member of the Suffolk Wildlife Trust and RSPB I am aware of their studies into the impact the site will have on the local wildlife. I can see this building project, before there is even an ounce of power released from the station will do irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. I understand EDF recognises that there could be impacts on Marsh Harriers which are protected species. 80 per cent of the UK’s marsh harriers can be found in the East of England and Minsmere and surrounding marshes are incredibly important for ensuring this birds continues to go from strength to strength. It is going to be impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage that this construction site will bring. The area relies heavily on a visitor economy. EDF own surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred from visiting such a stunning area of the UK. All of this having an unacceptable impact on local communities; with increased heavy traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and general disruption. Minsmere reserve receives more than 120,000 visitors each year, attracted to the area by the beautiful wide open spaces and wildlife experiences the landscape offers. It plays a vital role in the local community contributing more than £7million to the economy and supporting more than 200 jobs. All which I believe is under threat from the construction of Sizewell C I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process and endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and stand with RSPB Minsmere and Suffolk Wildlife Trust to ensure these important sites are safeguarded for people and wildlife for many generations to come"

Sarah Zins
"I list below my areas of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Technology • I consider that the technology under consideration could be outdated by the time that Sizewell C is built, or nuclear output may no longer be required because of the recent rapid increase in renewable energy. • 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; 2. Partners • It is of concern that EDF is owned by the French state and is in significant debt so will be expected to recoup its losses from British consumers and tax-payers. • The recent controversy over the 5G contract highlights the security risks posed by the involvement of China General Nuclear in this critical, but lethal, infrastructure. 3. Site Selection • It seems extraordinary to build a highly sensitive nuclear plant on a site which is at risk from accelerating sea level rise and flooding. 4. Community impacts • The impact on Suffolk communities from traffic, noise and light pollution is immense. • An influx of 6000 workers from outside the area will be huge, with pressure on private-sector rental accommodation and health, social and emergency services.. 5. Tourism and Economy impact • The Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation says Sizewell C and Scottish Power Renewables plans could cost the visitor economy between £24-£40million a year and 400 jobs. EDF’s own surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. If the peace is disrupted for 12 years and traffic on the A12 is intolerable, it will quickly lose its attraction for tourists. • There are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for this area, and the cumulative impact of those has not been assessed. • Small businesses were struggling before Covid and are on a knife-edge currently – if they lose valuable tourism custom, they may well not survive. • Locally based employment insufficiently scoped. • Snape Maltings and other significant cultural sites will be adversely affected if ticket buyers are not prepared to travel on congested roads. 6. Transport • The road-based transport plan has an enormous and adverse impact on local communities with massive numbers of HGVs. • The sleep deprivation caused to track-side residents by 5 freight train movements per night – 1 every hour and 24 minutes between 11 pm to 6 am for 10 years plus overruns - has barely been considered. No detail has been provided about whether there will be other nuisance caused e.g. klaxons, idling of engines, damage to foundations from vibration. No mitigation measures have been outlined. 7. Environment and Landscape • At Minsmere and more generally it will be impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage • Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species 8. Marine and Coastal processes • Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature. • Impacts on marine ecology 9. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust. 10. I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Simon Ransome
"I strongly object to the building of nuclear power station Sizewell C on the following grounds. The down side costs are too huge to contemplate , particularly the pollution caused by construction inc traffic congestion,dust, noise, and light pollution; the destruction of wildlife habitat; the adverse effects on the important tourist industry of this area and the as yet unsolved problem of what to do with the highly toxic radioactive waste. The 'jobs bonus' is a red herring, put that amount of investment in almost any other large scale project including green energy generation and more jobs will be created. Or try using the money to insulate thousands of homes so less energy needed in the first place. Plus the outrageous price due to be paid for the electricity produced. Plus the Chinese involvement and worrying security issues raised. I could go on!"

Steve Black
"This is a huge white elephant that Electricty is more expensive than renewables and the resulting waste will pollute the earth and will endanger many generations of mankind. It will be too late to stop climate change and the ROI will take years. I oppose this totally"

Sue Baugh
"I have many concerns about the construction of and need for a nuclear power plant at Sizewell C. Below are my main concerns. LOCATION This is the wrong project in the location. The Suffolk coast is at a greater risk than most other parts of the UK from climate change which are causing sea levels rise and flooding. Coastal erosion is unpredictable and, as we can see right now, is happening almost daily on this part of the coast. Sizewell C would have a massively adverse impact on internationally and nationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value in the East Suffolk area. At the same time as this application, eight further energy projects are planned for the area. There is no joined up thinking taking place and, with the variety of other types of energy projects, it seems that there is no confidence in what is the right way forward for our energy needs. What is clear is that if all of these projects move forward then an AONB will be destroyed forever. It makes a mockery of giving any area AONB status if it can be ignored in this way. DETRIMENTAL AFFECT TO OUR COMMUNITY, ECONOMY AND PEOPLE. Local communities will be subject to unacceptable side effects if Sizewell C goes ahead. We will suffer unacceptable increases in traffic (talk of up to 1000 HGV movements per day), dust, noise and light pollution and interruption of our every day lives. East Suffolk residents will suffer very badly as a result of this proposal. 6,000 workers will move to the area, with 2,400 in a Worker Campus sited in a location that is unsuitable. The tourism industry which is a vital part of the Suffolk economy will be extremely hard hit. EDF suggest 28% of visitors could be deterred from visiting - I think that number will be much higher. Who wants to go on holiday in a building site and, worse than that, a building site where a nuclear project is being constructed? The Suffolk tourism industry could lose up to £40m a year and hundreds of jobs. Many small businesses will be decimated with livelihoods destroyed. The East Suffolk infrastructure cannot cope with such a project: there is a lack of private housing stock, our schools and health service cannot cope with such an influx of people. EDF’s road based transport plan is not sustainable and will have an enormously adverse impact on both local communities and the visitor economy. The HGV numbers under the “Road-Led” proposals have been rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. The new roads being proposed will cut communities in half, divide farmer’s properties and ruin the footpath and byway network. There has been little consideration of or care about the effects of the road transport proposal on local communities, the local economy and our countryside. ENVIRONMENT The harm to Minsmere, an internationally important wildlife site, is irreparable, let alone the damage to other wildlife sites in the area. EDF cannot be allowed to ignore the importance of our wildlife reserves and our flora and fauna. To use one example, the impact on Marsh Harriers threatens the integrity of the Special Protection Area. The impact on the character of the East Suffolk landscape would be catastrophic due to the locality, design and scale of Sizewell C. This area is an AONB for a reason and this cannot be ignored simply because it suits EDF. It is absolutely impossible to compensate for the landscape and ecological damage that Sizewell C would cause. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the RSPB and the Suffolk Wildlife Trusts and to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Susan Sapsed
"As a mother, grandmother and great grandmother my main concerns are for the younger generations who will live with the results of the inspectorate's decision for many years. These concerns include: SAFETY The proposed development, although alongside an existing nuclear power station, is situated on the coast. Global warming is undoubtedly leading to rising sea levels and this is likely to impact adversely on any power station erected in such a vulnerable situation. Thus I worry about future safety. LEARNING AND EMPLOYMENT The developers recognise the learning and employment opportunities which would arise during the development of this project. However, although such opportunities are needed, the longer term view questions how many of those who have participated in the construction phase will go on to gain full time permanent employment once any power station becomes operative and how many will discover that their new skills are no longer needed. There are other, and in my view, better options for learning and employment – see further below. IMPACT ON THE LOCAL COMMUNITY During construction the local community will have opportunity to supply and accommodate workers from outside the area. How much opportunity will exist once any power station becomes operative in 9 -12 years? I would surmise much less since the number of highly skilled operatives needed to operate the facility (claimed to be 900) would be miniscule in comparison and it is unlikely that a high percentage of these will come from the existing community. Long term any increase in employment of those from the local community would be little compensation for the severe disruption which will inevitably occur during the construction phase WILDLIFE The proposed development will have an enormous impact on an important area which is already used to enhance opportunities for wildlife (and to encourage tourism in the area). The developers make a number of claims concerning provision of further wildlife areas once construction is complete but even the suggested increase in acreage would do little to compensate against the emissions from the plant. The claim is that ‘Sizewell C will benefit the environment by reducing harmful emissions’. This implies there will be some – which don’t exist at the moment. In summary The Suffolk Coastal region is ideally situated for the development of many more wind farms (both on land and sea) which, once constructed, produce no carbon and would need a continuing workforce to service them. Imagine how many farmers would welcome the additional income which could be generated from their fields if they had solar powered panels installed. The general population has been held back by the cost of installing solar panels. Imagine how many homes could have panels installed over the next 12 years if such installations became more affordable. Perhaps now is the time for the Government to use the enormous funds set aside for the construction of Sizewell C for safer alternatives. I beg the inspectorate to refuse this application for the sake of future generations. Susan Sapsed"

Tabitha Jones
"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, and the RSPB. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Trevor Fisk
"At the end of sizewell b construction. Tourism was virtually nil. It took nearly 1w years before it started to return. I fear things will be much worse this time as more workers in the area will mean more anti social behaviour. Most of the jobs S that will be created are not for locals but are brought in by the companies concerned from other similar projects. The desolation of this area for a third time for a project that is outdated over ridiculously expensive is a total waste of money and should be stopped and replaced with green energy schemes instead."

Tristan Winter
"I completely support this project, the local area needs the money,jobs and infrastructure that will be delivered by the successful application for building this power station. Leiston has been overlooked for government improvements time and time again, this project I believ will deliver this, so I completely support this project."

A C Lonsdale
"The prohibitive cost of Sizewell C prevents it being a viable project. It also prevents expansion in renewables, which is the way forward. Neither Sizewell A nor Sizewell B brought permanent prosperity to the region. SZC will not be any different. Indeed it will damage the tourism that much of the local economy depends on. There will be widespread destruction of coast and wildlife habitats. The involvement of China General Nuclear should create legitimate concerns in the same way that Huawei did before the Prime Minister's U-turn. 76% of the workforce will come from outside East Anglia - 6,000 needing accommodation -with lower skilled temporary jobs for local people. We went through this with Sizewell B. Noise, road congestion, beach and footpath closures will drive visitors away, destroying existing jobs. Drugs will flood the area and ruin young lives as with SZB."

Alan lofting
"The technology of nuclear fission is rapidly becoming outdated and as is well known the costs are far greater than renewable technologies . The possible connection with China is dismaying as it leaves UK vulnerable to what is in effect a dictatorship . EDF have not performed well with the newer nuclear technology and there are regular reports of cracks in structures and internal parts . They also have a record of ignoring serious flaws . The waste levels have been improved over the years but as yet the waste has not been safely stored in the light of the extremely long timescales it requires This leaves a poor legacy to future generations who would have to decommission it . It also leaves vulnerabilities to attack in an increasingly unstable world It is also vulnerable to the effects of climate change Please do not approve such an unnecessary project that would be so damaging if it went wrong as in Fukushima in Japan"

Alex Sainsbury
"Sizewell C would likely be an economic disaster. EDf’s current EPR model nuclear power stations are not functional anywhere, not in Finland, France, nor at Hinkley Point. EDF have publicly admitted that Sizewell C would be the last of these failures. The UK’s Climate Change Commission has indicated that great technological progress in renewable sources of energy is about to make nuclear power redundant. Sizewell C will bring only limited economic benefit to Suffolk, and damage its crucial tourist economy. (Leiston’s notorious drug culture developed exponentially during the construction of Sizewell B). Suffolk has already relatively low unemployment. Locals dont want the multi-storey complex housing 2,400 ‘guest’ workers, especially not next to nationally revered Minsmere Bird Reserve, which would be destroyed. Sizewell C brings the threat of flooding and coastal erosion. The Environmental Agency has warned that EDF’s flood compensation proposals ‘may not function as intended’. Finally, there would never be nearly enough road transport infrastructure to support this project."

Alexandra Langdon
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. Site Selection I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place. It will have an Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value. Community, Economic and social impacts Unacceptable impacts on local communities -, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. 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 Environment and Landscape 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. 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. Application 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."

Alice Bridges
"I have loved Suffolk and lived in the area since 1986. I wish to raise the following concerns about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place · Site at unpredictable risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding · Potential impact on and from coastal processes · Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value · Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality 2. Community, Economic and social impacts 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 may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. Pressure on local housing EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles Negative impacts on local businesses Pressure on health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people. 3. Transport Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic New roads would sever communities, damage rural footpaths and divide farmland. Rat-running and disruption not adequately considered – existing roads not built for predicted weight and volume Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed 4. Environment and Landscape Flooding. Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice 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 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. Flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site Catastrophic impact on AONB and landscape character because of locality, design and scale 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. Inadequate Heritage and Visual Impact Assessments I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C – Suffolk Preservation Society , RSPB, etc. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Alice Bridges
"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, 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"

Alison Dennison
"1. The site This is the wrong project and the wrong place for it because: The coastline site is incredibly fragile with a history of erosion which is being made worse by climate change, leading to rising sea levels and flooding. Huge threats to Minsmere and the SSIs. Habitats destroyed and affected cannot be replaced. Major impacts on an AONB both during and after any build. Leading to loss of tourism revenue. Lack of co-ordination/strategy with other planned energy projects in the area. Economic/social community Unacceptable increases of traffic, noise, pollution (air and light) impacting on local communities & businesses trying to go about their daily lives. Drop in tourists to the area impacting on local businesses already struggling with covid. Pressure on housing at all levels Increased pressure on local emergency and amenities. Transport The road transport plan isn’t sustainable and has enormous implications for local communities and tourism. The level of pollution (including from standing vehicles in traffic jams) presents a health risk New roads divide communities and farmland. Traffic rat runs (the school run, the supermarket run) would impact on even more communities Marine and Coastal The rates of erosion are both unpredictable and episodic Negative impact on the marine environment Negative impact on proposed beach landing and increased marine pollution from marine diesel craft. Environment and Landscape Irreparable damage to Minsmere. The knock on impact on the Marsh Harriers poses a threat to the SPA. The impact of flooding. The unknown effects on the Minsmere Sluice Increased levels of pollution (noise, light, air (from traffic)) Abstraction of water poses risk to habitats and protected species living there. Impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill not fully addressed. Where is the 3 million litres of potable water coming from and going to (drainage) where are these impacts acknowledged? The character of the landscape and the ANOB threatened because of the scale , design and site. It simply is not possible to compensate for the damage to the landscape and ecology. CO2 offsetting from construction will take 6 years. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C."

Alistair Gordon-Brown
"The EPR project by EDF has proven to be impossible to complete economically. The Finish experience should ,as a pilot project, be scrutinised during the planning process. Starting in 2005 it is not projected to be operational until 2023 at the earliest. There is no insurance that Sizewell will not overrun by this sort of time period. The nuclear industry in France is on it's knees and cannot complete Sizewell without the massive support of taxpayers who will be subsiding a nationalised EU company by paying a huge tariff on electricity prices. Compare this to the rapidly falling prices of electricity generated by renewables with proven technology and there can be no justification for continuing with the Sizewell Whi"

Andrew Reid
"The application made by EDF fails to address key issues which matter to residents in East Suffolk, resulting in an unsustainable transport strategy. By failing to actively pursue rail-led opportunities with Network Rail, an unacceptable burden has been placed on the road system. I urge EDF to engage with Network Rail as a matter of urgency and work out how the line may be modified, so more freight may be carried to site. Alongside this work, EDF should agree to and produce modifications to improve the junctions and stretches of road identified by Suffolk County Council in its Cabinet paper response of 22nd September 2020. These are principally but not limited to the A12 and connecting roads. Of further concern is the collective impact of other NSIPs in addition to SZC especially in relation to coterminous construction and resulting transport requirements. I urge PINs to ensure its own advice is followed and the impact of other schemes are duly considered by EDF and in turn the promoters of these schemes. These may include SPR's EA1 and EA2N, the NGET substation required for this, the NGET intercontinental connectors onshore substations etc."

Anglian Water Services Ltd
"Thank for you the opportunity to comment on the Sizewell C Power Station project. Anglian Water is considered to be a statutory consultee for nationally significant infrastructure projects as identified in the Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations. The following representations are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water as sewerage undertaker for the above site: Impact on existing assets: There are existing sewers located within the boundary of the above project as shown on statutory asset plans. Draft DCO wording: Anglian Water is of the view that article 23 as drafted does not appear to be consistent. Paragraph (2) makes it clear that consent of the owner of the sewerage network is required to discharge water into it (subject to reasonableness); but paragraph (7) states that disputes must be determined in accordance with Section 106 of the Water Industry Act. However, consent is not required as part of the Section 106 process nor can the capacity of the received network which is considered to be a planning issue be taken into account. We would therefore suggest at that article 23 (7) (Discharge of Water) of the Draft DCO be replaced with the following wording: “(7) Any dispute arising from the making of connections to or the use of a public sewer or drain by the undertaker under paragraph (1) is to be determined in accordance with the arbitration provisions in article 82 (arbitration)” More generally we would query why it is considered necessary to include wording in article 23 (4) referring to deemed consent to discharge of water to the public sewerage network within 28 days as proposed. Protective provisions for Anglian Water: We have previously requested the inclusion of specific wording for the benefit of Anglian Water to ensure that we can continue to serve our customers and limit the potential for disruption to the services we provide. The suggested wording has been shared with the applicant for their consideration. It is noted that specific protective provisions for Anglian Water are not included in the current version of the DCO. Therefore, we ask that the Draft DCO is amended to include specific protective provisions for Anglian Water as previously requested. Therefore, we would wish to make a holding objection to Draft DCO wording for the reasons set out above. Land in Anglian Water's ownership: NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited is seeking temporary possession of land in Anglian Water's ownership to provide access to a proposed construction compound for the proposed Yoxford Roundabout. We are currently in dialogue about this proposal but have yet to reach agreement about whether the principle is acceptable from Anglian Water's perspective. Connections to public sewerage networks: The majority of the foul and surface water drainage strategy for the proposed development does not appear to interact with Anglian Water's operated assets except for the land at Eastfield Industrial Estate. We would wish to comment further on the foul drainage strategy for land at Eastfield Industrial Estate. We would expect the Environment Agency and Suffolk County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority to comment on the suitability of proposed method of foul and surface water drainage where it not expected to connect to the public sewerage network. In the event that the method of foul and surface water were to require a connection to the public sewerage network following approval we would wish to be consulted to ensure that any revised strategy is sustainable and that there is no detriment to our customers. Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know."

Ann Follows
"I am a local resident living about eight miles from Sizewell. The proposed development will alter the environment, the economy and the quality of life of the local population for the duration of the building (which is estimated as taking ten years) and for many years afterwards. The environment. The development takes place across an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the destruction of the area will have not only a negative affect on the wildlife under the footprint of the building, but disrupts the whole area around which has become a successful area for re-introduction and growth of many species. The economy. The whole area in this part of Suffolk depends upon tourism. The overwhelming impact of construction traffic and physical destruction on the beach and coastline will stop tourists visiting. Many of the jobs being created will be filled by external workforce, there is no argument that this development will bring jobs in. Quality of life of residents. The whole area will be overwhelmed by a) Lorries and other construction vehicles using the small roads; b) the size of temporary workforce numbers; c) the noise, lighting and site activity will severely suppress the quiet rural life we live here. Today the government has pledged to protect the natural countryside, this development Absolutely cuts across this pledge."

Anne Tyerman
"I strongly object to this project which will destroy this glorious coastline of outstanding natural beauty which I have been close to since 1962. The impact of the large scale building work on small lanes and peaceful village nearby will be immense. Endless heavy lorries, bringing noise, dirt and general disruption; temporary and semi permanent accommodation for construction workers and planners in green fields; disruption for the tourist trade on which the area relies. Additional jobs are mainly temporary, so the long term benefit to the locality is small, but damage to its reputation as a glorious seaside and bird watching destination will remain. It is one of a number of new projects planned which together will have a damaging impact on residents. And the supposed benefits of the EDF offer are not now the good deal envisaged when it was drawn up."

Anne Westover
"I strongly object to the proposal to build SZC. The location on the sensitive Suffolk coast and within our nationally designated coastal ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ (AONB) is unacceptable for many reasons. One of the statutory purposes of the designation of a landscape as an AONB is that it should be both conserved and enhanced. 1. Overarching The development and all aspects of the construction and its subsequent operation will result in a legacy of carbon emissions and radioactive waste which will plague and pollute both Suffolk and the UK for many centuries into the future. The construction impacts for the proposed 12 year period will be over a ‘long term’ period (GLVIA 2013). Likely delays (evidence from France, Finland and the UK) will extend this into an even longer term period with resulting damaging consequences. This development, ancillary works/laydown/accommodation/access arrangements and works areas will result in significant detrimental physical landscape and visual impacts across the coastal area. I have concern that new jobs and apprenticeships for local people will be limited in both scope and longevity. It is clear to see that the construction of both SZA and SZB did not have lasting economic benefits for Leiston and the surrounding areas. Any jobs which support the production of a toxic waste legacy should be feared and not welcomed. If DCO is consented: • Guarantees must be given that the local population will benefit from new jobs and apprenticeships being created. • Specific measures to support plant nursery (local provenance propagation will be needed), landscape and environmental management trades must be put in place. Local people and visitors enjoy this region for its tranquillity, coastal landscapes, beaches, Minsmere bird reserve, natural habitats, and dark skies. Sizewell C will have a negative impact on all these elements and keep visitors away from many parts of the coast and inland area. Local people from an expanding population will lose a treasured green space and recreational resource. The region will suffer greatly from a diminished tourism business and scope for people to enjoy the coastal landscapes. 2. Main development site I worked on the SZB and C (proposed) projects in 1990’s with the LPA; dealing with landscape mitigation, northern mounds, woodlands, marshland and tree belts amongst other aspects. These features are just maturing after some 30 years of life and much will now be removed by the construction of SZC. Since the first submission of a SZC plant in the mid 1990’s the development, lay down area, accommodation, and transport issues have escalated in terms of scale, site coverage and resulting impacts. The main development site, as a result of its poor design, scale/mass, and loss of natural landscape will result in many impacts: • Significant landscape and visual impacts across a wide area of coastal and inland landscapes. • The two nuclear reactor domes will look ugly and incongruous. They will be framed by a mass of box shaped buildings dwarfing the current SZB white dome and making the impact from SZB seem fairly minor. This dome has become a familiar and iconic design albeit visually prominent in many views. • A development of this magnitude should be designed with the upmost skill in order to create a high-class design both in terms of architecture and landscape setting. The poor design approach is summed up in the Design and Access statement which indicates a series of disparate structures across the site area, with many of the ancillary roads, buildings and car parks intruding beyond the main site area and into the natural landscape setting. • The proposed pylons will create additional detrimental visual intrusion and harm to the landscape. • The landscape setting of the current B station will be fragmented by the loss of Coronation Wood with the adverse intrusion of development into this area. The woodland may have elements of poor condition, but this is purely a result of a lack of management over the years which could be remedied if EDF had the interest in doing this. Removal of woodland should not been seen as an option whenever more development space is needed. • The Sizewell B relocated facilities, proposed Outage car park and access/fencing will intrude into the setting of the current station causing fragmentation and detrimental impacts on the acid grassland natural habitat and landscape. This proposal along with the works associated with Coronation Wood and the use of Sandy Lane as a haul route creates further intrusion into the Sandlings landscape area west of the SZB station. • The cumulative landscape and visual impacts with the Greater Gabbard and Galloper sub stations have not been fully considered. LVIA Para 13.4.49 states that these developments exert an influence on local character, they clearly do. Further visual intrusion into the area will result in cumulative harm to the character of the AONB landscape. This aspect of industrialisation, coalescence of development, and lighting will result in significant harm to the Sandlings landscape. • The existing wind farm substation developments have resulted in loss of habitat and woodland with the alleged landscape mitigation resulting in scattered dead trees and redundant plastic tubes across the Sandlings landscape including Broom Covert. This does not represent any form of sensitivity towards the treatment, protection or enhancement of the AONB landscape. • The permanent northern plant site access road and car park. This was proposed to be temporary at Stages 1 and 2. At Stage 3 EDF failed to include any information or questions relating to this change of approach. The road will cause harm to the landscape (which currently has SSSI status) using hard materials, drainage, traffic movement, air pollution, noise, lighting, and the causeway to the car park. It is not clear how workers access the site from the car park, further hard footways/on site transportation is inevitable. Longer term, with a permanent access road there will inevitably be pressure for further ancillary developments within this northern area. • The restoration of the construction lay down area should be back to natural landscape and green space without any permanent road or car park. All operational access arrangements for Sizewell B and C should be from the current Sizewell road and site access. If this is not appropriate, then a northern access only could be considered. 3. Transport: Southern Park and Ride site EDF chose to ignore both residents’ and Wickham Market Parish Council’s (WMPC) concerns regarding this site expressed during the consultation. Instead at Stage 3 the SP&R site was increased in size (to 1250 capacity plus a traffic incident management area) after the A12 Woodbridge site was removed from any further consideration. The SP&R will draw traffic from a wide regional area and create significant highway problems for the A12 and the local road system, through the neighbouring parishes and villages. Traffic through Wickham Market is already problematic and often dangerous. The overall cumulative increase in traffic from SP&R and other local development traffic (allocated sites in LDF) will exacerbate traffic volumes, road and pedestrian safety, noise and air pollution. EDF have stated (DCO) that they will fund mitigation measures for Wickham Market to deal with the adverse impacts arising from the massive increase in traffic which will pass through the village. To date EDF have failed to provide any overview or detail of such proposals despite heavy input from WMPC. Liaison over a 15-month period initiated by WMPC working through SCC has not resulted in any specific proposals. WMPC and its neighbouring parishes have also advised on a number of design improvements which would reduce the landscape and visual impacts arising from the siting and design of the SP&R. Mitigation is needed to reduce visual impacts from a number of public right of way locations which EDF have failed to recognise. Night time lighting impacts will be significant and harmful to the landscape character of dark skies and residential amenity. We have requested simple and affordable landscape and habitat enhancements which will provide a legacy benefit beyond the life of the facility. I support the further specific concerns and detailed points raised by WMPC in their DCO RR submission dated 21st September 2020. If the DCO is consented: Full design detail incorporating the requested mitigation to be secured by Planning conditions and incorporated into a legal agreement for the SP&R and Wickham Market road network. Guarantees to ensure that EDF and the County and District LPA’s commit to process detailed design and monitoring effectively through the planning process. Guarantees to ensure that EDF and the County and District LPA’s are equipped to ensure full compliance with the implementation, environmental restoration, long term landscape and habitat management. Guarantees to ensure that the Parish and local interest groups are engaged with the submission at all stages. Anne Westover BA Dip LA CMLI 28th September 2020"

Annette Lisa Story Vigar
"I intend to make the following submissions: - the issue of the huge increase in road traffic, - the irreversible despoliation of the AONB, - the strain on local services (already stretched) from an influx of workers, - the threat to the marine life, -t he viability of building a nuclear reactor on a fragile and eroding coastline prone to flooding which does seem very short-sighted -the inevitable worsening of air quality from traffic and the massive dust heaps from digging the site"

Anthony Mackintosh
"This area of East Suffolk is well populated and contains several areas of Special Scientific interest. The construction and operation of Sizewell C will disrupt and in some cases destroy these important areas for the wild life. This habitat can not be replaced so will be lost for ever."

Antony Philip Baskett
"The project is to big for the area. Surrounding roads are not able to cope the amount of traffic. The new link road devastates farm land, making farming the land unviable. The devastation to the Minsmere Bird Reserve. The impact on the surrounding area, peoples way of life and wildlife. I am a third generation farmer and if the link road goes ahead it will make the farm unsustainable. Therefore we will have nothing for the fourth generation. Having lived through the construction of Sizewell B we fully understand the impact it had on the area."

Arthur Stansfield
"Like much of EdF’s consultation the proposed mitigation is superficial. They have failed to consult sincerely and taken responses into account. The offered mitigation seldom makes amends for the damage that will occur. The damage to East Suffolk caused by constructing Sizewell C far outweighs any benefits. At one point EdF claim that Sizewell C is required for base load electricity and at another point for producing hydrogen. If it is required for base load then there will not be capacity for hydrogen production. There are several other energy projects that will occur along the Suffolk coastal area. There is not the capacity for all the projects to take place. Suffolk may cope with the other energy projects , however Sizewell C is the step too far. It’s impact is so great that it should not go ahead alongside the other energy projects. I live in Wickham Market and am involved with mitigation for Wickham Market due to the poor siting of the Southern Park and Ride. In consultation 4, EdF stated that they were assisting Wickham Market with the Neighbourhood Plan. This was not the case; no contact with the NP committee had taken place. Meetings with representatives of Wickham Market started in December 2019. So far EdF have not brought forward much, if anything in the way of mitigation for the extra traffic that will affect Wickham Market. They could explore new tracking and smart camera with number plate recognition technologies to reduce the EdF traffic in Wickham Market, but have not done so. The way they have dealt with Wickham Market appears to typify their approach to mitigation in other areas. Because of likely congestion on the A12 it is very likely that rat-runs will form along country lanes. EdF, Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk Council need a strategy to deal with this situation. The approach to the SSSI means that the site is unlikely to recover and will be lost. Edf confuse area with quality of habitat. Aldhurst farm in no way will recompense for the loss of the SSSI. Research into habitat translocation shows that it seldom succeeds in mitigating the impact of development. The site is in an AONB and 12 years of devastation cannot be restored as easily as EdF imply. I often walk in the area of Sizewell, Eastbridge and Dunwich and dread the impact of the construction site. The Norfolk and Suffolk coast is constantly changing. In the last 45 years I have seen the beach level at Lowestoft increase by over a metre. The beach at Southwold has also changed significantly. There is coastal erosion at Thorpeness and the shingle beach at Dunwich marshes has been breached in recent years. It may be possible to build sea defences at Sizewell, but it’s impossible to predict what impact that may have on surrounding areas. In protecting Sizewell, Minsmere may become more vulnerable and be irreparably damaged. We also have sea level rise due to global warming. This could be over 2 metres before Sizewell is decommissioned. This makes the siting too great a risk."

atomstopp_atomkraftfrei leben!
"Our organisation has to reject the project UK EPR™ for several reasons. We could not find sufficient proof of safe disposal for spent fuel and radioactive waste in the documents. We even are missing the proof that there will be enough capacity for interim storages at the time Sizewell C will be producing spent fuel. Last accident analysis was conducted 8 years ago. That suggests that none of the developments due to evaluation of state of science and technology were implemented. Not all kinds of possible accidents have been included in the environmental impact assessment. Since their effects though can be long-lasting and may concern areas widely over the borders, we demand to complete these scenarios such as danger of flooding and climate change effects, terrorist attacks, acts of sabotage and more. Reactors of type UKEPR™, as planned in Sizewell C are currently under construction, one each in Finland (Olkiluoto 3), France (Flamanville 3) – due to many difficulties both are far behind initial schedule. After all it is not clear if a new NPP is needed at all in the UK. Renewables have already become cheaper than nuclear energy and can be implemented far more quickly. To update the assessment of alternatives for every planned NPP is indispensable. Also electricity demand has to be included in the decision for new NPP instead of the deployment of renewables."

Ayres Family
"1. We are a household of six and have lived at [redacted] The house and barns can be dated to the early 17th Century. We have also acquired surrounding arable farmland and currently own 37 acres in total, spanning the parishes of Farnham and Benhall. 2. We object to a number of matters resulting from EDF’s overall development plans and one specific part of the associated development: the proposed Two Village Bypass (“2VB”). 3. Despite raising our concerns during every stage of consultation, EDF have ignored them or proposed inappropriate or inadequate mitigation. Their project will significantly impact our property, family and tenants and EDF have failed to adequately engage with us. We therefore wish to register as an Interested Party for the Sizewell C DCO application. 4. Our peaceful, unspoilt, rural setting currently benefits from being well away from the closest part of the current A12, a 50mph single carriageway, with our private gardens and outside spaces being to the south of our buildings (and thereby further protected from any road noise). EDF’s red-line development boundary is only a matter of metres from our paddocks, garden and farmhouse. 2VB construction will subject the areas we rely on for our well-being to excessive noise, dust and disturbance, for several years. The proposed working hours, weekend working and working 24-hours-a-day will worsen these effects. 5. The proximity and visual intrusion of the proposed 2VB will continue to blight our property, family and tenants beyond its construction and that of Sizewell C, for which we consider inadequate mitigation has been offered. Of particular concern is the overall increase in traffic (particularly the number of HGVs), noise created by vehicles accelerating away from the new roundabout at Friday Street and the proposed increase to 60mph. Compounding the issue will also be the effect of Scottish Power’s windfarm projects. 6. EDF’s proposals do not adequately take into account fauna which we regularly witness and record adjacent to or crossing the proposed 2VB route – such as deer, badgers, foxes, hares, owls, bats, wild fowl, newts, snakes. Ecological connectivity between the ancient woodlands of Foxburrow and Pond Woods has not been adequately considered, and neither have our two ponds – which rely on natural groundwater levels. 7. We fully support the Parish Council’s alternative ‘East of Foxburrow Wood’ alignment. EDF continue to ignore this improved 2VB route – which offers construction benefits, avoids the destruction of veteran / ancient trees, and minimises those significantly affected by noise, dust and visual intrusion along its route; particularly those near Grade II* Farnham Hall. 8. We benefit from an historic vehicular and pedestrian right of access to Friday Street which will be severed by the 2VB. No mitigation or compensation has been offered. 9. Surface water drainage from our land, plus the treated discharge from our sewage treatment plant, flows downhill towards Friday Street in a ditch that will be severed by the 2VB. We see no evidence that this will be maintained or remain unimpeded in EDF’s proposals. 10. We reserve the right to amend, add to and expand on pour objections during the DCO process."

Boyton Parish Council
"Boyton is a coastal village, approx 15 miles due south of Sizewell on the Alde estuary, looking out to sea and the off-shore wind farms. On behalf of the parish residents, we wish to raise the following issues of concern about the proposed Sizewell C development. 1. Community Impact - having a sustainable process for dealing with nuclear waste - the increased pressure on rural roads and other infrastructure due to over-spill and displaced traffic / journeys - the disruption to daily life in the event of a major incident on the already constrained highways, byways and rail and seaward routes - overloading the social, health and welfare services, which are already struggling, due to the disproportionate influx of workers transient work force throughout the construction process - negative impacts on local and affordable housing 2. Coastal Impact - the implications of climate change, flooding and erosion - the changes to the coastal processes - increased risk to marine life and on/off-shore conservation areas 3. Carbon Impact - development timescales, carbon neutrality targets and technology change impacts will all significantly de-value the projected benefits of the Sizewell C development Finally, we share the concerns raised in these Relevant Representations submitted by the following organisations: East Suffolk Council, Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and the National Trust."

Brian Lowry
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. This is too big a project for the present infrastructure of roads, our delicate and acclaimed wildlife habitats and at a time when many other energy projects have suddenly converged on our coastline. The Sizewell C nuclear reactor design has caused cost and time over-runs in France and Finland and currently at Hinkley Point. The cost to the taxpayer is currently almost twice that of alternative energy. By the time Sizewell would be built it would be years out of date. It is obvious the quality of life would be severely depleted for the people who live here and obviously harm a beneficial tourist industry. We could expect the arrival of a virtual town of thousands of migrant workers at a potential time of Covid emergency. EDF calls ‘local workers’ people who will travel from Norfolk Essex and Cambridgeshire. This will aggravate the proposed hundreds of HGVs per day driving through our road system. Country lanes will become rat runs. Scientists predict the next 10 years is our last chance to avoid climate disaster. Sizewell C will not ‘pay back’ its carbon until 2040. The RSPB and SWT organisations both flag up the irreparable damage to Minsmere, an area of international environmental importance. The Sizewell C site would be at real risk from climate change bringing sea level rise, increased tidal surges and storms resulting in inevitable flooding. It is predicted Sizewell could become an island in the next 30 years. Sizewell C will produce waste lethal to living tissue, remaining so for thousands of years and for which there is no agreed or proven disposal. It is morally wrong that future generations will have to deal with it. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB and SWT."

Brightwell, Foxhall & Purdis Farm Group Parish Council
"The Group Parish Council’s principal concern is the development of a Freight Management Facility near the Seven Hills A12 / A14 junction. Not only will the site itself be an unwanted intrusion into a rural location but there will be a large increase in lorry traffic along already congested roads. Both the A12 through Martlesham and the A14 near Ipswich are already congested and the siting of this facility will only increase delays and pollution particularly at the Seven Hills junction. The plans do not appear to consider the access to the site from the A1156 and whether changes will be made to the junction with the A1156 adjacent to the Seven Hills Crematorium. Due to the large amount of traffic using this road HGV’s will have difficulty entering and exiting the old Felixstowe Road which leads to the site. This will lead to an unacceptably high risk of accidents at the junction as HGVs manoeuvre. The Group Parish Council is also yet to be persuaded of the economic benefit of Sizewell C against the environmental damage it will cause."

Bryant Maitland
"1. I am concerned about the effect on wildlife -birds in particular due to the proximity of the new power station to Minsmere RSPB site-Sir David Attenborough is drawing our attention to the danger of losing more species of wildlife. 2. In 2025 the first Fusion reactor is due to start -power from nuclear fusion has to be the future -by the time Sizewell C is finished Fission derived energy could well be superseded. 3. The success of wind power from the turbines in the North sea is a wonderful success story-do we really need another Fission power station?"

C Foster
"I have many concerns short and long term issues regarding the following aspects of the proposed development: • long term implications of nuclear waste, with unknown strategies, costs and future safety factors in management and disposal. • The basis upon which the need for nuclear reactors is based. Energy needs and costs are changing; renewables have become relatively less expensive, and their capacity greater. We could be left with massive long term costs for an outdated project. • This proposal would take too long to 'pay back’ the CO2 emissions of its construction to be an effective part of our CO2 reduction measures. • Finance for infrastructure. I believe that the nation’s infrastructure should not be subject to external influences through finance arrangements. Long term financial support cannot be guaranteed, but responsibility would remain with this country. Costs, e.g. of future accidents, malicious activity such as terrorism, military or cyber attack, cannot be calculated; therefore we would be leaving future generations with unquantifiable risks and costs to manage. • The unstable coast and the unknown future effects of climate change, including flooding and coastal erosion upon a fragile coastline. I share the view that this makes the proposed site unsuitable for large scale development, and especially for the storage of spent nuclear fuel into the next century. • The assessment is unrealistic because it does not examine the potential combined impact of this and other proposed developments in the area. • Transport. The proposals for transport of materials and workforce are already causing much concern for local residents. Too much traffic would be borne by the B1122 and A12. I have seen myself that Summer traffic to the coast is sufficient to cause congestion at junctions on the A12. The effects of thousands of additional lorries and cars would have a knock-on effect over a much wider area, and adversely affect the local economy. Investment in rail-led transportation could mitigate some of these effects, and leave some positive legacy. • Impact on the environment and landscape. This is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, including local, national and internationally important habitats for many species of flora and fauna. How will these plans fit with a new commitment to keeping thirty percent of the land for nature? The Sandlings area is a rare resource and should be protected. I am worried by the concerns raised by groups such as the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust, and others involved in the management of the local environment, and take the view that their expert knowledge and long term view of the issues should be fully taken into account. • Impacts upon the local communities; economic, health and social. Tourism and related employment would be adversely affected, especially as much of the appeal of the area is the rural tranquillity, wildlife activities and walking the coastal and heathland pathways. These factors also support the physical and mental well-being of local residents. Pollution (air, water, noise, light) would have many adverse effects. Cost-cutting measures, such as using Hinckley Point suppliers and workforce would undermine the economic benefits for local companies and potential workers. The housing supply in a rural area would be put under greater pressure if accommodation is used for workers , and a self-contained accommodation campus would leave no housing legacy benefit as mitigation. I hope that the area in which I have lived will be protected, as well as the wider interests of the population and future generations, to whom we have a great responsibility."

Caroline McHugh
"I must express in the strongest terms my objection to the development of Sizewell C for the following reasons: - The potential threat to an area of outstanding beauty and wildlife. - The huge increase of traffic and disruption to our roads. - The massive cost to the UK at a time when the economy is in freefall. - The threat of accidents involving nuclear power which are ever present. - The plan to complete this scheme when there are far cheaper and safer ways to produce power. Caroline McHugh"

Catherine Lindsay-Davies
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. I believe this site is unsuitable as it will have a catastrophic impact on the local area in terms of its precious natural environment and subsequent coastal processes. This, in turn, will have a major impact on the tourism industry which this part of the UK relies on so heavily for income. The impact on the local communities will be terrible both during the build and afterwards, living in the shadow of such a huge structure with light, noise, and traffic pollution, as well as the thousands of workers who will be needed to build it. There is not the local infrastructure to support them. The local roads cannot accommodate the increase in traffic that this site would create. Again, there would be a significant impact on the local environment and on tourism. 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."

Charles Croydon
"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 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 nuclear reactors and stored waste. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. 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 Increased traffic – of up to 1140 HGVs per day most of which would have to travel through an Air Quality Management Area of Ipswich if the bridge over the Orwell was closed. 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. 4. Environment and Landscape 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. Coronation Wood would have to be felled 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 Friends of the Earth (Suffolk Coastal), Together Against Sizewell C and Stop Sizewell C. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Chas Bazeley
"There are several questions that remain unanswered regarding this application: 1) If nuclear power is safe, why is this generator not being sited on the Thames close to London where the demand is centred, thereby reducing transmission losses. Energy waste is ecologically unsustainable. 2) In the light of recent Chinese behaviour in Hong Kong, Taiwan etc, are the Chinese suitable partners for major British infrastructure projects? 3) In the light of their recent French government fine for dishonesty, and the current situation at Hinckley Point, what assurances do we have EDF’s figures can be trusted? 4) On completion of construction, how will the surrounding AONB be restored and who will pay for the restoration."

Chillesford Parish Meeting
"This is the registration of interest in the Sizewell C DCO proposal by EDF from Chillesford Parish Meeting. We have responded to all stages of pre-consultation though note that only responses to stage 1 and 3 are included in EDF’s report on consultation. SZC is not a solution for net zero. By 2035, the UK’s energy landscape will be profoundly different, favouring cheaper renewables and green hydrogen. Nuclear is too inflexible to fit well with renewables. SZC will bring limited Economic Benefits to Suffolk: The economic benefits for Suffolk are limited by EDF’s intended use of the HPC supply chain. EDF’s intent to cut costs and minimise risk by redeploying the Hinkley C supply chain will mean Su?olk and Norfolk businesses may not get the chance to participate. SZC will damage Suffolk’s local economy including Tourism: The Suffolk Coast has a thriving employment economy based on family, cultural and eco-tourism. The noise, eyesores, dust, beach and footpath closures and road congestion and pollution during 10-12 years of construction will drive visitors away, with estimates that tourism could lose up to £40 million a year. SZC threatens Internationally-renowned wildlife reserves: SZC is surrounded by internationally- protected habitats, including Minsmere Reserve . Habitats for rare birds, animals and plants will be lost forever. EDF acknowledge that there will be adverse impact on Marsh Harriers. Their proposed mitigation on other species is unconvincing. The Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will be cut in two for over a decade. Site is at risk from flooding and coastal erosion: New analysis raises serious questions about the security of the SZC site. The report warns that sea level rises could fully or partially “island” the power stations. The EA has warned that EDF’s flood compensation proposals “may not function as intended”. There is no solution in sight for nuclear waste: The spent fuel from an EPR is exceptionally hot, so fuel from SZC would have to stay on Suffolk’s eroding coastal site for 140 years + before it could be moved. The UK has made no progress on building a “permanent” waste facility. This is a cost as well as a risk. EPRs are slow to build, expensive and impossible to accurately predict cost or completion date. SZC’s EPR reactors will be copies of those being built at Hinkley Point C (HPC), currently £2.9bn over budget and up to 15 months late. EPR builds in France (Flamanville) and Finland (Olkiluouto) are years behind schedule and multiple times overspent. Defective valves discovered at Olkiluoto now call Taishan’s operation into question and may further delay Flamanville and HPC. Nuclear is an industry in decline: The Moorside project (Toshiba, Cumbria) has collapsed. Wylfa (Hitachi, Anglesey) is now cancelled. China General Nuclear’s Hualong reactor for Bradwell has yet to pass several regulatory hurdles, but public consultations have started. Globally, the nuclear units under construction have declined for the 6th year in a row, from 68 reactors in 2013, to 46 in 2019 (10 are in China). Of these at least 27 are behind schedule. SZC cannot be justified as a means to support the UK’s economic recovery: the project is far from shovel-ready, with neither planning consent nor funding. Building a mammoth project in a protected environment must have cast-iron justification, which SZC lacks. SZC will damage Suffolk’s resilient SME-based local economy for only 900 long-term jobs. There is increasing public support for a Green Recovery, in which SZC has no place. SZC will suck resources away from innovation: Every pound invested in SZC 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. EDF’s speculation that Hinkley Point C (HPC) and SZC could be used to make hydrogen is clutching at straws; big nuclear remains too expensive and hydrogen could as easily be made from renewables. At this critical time we must not only count carbon, but also time and cost of delivery."

Chris McCarthy
"The site is in the wrong place. Its at risk from the effects of climate change. Sea levels have risen on the East Coast and are rising every year. Flooding is of concern. The proposed site is surrounded by an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty . This proposed development will have a devastating effect on wildlife, the environment , economy , peoples mental and physical health. Safe disposal of Nuclear waste of great concern. It is unfair to subject local peoples health to increased noise, pollution, and traffic disruption. RSPB Minsmere , which was featured in BBC TV Springwatch programme, is a site of International significance and has protected species frequent the site. All this is at stake if this development proceeds. Tourism will suffer, wildlife will suffer, people will suffer, total vandalism to Suffolk !. I fully endorse Relevant Representations by Stop Sizewell C and RSPB ."

Christopher Haydn Morris
"Why would junction improvements need to be made to the A12/B1119 junction in Saxmundham?"

Clara Rose
"I wanted to register my complaint against the proposed sizewell C. As a resident of the area the extra traffic, pollution both now and in the long term with radio active waste cannot benefit the area. With energy production available through so many other sources now is not the time to invest in aging, flawed energy production like nuclear. This investment should be in solar and wind energy. By the time this is built it will be out dated and in the meantime the areas roads will suffer as well as the residents suffering traffic noise, polution, and development on our already fragile coastline. The area, the wildlife and the residents all need tobe protected from this unnecessary, outdated development. Please stop this from being built, my children will not thank me if i stand by and do nothing. You should support their future and reject this development."

Clifford M. Reed
"Sizewell C would be a permanent and highly intrusive imposition on the Suffolk Herirage Coast and the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB. It would threaten the biodiversity of a wildlife-rich area by damaging and destroying the habitats of many plant and animal species, including SSSIs. The internationally important RSPB Minsmere Reserve would be impacted to an extreme degree by the construction and ongoing operation of Sizewell C. Careful environmental management by the RSPB and other conservation bodies would be disrupted and its birdlife would be threatened by noise, light and other forms of pollution. The Suffolk coast is slowly sinking. Combined with rising sea levels the resultant long-term threat posed by building Sizewell C there is real. The construction of Sizewell C over an estimated period of ten years, along with the associated construction of roads, accommodation and other infrastructure would damage the natural and human environment and involve the production of high levels of C02 at a time when these must be reduced in response to the climate emergency. Sizewell C would continue the build-up of nuclear waste, for the safe disposal of which no solution has yet been found. This waste, along with Sizewell C itself, would remain lethally dangerous for centuries to come. Stability - environmental, social and political - would be necessary in the extreme long term to safeguard the security of the nuclear power station and the region in which it is situated. There is no way that such stability can be guaranteed. The argument that Sizewell C will provide employment is based on short-term thinking. Construction of Sizewell C and its attendant infrastructure would - apparently - last ten years, and much, if not most, of the workforce would come from elsewhere. Apart from these temporary jobs, the long-term benefits would be limited. Meanwhile, the influx of large numbers of temporary workers during the construction period could be socially disruptive in a rural area ill-equipped to cater for them. Sizewell C would have a negative and permanent impact on local employment and economic activity relating to the area's scenic beauty and wildlife. The gain of temporary jobs would be offset by the loss of permanent ones. The future of energy generation generally and on the Suffolk coast in particular lies with truly renewable technologies. These will bring secure employment, are genuinely long-term and do not pose an irreversible threat to the natural and human environment. Nuclear power is outmoded, expensive and dangerous and its promotion is in the hands of vested interests with little real commitment to Suffolk or even to the United Kingdom. To place the future of our energy supplies in the hands of such interests - including a country noted for its expansionist policies and poor human rights record - is irresponsible and immoral."

Cllr Tony Cooper
"I am focus on the immediate local effects on Leiston. The main issues I would like to raise and take forward to the examination are; 1. Transport. ? Controls are required for bus movements and monitoring of light vehicle movements to main development site and Park and Ride sites to ensure that impacts do not exceed those assessed in both the early years and peak years of construction. In addition, controls and measures to deal responsively with problems associated with informal “fly-parking” in Leiston. ? The effects that increased traffic will have on the town centre, residential areas and the main entrances into Leiston. The effect on King George Avenue (and the Town Centre) is not clearly identified in the DCO. ? Ensuring that cycle routes are safe and that improvements to the cycle network outside the DCO are supported to ensure they tie in with the proposed routes seamlessly and enhance the travel plan. ? Mitigation fund for construction and operational traffic in Leiston. 2. Socio – economic ? I would welcome the opportunities for employment and skills in Suffolk from the development, which would have real potential to create a positive long-lasting legacy in the region. ? Well over 80% of the construction work and workforce will be based in the parish of Leiston-cum Sizewell. ? Personnel movement into and out of the town to access services, leisure and businesses will put a lot of pressure on the amenity of local residents and will make huge changes to the current socio-economic activity. The effect on residents needs to be acknowledged and mitigated for. 3. Education and Skills ? The effort being put in by EDF to support Education and skills is welcomed and LTC would like to see further specific references and efforts put into ensuring that apprenticeships and skills are primarily sourced through Alde Valley Academy and Suffolk College on the Coast 4. Legacy benefits ? The provision of sports facilities is welcome. Not just within the Sports centre but also for local sports and social clubs within the town, Sport is not the only cultural or recreational activity in the town however and further mitigation in this area is requested. Especially as, during construction, the provided sports facilities, which are there for SZC workforce as did many during the Sizewell B construction, would not be as readily accessible as maybe wished by residents. I would want positive and wide ranging mitigation proposal to offset this for both residents and workers families which would need SZC Co. support. It will be important to ensure robust community cohesion during the inevitable upheaval this project brings and it is intended to provide an oasis for families where this can be achieved at not only the Waterloo Centre but also the Leiston Town Athletic association, where level 3 football is played and had SZB employees playing during their time in Leiston. 5. Monitoring and accountability ? I would like to see clear transparent mechanisms in place early in the project to ensure all predicted impact effects are monitored, reported upon and that action is taken where necessary. They would also support ESC in their comments regarding the assessments of some of the impacts throughout the DCO. 6. Associated infrastructure ? I would expect that the road signage from the A12 through to the site entrances need to be clear and need to have local input to incorporate and complement existing routing. 7. Labour Market ? A Major concern is with SZC Co. for the potential “leaching” of local workforce from local jobs to meet the rather high estimate of HB workers they suggest will come from local communities. Robust training and skills programmes have to be put in place to help counter this. 8. LEEIE. ? I fully support the Group as it removes rail movements and unloading activity proposed primarily at night from the centre of Leiston. 9. Household Waste and Recycling site, Lovers Lane. ? Increased traffic, particularly of HGV’s will have major impact on road safety for access to the Recycling centre, a safe solution is required. 10. Safety issues ? safety issues with DCO. for cyclists (and pedestrians) using the proposed DCO routes. There will be a desire to cross Lovers Lane near the bend by Kenton Hills where no provision exists in the application. This has to be addressed. ? There is also a real safety issue with cyclists using the (very welcome) cycle track along the east of Lovers Lane going South where the cycle lane stops and cyclists have to cross Sizewell Gap Road by a fast blind bend to get access to the existing cycle way on the south side of gap road. This needs to be examined. 11. Tourism. ? Mitigation is required to offset loss tourism. The requested public realm improvements in Leiston will help ensure that access remains desirable to the attractions there but there is concern about the wider, overall, effect that this project will have. 12, Mitigation Funds. ? Community ? Costed mitigation package for Leiston. ? Contribution towards highway improvements in and around Leiston to eliminate traffic through town centre. ? Improved cycle routes ? Should changes not be able to be made to Leiston recycling centre on Lovers Lane then a Financel mitigation fund be given to re-site. Cllr Tony Cooper"

Dave Fleetham
"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 Is wholly inappropriate for a nuclear development. It is surrounded by area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), designated sites of international and national ecological importance and sites of landscape, cultural heritage and amenity value which will all be damaged and may never recover. It will require the acquisition and consequent destruction of some of this land. Sea level rise caused by climate change which this devlopment will contribute to make this site untenable. RSPB Minsmere, its inhabitants both permanent and transitory will be severely impacted by a massive building site on their doorstep with consequent noise and air pollution. They may well leave and never return. Traffic. Increased traffic up to 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 East Suffolk and the wider environment. The existing and proposed infrastructure is wholly inadequate. The A12 will be gridlocked to & from the M25 if not further. The tourist industry, a thriving trade on which this area largely depends will be catastrophically impacted. An estimated £40m a year in lost revenues is predicted. This will bankrupt many businesses that depend on these visitors The influx of an estimated 6,000 workers will mean a significant reduction in quality of life of this rural area, 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 many of whom moved here to escape high population density. Footpaths which are familiar to and well used by local residents including myself and are an attraction to the tourist will be closed. Walking in the area for miles around will no longer be a pleasure due to noise and air pollution. Environment The carbon reduction benefits of EDF’s claim are too late. 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. This is far too late if we are to slow the rising temperature of the planet. Fresh water demand for Sizewell C will require 3 million litres a day in an area which is the driest areas in the country. 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. Documentation & Consultation The Covid 19 pandemic has disrupted the EDF public consultations as well as the document review period EdF’s documents have consistently been of poor quality and difficult to view, with maps too small and with descriptions almost unreadable and lacking in pertinent detail. I was a supporter of nuclear power 40 years ago but not any more. Nuclear power is now obsolete, outdated and proved itself to be too expensive, too risky with too many extremely long term issues with it’s waste. Should a tiny portion of this waste fall into the wrong hands the consequences could be horrendous. To build a new plant with technology proven to be flawed is foolhardy in the extreme"

David Gordon
"I consider that the Planning Inspectorate should reject this application My first concern is the proposal that the examination be carried out by video means rather than a physical meeting. This is not democratic in that many local people will be unable to participate At a national level my concerns are - economic. Nuclear is now by far the most expensive means of generating electricity - unreliability. Current reactors of this type under construction in Europe are years behind schedule and encountering multiple technical issues. - finance. Who is to pay for the construction has not been determined. It seems that EDF cannot finance it, Chinese finance is a political issue while UK government funding would result in a charge on all UK electricity users while it is being built. At a local level my concerns are that many issues have not been adequately assessed by EDF in spite of the fact that these issues have been raised at the four stage consultation meetings. These include - site access. The impact on the local road system will cause delay, accidents and probably deaths. EDF have rejected proposals put forward by local residents - health. Pollution including dust from the mountains of excavated material will reduce air quality and thus impact on health - environment. The site on the coast is in an AONB which should be subject to special protection. Of particular concern is the RSPB reserve at Minsmere that adjoins the site. - tourism. Is a major part of the local economy. Loss of tourists will mean loss of local jobs while another obstacle to tourism will be the loss of available accomodation as holiday lets are occupied by Sizewell workers. - housing the workforce. A huge ‘hotel’ at Eastbridge is the wrong place. The huge ‘imported’ workforce will put a huge strain on local services like health and police I note that Suffolk County Council have concluded that the disadvantages of Sizewell C outweigh the advantages. I concur with that assessment."

Dilip Harris
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection and methodology; - I believe this is the wrong project in the wrong place - this energy technology is outdated and will potentially be obsolete within 50 years. There are also eight other, completely uncoordinated, energy projects planned for the locality. - This entire coastline is very at risk from the effects of climate change resulting sea level rises, flooding and thus great danger to the reactors and the surrounding areas from melting to pollution and contamination. The site could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. - There is a likelihood of grave impact on coastal processes - Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts - Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. EDF predicts 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. - Negative effect of local job prospects as the focus shifts to this sector; EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in “Site Support” 3. Transport - Road based transport plan not sustainable; there will be an enormous, adverse impact on local communities because of this. HGV numbers will be 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 - Unpredicatable effects on the natural habitat of the Minsmere Sluice - Development would result in dangerous levels of pollution from 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 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."

Doerte Simpson
"I would like to raise the following concerns regarding the plans for Sizewell C: - the size of the planned project is far too big for the location - inappropriate road links for the number of heavy vehicles - negative impact on RSPB Minsmere and other sites of special scientific interest - lack of plans to counter the effects of coastal erosion well into the future of the project - negative impact due to campus housing for thousands of temporary workers - negative impact on my family: access to Leiston and Sizewell, the shops, amenities and education facilities as well as the disruption travelling there due to heavy traffic and proposed unsuitable new road links - the pandemic has shown how important a healthy environment is for all our wellbeing. Sizewell C is would be a catastrophe. It is unsuitable for the location, too expensive and not well planned! I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by STOP SIZEWELL C and the RSPB. I also wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Dorothy Aitchison
"Sizewell C is not necessary for our future energy needs and will ring fence finances which would be more useful in developing other energy resources. Also pollution created by uranium mining is toxic for the environment and will destroy our earth's atmosphere as seriously as any greenhouse gas. An allowable quantity of radioactve discharge is permitted for nuclear power stations. The excuse given is that this is below background levels of radiation under normal operative situations. All nuclear power stations have had problems where more radiation has had to be discharged. Moreover, radiation poisons have specific areas of damage eg strontium is bone seeking and the body can mistake the element for calcium, storing it in bones with obvious health implications. Background radiation is mainly radon which is not safe either but we have lived with this for millenia. We should not be adding to the burden of radiation. There is no safe lower limit. re: the work of Sister Rosalie Bertell and Dr Alice Stewart."

Douglas Bone
"I wish to raise the following issues concerning the selection of Sizewell for further nuclear power generation, especially a project of this size. The site is entirely inappropriate, being at risk from: Sea level rise resulting from climate warming which is undeniably happening. There is very active erosion along the local coastline, defending the enlarged nuclear site would cause even greater degradation of the local environment. Even when completed the site would have great adverse effects on ecologically important sites, areas of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value. The building phase would have a devastating impact on the above sites which would take many years to redress. Local Community, Economic and Social impacts. The area does not suffer from high unemployment, tourism is very important economically, and would be severely affected especially during the building process. The employment that EDF appear to be offering is of low grade and unlikely to be of lasting value. The scale of increased traffic, and the influx of workers both living locally and travelling in on a daily basis will have a large negative affect on quality of life for local residents. Local services such as health will be put under undue pressure and emergency vehicles, such as ambulances and fire appliances risk being severely delayed by traffic volume on inadequate roads thus putting vulnerable people at greater risk. Transport. The local roads are woefully inadequate for the expected traffic load, possible road improvements and new roads have been poorly researched, will themselves cause disruption and are not proposed to be built before construction starts. The possibility of bringing supplies in by sea has been dropped, the ecological impact of doing so would be much less and shorter lasting. Environmental and landscape impacts. The impact on the area to be used during construction is definitely going to be very great and harmful, the full effect on the Minsmere drainage area is unknown but unlikely to be less than expected. Once completed, the buildings would have a damaging visual impact in the Suffolk Coastal AONB, during the expected 10-12 years of the build this would be very severe. Sites of Special Scientific Interest could be destroyed or severely damaged. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. also those submitted by the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust."

Dr Annette Abbott
"The proposed Sizewell C Nuclear Power station will be severely environmentally damaging. It will cut in half the area of outstanding national beauty, destroy more than ten hectares of SSSI - rare habitat of international importance. The building work and proposed sea water cooling use by the power station will be extremely damaging to the marine environment in the North Sea killing up to fifty thousand fish a day with little realistic mitigation. Expected sea level rise over the next century has not been properly factored into the plans and is a major risk to any building on this coast. The building will be severely detrimental to the hydrology of the freshwater aquafer and catchment particularly the M22 Fenland habitat, destroying irreplaceable habitat for rare freshwater plants and insects sensitive to pH changes including Minsmere and Sizewell marshes which will severely adversely affect RSPB Minsmere which is one of the most internationally important wetland reserves for migrating birds in Europe and therefore the world. The anticipated carbon benefit of the proposed Sizewell C will not be realised before 2040 and the development of increasingly efficient renewable energy which is much cheaper than nuclear power (Hinkley £97.50/mwh (index linked) compared (for example) with offshore wind - £39/mwh and still getting cheaper. The twelve plus years of building and disruption will detrimental to the local wildlife – rare Red listed birds, barbastelle and other bats, rare endangered insects such as white admiral butterfly and Norfolk hawkers and incredibly rare plants - because of light and noise and dust pollution, new roads taking up more land, and concreting 1000 acres of woodland and heathland for the construction depot. New roads will carve up the area and it is well known that roads affect wildlife adversely either side up to 1 Km - which includes birds at RSPB Minsmere. The proposed 89 metre culvert over the Minsmere river will be very bad for birds, fish insects and otters. Badger sets will be destroyed. There is no sustainable cheap solution to nuclear waste. It is a safety concern and terrorism target and an encouragement to nuclear proliferation – nuclear power has a marginal role for energy provision in the future. It is a dying industry and will not create jobs for a sustainable future of this area. One hundred and twenty thousand people visit RSPB Minsmere every year - which will be massively reduced because of the building affecting the birds, and this and tourism to East Suffolk will be devastated by this proposed development - which will adversely affect the local economy, not offset by the increased temporary employment of workers during the building. EDF Energy is in serious debt and depends on money funded by British Taxpayers to continue in business in the future - the costing does not include the decommissioning or protecting from the long term of nuclear power. This is neither affordable nor safe for Britain and our environment. Having lived and worked in Suffolk for 36 years I do not believe the building of another nuclear power station at Sizewell will be anything other than a catastrophe for this county. Please stop this development."

Dr Dawn Sanders
"Environmental The area adjacent to Sizewell is rich in biodiversity and much of it is graded as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Site of Special Scientific Interest. The extended works and nuclear power station would impact on multiple environmental levels: flower-rich fen meadow would be lost to future generations. Such a loss is impossible to recreate or indeed compensate for. The proposed expansion is directly adjacent to world famous Minsmere RSPB bird reserve- a place of environmental importance that cannot be compensated in monetary terms. Beyond the birds and the flower-rich fen we have otters, adders, voles and rare bats all inhabiting this region. Given the national context of diminishing biodiversity surely it makes sense to be seen investing in the landscape, especially given the relationship to income from tourism in Suffolk? In addition the insects that inhabit this area provide highly important natural capital in terms of pollination services. Social The proposed increase in jobs is not clear in terms of the percentage of locally sourced workers. The percentages suggested are misleading and actually refer to global statistics, i.e. people already working for companies in the supply chain. Construction workers are in short supply in the local area and would have to be brought from elsewhere. In relation to long-term nuclear posts these are highly specialised and local expertise is not always available. Economic The proposed plan is problematic on two economic levels; national and local: National It is extremely expensive.Public money should not have to support nuclear power through subsidies, guarantees and insurances. Other nuclear development proposals have been reviewed at proposed sites in Britain and abandoned to flawed business plans. In addition, Sizewell occupies a complex site, which is based on marsh not rock, which will need greater investment in both building plans and safety frameworks. It will also need an extensive building and completion period. Given that scientists have projected the next 12 years to be critical in relation to climate change surely solar and wind offer a better business model? Local Suffolk's primary income generators are agriculture and tourism. They are substantial income generators. Tourism income is essential to the economic development and social cohesion of Suffolk.The substantial loss of tranquillity, wildlife habitats and clear views especially around the Minsmere, Eastbridge region would deter tourists for an extended period, as would the noise generated by multiple transport links. A damaged tourism trade would have detrimental impacts on the employment and businesses of generations of Suffolk families"

East Suffolk Council
"I will be emailing our relevant representation separately. Lisa Chandler. please see attached"

Elizabeth d'Hane
"I would like to register my objection to the Sizewell C project on the following grounds: The environmental impact - a huge and diverse area of beautiful and unique Suffolk coastland would be lost and/or changed forever. These environmental changes will, undoubtedly, have a detrimental effect on a wide variety of different habitats effecting both species diversity and the natural interaction between flora and fauna. The negative effects of this would be impossible to mitigate. Air pollution levels will rise due to the amount of construction traffic which will have to use an already over populated road system. It is said that construction will take 10 years but it is already well known that other projects such as Hinkley Point have gone vastly over budget and have taken double the time and are not likely to be finished in the near future – increasing air pollution for a greater length of time. Noise pollution will increase in the areas surrounding the construction site and on the roads to and from the site which will affect many communities negatively. Congestion – the already overused roads in Leiston, A12 and surrounding areas will not be able to cope with the increased traffic leading to delays, the use of ‘rat runs’ to avoid bottle necks and safety concerns. Disposal of nuclear waste – put simply nuclear energy produces toxic waste which will have to be removed/disposed of/put somewhere for future generations to deal with. Its very existence is a grave safety concern. Cost – in the current climate, with such an uncertain economic future for generations to come, it is foolhardy to embark on a project that will, by its very nature, consume finances we can ill afford. In conclusion, I feel that there are more efficient and cost effective ways of increasing our production of energy than to build Sizewell C. The use of renewable sources of energy should be greatly increased and the advantage of these is that they can be dismantled in future with relative ease, compared to decommissioning a nuclear power plant."

Elizabeth Fletcher
"Studies have shown that the site is in danger of erosion. Most importantly, it is in a key area of outstanding natural beauty, visited by tourists with the internationally important RSPB reserve close by. Wildlife could not be shielded from disturbance. Aldeburgh, The Maltings concert hall and Southwold are all on the doorstep. Tourism would suffer during the construction period and the local economy could be badly affected. A huge development would irreparably damage this precious area during construction and pose a potential threat afterwards. This is the Suffolk Heritage Coast. It must be protected for future generations. Extra employment for construction would be short term. Local residents would have to endure the pollution, noise and ground disturbance from lorries. New roads should not be built in pristine countryside. The power station would be a threat to the health of generations to come.. The problem of nuclear waste disposal and the danger of transport to Sellafield has not been solved. Evacuation plans for local residents in the event of accidents are extremely limited and completely unacceptable. They cover a very small area. There would be mass panic in the event of an accident with only minor roads for escape. A serious accident would affect London and the whole of East Anglia. Life in the North Sea would also be affected. There have already been too many accidents at nuclear power stations with resulting long term damage to human health. There is evidence that there have been minor leaks at Sizewell for years. Any investment by China is totally unacceptable in view of their human rights and Hong Kong abuses. It could also be a security threat to our country. On past evidence the estimated costs would escalate wildly. The government should be investing in power sources such as wind energy. The evidence is that electricity from the power station would not be cheaper for consumers. To sum up, there is no justification for ruining the Suffolk coast. I have not heard or read any convincing argument for doing so since Sizewell C was mentioned. My family and so many others see it as a national treasure."

Elizabeth Mary Purves
"The project is in the wrong place : a site of rapid erosion, sea level rise and frequent flooding. It is also a site of internationally designated vulnerability supporting protected species, and of great natural unspoilt beauty. The Suffolk coast should not - with C and the other projects (Scottish Power) be turned into an industrial zone. The proposals for road transport, lighting, and workforce accommodation (new and rental) are intrusive and disastrous for farmland, jobs and local local communities and will devastate the vital tourist economy. And local NHS provision. Management of spoil heaps and building detritus has not been sufficiently calculated."

Felixstowe Town Council
"FELIXSTOWE TOWN COUNCIL Consultation on Sizewell C DCO application September 2020 Relevant Representation from Felixstowe Town Council Felixstowe Town Council (FTC) welcomes the opportunity to register representations to the draft DCO. We look forward to being invited to participate in the relevant later parts of the process. FTC takes no stance of principle in relation to nuclear power generally, or whether the coastal site at Sizewell may be an appropriate location. The new power station is not immediately local to Felixstowe; hence FTC will limit our response to those aspects which may specifically affect the town, its economy or wellbeing. These primarily concern a number of elements of the road and rail strategies which have such a potential, 3 in number: • The rail strategy, and the potential negative effects on available freight capacity from the Port of Felixstowe to the west of Westerfield junction, especially in the medium term. • The significant increases predicted during the construction phase in both LGV and HGV traffic volumes at a number of pressure points on the main road network in the wider vicinity of the town, many of which are critical to the daily lives of our residents. • The potential effects on local traffic safety and amenity arising from the proposed Freight Management Facility at Nacton A number of other aspects could be relevant to Felixstowe. FTC would wish to have an opportunity to comment on these at a later stage. These include, but are not limited to: • Tourism, locally or as part of the wider Visit Suffolk concept. • The labour market, both skilled and unskilled, notably around the transport and logistics sector. • Housing issues, noting that the application defines “local employment” as a radius of a 90-minute drive time, which Felixstowe is well within, with an aspiration to employ the maximum number possible within that category. • Coastal processes, given that these may be affected over 150 years and more, may be substantial and that the general mechanism of the coast between Lowestoft and Felixstowe is perceived to be an overall southerly drift of beach sediments 1.0 Rail strategy FTC has been concerned throughout the long series of consultations in regard to the potential impacts on rail freight capacity west and south of Ipswich from the additional rail paths required for SZC construction. These impacts are potentially directly harmful to the short- and medium-term future of the Port of Felixstowe and its large dependent logistics business sector. While we recognise the desirability of rail delivery of materials to the SZC site, those issues are limited in time and in scale in contrast to the importance of rail freight capacity to Felixstowe Port as by far the largest strategic element of the economy of the Eastern region. In that context, we do not believe that the EDF Transport Assessment comes close to examining these issues in sufficient depth, let alone proposing any mitigation thereof. These impacts need to be considered against an understanding of the evolving port and logistics business both globally, in the UK as a whole and specifically for the eastern region, as well as Felixstowe itself - whose economic and social life is highly dependent on the ongoing health of the Port business. The Port is fortunate in its ideal geographic location in UK – but nevertheless critically dependent on further expansion of rail capacity, currently running at very high load factors. The shipping and logistics industry is very sensitive to even short-term disruptions of throughput, and its customers must have long term confidence in all elements of the supporting infrastructure, including rail freight capacity improvement over time. Competing ports at Southampton and especially London Gateway seek to fill spare capacity. While Felixstowe has unique advantages in terms of geographic location, lack of rail capacity in short and medium term is critical to its continued viability, and therefore for some operators, a presence in Felixstowe. The Port was created and has thrived on the back of huge public investment in road & rail in the 1960s and 1970s, but we have seen only small local improvements since. Current rail bottlenecks have suffered constant delays in the emergence of improvement plans from Network Rail: the critical Ely Junction scheme has been under active discussion for at least 10 years, with no firm plans yet in place, but an earliest likely date of 2028/29 at best. FTC has considered the so-called Rail Strategy document. However, while this deals in great detail with the local issues around the SZC site, Leiston and the Saxmundham junction, it has little or no strategic content, other than suggested detailed times of the 3 trains expected daily during the middle years construction phase. Namely: • The 3 outbound trains would be flighted from Saxmundham junction after the last passenger service, passing Westerfield between 2355 and 0120 • 2 inbound trains would be overnight, passing Westerfield at 0350 and 0447 • The third inbound train would utilise the existing unused morning SZA/NDA path, passing Westerfield at 0807. There is unfortunately no strategic consideration of whether and how these trains would impact on the (largely freight) services to the west, the critical strategic matter at issue. The principles around this are discussed below. But it is germane to regret here the unfortunate continuing use of the 0807 Westerfield path, which precludes a rush-hour commuting service between Ipswich and Woodbridge. Locally, for Felixstowe residents, that is manifested in the need to leave Felixstowe at 0636 in order to reach Woodbridge in time for the normal working day (at 0751), the next arrival being 0932 – neither being a realistic commuting schedule.. FTC has carefully considered the Rail Network chapter of the Transport Assessment. We recognise and are pleased to see that this chapter has now been added, in contrast to earlier consultation phases. However, we do not perceive the issues raised have themselves been addressed. That must be corrected before a DCO should be granted. The discussion of the rail system from Sizewell to Ipswich is thorough, and largely correct, but the wider network issues beyond Westerfield have not been properly researched, let alone addressed. The issues involved are complex and technical regarding the operation of the rail system. We submit that the Rail Network document is an inadequate presentation of the issues involved and /or mitigation which may be required. It contains a number of significant inaccuracies, and errors or omissions in certain places. We would be happy to supply details of our evidence in that respect at the appropriate time. We request that the Inspector fully consider these alongside this Relevant Representation document. Critically, it does not establish that adequate freight capacity is available on the rail network to accommodate the SZC traffic. We request that the Inspector fully consider these alongside this document. Paragraph 2.7.55 is highly misleading in respect of the prospects for any improvement during the current Network Rail “Control Period 6” – 2019-2024. It appears to be based on a comment in Network Rail’s Anglia Route Strategic plan dated January 2018: to “Ely Area Capacity Enhancement projects”. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Anglia-Route-Strategic-Plan.pdf However, that document was revised in March 2019, and again in March 2020, removing any hope in early investment at Ely, or anywhere else other than the now completed Trimley Loop, as follows. The Anglia Route Strategic Network Plan dated March 2019 contains no commitment to work at Ely junction – just the following comment under “Freight”: “What freight particularly want from the Anglia route is a reliable asset performance whilst ensuring fair regulation whilst on the network. With Trimley Long Loop being completed during CP6 this will add much operational flexibility to better current performance for intermodal services. We need to concentrate our efforts on increasing infrastructure reliability on the Cross Country route from Haughley Jn to Ely and Peterborough which is a major artery of the UK PLC.” https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Route-Strategic-Plan-Anglia.pdf i.e. the only work planned which is relevant to SZC is increased reliability of current lines and equipment – welcome, but of no effect in increasing planned line capacity. And the later updated Network Rail Delivery Plan Update Summary for CP6, dated 26/3/2020 makes no reference to any work at Ely or elsewhere, beyond the completed Trimley Project. https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cp6-delivery-plan-update.pdf FTC understands from many sources that the current expectation for significant improvements at Ely are now expected in 2028/29 at the earliest. We consider that, taken in the round, the Rail Network document is deficient in almost all regards relating to the strategic rail freight network. It is poorly prepared, and at most a discussion of solutions to the matters at issue. It is essential therefore that this unpalatable situation is fully recognised in regard to the feasibility of EDF’s plan for any rail delivery to SZC. And from that it follows that significant mitigation should be required from EDF, in order to provide in consultation with Network Rail and all interested parties, funding for such improvements as can be identified to permit the additional SZC rail freight capacity to be provided without prejudice to existing users of the rail network, passengers and freight alike. 2.0 Effects on the main road network FTC has significant concerns in regard to the volumes of traffic, and especially the degree to which the nearby main road accesses to the town are predicted to suffer from significant over capacity at critical junctions, and the increase in queuing thereby predicted to occur during the Construction phase of SZC. FTC acknowledges that traffic in the town of Felixstowe and its immediate vicinity is unlikely to be directly affected. However, our geographical situation on a peninsular with only a single main road access via the Seven Hill interchange we submit represents a major issue for the economic and social well-being of our residents and indeed our visitors, given that tourism plays a major part in our economy. FTC have carefully considered the numerous statistical analyses and predictions contained within the Transport Assessment (TA) in regard to both light and heavy goods vehicle traffic flows, as an increased part of already very heavy general traffic – which is itself predicted to increase by some 25% during the period, according to the figures presented. FTC acknowledges that very detailed analyses of current traffic and future trends have been undertaken as part of the TA, which are most useful in understanding the potential issues likely to arise. This situation paints a picture which would be of concern to any community, but especially in our specific geographical situation: The Seven Hills Roundabout and the main roads it links are fundamental to convenient and safe access to our town. It is already normal at peak times to experience queues on the south east A12 slip road, the A1156 and frequently on the A12 north approaches. Hence we are disturbed that even without accounting for the SZC traffic the capacity of the routes is predicted to increase sharply, to a situation of 170% overload, even with the proposed Adastral Park mitigation. While our prime concern is in regard to the Seven Hills junction, many of our residents have daily commitments in Martlesham, Woodbridge and beyond, and vice versa is true for some residents of those areas. Accordingly, we have similar concerns about the whole series of junctions from Seven hills to Woods Lane, all of which are predicted to have similar congestion issues. We note that it is claimed that the SZC traffic will make only a marginal increase on these numbers, and hence that EDF state that no further mitigation is justified in connection with the SZC build. We reject that claim and that approach strongly. We note that the SZC traffic, just for LGVs and HGVs, represents some 2.1/2% of the volume. While it may be true that in a situation of adequate capacity, a change of that size may be of modest concern, we suggest most strongly that in a situation of near permanent overload , a marginal increase in numbers would be likely have an entirely disproportionate effect on delays. We therefore believe that the stance of EDF is wholly unreasonable, and that accordingly the DCO should not be granted on this basis, but should be conditioned that EDF make a proportionate contribution to fund more significant works than those currently conditioned in connection with the Adastral Park development. Additionally, while those improvements are expected around 2023 in connection with that development, that outcome is contingent on many unknowns, and may not happen on time, or indeed at all. We therefore further contend that it is unreasonable for the SZC Assessment to be accepted on that basis, given the extreme congestion predicted should those not be completed appropriately. We suggest this matter further underlines the need for the DCO to require an appropriate contribution from EDF, to cover that eventuality. We are not clear whether the Adastral Park proposal includes full, interactive signalling of these roundabouts, which proved so enormously effective when the roundabout and signalling at Junction 58 were completely re-designed and rebuilt in 2010, but if that is not the case, then an EDF contribution should be used to enable that, primarily at Seven Hills. 3.0 The Freight Management Facility FTC has many years’ experience of the effect of very heavy flows of HGVs into and around the Port of Felixstowe. The efficacy or otherwise of the combined effect of the local road system and the evolving, now sophisticated, Freight Management System operated by the Port of Felixstowe (PoF) has varied widely over the last 25 years or so. However, the current situation, with Port volumes having increased broadly year on year is largely successful in avoiding undue congestion from the HGV traffic. For a long period between c.2000 to 2010, there was frequent need for “Operation Stack” to be invoked, whereby large numbers of HGVs were diverted and held, originally on the carriageway south of Junction 58, and later on the Old Felixstowe Road. However in recent years this has been a relatively rare occurrence. Two major factors have successfully procured this outcome: A) The major rebuild of the roundabout at Junction 58 in 2010, critically with the use of fully interactive computer controlled signalling, which can be observed to change behaviour very significantly at different times of day and according to changing traffic volumes B) The implementation by PoF of the Freight Management System (FMS), which remotely allocates entrance times to the port for all HGVs. Accordingly FTC, having observed the ability of good HGV traffic management to largely eliminate the previous major congestion, strongly supports the concept of a Freight Management Facility to mitigate potential negative effects of SZC HGV traffic, not only locally, but throughout the route to Sizewell. FTC takes no view on the suitability of the site chosen, in terms of the impact of the site itself on the appearance of the local area in comparison to other potential sites. We believe that is a matter for the local parishes directly affected to consider. However, we have considerable concerns about the proposed traffic management to and from the chosen site on the Old Felixstowe Road. We note that the intention is for all traffic, other than HGVs originating from the PoF, to enter and leave the site from / to the north along the Old Felixstowe Road, via the Crematorium junction. We take the view that not only will this arrangement significantly exacerbate the clear problems at the Seven Hills interchange above, but also that the proposed intensification of use of the A1156 / Old Felixstowe Road junction (“the Crematorium junction”), without any mitigation applied, is likely to cause significant difficulties. In particular, the need for significant numbers of HGVs to emerge from old Felixstowe Road onto the A1156, on a right turn, across a busy single carriageway road, on a long bend with limited visibility is clearly liable to problems. Currently very little traffic needs to make that turn, with the majority of westbound traffic on Old Felixstowe Road making the left turn towards Ipswich. Numbers of HGVs being required to make that sharp turn, inevitably slowly, across often fast-moving westbound traffic going to be problematic at best, and potentially with significant danger of collision. If this approach is adopted, we submit that a significant mitigation is required by provision of a redesigned layout, ideally with signalisation, at the Crematorium junction. We would therefore ask that the DCO be conditioned to require that. However, beyond the difficulties at the junction itself, we note that the requirement for some 60% of all HGV traffic bound for SZC to use the Seven Hills junction twice and thereby substantially exacerbate the clearly identified congestion issues there is also a matter of concern. There can only be a significant difference between the direct approach to SZC, simply using the well-designed dedicated slip lane directly onto the A12 northbound, and the need a) to use the right hand slip lane, enter the roundabout, conflict with the A12 southbound and south east sliproad entry traffic, and leave by the A1156 exit, and then later to enter the Seven Hills roundabout from the A1156, conflicting with traffic both from A12 northbound and from A14 south east slip road, will be a major factor in exacerbating congestion at Seven Hills. A possible alternative could be considered and explored of inbound traffic continuing on the A14 to Junction 59 Trimley, using the flyover there to access the A14 westbound, and enter the FMS site from the east via the existing slip road near Levington. This would remove the inbound traffic entirely from the Seven Hills junction. And similarly, for HGVS leaving the FMS bound for Sizewell to leave the site eastward and then use the A14 westbound to Seven Hills, using the south east A14 slip to enter the roundabout. (This may probably require some improvement to the Levington entry slip lane). FTC is not in a position to analyse this option in detail but suggest that it may have considerable advantages in reducing congestion and should be explored."

Frances Gilman
"This will destroy an SSSI and an incredible habitat. Jobs that rely on tourism will be lost. I am against storing and creating deadly nuclear waste forever, and I resent the way things have been twisted to say there will be a carbon emission saving. This will affect us in Woodbridge massively as an extra 100+ lorries a day will bypass us (poor kids at Farlingaye High School which our children will go to, it is right by the A12). For our friends living near the railway they will have trains going by them all night for the next 12 years. Nuclear is NOT the way forward and I object on behalf of my young family."

Gabrielle Maughan
"As a resident of a nearby town I am extremely concerned for my personal safety in the event of a nuclear accident. As an environmentalist I am even more concerned for the local habitats of wildlife already grossly under pressure. The area will never return to its natural state and you can’t transplant habitats. The constant light has already driven away many species that used to live in the area. As a taxpayer I don’t see how building another nuclear power station can ever make economic sense. The money has to go into renewables which can come on stream much faster than sizewell can. Other nuclear projects have been abandoned because the cost has become untenable so should this one."

Gary Lowe
"I oppose Sizewell C proposals. They will be extremely detrimental to a huge swathe of the Suffolk countryside, both during construction and after completion. They are dangerous, as has been seen at other nuclear plants around the world. They are unnecessary, as other, more cost-efficient and environmentally-benign alternatives exist."

Genevieve Broad
"Site: It will be dangerous to build a nuclear power station on a flood risk site with rising sea levels and an eroding coastline. The EA and CEFAS predict the site will be a flooded nuclear island by 2100, so huge funding would be required to protect the site. Waste: Nuclear waste will be stored on site, an unsafe strategy in the long term. Design: the US describes the design as ‘complicated with built-in risks’. Funding: In 2016 EDF had debts of 37 billion Euros. They have effectively been declared bankrupt by France’s national auditor, due to the cost of overruns on the EPRs being built in France (12 years late and 3.5 times over budget) and Finland (12 years late and 4 times over budget). The National Audit Office has called Sizewell C ‘risky and expensive’. Carbon: Sizewell C will NOT be low carbon. Its construction, operation and decommissioning will have a high carbon footprint. The mining of minerals, extraction and enrichment of uranium, production of plant, transportation, worker and support services mean that the station will not operate at carbon neutral until 15 years of operation. Tourism and Job Losses: The coasts and heaths on site are the ‘jewel in Suffolk’s tourism crown’ meaning Sizewell C construction will inflict huge job and income losses. EDF estimate 900 jobs at SZC when operational. The predicted 400 job losses is a significant underestimate. Local businesses will lose £24-£40 million p.a. and some will close. Jobs: jobs for local people during construction will be mainly low skilled and temporary. Water: Suffolk has the lowest rainfall in England. While farmers are increasingly using irrigation, SZC will need 3 million litres of fresh water a day for up to 70-80 years. This is just not available. Transport: EDF’s plans to create new roads, roundabouts and park and ride facilities ignore rail and sea transport and the devastating impact on local communities. Electricity - Renewable sources now provide the bulk of the UK’s energy needs. Planned new wind farms, plus solar power with storage and tidal power will meet any expanding future needs. Renewables are quicker and cheaper to build, safer, have lower operating costs, are easy to decommission and carry less risk. AONB: This site lies within a designated unique landscape providing habitats for a wide range of wildlife and recreation for people. There will be destruction and fragmentation of the area for new infrastructure and temporary accommodation, with noise, dust and light pollution. This will destroy species and habitats at a time when public opinion is turning towards saving them. Wildlife: Wildlife surveys show a lack of thoroughness, mainly using ‘Walkovers’ and ‘Desktop’ surveys. Some surveys are 12 years old and clearly out of date, especially for amphibians and reptiles. There is no evidence of avoidance of the massive detrimental effects on wildlife that Sizewell C will cause in a national and internationally important area for biodiversity."

George Conchie
"I make no apology for stating that I am not a person with a technical background so therefore cannot put that argument against Sizewell C. However I love the Environment whether it is on my doorstep or some miles away as at Sizewell or further afield. We, the Public are never told or allowed to work out the ongoing costs of Nuclear power. It all relates to what you see. But let us look at the costs that we can determine because of Nuclear power. Chernobyl, Fukishima, Three Mile Island. Three "accidents" in each of our continents that have cost the Environment dearly. Also let us not forget our own doorstep, England, Windscale and the cost to our more local environment. There, for everything, is more than just the cost of a building. We must think wider and outside the box as seen in my Nuclear disasters. That type of disaster could happen here at home. I implore you please take this into consideration. Also moving amphibians reptiles and destroying their homes is never ever going to replace what the construction of Sizewell C has taken away. Extinction, as highlighted by David Attenborough is not far away. PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE consider ALL costs when coming to your decision. And I make no apology, again, for being presumptuous in saying There is Another way. Thank you George Conchie"

Glynis Robertson
"Dear Examining Authority, I am registering to object to building a twin nuclear reactor, Sizewell C, next to Sizewell A & B I also wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Suffolk DMO. I also consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process in these Covid-19 times and even more so, as we go into the winter flu season and the possibility of a further lockdown. The strain on the Community, let alone your staff will be enormous. The DCO process should be halted until in-person hearings can be held. Objections: 1) The Site is too Small for twin reactors. 2) Coastal erosion and climate change makes it a risky investment. 3) Site could become an island of 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. 4) Destruction of AONB, Dunwich Marshes, Sandlings SSI and other protected areas. 5) Cumulative effect of 4 Wind Farm projects (SPR’s EA1N & EA2, Galloper and Gabbard), plus 4 National Grid interconnectors (Nautilus, Eurolink, SDC1 and SDC2). And prior to that, the new road construction and re-location of Sizewell B utilities. 6) Construction of 10 energy projects will shut down the whole area for up to 20 years…. add another 10-20 years to re-wild. 7) Social impacts on local Communities. 8) 6000 workers, who polices them and is ultimately accountable for probable misbehaviour? 9) Negative impact on business as local labour leave local business to service construction. 10) No jobs after the final build for locals, unless they are low-level, service positions. Subsequent displacement of the local workforce. 11) Tourism affected – Suffolk DMO predicted loss of up to £40m pa and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors may be deterred. 12) Local community impacts of villages severed, traffic congestion, increase in noise, light and air pollution. 13) Impacts on health, social and emergency services. 14) Flooding, coastal erosion 15) Irreparable harm to Minsmere - Impacts on Marsh Harriers threaten integrity of Special Protection Area 14) Uncertainty re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond. 15) A huge impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB - Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage 16) Will not offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years."

Glynn Jones
"Sizewell C should not be built because The technology is not proven. After seventy years and billions of pounds, safety is still open to question, and how to dispose of waste has yet to be resolved. The reactor will be built by a state French company backed by Chinese finance. Our energy fate will be in the hands of a bitter traditional rival and an increasingly powerful potential enemy. There are other simpler, cheaper, environmentally more friendly, and increasingly effective alternatives i.e. wind, waves, and sun. The tariff EDF is guaranteed is far too high. Doubtless like all nuclear projects will end years behind schedule, and the UK government will have to bail it out. The number of local jobs created will be minuscule. The equivalent of those made redundant by a small supermarket chain in the pandemic. And the best ones will be filled not even by Brits, but by Chinese and Indian graduates. Local information officer, school trip guide is all we can look forward to. The damage to the local and world famous natural environment will be catastrophic. The area's narrow winding lanes will be clogged for a decade. The tourist trade, perhaps the greatest creator of local jobs will be undermined. Tourists don't visit power stations except when they are spectacularly demolished. The consequences of this vainglorious project will be with us forever. This is not like the Dome which will be with for a decade or two more. It's not even a decision for our life times. The consequences will be disastrous, and it creates more problems than it solves. It's in your backyard. Don't let it be built."

Grace KY Brown
"Against the development of the site as have concerns for neighbouring areas, towns and people living in those areas"

Graeme Watts
"I agree with the principal of nuclear power but I am yet to be convinced by the economic benefits of this development at Sizewell when set against the environmental damage it will cause and the disruption it will cause over many years to the people of East Suffolk. My principal concern is the development of a Freight Management Facility near the Seven Hills A12 / A14 junction. Not only will the site itself be an unwanted intrusion into a rural location but there will be a large increase in lorry traffic along already congested roads. Both the A12 through Martlesham and the A14 near Ipswich are already congested and the siting of this facility will only increase delays and pollution particularly at the Seven Hills junction. The plans do not appear to consider the access to the site from the A1156 and whether changes will be made to the junction with the A1156 adjacent to the Seven Hills Crematorium. Due to the large amount of traffic using this road HGV’s will have difficulty entering and exiting the old Felixstowe Road which leads to the site. This will lead to an unacceptably high risk of accidents at the junction as HGVs manoeuvre. As a local resident who on several occasions has been stuck in traffic gridlock by the closure of the Orwell Bridge or the A14 I am concerned by any additional traffic or increased threat to Highway Safety."

Helen Cook
"Too many national projects being debated at the same time - totally unfair and totally confusing. Today deadline for Scottish Power, tomorrow for Size well C, etc. How many forms to fill in ....!!!"

Highways England
"Highways England (HE) is appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as a strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). In respect to this application, HE interest relates to the impact of the proposal on the A14 and A12 trunks and their connection with the local road network, ensuring that the SRN can continue to operate safely and efficiently during construction and operation. HE has been working closely with the promoter and Suffolk CC (SCC - local highway authority) on technical matters which have enabled us to narrow down the broader topics and specific matters which are considered requiring need to be addressed further during examination. Traffic Generation Estimates Discussions have focused on the assumptions that have been made regarding estimated traffic generation during construction. Currently, more clarity is needed on the quantities of materials, proportion of materials transported by transport modes and how these assumptions have been used to derive the number of HGVs. Linked to this, HE seeks more information on the assumed scheduling of construction traffic movements (including abnormal loads) as well assurances that rail is a realistic mode to transport materials and equipment to the construction site, as this will be an opportunity to reduce impacts from HGV traffic on the Strategic Road Network. Management of Construction Traffic A Freight Management Facility (FMF) is proposed adjacent to the Strategic Road Network at the A14/A12 Seven Hills Interchange. The facility will be located to the east of the A14 Orwell Bridge which is susceptible to periods of disruption and closures to traffic during inclement weather. Whilst procedures in place to manage incidents, and HE are developing measures to increase the resilience of the A14, there remains the likelihood of bridge closures. The promotor’s evidence indicates that the majority of construction traffic will originate from areas west of the bridge and therefore will need to cross it. Further clarity is needed around the proposed FMF location and whether viable alternative locations west of the A14 Orwell Bridge have been identified, and what criteria has been used to select the proposed location. We are concerned that during periods of disruption on the Orwell Bridge that inbound construction traffic using the A14 will not be able to reach the FMF. This will place reliance upon robust and effective protocols and systems to manage construction traffic movements. More detail and firm commitments from the promotor on the protocols expected to be followed by contractors as part of the Construction Traffic Management Plan are required to ensure resilience of the A14 Highway Impacts - A14/A12 Seven Hills Junction 58 The proposals may have a significant impact on the operation of the A14 slip road approaches to the A14/A12 Seven Hills Junction, particularly during the construction period. Discussions with the applicant on the scale and severity of potential traffic queues and safety implications are ongoing and are yet to be concluded."

Holly Tillcock
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk District Council all have unanswered concerns regarding this development surely they should have been answered before being allowed to pass this to yourselves I feel they are assuming you will approve and accomplish a “fait accompli” but I hope common sense will over prevail and you will reject this application. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, Together against Sizewell, Suffolk Wildlie Trust and RSPB Minismere. 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 journey. ? Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed by EDF • There is no legacy need for the current link road and County council have asked for it to be removed after construction or a substantial payment for up keep • The bulk of the construction traffic is in the early years and this road is not due to be completed for 3-4 years how is that a plan? 2. Community, Economic and social impacts ? Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. ? Visitor economy: Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. 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 ? 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. ? Rat-running and disruption not adequately considered. 4. Environment and Landscape ? Can the planning Inspectorate find out how large the sites are at Flamanville, Taishan, Olkiluoto and Hinckley Point C as this is not available to the general public. I believe the site a Sizewell is to small and EDF will start the project and once they have planning permission use more land than approved “Mission Creep”? ? Flooding ? Irreparable harm to Minsmere ? Uncertainty re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond. ? 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 ? 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?"

Isabella Thomas
"-the huge increase in road traffic, -Suffolk's coastal AONB will be significantly spoilt, -the strain on local services (already stretched) from an influx of workers, -the threat to 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."

Ivor Eisenstadt
"In mid-2019, new wind and solar generators competed efficiently against even existing nuclear power plants in cost terms and grew generating capacity faster than any other power type, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) showed. “Stabilizing the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow,” said Mycle Schneider, lead author of the report. “It meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.” The case for nuclear power is now shaky at best and to commit the UK to such a long term, economically dubious and environmentally damaging project such as Sizewell C is unjustifiable, especially now that the UK has the additional borrowing burden as a result of COVID-19. Can we really afford to commit to a solution that is increasingly expensive relative to other means of energy production? Additionally, to commit to placing the power plant at Sizewell is environmentally damaging and foolish. It is surrounded by designated sites of international and national ecological importance and will require the acquisition and destruction of areas which are inside the area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). Furthermore, 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. The decision to go ahead with Sizewell C should be based on what is the right energy solution for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. Can you really say that it is the right way forward when it is increasingly expensive relative to other forms of energy production, it will leave a long term potential safety risk and it will detrimentally affect an area that is of outstanding natural beauty, home to many vulnerable and scarce species, and a place loved by many? The world is changing, our natural environment is becoming central to our quality of life, mental wellbeing and our ultimate happiness. Please think long and hard about whether these are important to you, your children and their children. Future generations will judge you on the decision you make. Thank you."

Jackum Brown
"I wish to register my opposition to EDF’s planning application for Sizewell C. My overarching concern is that this project is sited in the wrong place, at the wrong time, at an unbearable cost both to the local environment and wider Suffolk. I have grave concerns about: ROADS/TRAFFIC There will be increased traffic for decades on all Suffolk’s roads, including lanes that do not allow for passing cars. Between Peasenhall and Yoxford/A12 there are several narrow lanes that will become rat runs as drivers avoid the junction there by accessing Darsham Park&Ride from the west. The building of 5 roundabouts plus new roads means everyday travel will become progressively more difficult. Unnecessary deaths will occur as Blue Light services fail to reach victims quickly - an accident at Sizewell would be utterly disastrous. I own a listed Chapel [Redacted]. Residents will suffer years of hugely increased noise, light, exhaust emissions and vibrations, adversely affecting our physical and mental health. Vibration and air pollution will damage the fabric of my Chapel, in particular the fragile, original, leaded stained glass windows. EDF have made no genuine effort to utilise rail or sea transport. THE ENVIRONMENT The Heritage Coast and its protected landscapes are Suffolk’s heartland - we ruin them at our peril. The land-take for Sizewell C is vastly more than the main site, as to access it acres of farmland will be lost, divided by new roads, roundabouts, by-passes, lay-up areas and vast car parks. We will lose our quality of life: tranquility, much used footpaths, the beach and its rare flora and fauna, our famous dark skies. Dunwich Heath will be negatively impacted and our AONB despoiled, run-off from the road polluting the SSSI. RSPB Minsmere will lose many species, including irreplaceable Red Listers such as Marsh Harriers. Swathes of trees will be felled. TOURISM Tourism will vanish as journey times double or treble. Our visitor attractions will be gone and our coastal towns and rural villages will suffer 24/7 construction noise, light and air pollution, with the appalling visual impact visible for miles around. COASTAL PROCESSES This coast is eroding, seas are rising much faster than forecasted and extreme weather events occur more frequently. Building anything here is pointless, yet EDF plan to store more (and ‘hotter’) waste here for decades. There is no safe, long-term storage solution and EDF admit climate change impacts are so unpredictable they cannot realistically plan further than 10 years ahead. The plant will kill tonnes of fish every day for decades, deeply damaging North Sea fish stocks. POTABLE WATER EDF need 2-3 million litres of potable water per day throughout the construction and life of the plant. Essex and Suffolk Water say they do not have it. 6,000 incoming workers will also need fresh water. If EDF extract it from the aquifer we will all suffer. COVID 19 EDF grabbed the opportunity afforded them by the pandemic to forge ahead with their plans, thus ensuring that neither Councillors nor the public could fully participate in the process."

James Vigar
"I am extremely worried about the impact that Sizewell C will have on both the local environment and economy specifically in relation to: - huge increase in HGV traffic on already stressed transport routes - huge increase in pollution in an AONB - increase in pressure on local services as a result of worker influx - viability and risk associated with siting a nuclear reactor on an eroding coastline - the threat to marine life"

Jan Hall
"I am writing to object to the building of Sizewell C. Even if the process is not stopped immediately it should not go ahead without full local involvement and consultation which cannot happen during the pandemic. For that reason alone the project should be halted. It will have a terrible impact on this part of Suffolk to the people, the landscape and the wildlife. All three of which have a right to be protected. The traffic will be very disruptive and EDF have failed to adopt some of the very sensible plans proposed to them. The landscape and wildlife will also be badly damaged. The plans to destroy the old wood neat Sizewell even before permission to build is granted is clear proof that EDF are not concerned with protecting this very special part of Suffolk. The heavy trucks and the trains running through the night will be a nightmare for those close to this disruption and inconvenience everyone else. I do not want a nuclear plant partly owned by the Chinese, or where the Chinese have any involvement anywhere in this country. The recent concerns over the Chinese on security grounds and the concerns growing about what favours they expect from locals where they invest both confirm the folly of this route. The costal erosion could well be badly affected and global warming means we do not know how much of a problem this could be. Given that we do not know, we should not be building yet another nuclear plant in a place where erosion is a big issue. Finally, advancing technology means it is highly possible we will not need Sizewell C at all. To build something which produces nuclear waste which will last for 100s of years when we know it may not be needed is beyond reckless. EDF may well want to move quickly as this suits their costs by bringing workers from their previous nuclear build but this is no reason at all to go ahead. Overall the arguments are no longer compelling and to go ahead with this it needs to be over 99% compelling and proven and it is not. Therefore please stop now. Thank you Jan Hall"

Jean Allan Holloway
"Scrutiny of the following Coastal defences Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. Impact from influx of workers Visitor economy Pressure on health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people. 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 New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. Flooding Irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. Impacts on Marsh Harriers threaten integrity of Special Protection Area 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"

Jennifer Kirtley
"I am extremely concerned over the proposed building of Sizewell C. Many have responded to 4 EDF consultations and yet still, the DCO is full of unanswered questions. Given the time EDF has been working on SZC, critical issues should have been resolved and it shows many cannot. It is abundantly clear that no amount of compensation or mitigation, will save this unique part of the UK. Rural Suffolk is not Hinkley Point. Concerns. Site Selection: The chosen site is too small for the development. The site is identified on the Environment flood map as under threat. The build will be on an eroding coast. Site could become a nuclear island due to sea rise, a dangerous legacy for future generations. The impact on the AONB, both visually and environmentally will be catastrophic. The entrance to SZC is 2.63km inland from the site. Accommodation blocks. Local Impact Impact on the local community will be great. Leiston has few facilities to cope with a large influx of over 6,000 workers. During the construction of SZB, Leiston was often a no-go area, with far less workers on site. There will be added pressure on local housing. Rents will rise. Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. A sector already under huge pressure from covid-19. Pressure on staffing for local businesses, especially in hospitality & the care sector in an area of low unemployment, staff & tradesmen hard to find. Roads The eye watering amounts of HGV movements, white van and worker’s journeys is unsustainable for the area. 5 new roundabouts planned for a 10mile stretch on A12, difficult to see how the road will cope, huge increase in holiday traffic in past few months to Southwold & Aldeburgh I live along the A1120. A designated tourist route, busy, winding, rural road already under pressure from the west. A local worry, will be rat runs to northern Park & ride, along roads no wider than a cart track. The B1122, main route for first two years. Small rural road, also used by the farming community, totally unsuitable for up to a 1000 HGV daily movements + vans & buses. Rail strategy Environment: We are blessed to have RSPB Minsmere on our doorstep. When visiting the reserve, it is obvious to see the impact, noise & light pollution will have, cannot be mitigated, or compensated for. The area is silent. Water extraction could alter the surrounding marshes, causing havoc for endangered species. Little detail on where the 2-3 million litres of potable water a day will come from, in driest part of UK. The calculations on fish intake make grim reading. Up to 3.4 tonnes of fish interred & killed in cooling system. Sea rise. EDF have submitted the DCO at a time when it will be impossible for public & relevant bodies to fully engage in the process. With so many unanswered questions it should be halted. DCO: many of the maps are difficult to read and much of the consultation lacks detail."

Joanna Rowles
"Sizewell C: the absolutely incredible habitat & SSSI destruction this will cause, the storing and creating of deadly nuclear waste for ever, the loss of jobs relying on tourism and the lies spouted by EDF regarding carbon emission saving....This will affect us in Woodbridge massively as an extra 100+ lorries a day will bypass us (poor kids at Farlingaye High School breathing in all those fumes). Anyone living near the railway line, such as our family, will have trains going by them all night for the next 12 years Nuclear is NOT the answer. The creation of the Park and Ride service to supply Sizewell C will have detrimental.environmental impacts on the local communities of either Melton or Wickham Market. My children [Redacted] on foot or by bicycle and the additional traffic created by the Sizewell C project will present a real danger to their safety."

John Barrett
"As a provider of accommodation for holiday makers my income will be decimated if the planned building of Sizewell C goes ahead. The accommodation does not lend its self to be used by itinerant workers and even if it did it would not provide the income afforded by our usual clientele. Living as I do on Little Street, Yoxford (A1120) where the road is so narrow two HGV’S can’t pass without mounting the pavement. The increase in traffic noise, exhaust emissions and vibration is going to impact even more severely on my quality of life. Also I am concerned by the light pollution produced on the building site. During the building of Sizewell B there was a constant bright glow over the site from dusk until dawn. This would mean that our bird watching visitors would not be able to enjoy their nocturnal visits to Minsmere bird reserve and the surrounding area to observe birds such the nightjar."

Joshua Parker
"I am from the Suffolk coastal area and have significant concerns regarding the impact of this proposed development upon the local area, infrastructure and biodiversity. Suffolk is a quiet place and a vast increase in traffic upon the local roads will place huge strain upon the local community. My parents live in Suffolk and [Redacted], so the expected impact to air quality is of great concern. In addition, the local roads in Suffolk would be overwhelmed by a huge increase in traffic and HGVs which would massively disrupt and adversely affect local communities. I am also concerned about the impact to the local protected areas, namely RSPB Minsmere and Minsmere-Warbleswick SPA and Outer Thames Estuary SPA. I do not believe that the application has adequately assessed the impacts alone or in incombination. In addition, nuclear power is expensive and a lot more costly compared to renewable energy sources. The risk of terrorism and/or human error is also massive and the consequences may be devestating."

Juliet Blaxland
"While appreciating the need 'to keep the lights on', I think Sizewell C will do disproportionate damage to the nature, ecology and culture of coastal Suffolk, not just in the development of the actual site, but also in the transport and enormous footprint of associated accommodation. There must be a better way, at least using brownfield land, and preferably greener architecture in the broadest sense. It seems likely, looking to the future, near and far, that the technology of the 2020s will be superseded by Rolls Royce nuclear pods, improved solar and wind power, and possibly use of the waves themselves. In addition, coastal erosion and rising sea levels may make Sizewell a kind of concrete island. The natural and working landscapes will be irreparably maimed, for what is likely to be a white elephant in the countryside."

Katherine Parrish
"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. think again. 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. who wants to go on holiday near a nuclear plant. 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 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."

Kesgrave Town Council
"On behalf of Kesgrave Town Council I wish to raise an interest in the following matters; 1. Transport Sustainability of Road based transport plan, impact on local communities. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. Rat-running and disruption. Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts Pressure on local housing including the private-rental sector. Pressure on health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people. 3. Environment and Landscape Clarification on the drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond. Impact of pollution from light, noise and traffic."

Lady Hancock
"I have had great pleasure in visiting Suffolk and recognised the great value of its unspoiled landscapes. The area has gained worldwide recognition through its depiction in the works of the poet George Crabbe and the internationally famous composer Benjamin Britten. To damage the Suffolk coastline would be to cause international outrage. David Attenborough, spokesperson for our desperately urgent need to save our planet, has highlighted through an important TV programme and social media feed, the need to preserve habitats in order to prevent the extinction of species. In this time of economic crisis Government is urging the hospitality industry to take steps to thrive. If EDF destroys the attraction of the wild coast and bird life there will be few tourists."

Leiston-cum-Sizewell Town Council
"Leiston-cum-Sizewell Town Council (LTC) has engaged with SZC Co. throughout the consultation process but still has concerns about the impacts of the project on Leiston cum Sizewell. The majority of the points East Suffolk Council (ESC) and Suffolk County Council (SCC) have raised regarding the wider project are supported as are all representations from Natural England, Minsmere Levels Stakeholder Group, the RSPB and other environmental bodies. We will therefore focus on the immediate environment and the local effects on Leiston. It is believed that the Initial Assessment of the Principal Issues must acknowledge the very real concerns raised regarding the cumulative impact of this project alongside the other energy NSIP’s coming forward on this coast. An early overview from the Inspectorate to the Secretary of State would be very important on this subject. The main issues LTC would like to raise and take forward to the examination are; 1. Transport • The effects that increased traffic will have on the town centre, residential areas and the main entrances into Leiston. The effect on King George Avenue (and the Town Centre) is not clearly identified in the DCO • The reliance on the Sizewell Gap Road to access the site in the first two years is a major concern (residents’ amenity and SZB workers use of the road and small cycleway). How will this be mitigated • Ensuring that cycle routes are safe and that improvements to the cycle network outside the DCO are supported to ensure they tie in with the proposed routes seamlessly and enhance the travel plan • Control of vehicular traffic and LGVs destined for the LEEIE (Land East of Eastland’s Industrial Estate) in the early years and before the major transport network infrastructure improvements are completed. With concerns of rat running in inappropriate locations LTC would like to see a clear transport plan for this phase. • Buses. LTC will continue to work with SZC Co. to plan work bus routes for local workers and also develop shuttle bus plans for leisure and sport for workers from the Campus. LTC will be encouraging electric or hydrogen technology for all buses. 2. Socio – economic • Well over 80% of the construction work and workforce will be based in the parish of Leiston-cum Sizewell. • Personnel movement into and out of the town to access services, leisure and businesses will put a lot of pressure on the amenity of local residents – particularly with housing, access to footpaths and social cohesion - it will also make huge changes to the current socio-economic activity. The effect on residents needs to be acknowledged and mitigated for. 3. Education and Skills • The effort being put in by EDF to support Education and skills is welcomed and LTC would like to see further specific references and efforts put into ensuring that apprenticeships and skills are primarily sourced through Alde Valley Academy and Suffolk College on the Coast 4. Legacy benefits • The provision of sports facilities is welcome. Sport is not the only cultural or recreational activity in the town however and further mitigation in this area is requested. Especially as, during construction, the provided sports facilities, which are there for SZC workforce, would not be as readily accessible as maybe wished by residents. LTC has a positive and wide ranging mitigation proposal to offset this for both residents and workers families which would need SZC Co. support. It will be important to ensure robust community cohesion during the inevitable upheaval this project brings and it is intended to provide an oasis for families where this can be achieved at the Waterloo Centre. • Cycleways and cycle paths. By supporting LTC in establishing a wider cycling network to enhance and merge with the proposed routes in the DCO, SZC Co. would be helping improve the travel plan, local amenity and, more importantly, future legacy benefits from the project. 5. Transport Review Group. • LTC, although being an active and important member of their own local transport and traffic group, would seek to have a non-voting place on the TRG to be able to observe and ensure important local concerns are considered appropriately. • The local (transport) group would like to work with SZC Co. to get the best bus routes for workers to and from site and also for a small recreational shuttle bus services from the accommodation. 6. Monitoring and accountability • LTC would like to see clear transparent mechanisms in place early in the project to ensure all predicted impact effects are independently monitored, reported upon and that action is taken where necessary. They would also support ESC in their comments regarding the assessments of some of the impacts contained in the DCO. • LTC will be expecting to have elected representation on the Main Development Site Forum, when it sets up for construction, to ensure rapid visibility of emerging issues etc. The Town Clerk would also wish to be a key member of this forum. 7. Associated infrastructure • It is absolutely imperative that the most important associated infrastructure is completed and in place before construction begins. This section of the East Suffolk coastal strip gets a lot of traffic which has to use very limited routes to access the main artery (A12). Any disruption to junctions on the A12 will be a major issue during the construction of the roundabouts but, if they are not completed before construction traffic starts, this will be exacerbated and the situation untenable. These routes are vital links to essential services such as the hospital etc. • LTC would request that they be involved in planning road signage from the A12 through to the site entrances as these need to be clear and need to have local input to incorporate and complement existing routing. 8. Potable Water • SZC Co. will be well aware of our concern regarding provision of potable water (from Stage 1 consultation onward). There still seems to be very little information on this though so a clear strategy (and confirmatory statements from Essex and Suffolk Water) will be sought at the examination. 9. Labour Market • ESC are working with SZC Co. on the concerns we have for the potential “leaching” of local workforce from local jobs to meet the rather high estimate of HB workers they suggest will come from local communities. Robust training and skills programmes have to be put in place to help counter this. Current proposals for employment projects through Inspire and ACT do not necessarily mean impacts in Leiston will be addressed but we would like see how the detail can address this. 10. LEEIE. • LTC intend to stop vehicular traffic along the east end of Valley Road locally known as Kemps Hill. This is to make the route safe and desirable for residents, cyclists and, in particular, workers staying at the caravan park to get too and from town. It will also tie into the DCO cycle routes. Financial help from SZC Co. will be sought for this (Transport review Orders, bollards and bank tidying) • Flooding. LTC will be carefully watching the work being done by SCC, ESC and SZC Co. to alleviate concerns of residents that the intended activity at the LEEIE will increase the flood risk in Valley Road (which is hugely vulnerable to 1 in 100 year events as it is) • Access to and from the LEEIE will be carefully monitored and, currently, LTC is working with SZC Co. to ensure road layouts and public realm improvements in the town centre make transit through the town undesirable for this site and other SZC traffic. Signage and transport plans need to be robust however to ensure the park and ride at this location (LEEIE) is accessed from the Lovers Lane end of King George Avenue (and not through town). 11. Household Waste and Recycling site, Lovers Lane. • LTC would wish to ensure that all parties find a satisfactory solution to ensure vehicles accessing this site off Lovers Lane queue off the carriageway. Currently, with the Covid appointment system, there is a permanent queue at the entrance which obstructs Lovers Lane quite considerably. This will not be acceptable when construction starts. 12. Safety issues • LTC are keen to explore potential safety issues with SZC Co. for cyclists (and pedestrians) using the proposed DCO routes. There will be a desire to cross Lovers Lane near the bend by Kenton Hills where no provision exists in the application. This has to be addressed. • There is also a real safety issue with cyclists using the (very welcome) cycle track along the east of Lovers Lane going South where the cycle lane stops and cyclists have to cross Sizewell Gap Road by a fast blind bend to get access to the existing cycle way on the south side of gap road. This needs to be examined. • When beach works start it is LTC’s desire that a boardwalk or similar sturdy provision is provided for the more unsteady walkers over the shingle when the path is pushed out onto the shingle due to works. • LTC have raised concerns throughout the consultation over Emergency Services support, so as not to have deficiencies of cover and availability during construction. There is no mention of how this will be mitigated against yet. We appreciate discussions are ongoing but would like to see any agreements as they come forward. 13. Tourism. LTC will support all efforts to adequately mitigate tourism. The requested public realm improvements in Leiston will help ensure that access remains desirable to the attractions in the town but there is concern about the wider, overall, effect that this project will have on this area. 14. This project is on an enormous scale and will have a massive impact on this small town. The DCO identifies many of the adverse impacts on Leiston and some potential benefits to the local economy and jobs. There are extra sports facilities in the town and, all being well, substantial improvements in the town centre but LTC are still clear that the damaging impacts of this project will need further mitigation so that the impacts do not outweigh the benefits. These will be explored during the examination process."

Les Tarver
"I object to the building of Sizewell C on the following grounds- Since the erection of the current nuclear power stations on the site global warming and widespread coastal erosion on the Suffolk coast dictate that to build another one here would be sheer folly. Sizewell C would trash yet more beautiful and precious wildlife ecosystems supposedly protected by AONB, SSSI and SPA status. Compensatory habitat creation could not conceivably compensate for this. Nuclear energy is old hat and costly and leaves behind major issues with radioactive waste which will affect generations to come. Whole communities in the vicinity would be blighted by immense disruption for a generation. Most jobs created could be created elsewhere in the area in the expansion of renewable power generation which has to to be the way forward."

Lesley Walduck
"The proposed Sizewell C development would devastate the local environment, economy and the health and well-being of all those who live in, work in and visit our Parishes and Towns over a period of many years, impacting negatively on the whole of East Suffolk. The cumulative energy proposals - EDF’s Sizewell C, Galloper & Gabbard extensions, Scottish Power Renewables onshore development for offshore windfarms, National Grid’s substation and National Grid Ventures Interconnectors Nautilus & Eurolink for Belgium and Holland would destroy the character of this part of the Suffolk Coast forever. This chaotic shortsighted vandalism of our environment is completely unnecessary and has not been thought through. Residents and visitors place a high value on the peace, tranquillity and natural environment of our area - all of which would be at significant risk from the projects as currently planned. Tourism is the mainstay of coastal Suffolk’s economy, with a significant number of dependent jobs, and these proposals place this industry at high risk. Evidence shows that being close to nature benefits both physical and mental health, yet the industrialisation of the Suffolk coast would be life changing for our rural communities who are being ignored."

Little Bealings Parish Council
"The Parish Council is making representation about the Transport Strategy and negative impacts on the parish, specifically: Road: Use of the A12 which would cause the displacement of local traffic and more 'rat running' through the village to avoid delays and heavy traffic Rail: An increase in the number of trains on the line running through the village which would cause disruption from noise and vibration for residents living close to the line, and any impact of the local public rights of way network as a result of either temporary or permanent changes to facilitate an increase in the number of trains and train speed."

Luke Canavan
"To Whom It May Concern, I would like to highlight some concerns I have about the planned Sizewell C development: The project is likely to have a significant impact on the surrounding environment, adversely affecting the natural habitat and the local communities. The construction site itself, with the necessary attending supply roads, quarries and spoil heaps will cause a lot of disruption and possibly long-term damage to a quiet and scenic area. There may have to be a very large campus built for the thousands of workers needed to build the development which would be undesirable for local residents and the increase in workers from outside the area would cause considerable traffic problems and congestion. Local footpaths and beaches would also be closed, diminishing the quality of life for all those visiting or living in the area. The development, once built, could threaten the delicate hydrology of the nearby marshes and the build would demand very large amounts of local water to maintain itself, even during dry seasons. How would this affect the surrounding habitat? The RSPB said the development could be "catastrophic for local wildlife" and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust also opposes the plan. There is also the issue of safety: in 2007, the Guardian newspaper reported a "major disaster" at Sizewell A was only averted by a contractor who happened to be washing his laundry that day and a few years ago "deadly radioactive material", as reported by the Daily Mail, was detected on nearby beaches. These issues need more investigation and discussion. Clarity is also needed regarding who exactly is building and/or owning this development as there is apparently a link to the Chinese government in this matter. If this is true, what is the nature of China's ownership and what are the possible consequences of this in the future? For merely aesthetic reasons, a beautiful and tranquil landscape should be protected from degradation by bulldozers and eyesores. Local people, and those wishing to visit the area, should be respected for wanting to preserve their landscape and ecology. I do not think interested parties have been provided enough opportunities to discuss this development and its impact in detail. Yours faithfully, Luke Canavan"

Lynne bell
"My points are as follows: 1. Sizewell C being built on an already eroding coastline. It is susceptible to flooding. What prevention will be taken to prevent this? 2. The amount of traffic on the roadway. The local roads are already hard pushed to deal with summer tourist influx. What is going to be done to deal with construction traffic that will have to use the same roads? How will this affect the tourist industry? 3. The local wildlife area, Minsmere, will surely also be affected by the influx of traffic. How will this be handled? 4. Local housing costs. In an already rising housing market, where locals struggle to buy their own property, will they be outpriced by the influx of construction workers and finally, managerial workers at the plant?"

Manfred Doppler
"It is not clear if a new NPP is needed at all in UK. At this point in time, when renewables have already become cheaper than nuclear energy it is necessary to update the assessment of alternatives for every planned NPP and not to rely on older data. It would have also been necessary to update the electricity demand to substantiate the decision for new nuclear instead of the deployment of renewables. No sufficient proof of safe disposal for spent fuel and radioactive waste was provided in the documents. Interim storage capacities for spent fuel are not available yet, and it has not been made clear if they will be available once Sizewell C will be generating spent fuel. Also no information is provided on the geological final repository for spent fuel and high-level waste, neither on the site, the technology or the timetable. Before the claiming or deciding that the KBS-V3 method will be used for the spent fuel canisters for the final repository prove should be provided that copper corrosion will not become a problem in the long-term. Three reactors that are the design basis of the planned reactor type UK EPR™ are currently under construction, one each in Finland (Olkiluoto 3), France (Flamanville 3) and the U.K. (Hinkley Point C1). OL3 and FL3 are many years behind their initial schedule. The length of the construction period and the many difficulties demonstrate the complexity of the EPR design. The design of this reactor type needs to be re-examined in the light of the Fukushima accident. It is questionable if preserving containment integrity is guaranteed by the proposed safety design and features. Eight years ago an accident analysis was conducted. Since this evaluation, the state of science and technology underwent further development. This is reflected in new international and European regulations and guidelines that should have been taken into proper account. Severe accidents with high releases of caesium-137 cannot be excluded although their calculated probability is below 1E-7/a. Consequently, such accidents should have been included in the environmental impact assessment since their effects can be widespread and long-lasting. Site-specific factors, in particular possible danger of flooding and climate change effects, could endanger Sizewell C. And it has not been proved that the NPP can withstand terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage. The project flexRISK assesses that in case of a severe accident at the Sizewell site, all of Europe could be contaminated."

Marine Conservation Society
"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. We believe that 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 is damaging to vital coastal ecosystems and incompatible with Government objectives for protecting and improving the environment, such as those in its 25 Year Environment Plan. It is also incompatible with the Severn estuary Special Area of Conservation, and its typical species that will be affected by such mortality. 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. Fishing using commercial means targets adult fish. The results of this power station will be to kill all life history stages of fish. 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."

Martin
"I am apposed to the development of Sizewell C and D. on the grounds that the site is too small to accommodate the proposed new reactors. The main points I want to include in my representation are 1. The site is the wrong development in the wrong place. 2 The adverse impact on the RAMSR and other sites if international importance. 3.Site could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stores waste. 4 Unacceptable impacts on the local communities i.e. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area including 2,400 campus. 5 Additional pressure on health, social and emergency services. 6 Proposed road based transport which will prove unstainable causing delay especially at harvest time when agricultural vehicles are using the road. 7. New roads will sever communities. 8 Dust will be thrown up during summer and mud in the winter. 9 Rat runs will cause further delays. The noise and light pollution not properly assessed."

Matthew Bridges
"1. Site Selection I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place · Site at unpredictable risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding · Potential impact on and from coastal processes · Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value · Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality 2. Community, Economic and social impacts 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 may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. Pressure on local housing EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles Negative impacts on local businesses Pressure on health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people. 3. Transport Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic New roads would sever communities, damage rural footpaths and divide farmland. Rat-running and disruption not adequately considered – existing roads not built for predicted weight and volume Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed 4. Environment and Landscape Flooding. Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice 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 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. Flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site Catastrophic impact on AONB and landscape character because of locality, design and scale 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. Inadequate Heritage and Visual Impact Assessments I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C – Suffolk Preservation Society , RSPB, etc."

Michael Sherwen
"I am Objecting to the application because of the damage to designated landscapes and habitats proposed by EDF . In particular , to the erection of a bridge to the N of the site , and to the beach to the NE The Applicants say that this damage will be temporary , but there is reason to doubt that such habitats cab be re-created , especially by the applicant , who have failed to create a wetland at nearby Aldhurst farm , in their ownership Moreover , for an OAP , the 12 years of "Temporary " damage may as well be permanent"

Mike Davis
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection I have friends living at Eastbridge and the volume of traffic and disruption to their village and others surrounding would be horrendous. 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. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts Traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption, could be major problems for the local inhabitants. 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. There will also be additional pressure on health, social and emergency services with especial impacts on vulnerable people. 3. Transport Despite park and ride plans the volume increase in lorries and other traffic will casue huge disruption. 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 Any delays 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. Other problems like rat-running and relief roads have not been adequately considered. 4. Environment and Landscape Light pollution and effects on land drainage have not been properly considered. Dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles inadequate As members of the RSPB we also fear irreparable harm to Minsmere, its wildlife and SSSI status - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. It is impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage and won't offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 5. Marine and Coastal processes I also have serious concerns about the impacts on marine ecology. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C.and those of RSPB. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Mike Morris
"Effect on the local environment Effect on local wildlife Effects on existing inadequate local infrastructure Long term financial efficacy of foreign investment based UK infrastructure Security concerns of foreign owned companies backed by hostile governments"

Miss Charlotte Zakss
"I object to the Sizewell C Project on the following grounds: - Environmental concerns including SSSI destruction, woodland felling, the quantity of water required and how this affects the fragile coastal surroundings and adjacent nature reserves, affects of shingle beaches further along and displacement of wildlfie. - The effect on tourism caused by noise, habitat destruction and loss of tranquility. - Social impacts on all nearby towns as a predominantly make work force infiltrates these spaces. - Transport - roads would inevitably be even busier causing excess road pollution, how does this affect students at Farlangaye High School amongst others. - Transport by rail - noise at all hours will cause sleep deprivation to all residents enroute . - Many footpaths will become unusable, which for walkers affects lives detrimentally. - Health- there is research that suggests living near a Nuclear Power Station increases the risks of leukaemia and infants. - I believe the Precautionary Principle and The Law of Ecocide relevant here and should be taken into account."

Miss Frances Paul
"Live near the proposed site and also have land that would be used for road improvements I wish to make views on the impact of the new road lay out on farms and land used to make the new roads along with the disruption of the build in relation to this work and the building of the site with relevance to a person who live very close."

Mo White
"The roads will be overloaded with heavy traffic. I have seen Hinckly Point and I cannot imagine that enormous building site here next to Minsmere, a wildlife reserve of national importance, it would be so wrong to allow the same to happen here. To ruin the beautiful area that hundreds of visitors come to all year round and enjoy. They say that there would be many jobs for local people but that would not be so as they would employ others from far afield. The area is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty and for that reason the power stations should not be built there. The years and years of building will change the whole area and spoil the area for ever. The rare breeds of wildlife will go somewhere else and leave the area totally bare of beauty."

Mollett's Partnership
"1. Mollett’s Partnership is a family-owned, diversified farming business operating over a 37-acre land-holding spanning the parishes of Farnham and Benhall. 2. We object to a number of matters resulting from EDF’s overall development plans and one specific part of the associated development: the proposed Two Village Bypass (“2VB”). 3. Despite raising our concerns during every stage of consultation, EDF have ignored them or proposed inappropriate or inadequate mitigation. Their project will significantly impact our business and they have failed to adequately engage with us. We therefore wish to register as an Interested Party for the Sizewell C DCO application. 4. Our tourism-led business provides high-quality accommodation in six cottages and studios surrounding a tranquil, south-facing courtyard. This is complemented by a Certificated Location providing five pitches with electric hook-ups for touring caravans. 5. 1,000 guests choose to stay overnight with us annually and our peaceful, unspoilt, rural setting and ready access to the farm shop & café restaurant at Friday Street are major factors in that decision. 6. We turn over in excess of £100,000 annually and employ local people. The latest “Economic Impact of Tourism” report shows that visitor spend on accommodation can be multiplied by a further 2.27 to reflect spend on other local services (such as food, drink and attractions), with tourism in East Suffolk contributing £672 million to the economy and supporting 14,153 jobs. 7. Both accommodation and caravan site currently benefit from being well away from the closest part of the A12, a 50mph single carriageway. EDF’s red-line development boundary extends to the edge of our land-holding and, during 2VB construction, will bring noise, dust and disturbance to within touching distance of our guests, for several years. The proposed working hours, weekend working and working 24-hours-a-day will worsen these effects. 8. The proximity of the proposed 2VB will continue to blight our business beyond its construction and that of Sizewell C, for which we consider inadequate mitigation has been offered. Specific issues are the overall increase in traffic (particularly the excessive number of HGVs) and the noise created by vehicles accelerating away from the new roundabout at Friday Street (exacerbated by the proposed increase to 60mph). Compounding these issues will be Scottish Power’s windfarm projects. 9. We fully support the Parish Council’s alternative ‘East of Foxburrow Wood’ alignment. Inexplicably, EDF continue to ignore this better 2VB route – which offers construction benefits, avoids the destruction of veteran / ancient trees, and will minimise those significantly affected by noise, dust and visual intrusion along its route; particularly those surrounding the Grade II* listed Farnham Hall. 10. Our farming income is dependent on close co-operation with neighbouring farms. Crop irrigation is piped overland from bore holes and pumps at Friday Street, the route of which is severed by the 2VB, along with our historic vehicular and pedestrian access rights. No mitigation or compensation has been offered. 11. Surface water drainage from our land, plus the treated discharge from our sewage treatment plant, flows downhill towards Friday Street in a ditch that will be severed by the 2VB. We see no evidence that this will be maintained or remain unimpeded in EDF’s proposals. 12. We reserve the right to amend, add to and expand on pour objections during the DCO process."

Mrs Brenda Pauline Lavender
"I am an owner occupier of a property beside the A12 Marlesford , a small village north east of Wickham Market. I am aware of the EDF proposals for the Sizewell C Project ,which if approved, will have implications for me and the community of Marlesford, throughout the anticipated 9-12 years construction period. Whilst acknowledging the potential benefit long term to the local economy, I also perceive that there are also disadvantages to this part of Suffolk. The two key issues about which I have particular concern and wish to comment on are: THE SOUTHERN PARK AND RIDE THE TWO VILLAGE BYPASS A12 THE SOUTHERN PARK AND RIDE: I consider the proposed location for this facility on the top of a hill between Hatcheston and Marlesford overlooking a special land scape of the rivers Ore and Deben as wholly inappropriate, constituting an intrusion into into an otherwise rural landscape. I am concerned that plans for drainage and lighting are shown as "not for approval" How then will these aspects be effectively managed? I am particularly worried about light Pollution, and measures to ensure preserving "dark Skies" This latter issue is pertinent , if indeed the site is to be lit for 24hours, and if as I understand that some of the lighting columns might be 10 metres in height. It is hard to imagine how this development would not but be vis.ible to the surrounding area. TWO VILLAGE BYPASS AND A12: The A12 road north of Wickham Market is a single carriage way and completely inadequate for the current volume of traffic. The effects of Sizwell C traffic combined with Scottish Power Renewables construction traffic, will compound this issue for the Villages of Marlesford and Little Glemham ,particularly in the light of an estimated up to 1000HGV movements per day. Junctions of Bell lane and B1078 with A12: The Bell Lane junction EDF has described this as" not requiring improvement". I challenge this. drivers frequently experience long delays in turning south, particularly at peak times. I observe this now as a pedestrian. I have to cross the road to access the village and the bus service. B1078 Drivers from Campsea travelling north also experience delays . The situation described here has obvious implications for traffic management and pedestrian safety. A safe Crossing for pedestrians is urgently needed currently, and will become more necessary if approval for the project is granted. I do not think a two Village By pass would ameliorate the present or potential future traffic situation on this stretch of the A12. Drivers would as now be searching alternative routes often on narrow local roads in order to avoid traffic congestion"

Mrs Jan Roy
"LIVING CLOSE TO THE RAILWAY LINE I AM VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF FREIGHT TRAINS DURING THE NIGHT. THEY WILL MAKE SUFFICIENT DISTURBANCE TO INTERRUPT OUR SLEEP WITH THE NOISE AS THEY PASS THROUGH AND ALSO THE VIBRATION THAT THESE LONGER HEAVIER TRAINS CAUSE. I HAVE EXPERIENCED SOME DURING THE NIGHT ALREADY AND THE THOUGHT OF HAVING ABOUT 4 A NIGHT FILLS ME WITH HORROR."

Mrs Muriel MacRae
"I wish to make representation that this project is entirely unsuitable for the area. It is a massive industrial project and this is a rural backwater with no industrial history and none of the infrastructure (road, rail, accommodation, amenities) required to support the massive influx of people and vehicles a project of this scale would involve. Extensive road and rail improvements will be required before they can even start yet EDF intend to carry on and build the new roads and roundabouts concurrently generating even more traffic and workers flooding the area. EDF have failed to take into account the other simultaneous large energy projects proposed for this area. Each of which will generate large volumes of HGV and worker traffic and cause an influx of workers also looking for accommodation. It is important that all these projects be considered together and not in isolation to see the true impact on the area.... and its subsequent inability to cope. Then there’s the irreversible damage to biodiversity in the area, 12 years of noise, light and air pollution and 30m high spoil heaps are going to badly affect Suffolk heritage coast, RSPB minsmere and the AONB plus areas of SSSI will be destroyed. . I thought we were better than that these days? Any new nuclear build should be carried out on a brownfield site not trample over not only greenfield land but supposedly protected greenfield land. And all for what? An unproven nuclear power plant which will be completed too late to hit the carbon reduction targets IF it’s completed on time –the only working EPR UK reactor in the world finished years behind schedule and the three other ongoing builds are all overrunning – Flamanville by 12 years so far. EDF claim they have learnt lessons and can build Sizewell faster and more efficiently – I doubt it. The latest HPC setback has been “unexpected ground conditions”. Surely that is one of the first things they should have assessed fully – these are enormous holes they have to excavate and yet they are caught out after some years and the project is extended for another 2 years. This does not inspire confidence that they do their homework properly. If, despite the huge advances in renewable energy, the government decides we must build more nuclear plants then EDF should look at Hartlepool (also suggested in EN6) for the build of 2 new nuclear reactors. Hartlepool has the roads, rail, ports and infrastructure to cope with such a major project, an industrial heritage, pre-existing nuclear plants and far greater unemployment problems than Suffolk. In addition choosing Hartlepool would go a long way towards the levelling up agenda. This is common sense not nimbyism. Finally I entirely endorse stopsizewellc’s and tasizewell’s relevant representations."

Ms Meg Amsden
"The development of Sizewell C in the middle of the AONB, would have a damaging impact on Sizewell Marshes SSSI, the local wetland and all its wildlife - including otters. Otters were driven to extinction in Suffolk forty years ago by poisons in the watercourses. It is believed a tiny population survived at Minsmere. Suffolk otters having now recovered, there is a healthy population of them in the Sizewell area. They are frequently seen at Minsmere, where they are a big draw for eco-tourism, which plays a vital part in the local economy. They are highly protected under European and UK law, but your proposals will destroy large areas of their precious feeding and breeding habitat and will interrupt their movement around their home ranges. They are also shy creatures and the effect of brightly lit and noisy building works for several years will have a disastrous impact on them. My chief concern is: · Loss of 10 hectares of SSSI to concrete · Damaging and irreversible changes in ground and surface water, which are vital for otters’ food supply and ability to travel around their habitat. · Creation of an inappropriate (culvert) crossing which we suspect the otters will not use since they do not choose to travel underground unless there is absolutely no other option (such as crossing a huge busy dangerous car-park) ."

Naomi Jaffa
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. My concerns can be summarised as follows: 1. SITE SELECTION, ENVIRONMENT & LANDSCAPE. Given climate change, sea level rises and flooding, the site is at severe risk if not right now then in the foreseeable future. The impact on adjacent Minsmere and internationally designated sites of ecological importance, and on the cultural heritage and landscape of the East Suffolk coast, would be catastrophic, irreversible and impossible to compensate. 2. COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC & SOCIAL IMPACTS - unacceptable impacts on local communities and the lack of infrastructure to support the 6,000 workers including 2,400 in a Worker Campus. Pressure on local housing, health, social and emergency services. Very negative impact on tourism economy which is vital to the local area. The road-based transport plan would have an enormous and highly damaging impact on local communities and visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as those under 'Road-Led' proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. 3. COST / ENERGY PRODUCTION. The economic, ecological and social costs of Sizewell C will totally eclipse any benefits of its future energy generation. And the risks to the area's future 'safety' are impossible to quantify."

National Grid Electricity Transmission plc
"Dear Sir/Madam REPRESENTATION BY NATIONAL GRID ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION PLC (“NGET”) TO THE SIZEWELL C DCO (“THE PROJECT”) NGET wishes to make a relevant representation to the Project DCO in order to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or near the proposed Order limits. NGET’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or near the Order limits should always be maintained and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme are being reviewed in relation to impacts on NGET’s existing apparatus and land interests located within this area, and NGET may require protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. The NGET project team are liaising with the Promoter in this regard and have been throughout the whole process thus far. NGET assets which have been identified as being within or within close proximity to the proposed Order limits are: OVERHEAD LINE: 4ZW 400kV Overhead Line Route Bramford to Sizewell; 4ZX 400kV Overhead Line Route Bramford to Sizewell SUBSTATIONS: Sizewell A 132kV Substation; Sizewell B 400kV Substation; Leiston 132kV Substation; Leiston 400kV Substation; CABLES: 132kV Underground Cable Sizewell A to Leiston SGT1; 132kV Underground Cable Sizewell A to Leiston SGT2; 132kV Underground Cable Sizewell A to Leiston SGT3; 132kV Underground Cable Sizewell A to Leiston SGT4; NGET will continue to review the application documents in liaison with the applicant to adequately protect NGETs retained apparatus and to ensure that NGET will be able to deliver the infrastructure associated with the DCO appropriately, in accordance with the applicant’s proposed delivery programme. NGET will advise the Examining Authority of any issues in this regard as the examination progresses. I hope the above information is useful. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Spencer Jefferies Development Liaison Officer, Land and Acquisitions."

National Trust
"Introduction The National Trust (The Trust) is an independent charity that looks after beautiful countryside and historic buildings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Should the Trust acquire land or buildings that it considers to be of outstanding quality, Parliament has created a statutory mechanism that enables our Trustees to declare that land “inalienable”. This means that the land is so important to the nation that it cannot be sold or mortgaged, rather it must remain in the care of the Trust, in perpetuity. Once declared inalienable this designation cannot be reversed. This is one way in which the Trust is able to deliver on its charitable purpose of preserving some of the nation’s most treasured places for everyone, for ever. The Trust owns 140 hectares of land at Dunwich Heath and Beach, which is located approximately 3 kilometres north of the proposed Sizewell C site. Dunwich Heath is a surviving fragment of lowland heath – one of the UK’s rarest habitats. It is subject to international and national designations. The majority of the land was declared inalienable in 1967 demonstrating the importance of the land and the Trust’s commitment to care for it permanently for the nation. The Trust does not object to the principle of the development as we acknowledge the NPS for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6) identifies Sizewell as a potentially suitable site for a nuclear power station. However, we believe that the current proposal risks unacceptably damaging the integrity and beauty of our site at Dunwich Heath and the wider landscape. Areas of Interest Having appraised the DCO documents, our areas of concern are: Recreation and Tourism • The application does not adequately assess or address changes in recreation and tourism at Dunwich Heath and Beach, including changes in visitor numbers and behaviours. Visitor displacement and visits by construction workforce are underestimated and not precautionary. Limited survey data has been used, the assessments do not take account of uncertainty and there is a lack of clarity about assumptions. • Sufficient ring-fenced funding to cover the duration of the construction phase of development (predicted to last 12 years) is required to enable the Trust to monitor, manage and engage with different types of visitors and manage our operations and visitor infrastructure to cope with changes in visitor activity. Impacts on Ecology • The impact of increased recreational visits and different behaviour patterns on ecological features at Dunwich Heath and Beach are not adequately assessed. The ecological assessments (ES and Shadow HRA) do not consider key species, are based on out of date/missing data and there is a lack of geographical consideration of receptors sites on a landscape scale (including Dunwich Heath and Beach). Accordingly, the conclusions of no adverse effect on site integrity for the European qualifying species and habitats are unqualified. • Unmitigated, an increase in displaced visitors and/or an increase in inappropriate behaviours would detrimentally impact UK and European protected habitats and species at both Dunwich Heath and across the whole SAC and SPA. • Robust monitoring of designated and non-designated features is required with funding available for mitigation linked to monitoring. Landscape and Visual Impacts • The elevated position of our site provides the best vantage point for the Sizewell C site. The development will impact on the setting and views from Dunwich Heath and the wider AONB both during construction and operation. However insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate how the applicant will mitigate/compensate the visual impacts of the development for the extent of its lifetime. • The LVIA submitted with the application acknowledges that there will be significant and adverse impact on views from our site at Dunwich Heath. However, it lacks sufficient information to demonstrate the true visual impact of the development during construction and operation. This includes the absence of Computer-Generated Images (CGI’s) through the construction phases both during daytime and night-time and an assessment of external lighting across the whole site when taken in combination with Sizewell A and B. • The Trust does not agree with the assessment conclusion that landscape and visual effects would only occur over localised sections of the AONB and Heritage Coast and that the effects during operation on these designations is not significant. • The pylons and overhead power lines proposed would have an intrusive impact within the sensitive landscape on Dunwich Heath and the wider AONB. We are not satisfied that all alternatives have been appropriately considered. • Given the magnitude of visual impact at Dunwich Heath it is imperative that the project enables the Trust to access funds to implement interventions either alone or in partnership to mitigate/compensate for this impact. Coastal Geomorphology and Long-Term Change • The application does not adequately assess the impact of the proposal on long term coastal geomorphological processes. The Geomorphological Assessment is narrow in scope and the study area is limited in geographical scale. • There is no assessment made of how cliff processes may be impacted on and/or interacted with during the lifetime of development. • The magnitude, frequency and direction of extreme events is inadequately dealt with under sea level rise and climate change scenarios. • There is uncertainty about the assumptions supporting the baseline assessment of large scale/long term/accelerated coastal change. The Trust is therefore concerned that there are potential/possible impacts of the proposal on our site during the lifetime of the development that have not been fully explored as part of a holistic and integrated assessment. • There is no provision for monitoring, mitigating or compensating impacts arising from the development’s influence on long term coastal change. • The applicant should be required to define and monitor this change for the lifetime of the development and to include the north of the application site, specifically Dunwich Heath and Beach. Should there be impacts to Dunwich Heath and Beach during this period it is important that the project enables to the Trust to mitigate/compensate for this impact. Conclusion • The Trust is concerned about the methodology and conclusions of some assessments submitted with the application, the absence of some key assessments and inadequate proposals for monitoring, mitigation and compensation. There is also a lack of overall integrated consideration of the cumulative impact of the proposal at a landscape scale. • The Trust has welcomed recent engagement with the applicant to discuss issues following the submission of the DCO application and will continue with these discussions in order to try and resolve matters or seek common ground prior to the examination. • The Trust must have access to the appropriate funds to mitigate and manage the impact of the development on Dunwich Heath and the wider AONB during all stages of the development: construction, operation and decommissioning. Although we welcome the applicant’s proposal of a ring-fenced Resilience Fund , the Trust will also need access to other appropriate funds where on-going monitoring identifies that mitigation is required, not least as this enables the Trust to work in partnership to deliver mitigation with conservation partners. We will expand on the comments set out above when we submit our detailed Written Representation, in accordance with the timetable set out by the Examining Authority in due course."

Nicola Brown
"I am concerned with emergency access and egress to and from the Sizewell C site"

Nigel Smith
"I wish make a Relevant Representation to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Requirement for energy production • It is unclear why a huge generation capacity is required in East Anglia when off shore wind power and existing generation more than fulfils the needs of the area. • Transmission of power to other part of the country incurs significant transmission loss that requires over-generation of power to circumvent the transmission losses. • If energy is required to support the UK governments ‘northern power house’ agenda, then generation should be local to that area. 2. Coastal Erosion • Within the lifetime of this proposal (which includes construction, active generation, decommissioning and subsequent mothballing of the atomic cores and storage of waste nuclear material for centuries) the coastline of East Anglia will have significantly eroded. In the last few hundred years one of the 10 major English towns in 15th century, Dunwich, that lays one mile to North of the site has been completely consumed by the sea along with significant erosion occurring from Norfolk to Essex. It is foolhardy to suggest that this part of the coast will not succumb further to major erosion. • Even without global warming and the subsequent rise in sea levels, the eastern part of the UK is actually dropping due to tectonic plate realignment after the last ice age that will result in loss of existing low laying coastal areas. 3. Environmental impact • The area around Sizewell is designated as ANoB and with international recognition of its importance. The proposal will destroy significant parts of this area and negatively impact the adjacent nature reserves. • Covering the proposed site and so called temporary areas adjacent areas in the surrounding countryside with concrete and roads to support the development will cause huge negative impact on the environment. • The existing road and rail infrastructure is not capable of such a huge increase in numbers and weights of vehicles and carriages. The proposal does not understand the fragile state of local infrastructure to support this development. • It is stated that Nuclear power generation is safe, and pollution is not considered to be a problem. Therefore, if it is non-polluting and safe, any generation facilities should be located close to where the power is required and not in a remote environmentally sensitive area. 4. Economic impact • The proposal suggests that there will be economic benefits for the local area and thousands of jobs created. This overlooks the fact that there are not thousands of construction workers in the area looking for work, or that any existing builders and construction people would suddenly migrate to Sizewell. If they did it would cause a major problem for residents in East Anglia who would no longer be able to employ local trades people. The impact on the area would be a starvation of local trades to the residents of Suffolk and surrounding area to the detriment of local prosperity. Thus it is very unlikely that local work force would benefit, in much the same way as Sizewell B development was a temporary blip in employment and has not been sustained. 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."

Norman L Castleton
"Sizewell C consultation 3rd Stage Submission Date 20th March 2019 & 27th September 2020 I am completely opposed to the plan by EDFE to construct 2 new Nuclear reactors on the coast at Sizewell in Suffolk. The reasons for my opposition are: The financial viability of the plant is questionable with initial construction costs funded by vulnerable Chinese and other foreign investors and delivery at a sustainable and economically viable consumption price per unit. It will involve the destruction of an AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), Involve the deterioration of SSSI sites (Site of Special Scientific Interest) The close proximity to the national and internationally important wildlife and bird reserve at Minsmere It will be sited on a vulnerable and eroding coastline which with rising sea levels makes the area prone to penetration. The development in close proximity to existing nuclear reactors will make it more prone to natural, radioactive release and terrorist disasters. Less risky technologies to mitigate against the effects of climate change are available and should be exploited further. Destruction of the local environment has not been effectively costed. Norman Castleton [Redacted]"

Oliver Wingate
"This development should not go ahead unless or until Sizewell 'A' - the magnox station - has been fully removed and the land it occupies returned to its former condition."

Olivia Snowden
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern regarding Sizewell C: I believe that the site is ill equipped to deal with another nuclear power station. Furthermore, it causes damage to ecological sites surrounding the proposed plant. Also, it will have a negative impact on the heritage coast. The infrastructure simply cannot support another power plant and will cause damage to the tourism sector. It will cause irreparable damage to Minsmere. I have concerns regarding the environmental impact Sizewell C will have and also the societal impacts it will have. Finally, I believe that the nuclear energy created does not offset the toxic waste produced. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Pamela Hargreaves
"I am confirming that I am against the plans to build Sizewell C, for several reasons. It is not appropriate to plan or to build the 'largest construction in Europe' in a small area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - Sizewell, Suffolk. It would disregard our National need to protect our heritage and environment and would impinge on neighbouring precious areas, such as Minsmere. Nuclear power is outstandingly expensive and the need for more another power station is outdated. To use Chinese investment to cope with the expense is clearly not wise and, as they already have an input into our energy supplies, potentially dangerous to our way of life. Such a complex construction would need highly specialised engineers and technicians to be brought in to the area, thereby creating very few local jobs and all this for massive local disruption and devastation. I think that plans for Sizewell C should be rejected and scrapped before any more money is wasted."

Patricia Isabel Margaret Dowding
"East Suffolk/Suffolk Coasts and Heaths are some of the most natural and ecologically important areas in our country. We have invested time and money in building our tourism industry, attracting visitors to RSPB Minsmere, the AONB, our coasts, quiet and beautiful villages and small towns. Sizewell C will negatively impact on this important and sizeable economy. They say the land used for a temporary construction area will be returned to heathland and open countryside. This will take 25 years or more to recover. The flora and fauna will have disappeared in the meantime and Minsmere will be seriously threatened. Our coast is eroding and vulnerable. It is potentially dangerous to build another Nuclear Power station in this location which cannot be guaranteed to be stable. It is even more dangerous to build this station when we cannot verify their claims about the EPR in Taishan, China. But what we do know is that all the other EPR stations in Europe are not up and running despite being years over the build programme and way over budget. Lessons are not being learned by EDF, as proved by the problems already being experienced at Hinkley Point C. EDF claim that building Sizewell C will help the UK economy recover following COVID-19. It will have minimal effect. They talk of thousands of jobs, but they are actually roles, many fulfilled by foreign workers (why not be honest about this) and relatively few open to local people other than the more menial tasks. Whilst apprenticeships are welcome there is no detail provided about this. The Climate Change crisis is now. Sizewell C will not contribute towards it for at least 16 years as by their own admission it will take 6 years to counter the CO2 emissions produced from creating the power station. By the time is does it will be obsolete; new, cheaper technologies will have taken over, notably renewables and storage systems which can provide all the electricity power required in the future. Our local communities between Ipswich and Lowestoft will be heavily impacted by the 9 years or more of the build programme. EDF have not listened to these communities despite the various consultation stages, nor taken advantage of the expertise in our communities who do recognise the negative impacts that building Sizewell C will bring. Those of us who live nearest to the site will have to suffer years of delays from numerous lorries, cars, buses clogging up our roads, making them more dangerous, with high levels of noise and light pollution. And the effects of so many, mostly male workers, living in our communities – anti-social behaviour, engulfment of local tourist accommodation. Proposed link roads are not the right solution. They will cut off many of our country lanes, divide farmland and will not be built in time. There will be water supply problems and potentially flooding. EDF are in a poor financial state and see Sizewell C as their cash cow. Our Government should not be allowing EDF to undertake this project as it leaves all UK tax payers open to pick up any shortfall in funding, let alone the alarm raised by the 20% contribution from Chinese financing."

Paul Hubbocks
"Impact on the environment. Pollution levels and loss of vital habitat."

Pauline House
"My concern is that increased traffic in and around Wickham Market including the High Street, Bordercot Lane and Broad Road will greatly impact the lives of local people by causing: + increased traffic noise changing the nature of village life + vibration from additional cars, vans and lorries through the village will cause damage to the older properties lining the High Street most of which are very close to the road + increase in traffic fumes impacting on the health of villagers particularly for children walking to and from school + parking problems for local residents + increased risk of accidents caused by heavy volume of traffic + delays to buses trying to get through the village caused by increased volume of traffic, build up and tail back of traffic because of a narrow high street and single car passing at junction of Chapel Lane. In recent years there has been an increase in traffic volume due to much needed new housing in the the area. A further increase of cars carrying workers through the village to and from the park and ride would in my opinion make life unbearable."

Penny Sarchet
"I wish to register my deep concern and dismay about the proposed Sizewell C development, due to the huge threat it poses to the RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve. Minsmere is where I fell in love with nature. While I grew up in London, my family visited Minsmere several times every year throughout my childhood and adolescence, and these trips had a formative influence on me. Not only is Minsmere where I learned to birdwatch – which remains a treasured hobby - my experiences there taught me the vital role that natural spaces play in wellbeing and mental health, and the utmost importance of preserving the few remaining fragments of land that are still protected for wildlife. Minsmere was where I first saw conservation in action. In 1997, when there were only 11 booming male bitterns left in the UK, I had the privilege of both hearing and watching this iconic bird. Minsmere played a critical role in saving this species from extinction in the UK, where there are now around 150 or so adult males. Watching this species steadily recover was a meaningful experience for me, and one that I drew upon whilst applying for university to study a degree in Biological Sciences, followed by a doctorate. Now, in my career as a science journalist and podcaster, I still draw upon my many early experiences at Minsmere. As part of my job, I am faced with the realities of our impact on nature every day. 41% of UK species are in decline, and 1 in 10 are facing extinction, largely due to habitat loss and a failure to protect our most precious wild places. A 2019 analysis found that as little as 5% of land in this country is being effectively managed for nature. Amid this crisis, I was horrified to learn of the plans to build a new nuclear power station on the boundary of the RSPB’s flagship nature reserve. It is hard to see how this could be anything other than catastrophic for the wildlife there. The building work could increase erosion and affect water levels, putting many species – including the bittern – at risk. Construction noise and light pollution is likely to have long-term impacts on many iconic species, including the site’s spectacular marsh harriers. It will surely also severely impact ecotourism to the reserve, which has previously enjoyed fame as the host of the BBC’s popular Springwatch. As an energy solution, expanding nuclear power on a coastline significantly threatened by rising sea levels seems nothing but an act of folly. By the time Sizewell C is operational, the Suffolk coastline is likely to be much altered, and renewable energy sources offer a faster and cheaper way to prevent this. In the meantime, construction could ruin a truly special site that has shaped the lives of many. Having recently started my own family, the prospect of not being able to share Minsmere with my own children fills me with a profound sense of loss."

Peter Lanyon
"In comparison with any possible benefit that such a nuclear station on the Sizewell Coast might confer on us all, the adverse damage, environmental degradation and possible risks of major catastrophe are overwhelming. It would go against common sense to risk any of those disbenefits in order to provide electricity since there are far cheaper and less damaging ways of providing it. We simply do not and cannot know whether the Sizewell coast will remain stable for the length of time the present stations require that, let alone any further nuclear developments. The way the Sizewell C proposals have been handled breach the Aarhus Convention."

Peter MacIntosh
"I have the following concerns about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection • It is the wrong project in the wrong place. • Site at risk from climate change, sea level rise, flooding, and 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 • Cost of the project, including its eventual decommissioning, is not viable. Alternative cheaper energy production methods will be discovered/developed/implemented well within the lifespan of Sizewell C. • Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. • 6000 workers will come and live in the area, 2400 in a campus in an unsuitable location that I oppose. • Visitor economy: Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. • Pressure on local housing, especially in private-rental sector. • EDF will suck workforce from local businesses to fill 90% of lower-skilled roles. • Negative impact – from traffic and losing staff – on local economy. • Pressure on health, social and emergency services; impacts on vulnerable people. 3. Transport • Road-based transport plan not sustainable; enormous 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 • Flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site. • Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice. • Pollution from light, noise and traffic. • Inadequate dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles. • Impact of proposed borrow pits and landfill not fully addressed. • Irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. Impact on Marsh Harriers threatens integrity of Special Protection Area. • Uncertainty regarding drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water daily during the construction period. • Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and protected species. • Risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology. • Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale. • Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage. • Won’t offset CO2 from construction for over 6 years. 5. Marine and Coastal Processes • Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from Hard Coastal Defence scheme. • No complete design of HCD made 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. • The complexity of the Sizewell C application renders it totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. • I endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by “Stop Sizewell C”, the RSPB and SWT."

Peter Southgate
"I am immensely concerned about the proposed Sizewell C development on the following grounds: The huge increase in road and rail traffic in a very sensitive environment; any infrastructure development will destroy much of this prized countryside and is bound to put enormous pressure on associated roads which are already very congested. Pressure on our already stretched resources. The disturbance to our precious wildlife and destruction of a great deal of our countryside in the AONB. The cost of the construction which could be better spent on improving house insulation and local renewable energy systems. The massive influx of workers and the associated pressure caused by accommodation requirements and worker activities. Building a massive structure on a fragile and eroding coast. Light, noise and air pollution from construction. Unproven technology which is already into overspend and delay at Hinkley Point; this technology may well be outdated by the time of completion and Sizewell C will become a huge 'white elephant'"

Prof Howard S Wheater
"Submission to Planning Inspectorate Regarding the NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited DCO Application for Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station and Associated Works Relevant Representation of Professors H.S. Wheater [Redacted] We write as owners of a property in Marlesford, a small village in Suffolk that straddles the A12 and is the proposed location for the Southern Park and Ride site associated with the Sizewell C development. While we support nuclear power as an important component of the UK power generation capacity, and in particular to supplement renewable energy sources to meet future needs for zero carbon, we have serious concerns about the proposed management of the EDF Sizewell C development, and its impacts on our community. In particular: 1. The A12 north of Wickham Market is currently a single carriageway road and has since the 1980s been regarded as inadequate for the volume of traffic using it. This is currently a major issue for Marlesford, with significant delays for the village residents in crossing the road, or in turning onto it with a vehicle. The additional traffic expected from the EDF and Scottish power proposals will significantly increase these pressures. The long-established 4 village bypass plan has been ignored by EDF, and the 2 village bypass currently proposed is not only inadequate for the additional traffic proposed but also fails to address the needs for future integration with the larger 4 bypass scheme. More generally, EDF’s proposals heavily emphasize road transport, while failing to adequately address the potential of rail and sea access. 2. The proposed Southern Park and Ride site pose significant threats to the village of Marlesford, from noise pollution, air pollution and other environmental impacts. We are concerned that there has been an almost complete lack of site investigation, and proposals for the design are generic. The analysis is based largely on professional judgements of existing conditions. Many aspects of the proposal deal with the identification of best practices for mitigating the impacts of construction and operations of the park-and-ride with little clarity as to whether they would be implemented or not. As a result, there is a high level of uncertainty as to what the eventual impacts will be. For example, significant threats to surface water and to groundwater abstractions have been identified, but while sustainable drainage solutions are proposed, no information is currently available on the local soils and aquifers to determine whether options proposed will be suitable. More generally, the criteria used for the assessment of local environmental impacts are strongly biased against local residents. Low sensitivity is associated with “using a resource that is appreciated by the local community but has little or no wider recognition of its value for recreation.” The assessment criteria are set up to undervalue local sensibilities and recreational resources, which are important to village life, defining a sense of place and community. 3. We disagree with holding a complex DCO examination virtually. We believe that the public should be allowed to attend in person and if the Sizewell C Examination has to be delayed to accommodate that, and we ask that PINS allows this to happen. Professors Howard S Wheater [Redacted]"

Rachel Smith-Lyte
"• It is unthinkable that 3,400 kg of fish will be interred in the cooling system (in addition to those already caught at B build of course) which will result in spreading many dead and dying fish over a wide area of the sea. From an ethical, residing fishermen and tourist point of view this is a nightmare. • Regarding the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB, DEFRA saw fit to extend it by 9.5% in July this year 2020, after 25 years of campaigning, indicating how highly the Government values these national landscapes. So a new twin nuclear reactor swallowing up much of the AONB surely flies in the face of this!? • The impact of any additional build at Sizewell must be properly weighted, in particular due to the site sitting within the National Landscape of a protected area; the AONB and also SSSI. • Jobs at any cost cannot be justified for something so destructive and locals are being allowed to believe those jobs will be for locals in semi and possibly even unskilled labour which just isn’t true. These new style EPR reactors demand very specific skills that are in international nevermind national shortage and in fact its true to say many of the jobs will come from the workforce already in place at Hinkley Point in Somerset who would parachute into Sizewell C. • The 7000 odd workers ‘temporary’ accommodation demands too high a carbon footprint all by itself. • Its not an exaggeration to ask that in the future, when the sea temperature is 26 degrees and the air temperature 40 degrees (which will of course bring more storms) how can the fuel rods be kept cool? • Unacceptable road traffic increase and associated congestion and poor air quality as a result of workers and HGV traffic to and from the site. This will affect my town of Woodbridge not least as cars try to avoid the lorries and the A12 and adverse effects on the residents of Wickham Market of a lorry and other traffic park north of the village (or north of Melton). • Would not help us meet UK CO2 reduction targets - 10 times as carbon intensive as wind power, because of the build (source: Energising the East, Dr Karen Barrass, Dr Andrew Boswell, Jonathan Essex 2020) • On a particularly vulnerable and shifting coastline with sea level rise - this does not make it the most appropriate site for further development. • Unresolved dangerous nuclear waste and disposal issue • Life and environment-changing build irrevocably destroying irreplaceable wildlife and habitats including RSPB Minsmere and AONB generally. Also tourism, air quality and quality of life for local residents. Wildlife and habitats also proven essential to human mental and physical health. • Alternative sources of truly renewable power generation such as wind, solar and tidal must be prioritised. • Battery storage is improving all the time and costs are down 85%. • As Suffolk Preservation Society pointed out, think Chernobyl and Japan’s Fukushima plant disasters in 1986 and 2011 respectively - it could happen here."

Rebecca Greenwell
"I am very concerned regarding the environmental impacts of both building sizewell C and also having another nuclear reactor on our doorstep. I am concerned regarding the new infrastructure required in terms of roads and construction on greenfield sites and on unspoilt areas of the countryside. Not to mention the toxic waste that this reactor will produce when there are many viable alternatives."

Revd. Christine Redgrave
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C which I believe is too vast for the area, and has the potential to inflict lasting damage on the neighbouring communities, East Suffolk and the environment. 1 THE SITE * It is at risk from coastal erosion, and sea level rise. * It is adjacent to sites of significant biodiversity - the Minsmere levels, RSPB Minsmere, NT. Dunwich Heath, Sizewell Belts etc. * It is in one of the driest parts of the country, and during construction requires large amounts of water, where will it come from and will extraction upset the ecological balance, leave farmers and householders short? * Long term storage of nuclear waste with rising sea levels and an unstable coastline. 2. WORK FORCE HOUSING. *The campus for 2400 workers is proposed to be built on a green field site, provides no lasting legacy for local towns and particularly for Leiston. * The housing market will be distorted, the low paid and local young people will be priced out especially as 1200 workers are expected to seek private rented accommodation at lower rents. Construction workers overnight accommodation allowance is £40.76 * The intention of turning private rented family accommodation into multiple occupancy could lead to social problems, health risks and parking issues. * EDF want to support the tourist industry but also to fill tourist accommodation with workers which it believes will be advantageous to owners. This fact will have a negative impact on the local economy- shops, heritage sites, museums, Snape Maltings Concert Hall etc, as Tourists will not be able to find accommodation. * Recruitment may take employees away from existing local businesses. 3. TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS AND WORKFORCE. I am concerned about the huge volume of traffic involved for the following reasons: * A12 and B1122 are totally inadequate for EDF's projections of huge increases in HDV's coaches and cars. Delays will be inevitable and rat-running caused. * A12 is single carriage in parts, and the two village by-pass and link road will not stop jams especially at times, when farmers are carting potatoes, onions, sugar-beet, barley, wheat etc. * Emergency Services and Community Nurses and Care workers will have added difficulty in reaching casualties and patients. Delays will result in deaths. Villages in the immediate area of Sizewell are at least 20 miles from General Hospitals. * The 2-3 year delay whilst the link road is built will cause added stress for villagers visits to the Medical Surgerys , Optician, Dentist and shops in Leiston and Saxmundham. * it will be very difficult to cross the A12 from all turnings off the A12. 4 POLLUTION AND HEALTH ISSUES. *Traffic fumes from vehicles will be increased especially in Yoxford, which are already at dangerous levels. * The spoil heaps 10 stories in height will cause dust pollution in the atmosphere especially in high winds and storms leading to allergies and chest complaints. * The constant stress of traffic and noise from construction day and night, and the difficulties of simply being able to get out to shops etc may well contribute to mental health issues. 5. THE ENVIRONMENT. * The effect of light and noise pollution, the extraction or pollution of water could be catastrophic upon the birds and ecology of Minsmere and the Minsmere Levels. * The reserve for over 70 years has worked to bring species back from the brink of extinction including the Avocet, Bitterns, Marsh Harrier. EDF's proposals do not appear to adequately protect Marsh Harriers even with the creation of new habitats. They are arguing that SZC has Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest in this matter. I strongly disagree with this conclusion. Generations of dedicated naturalists have done important work at Minsmere. 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 too complex for a digital examination process. Christine Redgrave"

Richard Bates
"I am very concerned about about the broad geographic impact of this, the impact on the local landscape and on wildlife. The impact on local community life, especially Yoxford and Middleton. Current local infrastructure is totally unable to support the proposed development, and dozens of square miles of surrounding land & communities will be irredeemably destroyed"

Richard Gray
"1. Site selection a. The site on the East Anglian coast is at severe risk from flooding due to climate change, sea level rising and more extreme weather events. b. There are 8 other energy projects in the area, often linked to renewable developments that should take priority and are enough that the area can absorb. c. The absence of detailed plans for hard sea defences makes it impossible to assess how safe the new site will be. d. To site this additional nuclear facility in the middle of an AONB in a community so dependent on tourism is economic madness. e. The location of the worker campus remote from Leiston and imposed on the hamlet of Eastbridge is both unfair on the workers and the local community. 2. Environment a. The essential environmental assessment is incomplete and the proposed mitigation plans are ineffective. b. The hydrological assessments are incomplete and the mitigation actions described are incomplete eg impact on Minsmere sluice, water abstraction during building etc. c. The impact on the surrounding SSSI’s and ANOB more widely will be catastrophic – noise, light, dust, traffic d. The impact of the development on the wider coastal environment cannot be assessed because of the lack of detailed hard sea defence plans. 3. Economic and safety a. Most of the jobs created during the build phase will be taken by workers from outside the area, often moving on from Hinkley, with little positive net impact on the community. b. The EDF pressurised water reactors at Flammenville in France and Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, are not yet operational after some 15 years of construction, and are billions of Euros over budget. c. The economic case for the reactors is no longer sustainable given the ever-decreasing cost of renewables and the increasing technological capability for effective power storage. d. The carbon footprint of the build will have an adverse impact on carbon targets until 2040 at the earliest. e. There is still no long-term plan for the disposal of nuclear waste from the site. f. The long-term economic success of the community depends not on a few jobs at the new nuclear site but on tourism and this will be devastated by the impact of the 10 year plus build cycle. 4. Transport a. The abandonment of both the sea and rail options will create complete chaos on the A12 for ten years plus. b. The proposed Sizewell Link Rd does not adequately resolve the challenges. 5. Application a. The Sizewell C application and the huge number of interested parties makes this completely impractical to conduct digitally. It must be postponed until normal processes can apply. b. No application should be considered further until three fresh and satisfactory documents are provided: i. Detailed hard coastal defence plans ii. Detailed hydrological impact assessment and detailed mitigation plans iii. Full and comprehensive environmental assessment and fully detailed mitigation plans I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB, SWT."

Robert Boad
"1. I do not believe that we need to build Sizewell C to ensure our future energy security - renewables can take care of that with appropriate investment in battery technology and other storage capacity. 2. Nuclear energy is far more expensive per energy unit than renewables such as wind and solar and will take much longer to build, with a huge carbon footprint during the construction phase. 3. Safety is always an issue for nuclear plants, despite the official assurances -the existing Sizewell nuclear installation has a long history of leaks, unplanned emergency closures and other 'near misses' that could easily have resulted in catastrophic damage and loss of life. 4. The area surrounding Sizewell is an area of outstanding natural beauty and the proposed installation will cause enormous damage to that especially during the construction phase."

Robert Wynn & Sons
"Robert Wynn & Sons is a UK based specialist shipping operator who currently owns and operates two government funded heavy lift vessels. We are keen to see the Governments "water preferred" policy for the movement of the largest and heaviest abnormal indivisible loads maximised. It is a policy that underpins the operation of our vessels. A project such as the construction and operation of Sizewell C will require significant amount of special order & VR1 abnormal load movements. We note that a beach landing facility is being proposed however we note that no clear condition or commitment is made to ensure the maximisation of use of the proposed facility. We welcome the opportunity to input into the planning process so to ensure that the development seeks to comply with and maximise the benefits sought by the DfT's water preferred policy for the carriage of the largest and heaviest abnormal indivisible loads. Remembering that the whole lifecycle of the development should be considered and we believe enshrined within the development consent order. The Department for Transport have, last year, written to the Planning Inspectorate to remind them that they are "keen for all reasonable opportunities to be taken to use waterborne transport for the public benefit, including through proportionate planning conditions." We have seen examples where there is explicit commitments made within the development consent order as to the route that special order and VR1 loads are authorised to travel during the construction, operation and decommissioning of power generation sites and we would hope a similar approach is taken so to ensure that impact of the moment of such loads is minimised. We look forward to the opportunity to input into the consideration of this application and remain available to discuss as required."

Robin Lansdell
"I object to the construction of Sizewell C because :- 1.The coast of East Anglia at Sizewell is the wrong location for a nuclear power station, due to the eastern side of England sinking, coupled with rising sea levels. There is a very real risk the site will be left as an island before its working life is over, or inundated by the sea. 2. The adverse effect of the the construction of the power station over a 12 year period on the AONB and the East Suffolk coast area generally will be much greater than any benefits from additional employment opportunities. 3. EDF has not maximised the deliveries of materials etc by sea or rail and has not minimised the use of a completely inadequate road system, to the detriment of many communities and villages in the vicinity of the East Suffolk coast and the A12. 4. The charges for the electricity produced will be excessive and way above thw charges for other carbon free power. 5. There is currently no means of ensuring the safe long term storage and disposal of the spent radioactive fuel."

Rose Hart
"Lack of infrastructure Environmental damage Increased ability of renewables to replace nuclear"

Rosemary Clifton-Sprigg
"At a critical time for the health of our planet when we must do everything in our power to help and protect our precious and vital natural ecosystems, how can anyone, anywhere, justify the further destruction of great swathes of this utterly beautiful area which is a unique home to a vast array of rare and delicate wildlife. This loss can never be mitigated."

S.Moss
"Suffolk as a rural county has areas of outstanding natural beauty and rare habitat therefore species of flora and fauna. The coast is already dominated by Sidewall A and B, which will never be truly safe or able to be removed and the natural habitat restored. The power plant can only produce power for a limited period and then becomes defunct but not safe. In these times when preserving the natural world is still vital, this is not the best way to invest in the production of power. It is not a clean energy and leaves toxic waste. With added traffic on road a rail for the building and running of the plant our air wil become more heavily polluted. This is not the way forward that we need it is a short cut at huge cost to the environment and local people's proximity to dangerous poisonous chemicals. We need to consider the living world not easy profit and big business enforcing it's wants. We the people of Suffolk say no, we don't want this power plant here or anywhere."

Sally Boast
"I live in a flint cottage that is in close proximity to the railway track that will be used to transport materials to the proposed construction site at Sizewell C. EDF have said that during the 'early years' phase, (when they build a rail link from Saxmundham to the construction site) there would be 4 freight train movements per night using this stretch of track, then (during the 'later years' of main site construction) there would be 5 freight train movements per night. This means a great deal of noise and vibration every one hour and 24 mins during the hours of 11pm and 6am. Currently, no mitigation measures have been suggested or offered by EDF. I am fearful not only for the effect the increase in rail traffic (apparently class 66 locomotive engines pulling 20 wagons which would either be full or empty depending upon their direction of travel) may have upon the fabric/structure of my property, but I am fearful for [Redacted]. We stand to be subjected to sleepless/disturbed nights for at least 10-12 years whilst construction takes place, should plans be approved. We already notice some vibration and noise caused by the occasional freight trains passing by. During the summer (when our windows are open for ventilation) the noise from the railway is naturally more noticeable but is tolerable because of the current (very limited night traffic). The odd train at night is far from what we will have to endure if Sizewell C is given the go-ahead. To be woken up every 1hour and 24mins for 10-12 yrs is unthinkable, especially for my husband who still works full time. I also have concerns surrounding the negative effect on local tourism, together with the impact on communities, environment and landscape that building Sizewell C could bring, but my main area of concern at this time is the personal impact that the increased night time rail movements will have on my health and potential longer term damage to my property."

Sally Bone
"I wish to raise the following issues concerning the selection of Sizewell for further nuclear power generation, especially a project of this size. The site is entirely inappropriate, being at risk from: Sea level rise resulting from climate warming which is undeniably happening. There is very active erosion along the local coastline, defending the enlarged nuclear site would cause even greater degradation of the local environment. Even when completed the site would have great adverse effects on ecologically important sites, areas of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value. The building phase would have a devastating impact on the above sites which would take many years to redress. Local Community, Economic and Social impacts. The area does not suffer from high unemployment, tourism is very important economically, and would be severely affected especially during the building process. The employment that EDF appear to be offering is of low grade and unlikely to be of lasting value. The scale of increased traffic, and the influx of workers both living locally and travelling in on a daily basis will have a large negative affect on quality of life for local residents. Local services such as health will be put under undue pressure and emergency vehicles, such as ambulances and fire appliances risk being severely delayed by traffic volume on inadequate roads thus putting vulnerable people at greater risk. Transport. The local roads are woefully inadequate for the expected traffic load, possible road improvements and new roads have been poorly researched, will themselves cause disruption and are not proposed to be built before construction starts. Environmental and landscape impacts. The impact on the area to be used during construction is definitely going to be very great and harmful, the full effect on the Minsmere drainage area is unknown but unlikely to be less than expected. Once completed, the buildings would have a damaging visual impact in the Suffolk Coastal AONB, during the expected 10-12 years of the build this would be very severe. Sites of Special Scientific Interest could be destroyed or severely damaged. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. also those submitted by the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust."

Sally Wood
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Radioactive Legacy for future generations. • No means of eventual safe disposal remaining dangerous for hundreds of years. • The reactors will need protection at all costs. We cannot predict future challenges. Many generations at risk for only 60 years of electricity generating potential. 2. Site and Design Selection. This is the wrong site. • This is a design that has yet to be proven. All are behind schedule and over budget and problematic. • Risks from climate change, flooding due to sea level rise. • Area could become an island with 5 reactors and stored waste. • Could potentially impact other coastal processes. • Sites of amenity, landscape and cultural heritage and internationally designated ecologically importance will be adversely impacted. Industrialisation of this coastline is inappropriate. • Other energy projects planned in the locality are uncoordinated. 3. Transport. • Basic road infrastructure for high levels of traffic movement, HGVs, buses, light goods and cars does not exist. • A possible feathering system for traffic will lead to widespread disruption preventing easy movement by local people. • Likely to cause rat running and disruption. • Adverse impact on visitor economy. • Rail movements will be noisy and disruptive at night, travelling through areas of high population, example Woodbridge. • No legacy value for planned relief road. • New roads will divide farmland and communities and adversely affect footpath network. 4. Environment and landscape. • Pollution from light noise and traffic. • Flooding. • Issues around dust management. • There cannot, and will never be, adequate compensation or mitigation for damage that will be caused to ecology and landscape. • Risks to environment and to protected species from water abstraction. • Minsmere is a flagship destination of international importance and significance. Construction will lead to irreparable harm. • Supply of 3 million litres of potable water and drainage for construction and after completion is uncertain. Abstracting water could compound environmental risks and to protected species. • CO2 from construction will not be offset for at least 6 years. • This is a massive development, totally out of scale with existing coastline. • Impacts on marine ecology. • Rates of coastal erosion and sea level rise unpredictable. 5. Economic and social impacts on communities. • Unacceptable impacts – significant increases in traffic, disruption, noise and light pollution and severance. • Tourism will lose revenue and jobs. EDF suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. • Public beach access denied whilst under construction. • 6000 workers will come and live in the area. Pressure on health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people, local housing especially private rental. • Local business negatively impacted, from traffic and loss of staff. • Local jobs likely to be in ‘site support’ lower skilled and lower paid. I wish to endorse the relevant representation submitted by RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and Stop Sizewell C and to state that I consider the Sizewell application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. Due to Covid-19 restrictions I have not been able to act upon my democratic right to take a full part in planning process."

Sarah Leach
"Relevant Representation of Sarah Leach to the Planning Inspectorate with regard to the Development Consent Order (DCO) submitted by EDF for the development of Sizewell C. My name is Sarah Leach [Redacted] situate approximately 500 metres from the proposed Sothern Park and Ride (SP&R) site. My concerns with the Sizewell C development are not only directed towards the SP&R, but also with the development overall. These concerns are as follows: 1. SP&R a) I consider that the site of the SP&R is inappropriate. b) EDF have not provided sufficient evidence to address concerns with regard to the following: i) Air pollution ii) Light pollution iii) Noise pollution c) Bunding – in the DCO application the proposals for bunding of the SP&R is inadequate. d) Traffic volumes – the increased traffic will impact on my enjoyment of my property and the area. e) Landscape and visual impacts – EDF have failed to produce evidence to mitigate the effect that the construction of the SP&R will have on these aspects. Please bear in mind that the site will be operative 20 hours a day, seven days a week for 10 to 12 years. 2. General a) Increased traffic along the A12 b) The development will seriously impact on tourism. c) The Sizewell C development will have a cumulative detrimental effect when considered in conjunction with the Scottish Power development at Friston d) EDF have, throughout the consultation stages and in the DCO application, failed to provide sufficient information to enable myself and local residents to arrive at an informed decision on their proposals. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by the Hacheston, Marlesford and Wickham Market Parish Councils. I further wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. Sarah Leach 28th September 2020."

Sheridan Steen
"I object to EDF's plans for 2 nuclear reactors at Sizewell. The site is too small and the impacts on the fragile echo system is unacceptable The proximity to the town's of Leiston and Aldeburg and the villages of the Heritage Coast is too overwhelming. The roads cannot possibly support the planned traffic. The arrival of in excess of 3,000 personnel cannot be supported by the local infrastructure. Destruction of the seabed. Destruction of RSPB Minsmere Destruction of tourism. Death of tourists and serious accident riding their bycles along the coastal path. Should Sizewell B experience a serious incident during construction how would the population be safely and swiftly evacuated."

Simon Frampton
"I, Simon Frampton OBJECT to this planning application until such time as the points below can fully calculated and advised nationwide to the British Public with absolute certainty. 1. Embedded Carbon Calculation –This calculation should start from when the raw materials are mined and converted into a usable product, including the transportation of the products. Then comes the amount of carbon created turning the usable products into machinery, construction materials, plant and associated elements to create a building. The last element is the transportation f labour to a factory, and construction site. This is a long winded and complex process that is never fully created due to its complexity and many assumptions are made. The lower value of construction the more assumptions are made. With the new reactor at Sizewell due to its enormous cost and long-term construction, there should be very minimal assumptions, especially as it is considered a Carbon Neutral producer of electricity. There is an offset calculation as everything has a embedded carbon. This calculation shows the breakeven point where the amount of embedded carbon has now been equalled by the lack of carbon being produced, by a carbon neutral technology. I feel it is extremely important that EDF and the Government carry out an in depth without assumption calculation of embedded carbon to build and bring online the new Sizewell reactor, this should include; a) The consultation process of travel for the interested parties, Government personnel, EDF Personnel, Academics, Consultant, Architects and all the other interested parties attending meetings and planning meeting. b) The Mining and Production of all raw material; Steel, Copper, Metals, Concrete Products, Reactor Fuel etc. c) The production process of turning the raw materials in to usable products for construction. d) The transportation of the above e) The manufacturing of the generators, the reactor, the supporting plant and the transportation between the assembly plants and the final transportation to the site f) The construction works, labour travelling to and from site, al the professional services travelling to meetings on and off of site. g) The new roads and rail infrastructure upgrades to allow the construction, including the raw materials and transportation (as above) h) The manufacture and installation of the new national electrical distribution network that will be required, including labour and raw materials as above. i) Until this is done accurately the claim of Carbon Neutral is only an assumption not a fact. 2. This is being look at as a local issue, when in fact it is a National and European issue, as the electrical power produced at Sizewell will be distributed beyond East Anglia and to Europe. a) Therefore, everyone who pays for this electricity has a say in how it is produced. b) The British Taxpayer will also be funding this through grants and reduced tax levy’s as it is a (yet to be fully proved) Carbon Neutral initiative. c) Therefore, the British Taxpayer should have a say on how their tax pounds are being allocated."

Simon Ive
"This small area of the East Suffolk Coast (supposedly The Heritage Coast) is now wracked by uncertainty and insecurity arising from the potential cumulative impacts of all the energy projects of which Sizewell C is the largest. This is the remaining 'green' space in view of the increasing urbanisation spreading northwards and that reflects the expansion and diversity of its economy. The dangers are to: Local Environment -permanent loss of landscape, habitats, 'green' space specific to Government policy for health and well-being. Concerns for accumulation of contamination; fragile coastline, flood risk. Economic disruption - to the balance of the local economy; the 'crowding out' of alternative productive investment and threat to employment servicing the important visitor economy. Health and safety - reducing accessibility during prolonged construction period of huge complexity; traffic congestion and emissions pollution; loss of area peace and tranquillity Financing - this is still to be resolved; what is to be the financng vehicle; undue surcharge on energy bills (impacts on economic competitiveness); controversial partnership with China General Nuclear. Cumulative Impacts - Just how is the locality expected to cope with all the other proposed energy projects over the same period - the strains of disruption and destruction on the infrastructure, social care and fabric. The scale and diversity of these projects require greater Government clarity of its energy policy and the balance of nuclear and renewables."

Simone Lister
"I am concerned about the obvious damage to the environment. I know myself and other like minded people probably can't stop it being built but I can try and ensure mitigation is adequate. Having been involved in various other 'construction developments' that have affected the environment and failed in meeting their mitigation promises (HS2 being the current one), the one on my doorstep worries me. I would like to be involved and ensure you live up to your promises and make adequate promises with regard to mitigation for the environmental losses. I will do it anyway, anyway. Simone Lister"

Snape Parish Council
"Dear Planning Inspectorate, DCO application Sizewell C Registration as an Interested Party - Snape Parish Council The issues below have been submitted at Stage 3 and 4. It is of concern that, despite our specific request for consultation directly relevant to the village and its particular issues, there has been no contact in relation to that request made in March 2019 and September 2019. 1. General 1.2 Our original concerns were outlined in a response in January 2017, March 2019 and September 2019. Those concerns remain. The PC favoured a four village bypass rather than the two village bypass to reduce the impact of traffic congestion on the A12. The two village bypass means the road through Snape from Woodbridge (B1069) becomes effectively a four village bypass and the only alternative route if there is a blockage or heavy traffic on the A12 north of Marlsford. This issue is outlined in more detail below. The PC would welcome a site visit. 1.2 The PC feels that the consultation exercises have been inadequate. The PC noted that in the Update Statement of Community Consultation (P5) November 2016, “that EDF will attempt to coordinate its pre application consultation to avoid confusion and consultation fatigue”. This parish and others raised with EDF (and SPR) the lack of meaningful assessment of the cumulative impact of this and an ever-increasing number of projects. Yet there remains no evidence of meaningful coordination to assess that cumulative impact and avoid the very real confusion and “consultation fatigue” this project and others are causing. If anything this issue has been compounded by the overlapping DCOs now active. 2. Environmental 2.1 The PC is concerned about the visual impact of the project’s construction within an AONB. This includes the site itself, and the significant change in policy to consider overhead power lines. 2.2 The PC approved the responses of the AONB, RSPB, Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk District Council that the overall impact on the environment by construction work and traffic in the area had not been fully addressed despite being raised at an early stage. 3. Transport 3.1 The PC noted with concern that there remains no detailed analysis of the potential impact of traffic over peak periods. Analysis and calculations have been based on average traffic which, given the seasonal nature of the area’s traffic, ignores the GEART guidance (calculations based on site specific information and circumstances). The mitigation offered of restricting Sizewell traffic to the A12 contractually is, in the view of the PC, unenforceable. 3.2 There has been no reflection on the potential for fly parking in and around the village of Snape by work force traffic during construction and operation. The PC is aware that this has been an issue with current work at Hinkley Point. 3.3 The PC noted that the rail-led strategy is not regarded as feasible within the necessary timescales. Given the length of ongoing consultation, this is surprising and must be addressed. 4. Economic Impact 4.1 The PC noted that recent research documented a value of £100 million per annum of tourism and farming to the immediate area. This would be at risk for many years. These values have not been included by EDF who therefore cannot be in a position to identify the potential economic impact. EDF states it is working with relevant partners but local authorities and statuary bodies consistently record their concerns regarding economic assessment remaining unaddressed. 4.2 There has been no direct reference to Snape village, and no recognition of the potential impact on tourism on the village; a major cultural destination for the County. The present accommodation strategy envisages significant numbers of the workforce in the construction phase renting local accommodation and this is bound to directly impact local tourism. 5. Public Services 5.1 Increased demand on all public services will come with a major influx of additional people. The demand on already overstretched health and police resources will be significant and has not been addressed. The development of Sizewell B brought with it additional policing and health demands which were only recognised at a late stage and this aspect of potential impact on the area needs focus. 5.2 The PC noted there has been reference to ongoing work in this area with partners but, again, detail is lacking as to what that means in real terms. Tim Beach Chair"

Sonya Exton
"EDF’s Sizewell C DCO Relevant Representation Please note my following concerns regarding the above application on the issues of: Climate Change: The IPCC has stated that we are at a crucial point for reducing our GHGs emissions and have seven years to prevent global temperature increasing 1.5 degrees that would have a devastating impact on ecosystems and livelihoods of many worldwide. EDF’s promise of building Sizewell C to have it producing low carbon energy in hopefully 9 years’ time falls short of this timescale. In the next 9 years it will be contributing to GHG emissions. Local community investment in solar panels on roofs can provide renewable energy within 7 years as well as educate the individual on energy use and efficiency thus reducing our demand for energy consumption. Regeneration of land would also drawdown carbon from the atmosphere as soon as it is planted. Note: a search on the IPCC’s website for ‘nuclear power’ had no results. Biodiversity: At the UK scale, the abundance and distribution of species has, on average, declined over recent decades and many measures suggest this decline continues. There has been no let-up in the net loss of nature in the UK. – State of Nature Report 2019 Whilst EDF state they are not building on land owned by RSPB Minsmere, they will be excavating large areas of land around it that provide important feeding and nesting grounds for many of the bird/mammal species seen at Minsmere by its thousands of visitors. The Marsh Harrier, for example, forages widely often over farmland and sometimes nests in crops – RSPB Pocket Guide to British Birds. Promise of creating more land for wildlife during construction does not guarantee a better environment. Removal of habitat before and during construction, especially for invertebrates, is likely to result in a loss in species during relocation and thus lack of food, poor soil quality and plant pollination in the new area. Add to this our changing weather patterns with hotter summers and larger amounts of rainfall in shorter periods, there is no guarantee that these new sites will be successful. This work should have been implemented already with corridors in place to encourage natural movement. Our aquatic life, already diminishing owing to warming seas and over fishing, is also being lost to the intake pipes that indiscriminately suck in hundreds of tonnes of fish. The John Dory being one that no longer appears to exist in our coastal waters. Further investigation is needed into how these intake pipes are affecting the fish species along the Suffolk Coast. Carbon 14 – request to increase from 500 to 600 emissions: I am not a scientist and need more information about C-14 and the other radionuclides that are created and released into the atmosphere and marine environment. My only reference is an article in BMJ on Case-control study of prostatic cancer in employees of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Suffolk Villages and Towns: Villagers will be affected by the increase of traffic, making leaving their homes a highly unpleasant if not terrifying ordeal. Light, dust and noise pollution from the park and ride sites, railway lines and A12 will affect wellbeing of those living nearby. Commuter times for many local workers will increase as they will have to allow extra time for exiting junctions that will have a knock-on effect on other time constraints. Further housing development as a result of workers needing somewhere to live will change village dynamics as well as add further GHGs to the atmosphere. Has this been included in EDF’s carbon offsetting calculations? The worker campus at Eastbridge will increase the population 6 times. The village does not have the facilities or road structure to cope with the new demands this will bring. More cars, more pollution (GHGs). Reduction in tourism owing to loss of walking routes that use the quiet roads. It is very difficult to see how Sizewell A and B have contributed to the town of Leiston. What is different about Sizewell C? Application Process: Viewing the application digitally has proven highly difficult and not suitable for a project of this kind."

Stephen Leach
"Relevant Representation of Stephen Leach to the Planning Inspectorate with regard to the Development Consent Order (DCO) submitted by EDF for the development of Sizewell C. My name is Stephen Leach [Redacted] situate approximately 500 metres from the proposed Sothern Park and Ride (SP&R) site. [Redacted] comprises three residential units. The SP&R will have an adverse affect on these dwellings. My concerns with the Sizewell C development are not only directed towards the SP&R, but also with the development overall. These concerns are as follows: 1. SP&R a) The site of the SP&R is inappropriate as it is in an elevated position and located between two Special Landscape Areas of the rivers Deben and Ore. b) EDF have not provided sufficient evidence to address my concerns with regard to the following: i) Air pollution – the increased traffic using the SP&R will cause severe air pollution. ii) Light pollution – the proposals for lighting on the SP&R site are such that the lights will be visible from many properties in the area. iii) Noise pollution – additional traffic on the SP&R site will create noise audible from my property. c) Bunding – in the DCO application the proposals for bunding shown on the plans has been reduced from that shown in the consultation stages and they are inadequate. d) Traffic volumes – I am unable to assess the traffic impact as EDF have not produced estimates of vehicule movements in and out of the SP&R, and along the other roads over which access to the SP&R is obtained. e) Landscape and visual impacts – EDF have failed to produce evidence to mitigate the effect that the SP&R will have on these aspects. f) The SP&R site would be better sited at the Martlesham Park & Ride which will reduce the traffic impact around Woodbridge. One must bear in mind that the site will be operative 20 hours a day, seven days a week for 10 to 12 years. 2. General a) Increased traffic along the A12 is of major concern as the roads are not able to support the suggested volumes notwithstanding the proposals put forward by EDF in their DCO application for road improvements. b) The development will seriously impact on tourism, and the effect of this has not been taken properly into account. c) Sea led strategy – This should be reintroduced and I do not understand why this has been discounted, as this will alleviate the congestion on the road network. d) The Sizewell C development should not be considered in isolation as the Scottish Power development at Friston for their offshore wind farms will have a cumulative adverse impact on the local community. e) The effect of the increased traffic will cause many vehicle to use minor roads in the area as rat-runs. f) EDF have, throughout the consultation stages and in the DCO application, failed to provide sufficient information to enable myself and local residents to arrive at an informed decision on their proposals. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by the Hacheston, Marlesford and Wickham Market Parish Councils. I further wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. Stephen Leach 28th September 2020."

Sudbourne Parish Council
"Dear Sirs, The main points/concerns Sudbourne Parish Council wish to raise are those based on their response to the Stage 4 Consultation submission. The SZC DCO proposal has not adequately addressed the following matters:- 1. Environmental Impact 2. Transport proposals/options 3. Air quality and pollution 4. Economic Impact 5. Design and landscape Impact (This is currently the majority view of the Parish Council) Kind regards, Joanne Peters Clerk to Sudbourne Parish Council"

Susan Jackson
"I have grave concerns about The effect on the environment Sea levels rising and climate change. Coastal erosion Flooding The effect of influx of people on local services. The effect on tourism on which this part of the country is dependent. The cumulative effect of all the energy projects with no joined up planning. The effect of the number of lorries and cars on the roads particularly the A 12 and local small roads."

Susan Osben
"I am concerned about the impact of Sizewell C for several reasons. Primarily my concerns relate to the impact on the environment. Sizewell C claims to be carbon neutral but omits to consider the amount of carbon that will be created during the long construction process. Construction would inevitably cause light, noise and traffic pollution which could not fail to negatively impact the fragile, rare and precious environment of the local area, including Minsmere, and the species which live there. While it may be argued that the wildlife would return afterwards, this cannot be guaranteed and we owe it to future generations, as custodians of the AONB, to preserve what we have. The position of the proposed Sizewell C is on the edge of a notoriously unstable coastline. As yet, there is no plan for adequate storage or removal of unstable radioactive waste. It is not fair to overlook this and leave the problem for future generations. The area is at risk of flooding and that risk will only increase with the passage of time. In view of the unpredictability of coastal erosion and major flooding incidents there is a serious risk to the safety of the area. The cumulative effect of this and many other projects planned for this uniquely beautiful and irreplaceable area is incalculable. The local economy stands on tourism. The impact of Sizewell C on tourism would be catastrophic. Tourists will not come if the landscape is destroyed and polluted. Neither will the wildlife. The design and scale of Sizewell C is totally unsuitable for the proposed area. I am also concerned by the late inclusion of 4 huge overground pylons late in the application process, and by the proposed felling of Coronation Wood to make room for the project on a site which is essentially too small. I also wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, The Suffolk Wildlife Trust and the RSPB (Minsmere). Please don't let it be on our watch that this site was destroyed for future generations when we had the opportunity to choose otherwise. I also believe that the Sizewell C application is too important an issue to be examined solely on digital platforms."

Susan Skeen
"The application by EDF is incomplete or unsatisfactory (within the regulations) on a number of areas, including: - Protection of sensitive areas, including the SSSI at the proposed access road crossing; - The impact of a largely road-led strategy (a) on the existing infrastructure and (b) through the provision of additional road infrastructure which itself will compromise the local environment and natural habitats; - The failure to demonstrate any long term provision for dealing with significant changes to natural coastal processes as a result of the development, or even to include the data that EDF have on these processes within the application, and indeed to refuse access to such data to local organisations; - Failure to demonstrate a sufficient balance of benefit over costs both financial and environmental, given current developments in renewable and energy storage technology. I strongly object to the proposals on these and other grounds."

Susan Southgate
"The construction of Sizewell C must not go ahead due to the following: Destruction of a very sensitive area for wildlife - mitigation plans are totally inadequate. This is in an AONB and such construction must not be allowed to go ahead in such a sensitive area. The coast is too fragile and prone to erosion for such a construction. Air pollution from the construction along with light and noise pollution will affect local air quality and cause major disturbance to wildlife - Minsmere reserve is adjacent to the proposed construction and will be permanently adversely affected. The drive must be toward preserving our natural capital and not destroying it. There are alternative solutions to our energy requirements which are cheaper and less damaging. If Sizewell C is not built the money could be used for energy conservation and local renewables. There will be a lot of pressure on local infrastructure and resources from the increased traffic and workers. New road construction will also be a major blight on our environment."

Susanne Nujeerallee
"My family and I [Redacted] where the main control centre of the proposed build will be sited, and next door to the proposed worker's campus. We have lived here for 10 years, and in that time have spent a considerable amount of time and money improving what was simply a drafty brick shell into a family home. For 10 yrs we have been subject to terrible treatment by EDFE's property management team. We have had holes opened up in our living room in the middle of winter, incompetent and deceitful contractors installing various electrical devices not fit for purpose and faulty, we have been left to shower outside in the snow. We have been patronised, lied to and blatently taken for fools. The estate agents that take our rent each month do nothing for us and ignore every plea for improvement. The contractors who attend have a round trip of 3 hours to complete the task, even if it is simply to apply sealant and leave! Every request we make has to be reiterated and emphasised several times before anything is done, and most of the time nothing is done. One would think after 10 yrs of being a tenant we would have at least one contact within EDFE who we could trust to convey information to us to reduce our stress levels due to the Sizewell C build. Despite attending several meetings we still have no trustworthy contact at EDFE. We are simply ignored. If Sizewell C goes ahead my family and I will be made homeless. We have paid thousands of pounds in rent and yet have no sympathy or consideration from EDFE. As well as this personal statement 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, RSPB, SWT. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review and member org.
"1. The radioactive waste management for waste from a new-build reactor has to have been clearly solved before an application for construction can be granted. It is not enough to have a policy that hopefully can lead to solution, especially for the spent nuclear fuel. 2. The safety of then reactor has to be such that the release of radioactivity that can reach Sweden in an accident can be completely ruled out. 1. The licensing of a new nuclear reactor should not be allowed unless there is a solution for long term disposition of all the radioactive waste that will be produced. Since the 1960s this procedure has been allowed, but nuclear energy should fulfil the same criteria for waste management that would be the case for any other industry that is started. No permit without without a solution for waste management. 2. The safety of the reactor, if licensed, has to be of the state-of-the-art and accidents should be able to be completely ruled out as they can badly influence the environment in Sweden."

The Alde and Ore Association
"The Alde and Ore Association is a charity, with some 2000 members, which aims to preserve and protect the Alde and Ore Estuary for the benefit of the public to enjoy. Summary: Concern that the long term the existence of Sizewell C will interrupt natural coastal processes damaging to the coast further south, including off Aldeburgh and the long natural Orfordness shingle spit protecting the Estuary. Detail: 1. No thinking on impact on the Suffolk coastal processes: There is nothing in the Environmental Appraisal, despite requests in earlier consultations, justifying the assertion that the Great Sizewell Bay is a self-contained unit and changes there will have no impact on the longshore coastal evolution which has resulting in the uniquely long shingle spit of Orfordness, which itself created the Alde and Ore Estuary. Such longshore processes will not suddenly cease: a local manmade change at Sizewell could well change these natural processes further to the south. Properly scoped research is needed to explain why and how that long changing coastline will be unaffected by a large protuberance into the bay lasting well beyond 2100. 2. Incomplete construction plans prevent proper assessment: Proper evaluation is not possible, even at this late stage: the construction plans for the new plant and how they might relate to the shoreline over time are still incomplete. How can incomplete construction plans be approved? 3. Latest climate change data: The assessments in the application are not based on the latest scientific material available on climate change and sea level rise. It uses the UK CCRA report with 2018 estimates, not those of the IPPC in 2019: the developers must be aware that latest information shows that the impact of these factors would be far greater than previously thought. 4. Need for properly framed and funded monitoring and mitigation plan: Should the development go ahead, there needs to be a fully planned monitoring and mitigation plan, with funding for at least 150 years. Further, the documents proposes that monitoring ceases before the power station ceases functioning. This cannot be acceptable as very large and solid construction is to be left in place indefinitely. The coast line needs long term monitoring to the north and south, at least as far a Shingle Street. Funding should be provided for research and/ or mitigation, for example mitigation works to renew shingle off Aldeburgh and the spit could cost anything up to over £20 million or more to replace lost flow of material south, resulting from the proposed shingle recycling within the Bay or the impact of the power station protrusion on longshore drift. The consequences of a change in coastal erosion leading to rapid changes off Aldeburgh and southwards could have a very damaging impact on the local economy, including the life of the Alde and Ore Estuary, worth over £100 million annually. 5. Clearly from the above alone, the Sizewell C application is totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Tim Pennick
"My objection relates to the long term environmental, and ecological danger posed by the building of a new nuclear facility, including unquantifiable danger to human life over a wide area. Although nuclear power produces little carbon, it does generate highly dangerous radio-active waste, for which I believe no satisfactory disposal procedure has been identified. This waste will remain dangerous for thousands of years. Equally the buildings of all of the Sizeleww nuclear installations will likewise require maintenance in order to preserve their integrity for thousands of years, during which time it is impossible to predict the ability of local civilisation to prevent them from falling into a dangerous state of disrepair. Next to this, the generation of power for possibly the next fifty years, followed by the requirement to build a further installation seems like vanishingly small benefit for enormous long-term cost."

Tina Stevens
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place, at the wrong time! The site is at risk from the effects of climate change, sea level rise and flooding, together with the potential impact on coastal processes. There are potential adverse impacts on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value. There will obviously be considerable effects on local communities, traffic will increase together with increases in noise, light pollution and disruption to services in the area. Approx. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a location that I oppose. It has been suggested that tourism may lose up to £40m a year. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors may be deterred. There will naturally be increased pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. Health services, emergency services and social services will all suffer the knock on effect and vulnerable people will be particularly at risk from reduced services. The plan for road based transport is not sustainable. HGV vehicles will become excessive and delays 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. The potential effects on Minsmere Sluice are as yet undetermined and there may be irreparable harm done to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. Dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles appears to be inadequate. The impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill have not been fully addressed. The integrity of the Special Protection Areas where there are Marsh Harriers, will be threatened There is uncertainty regarding drainage and the 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. There are risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology. There will be flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site along with catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB It will be entirely impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage and the offset of CO2 from construction will take a minimum of 6 years. There is no complete design of HCDF available, the rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable. Impacts on marine ecology are inevitable and also unpredictable. There will be impacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C., RSPB, SWT etc. I wish to state categorically that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable."

Tracy Hateley
"My representation is to support Sizewell C. Long time resident of Leiston, two growing teenagers seen first hand the difficulties our rural young population face and the difficulty they can have accessing and staying on at Further Education. Rural isolation, lack of transport and low wages are all a factor. A Project like this can inspire and motivate our young folk at what is currently an unprecedented and uncertain time. Boosting the local economy and driving skills and education benefits to East Suffolk and coastal areas, where nuclear has long been a part of local life."

Vicky Scott
"I have a number of objections to the proposal to construct another nuclear power station at Sizewell when there are safer, greener and more cost effective renewable energy solutions available to secure the UK’s future energy security such as wind, wave and solar power. I am concerned about the irreparable damage to the heritage coastline, the AONB the site is situated within and the local unique, valuable wildlife ecosystems (including RSPB Minsmere). Over the 10-12 years of construction, there will be an unacceptably vast increase in heavy vehicle road traffic on Suffolk’s limited road infrastructure, plus the construction of new roads which will serve little purpose once the construction is complete. This will have a significant environmental and societal impact. I am concerned about building this power plant on a shoreline threatened by both erosion and sea level rise at a time of increasing climate change After the limited time (50-60 years) that the power station is operable, Suffolk will be left with the legacy of a white elephant of a building, containing nuclear waste, which will need costly management and maintenance ad infinitum. Few of the jobs working on the construction site will be new jobs for local people. Most workers will be from other areas of the country, necessitating the construction of large scale dormitory sites in order to house them. The sheer scale of this building project in what is a largely rural area depending on tourism will fundamentally change the character of East Suffolk"

William Hone
"The proposed nuclear power station is a frivolous waste of taxpayers' money, and yes. it is us taxpayers who will bear the burden. The coastline is in danger of being engulfed by ocean level rise due to global warming, so putting yet another nuclear plant a la Fukushima on the coastal plain is sheer foolishness. The coast itself is an area of outstanding natural beauty and Minsmere RSPB reserve is internationally renowned. The construction site alone will turn night into day for ten years or more and the mess and destruction can never be mitigated. You cannot simply purchase "new" ancient woodland such as Coronation Wood which will become a car-park under current plans. Truck movements and personnel logistics will create long term havoc that can never be repaired. The largest building site in Europe should not be in our rural county. The promise of local jobs is a fallacy (EDF have already said that they expect to import workers from Hinckley) and the legacy is a time-bomb. Adverts have already appeared for armed security guards to patrol the site. No doubt it will be deemed a terrorist target! The nuclear waste problem has not been solved despite over half a century of nuclear power generation, and commercial companies are retreating fast from this failing industry. Only Chinese and French funding (to be paid back by us) is keeping this project alive. At a strike price that will increase energy costs at a time when alternative renewable energy costs are falling fast. The timescale to build is unrealistic and if Hinckley is the template will be many late years late and millions of pounds over-budget. Certainly, the build time-scale will do nothing to help the environment. The local environmental destruction will be so carbon-intensive that the power station operation will need to offset this before it even attempts to help to reduce it on a global scale. This whole project is a foolhardy idea and should be stopped before it becomes too late"

William Kendall
"I submit that this enormously complex application is not suitable for a digital process at a time when people have other priorities. it should be rejected or suspended. The Sizewell site is not suited to such an enormous project when others in the UK are far better and safer for a nuclear installation. It is a very fragile coast, the site is too small based on government requirements and building would cause severe and irreparable environmental damage. The proposal would do severe and lasting damage to the local economy threatening more local jobs than it could create. Having lived nearby during the building of Sizewell B which was a much smaller scheme and at a time when the economy was weaker, I know that the planned influx of workers will undermine local social order and health and social provision. It will leave a legacy of deprivation as happened with Sizewell B despite promises to the contrary. The roads led plan to construct is unsustainable and it will completely overwhelm existing infrastructure and threaten normal life and the working of the local economy. Building Sizewell C as proposed would do untold harm to world famous nature and landscapes at Minsmere and elsewhere."

A W Bacon Will Trust
"The key points are: Lack of meaningful engagement The environmental impact Alternative route The case for the road? Road design Mitigation measures Funding"

Adele Maria Geere
"I would like to raise concerns about Sizewell C: 1. Nuclear is dangerous An accident with radioactive substances, either at the power plant or with fuel or waste convoys, carries the risk of high numbers of casualties and environmental damage which could last for thousands of years. 2. Not cost-effective For example, £20billion could fund: National Energy Foundation: 10,000 anaerobic digesters @£2million each, producing 500kWH = total 5GW of energy, 1.8 GW more than Sizewell C. 30,000 permanent jobs once completed with ongoing cost @ 5p/kwh + feed in tariff [Redacted] £20billion does not include cost of decommissioning 3. No long-term solution for radioactive waste Geological Disposal Facility, GOV UK : ‘Has any region been selected for a GDF? At this stage, no host site for a geological disposal facility has been identified and no region is being targeted over another.’ [Redacted] Increased flood risk from climate change ‘nuclear sites such as Sizewell, which is based on the coastline, may need considerable investment to protect it against rising sea levels, or even abandonment/relocation in the long term’ [Redacted] 4. Disruption to local communities Over 50 councils asked EDF to delay submitting the Development Consent Order [Redacted] Up to 1000 HGVs a day on local roads for years 5. EPR is an unproved technology Flamanville, France: a decade late, 4 times over budget [Redacted] Olkiluoto, Finland: 12 years behind schedule and three times over budget [Redacted] 6. Sizewell C would not support energy independence for the UK Project is dependent on imports of uranium and relies on foreign state-financed companies, EDF (France) and CGN (China). Local, less expensive and smaller projects, such as anaerobic digestion, could attract UK investment, create jobs nationwide and provide more autonomy. 7. Environmental damage, not carbon neutral, not renewable, water intensive • Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI), RSPB Nature Reserve. Threat to wildlife and biodiversity from noise pollution, traffic and construction vibrations, chemical pollution and loss of land for habitat. High water intake from sea or groundwater. • CO2 from construction: concrete and steel • CO2 from transport: shipping uranium and construction vehicles • CO2 emissions from decommissioning and waste storage • CO2 from Uranium mining and milling ‘It takes about 200 tonnes of U3O8 per year to keep a large (1000 MWe) nuclear reactor running; mining and milling uranium…would, therefore, emit 2000-50000 t CO2 each year. This is similar to the total CO2 emission from the Falkland Islands in 2004.’ ‘environmental costs will increase over time as high-grade ore deposits decline and the industry turns to lower grade ore or deeper deposits. Extracting uranium from lower grade ore not only means higher energy costs and greater CO2 emissions, but is likely to increase pressure on water resources.’ [Redacted] The two 1.6GW reactors planned for Sizewell C would cause emissions 3.2 times greater than the above calculations = 6,400 – 160,000 tonnes of CO2 a year • Environmental damage near Uranium mines 8. Negative impact on health for workers and communities near Uranium mines"

Ailsa Kennedy
"Sizewell C I wish to raise the following concerns about Sizewell C I live near Bury St Edmunds and visit the coast frequently .. there are many worries about a lot of different issues for those living in the immediate area. We have family and friends in those areas and have many concerns for them . I will address the areas that are of most concern to me. The A12 will be hugely congested and cause big hold ups. There are likely to be far more accidents putting a large burden on the Health Service. Massive disruption to local peoples lives, traffic at present already very busy. The effect of this project on Minsmere and surrounding sites of ecological importance will be devastating whatever the arrangements it will be ruinous for wildlife and damage flora and fauna. We cannot afford to loose these precious areas. The expense of this project is excessive, the country doesn't need another build that goes way over budget, as always happens. The involvement of a Chinese company is also unsettling. I have heard some time ago that the price of electricity will be far more expensive than originally thought. The worry of a major accident is a concern as we have seen in the past . The burying of spent materials at the end of the reactors life is a huge burden for other generations. Finally the concerns of the sea already suffering from a certain amount of pollution, there will be extra impacts on marine life."

Alde and Ore Community Partnership
"The Alde and Ore Community Partnership is the guardian of the Estuary Plan for the estuary communities of the Alde and Ore area. The Partnership now involves the whole community, with every parish bordering the rivers having a seat on the Partnership, together with a County Councillor, two District Councillors, as well as business, local Internal Drainage Board and amenity organisation (Alde and Ore Association) representation. The £26 million Plan was developed to ensure that even in 2050 and taking account of sea level rise the river wall flood defences would be resilient to a 1:200 surge and so protect the area. Implementation has begun. The main concern is the potential damage from un-assessed adverse changes on coastal processes to the estuary and its local economy by loss of shingle on the shoreline or changed currents, both from sea flooding via the town of Aldeburgh and directly the configuration and life of the coastal shingle bank of the estuary. The Sizewell C DCO application is silent on the coastal evolution south of the Great Sizewell Bay, when the Bay is but one part of the Suffolk coast geomorphological unit, despite the fact that the proposed construction will eventually jut out beyond the natural shoreline and will involve shingle recycling. The Alde and Ore Estuary is the centre of a local economy worth over £100 million a year. Were there to be damage to the unique long shingle bank, Orfordness, caused by manmade interruption of the natural coastal processes at Sizewell, the area would be greatly harmed. Consequently AOCP would like to see in the application scientific assessments of the impact of the proposed construction on the fragile but dynamic coast south of Sizewell and provision for long-term monitoring and mitigation."

Alexandra Millbrook
"I endorse completely the representations made by the Alde and Ore Association concerning the impact of the proposed construction on coastal erosion to the south of the site. The Alde and Ore Association has at all times maintained a well-informed, scientific and measured approach to the issue of maintaining the natural and historic integrity of this part of our coastline and have ensured that the issue is always looked at from the perspective of the various interested parties. Please take their representations into account which ask for proper consideration and necessary action to ensure that this delicate part of the coastline is preserved for future generations."

Alice Robeson
"- Risks of sea level rise and erosion likely to flood and have problems - Negative impacts on important ecological sites, cultural heritage and the landscape - The site could become and island with 5 nuclear reactors - There are 8 other energy projects planned in the area - Negative impacts on the local community with higher traffic, noise, light pollution. - Worker campus in an area I don't agree to - Local tourism could lose out on £40 million a year and 400 jobs. - EDF survey predicts 29% of visitors may choose not to come - Too much pressure on local housing - EDF expects local people to fill 90% of the lower skilled and lower paid roles. yet where are these local people? - Local businesses losing out on staff and too much traffic - Too much pressure on local emergency services which negatively impacts the vulnerable - The transport plan for the roads is not sustainable. huge negative impact on local economy and communities. HGV numbers are as high as those under " road led" proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations - Delays in new roads being built would mean 2-3 years of increased traffic for villages - The new roads will cut up communites, farmland and footpaths - Flooding issues not considered - Unclear effects on minsmere sluice - Impact on proposed borrow pits and landfill not fully addressed - Irreparable harm to minsmere an area of international importance - Impact on marsh harriers - Threatens the integrity of special protection area - Uncertainty of drainage and supply of water for the construction - Risk to groundwater levels - Flooding risk due to loss of flood storage from the development site - Construction cuts up the AONB - Can't compensate for the ecological and landscape damage - C02 won't be offset for at least 6 years from the construction - Ecological and food risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature HCDF . no complete design of HCDF available - Impacts on marine life - Nuclear power plants shouldn't be being built, they are dangerous. History has shown us this time and again. Do we really need this? why aren't we investing in greener healthier energy solutions instead? We all know this is the future. This project is damaging, dangerous and backward. I wish to endorse the relevant representation submitted by stop sizewell c I wish to state that I consider the sizewell c appliction to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Alice wilkinson-feller
"My main concerns about the building of a third nuclear power plan on the sizewell site is mainly down to its environmental impact. it has been said that the plant will take over a decade to build, this is a decades worth of environmental damage that does not need to take place. being so close to the minsmere site the amount of wildlife that will be disrupted and habitats destroyed and polluted is simply unacceptable. The damage to the minsmere site and it's wildlife would be irreparable. The government has proposed to make the UK 'carbon neutral by 2050' yet the building of yet another nuclear power plan surely shows that this is not the way to go. there are so many other green alternative like wind and solar even wave energy that are yet to be used to their full potential and are likely to outlive the date that sizewell C would be in action for. By the time it is built it is likely to be obsolete, it would be an arduous decade of construction for a short term 'fix' to the energy crisis that would come at great cost to our already struggling environment. Another objection is the social impact of the site, as there is proposed park and ride car park in Darsham village and Wickham Market with no thought noted for the impact this will have to the villagers and local communities. EDF's own surveys have shown that a significant percentage of visitors to the local areas (the A12 is the old route that can be taken to get to many of Suffolk's best beaches) would be deterred from visiting during the ten year construction period. Therefore this would bring a huge loss to the local economy with the 'Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation' finding that tourism could lose up to £40 million a year, with the potential loss of up to 400 jobs. therefore showing minimal consideration to the impact to the local businesses that are not directly involved in the nuclear supply chain. Fore these reasons and many more including unacceptable increase in noise levels due to increased road traffic, the severing of local communities, impacts on marine ecology and the fact that there is simply no sustainable solution for the long-term safe disposal of nuclear waste (Spent fuel would stay on this eroding coastal site until at least 2140) that i believe sizewell C is not the right energy solution, and these point must be addressed."

Alison Andrews
"I live permanently in Aldeburgh. Sizewell C will be on the Suffolk Heritage Coast and in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. My personal concerns are: 1. Impact on the coast- it is hard to understand the assumption in the papers that the Greater Sizewell Bay is an entirely self-contained coastal unit, and not an integral part of the Suffolk coast geomorphological unit which had been changing over millennia. The proposed building will last well over 100 years and will dominate the receding coast and its processes adversely affecting all neighbouring parts of the coastline. 2. Application plans are incomplete in relation to the Hard Core Protection Front. It is not possible for experts to assess the potential impact on coastal erosion processes. This proposal is set in a fragile and dynamic coastline: it will not have the protection of resting on coralline crag unlike Sizewell A and B as will be on soft land vulnerable to flooding from sea surges. Further stopping monitoring and mitigation before the end of the working life of the plant, not its physical life, is not explained. 3. Assumptions: the plans appear not to have used the latest climate data. Has the precautionary principal been applied correctly? 4. Transport –a) HGVs: even with proposed by-passes, Suffolk country and coastal roads around here are simply not built to deal with proposed HGV 1000 daily traffic movements, which will be additional to normal usage. Suffolk roads here are very winding with a speciality of hidden dips which are very dangerous. b) Other vehicles: On top of the HGVs, the workforce at its peak will be some 6000 people, double the census population number for Aldeburgh: the individuals will, despite bus services, hugely impact on the normal work, school and care runs, at work and leisure times, so making daily life and road safety a problem. 5. Building and storage height: The proposed buildings and storage heaps would be higher than anything for many miles and will dominate the landscape. 6. Minsmere: a very special site, cannot but be adversely affected. 7. Light pollution: The tall features will need lights day and night and destroy one of the features of this AONB of clear skies and dark nights valuable to wild life and humans alike, and be visible for miles around, possibly for over 100 years. 8. Marine pollution: from the increasingly protruding construction into the shoreline weakened by coastal processes. This does not appear to be considered in the application (the incomplete HCDF plans witness that). 9. Local economy: Negative impact on the current economy for what is said to be 9-12 years, having increased from an estimate of 10 years in earlier consultations, will undermine existing local economy. 10. Other power projects: Considerations of managing/combining the 8 other energy projects are relevant. 11. SCAR: I fully support the comments made by SCAR 12. Planning not suitable for digital process: This is a huge project that it is totally unsuitable for a digital process"

Alison Downes
"I wish to raise the following issues. I believe the location on the fragile Suffolk coast is inappropriate. EDF’s advisers, Cefas, told the East Anglian Daily Times that it is generally only possible to predict detailed changes to the coastline over the next 10 years, saying “We can try and predict as much as we like, but almost every prediction in the very long-term has no certainty around it.” [Redacted]The lack of a complete design for a hard coastal defence is totally unacceptable and I am astonished PINS accepted it for examination with this critical information missing.. There is insufficient evidence in the DCO to fully assess the potential impacts on Minsmere Reserve. EDF has admitted to likely impacts on Marsh Harriers. EDF has made no attempt to adequately represent the visual impact of the build, unlike Horizon did at Wylfa. Visual impacts will be considerable, affecting the AONB and the amenity of local people. EDF writes that changes to views, noise, air quality or traffic could affect users’ of local footpaths “perception of tranquillity”. This language is patronising to local people. The Transport Strategy is unacceptable. HGV numbers are as high as under the “Road Led” strategy EDF consulted us on at Stage 4, and which was widely condemned. EDF representatives now acknowledge concern about transport and say they “want to get it right”, but they were consistently told by Councils and communities over the last 8 years what the transport problems were and have failed in that time to come up with a sustainable proposal. My community will bear the brunt of the impacts. I do not believe EDF has done enough to minimise the impacts, and is instead attempting poorly to mitigate them, and likely relying on compensation. This is not an acceptable approach. I oppose the location of a campus for 2,400 construction workers close to Eastbridge. Hundreds of HGVs will come through the village during the “early years” EDF’s choice of Link Road is opposed by local people - 85% of HGVs would come from the south, so would have to drive further, using more fuel, emitting more pollution than if the Link Road left the A12 before Saxmundham. The road will sever communities and block our access to Saxmundham. The route is so useless that the County Council considers it should be torn up. Neighbours will have noise increases of 600 times ambient level EDF’s case for economic benefits is unproven. They have made no effort to quantify the impact on tourism. Some small business owners I know are considering trying to sell up and move away, fearing significant disruption and losing staff to the project. I wish the Examining Authority to look in detail at EDF’s climate change documentation, which reveal that the 5.7Mt of CO2 emitted during construction will take around 6 years to offset, meaning Sizewell C will not contribute to the UK’s net zero target until 2030. Finally, the funding of the project needs detailed scrutiny. There is no certainty the project can be financed. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and Theberton & Eastbridge Parish Council. I also wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Alison Hainey
"I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I also consider the Sizewell C planning submission to be too nationally significant and be totally unsuitable for the digital submission process. The reasons I wish to object to the development of Sizewell C are the negative impact the project will have on :- 1. Location Over the last 30 years we have become very familiar with the natural beauty and special qualities of the Suffolk heaths and coastline and the wide range of habitats and wildlife they support. I feel passionately that this rural area will not sustain the scale and nature of the construction programme and development proposed for Sizewell C . The proposals sever the coastal area designated as ANOB and will have an adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value. 2.Environment and Biodiversity The proposed development will have a long term and major negative impact on the environment and a wide range of habitats. Fluctuations in ground water water levels resulting from water abstraction, possible flooding due to loss of flood storage will have a major impact on fragile coastal habitats. Added pollution caused by dust, light and noise will also have a detrimental effect on the landscape generally. Nearby Minsmere, a nature reserve noted as of national importance. Is also vulnerable to the impact and large scale of the development close by. 3.Local Communities Impact of loss of tourism and visitors to the area will be significant loss to local economy and loss of employment for local workforce. The influx of outside work force being brought in for construction, particularly temporary accommodation for 2400 workers will damage the small adjacent villages typical of the area beyond repair. 4.Transport The road based transport plan not sustainable. The increase resulting from large numbers of construction vehicles/ HGV travelling through the area will have enormously harmful effects on widespread local communities and be positively dangerous on narrow rural roads. Proposed new roads will sever the existing established footpath system and divide farmland 5. Generally It is also a major concern that this is one of eight uncoordinated energy projects planned in this area which could destroy the infrastructure of this unique rural setting.?"

Alistair Cairns
"Broadly in line with the concerns set out by the Alde and Ore Association - who I think have done excellent research on this issue, I believe that the proposed planning application for Sizewell C should be rejected. To the extent does not happen forthwith, the decions shoudl certainly be delayed until all Covid restrictions have been lifted to enable a proper open consultation. My immediate concerns are include: 1. The extensive papers submitted by EDF do not begin to address the issue of coastal erosion around Sizewell Bay - which is narrow and vulnerable. They seem to assume that nothing will change south of the Great Sizewell Bay. There is no evidence to explain this assumption despite the fact that the entire coastline has been constantly evolving over the medium and longer term, including Dunwich losing its port and the Alde and Ore Estuary being formed. 2. EDF's plans on the exact construction of Sizewell C and its sea defences are inadequate and vague. It is not possible to assess the likely impact on coastal flows when the plans for hard core construction are not given. They do not seem ot have taken this issue seriously or even into account. 3. The plant at Sizewell C will be in situ for not only its 70 or so years of operation but almost certainly many decades longer. Yet, the plans propose ceasing to monitor the impact of the installation and any coastal defence works on front of the plant around 10 years before it ceases operations. This is mistaken as the physical plant, operating or not, will affect coastal erosion indefinitely. There is no plan for restoring the site after it is decommissioned. 4. Were the plans to go ahead, there should to be a ongoing Independent Monitoring Authority set up and given responsibility for ongoing monitoring the impact on the coast, not only for plant safety but for the impact on the surrounding area. It would need to be funded (or given clear legal powers to obtain funding from the operator) to implement any mitigation strategies that become necessary to counter any adverse effects of the impact of the construction. The complete monitoring and mitigation plan must be properly funded: if the coast south of Sizewell C does get adversely affected, long term funds must be kept available for coastal defence works, including for the surrounding area including Thorpenss and Aldeburgh to at least Shingle Street - including after the plant has been decommissioned. 5. Despite the plans being submitted in 2020, the latest information on climate change, sea level rise and coastal evolution does not appear to have been taken into account, undermining the soundness of any assessments. The application uses the UK CCRA report 2018 estimates, not those of the IPPC in 2019: the developers must be aware that latest information showed that the impact of these factors would be far greater than previously thought. 6. Given the contentious nature of the application I think it is totally unsuitable for a digital examination process and should rather be debated in public forum."

Amanda Crampton
"The proposed build of Sizewell C power station will encroach on fragile natural habitats of national and international significance. Minsmere Nature Reserve ( including Minsmere-Walberswick Special Protection Area, Heaths and sandlings) and other surrounding land, the North Sea offshore Special Area of Conservation will be directly affected by this development, these are sites Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - an area designated as being of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features. SSSIs are designated by Natural England under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and have to be protected. The EDF proposal identifies some alternative land set aside to compensate for the land taken to develop the power station. This does not avoid or minimise, or indeed compensate for the disruption on the significant range variety of wildlife that have established colonies and habitats on this part of the coast and inland reserve areas. The loss of wetland cannot be replaced. Furthermore, alternative land cannot mitigate against the disruptive impact of construction and the subsequent functioning of this power station on wildlife, which take decades to establish in an area. Wildlife are dependant on wildlife corridors and this development will disrupt / carve up these corridors. The significant additional impact on both humans ands wildlife of the increased reliance on roads to transport construction equipment and workers, is very alarming. Surely, if this power station is to be built, innovative and efficient use of ships / barges to bring in construction equipment directly to the construction site would be more effective than inflict yet more disruption on local populations and an increase in air pollution. Rail links should be improved in the first instance rather than roads. The campus area will be certainly impact on the surrounding area whilst construction continues. EDF have been rather less than honest in their sell of the development of Sizewell C, implying that the development will be good for local employment. It is understood that most of the construction workers will in fact be those currently building Hinckly Point, hence the need for caravan and hotel accommodation. The area around the development is designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which makes this part of the Suffolk coast popular with visitors, tourists and wildlife. The development of yet another power station on this small piece of coast will inevitably impact on the landscape and quality of life for all. Nuclear Power is expensive, has associated risks, lack of knowledgeable about how used fuel rods are disposed of. This site will take decades before it starts to generate power, there are more environmentally friendly, less intrusive means of generating power which should be explored, as an island what about wave power? This proposal appears to underestimate the sensitivity and fragility of this coastline and of the ecological base of the area."

Andrew Charles sayle
"With Regard to the current proposal from EDF - Historically Sizewell may have been seen as a sensible location for a nuclear power station but times have changed and the priorities that we have for the conservation of sites of ecological importance should take precedence and the current proposals from EDF come nowhere near addressing these issues. The site is also threatened by the impact of climate change on sea levels. This is the wrong project in the wrong place. If the go ahead is given then the proposals on transport are totally ludicrous. The infrastructure changes proposed are nowhere near adequate and will have a devastating effect on the local environment principally due to the reliance on road transport as the primary means of moving materials. This is EDF's solution purely due to cost considerations and takes no account of the environmental consequences that will be suffered by local residents and the impact it will almost certainly have on tourism in the area. So that will be a negative impact on two fronts - ecologically and financially. A marine solution for delivery of materials is the only sensible option, although it may not be the cheapest. Yours, Charlie Sayle"

Andrew J. Freese
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about the proposed Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station:- 1. The Site is too small for the proposed development and is smaller than the area defined for a two reactor station. 2.The Site is in an AONB. 3. The Site is adjacent to Minsmere Nature Reserve which is not likely to survive the construction period. 4. The Site is on an erroding coast at a time of rising sea levels. There is a real risk of the Site becoming an island in the medium term. 5. The unknown impact of the development on coastal errosion 5. The Site has inadequate supporting infrastructure especially, road and rail. 6. The site is located a considerable distance from areas of high electrical demand. 7. Few long term local jobs will be created which will be more than offset by jobs lost in the tourist industry. The tourist industry will be destroyed. 8. High levels of pollution during the construction period. 9. Carbon footprint of construction will take at least 20 years to offset. 10. Negative impact of up to 6000 workers over a ten year period. 11. The impact of road transport proposals on local communities. 12. Refusal of EDF to give me any assurances re. controlling of rat running which has been an unresolved issue at Hinkley C. 11. The real possibility of other technologies rendering the reactors obsolete before completion. 12. A recent report prepared for the French Government on Flamanville states:- "There is still uncertainty on the ability of the French nuclear industry to build new nuclear reactors within a timeframe and costs that remain acceptable". It is unlikely that this development would be providing power at a reasonable cost or in an adequate time frame. 13. Not one reactor of the proposed design is yet generating electricity in Europe. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, The Alde and Ore Association, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and R.S.P.B. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. Andrew Freese FRICS"

Andrew Mills
"I am writing this on behalf of Andrew Mills who says. Whilst I am not against nuclear power as such I feel that the size of this project can only be to the detriment of this precious area. The additional transport routes and workers who will need accommodation etc can only completely devastate this beautiful area and there will be no recovery... We should be saving and protecting the beauties of our country for our children and grandchildren to enjoy in the way that we have..."

Angela Bacon
"Dear Sir Sizewell C I wish to express my views / concerns on the Sizewell C project as follows : The noise, air quality and vibration issues of the additional HGV movements on the A12 The considerable impact of those HGV’s on the country road through Marlesford and Little Glemham The inadequacy of EDF’s Two Village Bypass proposals and the need for a Four Village Bypass to include both Marlesford and Little Glemham The visibility of the 1,250 car Southern Park and Ride on the high ground between Hacheston and Marlesford The noise and lighting issues that arise from the Southern Park and Ride The impact of future housing development on roads already congested by EDF traffic The issues that will arise from drivers attempting to find alternative routes to avoid the congestion The increase in private cars using the B1078 between Coddenham and Wickham Market to reach the Southern Park and Ride. The increase in the traffic around Lower Hacheston and Campsea Ashe if Bentwaters is used for SZC Storage. Yours faithfully Angela Bacon[Redacted]"

Ann Terry
"Environmentally increasing nuclear power is a disaster. Funding should be supporting renewables. Ecologically we cannot afford to ruin the Suffolk coastline. Nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest will be adversely affected. Coastal erosion and flooding are dangers particularly from north sea surges. Disruption to local communities encroaching on areas of wild flowers and millions of insects. Causing damage to local environments and local communities through encroachment on land and noise pollution. Problems with waste disposal. Risks of leakage and accidents. Pollution of the sea."

Anne-Marie Robb
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about the proposed Sizewell C development. 1. Massive impacts on the local community of Eastbridge & Theberton a. EDF’s lack of engagement with local community most heavily impacted by the proposals. b. EDF’s lack of plans to mitigate the impacts of the proposed build on this community. c. EDF’s attempt to lump Eastbridge & Theberton with Saxmundham for the DCO’s Impact Assessment is disingenuous as the two areas are significantly different demographically and economically d. Significant increase in noise levels e. Constant light pollution in a current ‘Dark Skies’ area f. Health impacts of significant quantities of airborne dust particles g. Communities divided by proposed Theberton link road h. High probability of anti-social behaviour from 6000 workers based on EDF’s current Hinkley Point C build and experiences of Sizewell B construction. i. SZC requires significant abstraction of water for construction – this is an area with limited availability of this and potential to impact local agriculture is high 2. Lack of transparency a. EDF’s plans are not fully developed, many areas of the DCO do not provide a holistic view of the project or detailed plans for the build & final site – it is not possible to fully evaluate the project 3. Environmental impacts a. SZC site is not large enough for a dual reactor development by the UK government’s own guidance. b. Climate Change – significant emissions from 10-15-year build (Concrete use, Vehicular movements, removal of woodland and natural vegetation) c. Irreparable damage to drainage regime in delicate habitat of the Sizewell and Minsmere Marshes – an area containing multiple SSSI’s and Ramsar sites d. Potential contamination of ground water through development and disruption of previous construction materials from Sizewell A & B e. Potential reduction in ground water levels in the area and impacts on Minsmere sluice and upstream habitats. f. Knock on negative impacts on biodiversity in the area e.g. threat to key species such as Marsh Harriers g. Impact on changes to coastal processes (North and South of site) caused by SZC’s ‘hard engineering solutions’ at coastal frontage. h. Increased potential for coastal breaches allowing ingress of sea water into marsh habitats 4. Economic & social impacts a. EDF recognises approx. a third of tourists will be deterred from visiting – hence major impact to local tourism industry – loses of up to £40 million per year. b. Significant pressure on local services (medical, fire, police, social care etc) caused by 6000 workers relocating to the area. 5. Cost a. Unit price significantly higher than true renewables (nuclear minimum of £92.50 per MWh, Offshore Wind less than £39.65/MWh) b. Lack of funding will leave UK population to pay for an unnecessary development £40 per household per year. In addition to my own representation, I wish to endorse those submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB, Theberton & Eastbridge Parish Council and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust. I believe the Sizewell C application is entirely unsuitable for a digital examination & that this process must either wait for Covid19 restrictions to be lifted or for socially distanced face to face means to be used."

Annette Deverill
"We have just moved here ( a year ago) and love the countryside. I cannot believe they want to build Sizewell C where they want ! The A12 is such a narrow road and the thought of 1000 truck movements PER DAY on this road appalls me! The road just could not cope !! We live ( in Saxmundham) where we can hear the traffic on the A12- it's busy as it is now!! We drove to Sizewell about a month ago and the Sizewell B buildings are a blight on the beach !! NO NO we don't want Sizewell C here along our beautiful coast - it's absurd! EDF just haven't considered the thoughts and concerns of the residents who live here - its all about MONEY !"

Anthony Fryatt
"The proposals put forward do not acknowledge the utter chaos the the proposal will create to small country roads to the South of the District. It is essential that a traffic plan is produced that will deal with the the gridlock that will occur from the current proposals. I have no idea how these problems can be resolved using" mitigation measures". Even if they could be of some use, do we get any opportunity to have our say?"

Anthony Ingram
"EDF’s application is to construct two EPR reactors between 2022 - 2034 assuming no delays, at a cost of £20 billion. EDF’s documents show that it will take 6 years to offset 5.74m tonnes of CO2 from construction, so will not contribute to net zero until at least 2040. General concerns: ? Construction will irreparably damage what makes this part of Suffolk so special; peace, tranquility and dark night skies. Visitors will be driven away by eyesores, closed footpaths and beaches, disruption, noise and pollution, damaging tourism to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). ? The build will threaten some of the most biodiverse habitats in the UK and Heritage Coast, including two Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Minsmere Reserve - a national treasure. It will be impossible to recover from the loss of habitats that host rare birds, animals and plants. The RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust now oppose Sizewell C; the RSPB says it could be “catastrophic for wildlife”. ? An admission that Marsh Harriers - which are protected species - could be impacted has forced EDF to make a case that building Sizewell C has Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI); without IROPI the Business Secretary of State should decline Development Consent. ? The project is enormous - clearly it is too big for the site and the available land. The Government considers that a single new nuclear power station should occupy 30 hectares (based on Sizewell B). Sizewell C is squeezed into 32 - only available if Sizewell B facilies are relocated, resulting in further damage to the AONB. (Hinkley Point C (HPC) in Somerset occupies 45 hectares). ? EDF has yet to persuade County and District Councils that the benefits will outweigh the impacts. There remain many outstanding issues of between them. ? 8 other uncoordinated energy projects - interconnectors and infrastructure to serve offshore wind farms - are planned locally. Construction would overlap with Sizewell C. Environmental Impacts & Coastal Erosion: ? EDF will cut the AONB in half for 12 years, compromising the AONB designaon. ? The construcon areas, campus site, spoil heaps, quarries, haul roads and causeway crossing will threaten the fragile hydrology of the Minsmere Levels and Sizewell Marsh. Alteraons in the management of water run-off could make sensive ecosystems weer or drier, while the causeway crossing will impede drainage of Sizewell Marsh SSSI habitat. ? Legally, Compensatory Habitats must be in place before construcon, at least equivalent to those lost. EDF is relying on Aldhurst Farm and Marsh Harrier migaon sites, which do not compensate for what would be lost. EDF’s promise of diversity gain is quesoned. ? Sizewell C’s build will need 3 million litres of potable water a day at peak from dry Suffolk. EDF remains unclear where this will come from, and it may well affect local and farming supplies. ? Spoil heaps, up to the height of a 10-storey building, could cause significant dust pollution to the AONB, Minsmere Levels and Sizewell Marsh and affect human health. ? EDF has not submitted a complete design for its 33m high hard coastal defence, which is unacceptable. The design may be inadequate, stopping above the low water line when it should go below it. The site would not be decommissioned until 2190, but sea level rise could make it a vulnerable island. ? There are concerns that sea defences would exacerbate erosion north and south of SZC. ? EDF’s advisers, Cefas, admit it is only possible to predict detailed changes to the coastline for the next 10 years, telling the East Anglian Daily Times that “almost every prediction in the very long-term has no certainty”. (6 August 2020) ? Spent fuel will stay onsite until at least 2140; no long-term nuclear waste facility is yet available. Transport: ? EDF claims it is “significantly reducing the number of Sizewell C HGVs on local roads”, by bringing 40% of the 10 million tonnes of materials needed by rail (3 trains/night) and sea via a Beach Landing Facility. Peak truck numbers - 790 a day/ 1,140 on the busiest day - are higher than under their worst case Road-Led strategy widely rejected by elected representatives at Stage 4 (750 a day/ 1,150). ? EDF predicts there will be 10,092 car journeys/day travelling to all desnations including both Park & Rides, plus 700 vans and 700 buses, massively increasing traffic on the A12, surrounding roads and making use of rat runs more likely. ? The A12 and A14 are already problematic; the Orwell Bridge, EDF’s Freight management facility and new roundabouts will all affect traffic on roads already susceptable to delays. ? The Two Villages bypass is considered by the Councils to be inadequate and some residents oppose the route, or oppose it altogether. ? EDF’s ‘Sizewell Link Road’ from the A12 runs too close to villages, homes and listed buildings, potenally operang 24/7. It will sever communies, block country lanes and make farms unviable. Parallel to the B1122, it will be no use once the power staon is built. EDF’s case for rejecng routes with a legacy value such as W/D2 was strongly cricised by Suffolk County Council. ? New roads and Park & Rides would not be completed unl year 3. During these ‘Early Years’, 760 trucks per day, plus those for other Energy Projects, and all other Sizewell C traffic would use the current A12 and B1122. ? Even with a new roundabout Yoxford will become a congeson and polluon blackspot. ? Around Hinkley C, rat-running on country lanes and village congeson from flyparking by workers are serious problems. EDF are doing nothing to prevent this here. ? Local communies oppose the locaons of the Northern and Southern Park & Rides. Economy: ? EDF says it needs 7,900 construcon workers and 600 in associated development. ? “Local” is not local. EDF’s claim of “up to c.2,410 jobs for Suffolk residents” in fact refers to a commung zone of 90 minutes’ drive, which covers most of East Anglia and Essex as far as Chelmsford. ? At peak, 76% of the construcon workforce - that’s 6,000 workers - will come from outside the 90-minute zone and need accommodaon in the area: 2,400 in a huge campus opposed by local communies, 600 on a caravan site, 1,200 in private rentals, 800 in tourist accommodaon and 880 are assumed to buy houses. ? EDF expects 725 workers to be taken from other local employers, disrupng and undermining the viability of exisng businesses and services. ? The impacts of the traffic congeson on exisng businesses are not considered at all. ? EDF acknowledges that ‘local’ workers would only fill 8% of ‘Professional and Management’ roles compared to 90% of less-skilled, lower-paid ‘Site Support’ (eg security, catering, drivers, admin). ? EDF’s claim, based on HPC, that £125 million/year of project spend would come to Suffolk and Norfolk suppliers does not stand up. Their economic area for Hinkley C covers the whole of S W England and S Wales, which has 5 times more businesses and workforce than Suffolk and Norfolk. ? EDF’s intent to cut costs and minimise risk by redeploying the Hinkley C supply chain will mean Suffolk and Norfolk businesses may not get the chance to participate. ? Tourist surveys by EDF reveal that 29% of tourist visitors would be deterred from vising the area, and 39% would visit the area less often. EDF does not assess the economic impact of this, but it is easily in line with the Suffolk Coast Management’s own calculations of losses of £24-40m/year and 400 jobs. ? Failure to properly assess the impacts on local businesses and tourism means EDF has not complied with its legal obligations, according to an independent consultant. Community and Amenity: ? The influx of 6,000 workers will strain local services and create the potential for an- social behaviour. The 2,400 bed campus is single occupancy and use is not compulsory. ? The construction site, campus, new roads and Park and Ride facilities will bring noise, air and light pollution and massive disruption to local communities. ? Local properties near the site and new roads will have significant noise: e.g. parts of Eastbridge will see increases of 600 times current ambient levels and Leiston Old Abbey Care Home will have increases of 200 times. ? There are concerns about local peoples’ access to health services, blue light services and on the mental health of local people. ? Footpaths and beaches will be closed. EDF says changes to views, noise, air quality or traffic could affect users’ of local footpaths “perception of tranquility”. ? The project will significantly change views from many places on the coast. Huge onsite pylons instead of underground cabling will impact the AONB. ? EDF has provided no visualisations of what the site will look like during construction. ? EDF acknowledges that there “may be an effect” on the settings of about 90 grade II listed buildings that are within 5km of the site. The above list is not exclusive and is without prejudice."

Anthony Rich
"Sizewell C is not required if the life of the existing plant is extended by 20 years as by then we will be less dependent on conventional (old) power production Sizewell C represents a significant environmental threat to the coastal areas of Suffolk. The scope of the environmental risks examined are limited to the immediate bay and have not considered the impact of a large built structure in the sea and its effect on coastal erosion in what is a very fragile coastline and important wetland for rare and Potentially endangered species. The life of the built structure is forecast to be at least 70 years and in the study no assessment has been given to the longer term impact on the coast and environment."

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
"This significant project has the potential to create significant impacts across Suffolk including highway impacts, environmental impacts, impacts to employment and skills and delivery of other construction projects including housebuilding and as such we reserve the right to be an interested party."

Bramfield and Thorington Parish Council
"24th September 2020 Dear Sir/Madam, Bramfield and Thorington Parish Council present our response to the proposals regarding Sizewell C which we do not support for the following reasons, most of which have been covered by other local councils: * As a parish we would be directly affected by the impact on transport via A144. An increase in population in the parishes and Halesworth would increase the dangers already evidenced in local records. * Halesworth and its surrounding villages are already impacted by overloaded medical and educational concerns an increase in population would cause more problems. * The local schools both primary and secondary have insufficient capacity for increased populations without considerable support. * Water, sewerage and electrical supplies are both basic and inadequate already in Halesworth and surrounding villages and would struggle to cope with increased population. * The proposals for Sizewell C within our Heritage Coast are too great and irreparably damaging for an Area of Outstanding Beauty. No amount of mitigation would ever restore this important corridor which currently runs from Lowestoft to Ipswich. The economic damage to the tourist industry for which this area relies could never be replaced. * The impact of the building process itself will have an enormous and disrupting effect on residents covering a very wide area. Official figures admit that it will take at least 20 years to recoup the carbon release caused by the construction site. It is universally acknowledged that greenhouse gasses need to be lowered now, not in 20 years’ time. The potential for this figure to be exceeded is entirely feasible. * The seismic impact of the build should also be taken into account. When Sizewell B was constructed the noise could be heard and felt as far away as Wenhaston. The depth of the proposed construction will surely result in greater impact in the local area. * The previous experience of residents, particularly from Leiston and the surrounding villages when Sizewell B was built that it had a tremendous socio-economic impact which has lasted for decades. House prices in Leiston have never truly recovered and the fear is that once again a similar impact will occur. Trouble caused in the local area in the evening and at weekends during the build in terms of alcohol, drugs and sexually related incidents would not be tolerated. * The long-term future of Sizewell C should also be considered. The rising of sea levels internationally and the already fragile nature of the East coast could result in the power station becoming an island. The obvious dangers from the North Sea in the future could impact severely on the facility despite numerous safety systems being put in place. The experiences in Japan should surely be at the forefront of any considerations, remembering that human error is often at the bottom of any nuclear problems seen worldwide."

Brenda Williamson
"Adverse impacts on biodiversity Adverse impacts on tourism related businesses Adverse Impacts of increased road traffic Increased costs of electricity Long term impacts of storage and disposal of radioactive waste"

Bryony Farmer
"i am concerned about the closeness of the park and ride to my house in Lower Hacheston and the impact it will have on property value , noise , light pollution and the effect it will have on my airbnb business ."

Cadent Gas Limited
"Representation by Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent) to the Sizewell C Project Development Consent Order (DCO): Cadent is a licensed gas transporter under the Gas Act 1986, with a statutory responsibility to operate and maintain the gas distribution networks in North London, Central and North West England. Cadent’s primary duties are to operate, maintain and develop its networks in an economic, efficient and coordinated way. Cadent wishes to make a relevant representation to the Sizwell C Project DCO in order to protect its position in light of infrastructure which is within or in close proximity to the proposed DCO boundary. Cadent’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the order limits including should be maintained at all times and access to inspect such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme have been reviewed in relation to impacts on Cadent’s existing apparatus located within this area, and Cadent has identified that it will require adequate protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its apparatus and land interests are adequately protected and to include compliance with relevant safety standards. Cadent has low, and medium pressure gas pipelines and associated apparatus located within the order limits which are affected by works proposed and which may require diversions subject to the impact. Proposed diversions have not yet reached detailed design stage and so the final positioning, land rights and consents required for these gas diversions are not confirmed. At this stage, Cadent cannot be satisfied that the DCO includes all land and rights required to accommodate such diversions as detailed design studies will need to influence these requirements. Cadent will not decommission its existing apparatus and/or commission new apparatus until it has sufficient land and rights in land (to its satisfaction) to do so, whether pursuant to the DCO or otherwise. Cadent has experience of promoters securing insufficient rights in land within DCOs for necessary diversions of its apparatus, or securing rights for the benefit of incorrect entities. It is important that sufficient rights are granted to Cadent to allow Cadent to maintain its gas distribution network in accordance with its statutory obligations. As a responsible statutory undertaker, Cadent’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. Adequate protective provisions for the protection of Cadent’s statutory undertaking are therefore required and are in discussion between parties but not yet agreed. Cadent wishes to reserve the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will seek to engage with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."

Campsea Ashe PC
"[Redacted] 29th September 2020 Campsea Ashe Parish Council’s Relevant Representation as Interested Party regarding Development Consent Order for EDF Energy/SZC Co. Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station Submission to Planning Inspectorate Richard Fernley Chairman Campsea Ashe Parish Council Klaus Fortmann Parish Clerk [email protected] 1. Introduction Campsea Ashe Parish Council (CAPC) acknowledges some benefits to the East Suffolk community from Sizewell C (SZC), such as employment opportunities, opportunities for local businesses and the inflow of substantial business rates. However, CA PC feels, that these benefits do not outweigh the huge burden that this area will have to bear over the 12 years of construction 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 and smaller inappropriate country lanes, pressures on rented accommodation and adverse effects on tourism and the AONB. We believe that this part of Suffolk will pay a heavy price for its role in supporting energy supply to the rest of the country and CAPC also believes, that the likely compensation and mitigation, if the SZC project goes ahead, will be inadequate. Campsea Ashe will over the potentially 12-year build period be negatively affected by the current proposals and has seen no feasible mitigation measures to minimise the impact to a level acceptable to our and the neighbouring communities. Regrettably, we have not had relevant responses to our repeatedly expressed concerns about the potential impact of their proposal during any of the consultation stages. We will leave others 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 wider environmental issues and impacts on tourism and the local economy. Campsea Ashe PC is concerned that the cumulative effect of the various other energy projects proposed for this region have not been addressed adequately and will further add traffic pressures and create irrevocable negative changes and impacts on the rural and coastal nature of the county. 2. Traffic issues; A12 & connecting rural lanes & Trains 2.1 Campsea Ashe is gravely concerned that traffic issues arising from the anticipated volume of cars, LGV’s & HGV’s will overwhelm the A12 in the Woodbridge area and again in the Hacheston/Marlesford area, resulting in increased rat-running on an inadequate and at times already dangerously stretched rural network of roads and lanes, especially the A1152 / Woods Lane towards Tunstall and the B1078 from Hacheston through Campsea Ashe to Tunstall/Snape. The capacity issue in Melton had already been subject to a negative appraisal by SCC Highways in 2017 2.2 The B1078 through Campsea Ashe and eastwards to Tunstall/Snape has several pinch points in and around Campsea Ashe, creating hazardous conditions even for cars passing. The anticipated increase of traffic, not just at times of A12 congestion, will make this road even more hazardous and subject Campsea Ashe residents not just to intolerable high levels of pollution. 2.3 There is no detail about potential supply chains and there is a significant threat of Debach and Bentwaters Industrial Parks becoming an active part in the works for the Energy Projects (Sizewell & Scottish Renewables). This will again put pressure on an already inadequate road infrastructure, affecting not only Campsea Ashe, Tunstall and Snape as vehicles leave/access the A12 using the B1078 and other minor roads. 2.4 The high level of agricultural traffic will add to traffic levels in peak agricultural periods, especially affecting the Debach/Bentwaters (B1078) areas. 2.5 Campsea Ashe has preferred a marine & rail led strategy in Stage 3&4 consultations as the Ipswich-Lowestoft line would have improvements allowing day time trains. The integrated approach with up to five night time freight trains presents additional concerns for Campsea Ashe as it is located along the railway line. Any night freight movement will affect over half of the population through noise and vibration. With no serious mitigation proposals offered, Campsea Ashe can not agree to such proposal. 3 Southern Park & Ride and Two Village By-Pass 3.1 CAPC maintains that a P&R facility south of Woodbridge would reduce a large proportion of the traffic impact in the Woodbridge, Wickham Market and surrounding villages area and hence it should be the preferred option, especially as mitigation measure to avoid rat-runs on unsuitable minor roads are not addressed. Insufficient detail was given by EDF during consultation. We are particularly concerned that for the SP&R there are very significant gaps in DCO details on ecology, landscape and visual impact, drainage, noise and air quality, particularly the problem of dust during construction. 3.2 The Southern Park and Ride (SP&R) is sited on high ground between the two Special Landscape Areas of the valleys of the Rivers Ore and Deben. The SP&R will have an intrusive visual impact in a sensitive landscape area affecting several villages. The measures proposed to mitigate the visual, noise and lighting impacts are wholly inadequate. 3.3 Line of sight towards Campsea Ashe, and with it inherent noise & light pollution will impact a major part of Campsea Ashe, something that again has not been addressed adequately by EDF. 3.4 Traffic impact of the SP&R in the Five Ways Roundabout area have not been addressed adequately. 3.5 No adequate cycling & pedestrian provisions have been considered. 3.6 The TVB creates additional problems for the parishes of Marlesford, Glenham and Campsea Ashe. EDF’s modelling shows that there will be 2,000 additional HGV and bus movements through the A12 at Marlesford on a daily basis (1 additional HGV/bus every 40 seconds!) creating hazardous condition for the villagers trying to cross / turn on-off the A12. 4 General Areas of Concern and Comment 4.1 We support the principle of a Community Impacts Fund. This is welcomed, but it is unclear what the size of the fund will be, how grants will be awarded and which communities will be able to benefit. It must be ensured, that the fund is properly applied to those communities most disadvantaged by EDF’s proposals. 4.2 We also want to register our concern that some of EDF Energy / SZC Co.’s statements about SZC’s contribution to achieving Net Zero by 2050 are misleading and it is our understanding that SZC cannot make a positive contribution towards achieving Net Zero until at least 2050 owing to the carbon usage during construction and in transport. We also believe that the carbon impacts of decommissioning have not been fully accounted for. 5 Conclusion CAPC is very concerned by the impacts on our village as a result of EDF Energy / SZC Co.’s proposals for SZC. We believe that quality of life will be majorly impaired over the likely 12-year build period to a level, that makes this project questionable for many residents. Impacts are not just immediate, but also include our wider recreational space, the AONB of Suffolk Coast & Heath. The cumulative effects of the SZC project running alongside the proposals from Scottish Power Renewables, as well as the future growth in housing and business along the A12 have not been adequately addressed. This underlines the very important need for full mitigation of the impacts that will be felt by local residents - without it, the quality of life of our residents as well as the attractiveness of Coastal Suffolk as a recreational AONB will be dealt a severe and irrevocable blow. We agree with other PC’s, that wherever possible the mitigation measures that are put in place should seek to provide legacy benefits for this and other communities and should endure well beyond the completion of the SZC construction phase. Richard Fernley Chair Campsea Ashe Parish Council"

Caroline Weatherby
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C: 1. I believe it is the wrong time and the wrong place for such a project 2. It will irrepairably disrupt the area of SSI wildlife sites and AONB around it 3. It will adversly affect the coastal processes 4. Hard coastal defences and climate change will turn it into an island. 5. There are no long term plans for nuclear waste, plus what this project will create over 60 years. Community, jobs, social impacts 1. Most of the workforce will be brought in, local jobs mostly for lower paid work only. 2. Employment insulating buildings and fitting heat pumps, solar panels etc would be a better way of providing employment and reduce the CO2 emissions as efficiently. 3. Tourism will lose out, potentially £40m a year. Pressure of traffic will hit residents, visitors and local businesses. 4. Business brought in from workers on the site is not likely to replace this. Transport 1. Road based transport is a huge problem: The new roads will take 2 years to complete, will sever communities, and also damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. Making life for locals hell. 2. The alternative "relief road" has not been properly thought through, and will be permenant. 3. the HGV numbers are as high as those rejected by all satutory consultees at consultations. Environment 1.Distruction of Coronation Wood, dividing the ANOB in half, cannot be compensated for by Aldhust Farm because the continuity of the wildlife area is disrupted. 2. Dust management for the spoil heaps and stockpiles is inadequate. 3. Irreparable harm to RSPB Minsmere, a bird sanctuary of international importance, from light, noise and dust pollution. 4. Impact of borrow pits and landfill proposed, not fully addressed. 5.Uncertainty re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of water during construction and beyond. 6.Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and protected species. 7. Risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology. 8. Unclear effect on Minsmere sluice. 9. Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of the locality, design and scale of the construction, severing the AONB. 10. Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage . 11. No free energy till 2038 - 40, when CO2 emissions from the construction will be offset. Marine and Coastal 1. No complete design of HCDF available 2. Rates of coastal erosion and recession is unpredictable 3. Impacts on coastel processes of Beach Landing facility 4. Impacts on marine life. Finally 1. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, tasc, the RSPB, SuffolkWildlife Trust and Friends of the Earth. 2. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process"

Catherine Ash
"I have significant concerns about the EDF proposal to build Sizewell C. I am not opposed to nuclear power as a strand of UK provision but the project is flawed and potentially catastrophic for Suffolk. There are many unresolved issues for the local and wider community which EDF continues not to heed; unproven and unfounded assertions are made about project benefits, innovative technology, financial costs and payback time; there are now well-founded studies about adverse impacts - economic, infrastructure, habitat loss and community amenity. Most importantly for me there are serious concerns about the failure to resolve the legacy issue of having no plan for safe disposal of the countless tons of nuclear waste stored on a coastal site prone to significant erosion. Infrastructure– feels like we’re talking to cottonwool! Despite significant engagement in earlier discussion proposals the infrastructure plans remain poorly developed. EDF is not listening. • The ‘2 village bypass’ is inadequate: the proposed inappropriate route is more problematic. • The influx of road traffic carrying site materials, workers etc is not realistically assessed by EDF; workers will use what they choose and Theberton, Eastbridge would be severely impacted. • Many more communities would suffer long term impacts of pollution – construction noise, related atmospheric pollution – dust and light - and road traffic. The Economic impacts – and a false dicotomy We visited Suffolk for 30 years prior to settling here permanently. Two of our children live in Suffolk and their employment prospects rely on the local economy. It is mistaken and crass (in Daily Mail fashion) to promote a false divide implying that the reservations and opposition to Sizewell C is an “Us (locals) and Them (‘London Luvvies’).” It is clear that both locals and incomers are bound together by the shared conviction that Sizewell C is too big, too vague in its future specifications and cost and too massively destructive of the local economy and habitat. In short: • most professional workers will be drafted in to Suffolk; • New jobs for locals will be largely domestic servicing of project workers for a long, but time-bounded period • local tourist attractions will lose their appeal through the construction phase – and like the unique habitats which would be disturbed during construction - they may not recover. • other, non-nuclear, renewable options are developing fast – smaller, more compact nuclear generators are on the horizon. • Some of the Sizewell C proposed technology is still unproven; • original costings and timescales – even before considering the present international political ramifications– are massively adrift from the original cost benefit. The environment and Amenity concerns Many experts confirm that during and post construction massive loss and trauma will be caused to a unique, biodiverse habitat. What is the point of creating SSSIs / AONBs if these can be overridden, even with such an unproven and flawed plan, by IROPI? Climate change will do enough without us compounding the issues to come."

Catherine Miller
"1. Site Selection I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place and is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding. It will have a devastating effect on an area 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 It will have unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. Furthermore it will destroy coastal Suffolk's important tourist industry. 3. Transport Local transport is not suitable for a plan which will see such a dramatic increase in HGVs. New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. 4. Environment and Landscape It will increase the risk of flooding and result in pollution from light, noise and traffic. It will do irreparable harm to Minsmere and the local environment which is a flagship destination of international importance and significance. 5. Marine and Coastal processes If constructed Sizewell C will be in place for over 100 years. Even before the plant has finished its 70 year operational life, it would be jutting out into the sea, because of the long term an overall inland migration of the coastline, and will do so increasingly year on year. This is likely to affect the very long term coastal erosion and deposition pattern seen along this coast. 6. Other better alternatives It seems incomprehensible that post Fukushima we are even contemplating building a nuclear reactor on such a vulnerable site, particularly when new and cleaner technologies are available."

Christopher Bishop
"Sizewell is totally unsuited for another nuclear plant. The disruption and even destruction of the very beautiful area around Minsmere is in itself sufficient reason for rhis project to be halted now. The roads which would serve the project are narrow and seldom straight,and utterly unsuitable for continuous heavy traffic. No satisfactory solution has been proposed proposed for dealing with this problem. The surrounding villages, particularly those on the A1120 and A12 would be subjected to unacceptable noise and polultion day and night. The tourist industry would suffer very badly, and no amount of compensating money would repair the damage once made to this beautiful area. The original promise of the delivery of material by sea has been reneged on, with the excuse that it would damage marine life. This from an industry which has been pouring waste water from its reactors into the sea for decades."

CLA Country Land and Business Association
"The CLA represents the interests of a wide range of farms, estates rural businesses and the protection of the environmental and natural assets they own or manage We have over 800 members in Suffolk a significant number will be affected by these proposals We will make representations on the following grounds to safe guard the interests of our members during the construction and operation of the proposed development to include. -The adverse impact on the biodiversity of the surrounding countryside, including loss of habitat, threat to species, pollution and degrading of the quality of air and water. -Carbon dioxide the quantity of CO2 to be released by road haulage and added congestion during construction compared with marine transport - The threat to and proposals for mitigation of damage to the built and social heritage of the area. - The damage to the important tourism industry and recreational activities in this area of Suffolk. -The impact of new highway construction and increased congestion on many businesses including the cost of delay and challenges of delivery of fresh produce. - The fragmentation of farms and other rural businesses by new infrastructure and overall impact of the scheme. This requires far better engagement and understanding of the needs of many diverse businesses and all their employees to reduce the negative impact on the rural economy."

Claire Lyth
"My concerns about this propsal are The environment. Traffic. The disruption and degredation of the tourist economy of coastal Suffolk. Environment The area around Sizewell is rich in wildlife habitats not least Minsmere, an internationaly renowned wildlife sanctury. The devestation wrought by the construction process will last long after construction is completed. I am not at all sure that enough thought has been put into the consequences of climate change with the risk of sea level rise and flooding. Traffic I live in Blythburgh which is cut in two by the A12. The extra traffice approaching the northern park and ride in Darsham and going direct to the site will make crossing the A12, which is already hard enough, intolerable. Despite EDF's assurances I also anticipate the extra traffic on the B1125 will be far too much of a burden for this village and the others along this road. Economy The disruption mentioned above will have a severley adverse impact on the local tourism and hospitality businesses which contribute so much to the local econmy. Again this will take a very long time to recover after the completion of construction."

Clare Beaty
"I wish to register my very strong concerns about Sizewell C: 1) Siting -- totally unsuitable in size for the proposed vast development. Additionally: ANOB, Minsmere, erosion, possible flooding, unstable coastline, possibility of Sizewell entire site becoming an island, impact on farming production which is nationally important. 2) Transport and travel -- roads (and new proposals), not suitable for huge influx of new traffic, transportation of goods to and from international ports in the area also adversely affected due to increased volume of traffic, emergency services access adversely affected, Transport infrastructure inadequate also in train travel to area. 3) Adverse effect on tourism/tourists and the income from this. 4) Light, noise and quality of air pollution, general long term disruption. 5) Irrevocably damaging an area of international importance for both flora and fauna. Providing new areas suggested as suitable will not solve this -- the natural world in the wild chooses for itself where to live/grow. Loss of the natural world for future generations. The natural world vital for human existence. 6) Workers for proposed site brought in from elsewhere (overload of area)-- not enough long term employment for locals -- too many people living in area without sufficient infrastructure across all areas. 7) Enormous cost of project and the contributors to this cost may not stay the course, leaving vast scarring destruction in an outstandingly beautiful, life enhancing area. I support the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. Additionally, I consider that the Sizewell C Application is of a magnitude totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Conchita Navarro
"Although I am not a local, I do visit each year and am devastated to hear of the proposal to build Sizewell C. This is by any measure an area of valuable botanic and bird life, and as we know, it is right beside RSPB Minsmere. On my last visit in August I found many maritime plants including restharrow, sea holly, sea kale, sea campion, yellow-horned poppy, tree lupin, and Scots Pines. I saw a Marsh Harrier and a Kestrel. All this seen on one very short visit (returned many times after). Coronation Wood and the young wood facing the sea are valuable carbon capture zones, reduce noise from Sizewell B and are aesthetically important. Not to speak of the protected Adders in the scrub, which should not be exposed to any disturbance from building disruption, noise, vibration etc. I am horrified to think any of this would be impacted in any way negatively. This special coastal environment deserves the highest protection, and I am entirely opposed to Sizewell C being built. I cannot convey my concern adequately. [Redacted]"

Connor Moore
"The traffic on main roads in the area, namely the A12 but also roads such as the A47, A11 and A14 already struggle to cope with demand. There are therefore concerns that opening Sizewell C could further exacerbate this with increased goods/car traffic (especially considering that more than half of Sizewell C's workers will commute from outside of East Anglia). The same also applies to the East Suffolk Line/Great Eastern Main Line, where more freight traffic could cause delays for passenger traffic. There are seemingly no infrastructure provisions in place that consider the above points. I and people in my area also express similar concerns to those presented by the RSPB in relation to impacts on RSPB Minsmere. Minsmere is internationally renowned and attracts tourism to Suffolk, and this development could have an array of negative effects on the nature reserve including habitat destruction. Lastly, concern over Chinese involvement akin to that seen with the Huawei 5G network proposals has been widespread. Given the change in attitude towards Huawei and the support that this received from back-bench MP's and Ministers alike, putting a company with possible links to the Chinese state so close to critical UK infrastructure seems like an ill-advised idea, especially considering the human rights record of the China."

Daniel Brousson
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. Decline of Tourism As someone who runs a local tourism based business I am very scared for the future of what is currently an growing area and market for tourism, but with a building site of this size in an area of such outstanding beauty the growth we have seen in the last century in Suffolk we will see decline we will see people turn away from Suffolk and lose the income and jobs that we gain from tourism. Traffic and congestion Apart from the destruction of the beautiful countryside the impacts of all the road traffic over the 10 years of the build would also drive away tourism to the area out of fear of the congestion and gridlock. The current plans have a focus on serving he site, the truck and the workers at a cost of the local area and indigenous population. Light Pollution As managers of a campsite not far from Sizewell we have worked hard to develop and promote an accredited Dark Sky status for the caravan park. There are a very limited number of campsites in the UK with Dark sky status and also very few areas in east Anglia that have accredited Dark Sky status and this will be lost due to the light pollution from the 24 hour building site. More information and dark skies can be seen here [Redacted] Wildlife and Habitat We get a lot of guests that stay with us to visit the world renowned RSPB Minsmere and I fear very much for irreparable harm to Minsmere and its amazing wildlife population and diversity, that the development will have on it and the surrounding area. This is irreparable damage at a time when climate change is showing us that the planet is no longer able to adapt. Strain on the geography Apart from the massive impacts of destroying a beautiful land and seascape, the massive increase in workers, traffic and transport of building material will have a terrible impact on a beautiful fragile part of our coastline. The anti-social behaviour that was experienced last time has taken a long time to recover from. In summary Looking at the plans it seems that a lot of negative impacts far our weight the benefits of building a project that will by the time of its completion be extremely outdated and what looks like is the cost predictions a very expensive technology. Thank you for your time"

David Henry Francis Robb
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about the Sizewell C proposal. 1. Site Selection • This is not the place to build a twin nuclear reactor! • Highly active coast, ignoring potential impact on coastal processes • Site which has to last >100 years to safeguard the legacy long after ceasing operations • Inability to access suitable logistics solutions by sea or rail – near total reliance on existing road infrastructure • Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage at this scale in this internationally important habitat 2. Community, Economic and social impacts • Long term negative impact on local communities is vastly under-estimated: • Villages will be cut-off by >1000 HGVs per day – at EDF’s current estimate. Is this number their final and actual number required for the build? • Hinkley Point build shows that EDF conceal the required working number of HGVs until after the DCO • HGV traffic 6 days a week for 12hrs a day for unspecified years on completely unsuitable roads • Severe traffic hazards and congestion for schools, local businesses and passing traffic. • Disingenuous assessment of impact on the villages of Eastbridge and Theberton, closest to the build, but assessed together with Saxmundham (distant from build and main logistics routes). Plays down the major impact the project will have on these village communities during construction and eventual operation. • 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a location that I have consistently opposed through 4 consultations • Failure to publish assessment of impact on local communities’ health and well-being or clear mitigation solutions to any impacts. 3. Transport • Road based transport plan not supported by local communities – higher number of HGVs than original “road only” solution • Relief roads run against local community proposals, will devastate communities and farms and leave no legacy value • Delay in construction of road infrastructure means 2-3 years of increased traffic on existing local roads 4. Environment and Landscape • CO2 offset from construction will take >6 years after commissioning – too late to support Britain’s decarbonisation approach. Negates key argument to build this nuclear station • Where will 3 billion litres of water for construction will come from, in middle of an already water stressed region? • Abstraction of water locally compounds risks to the environment and to protected species. • Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice and associated drains • Development will result in pollution from light, noise and traffic which will affect local communities and environment – no clear mitigation provided • Dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles inadequate to protect adjacent communities’ health and well being 6. Technology Proposed • EDF have no power stations running in Europe using this technology, suffering multiple failures of technology and planning, huge debts and overruns. • No indication Sizewell C is better planned and resourced. • Project has huge negative impacts with no indication it can meet goals. 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."

David Jackson
"Coastal erosion; rising sea levels; flooding; environmental damage, wildlife threatened; AONB, traffic, pollution; adverse effect on tourism; accumulative and simultaneous new energy projects in this area."

David Mears
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern over the proposed Sizewell C installation. My principal objections are as follows: - Location - This is clearly the wrong project in the wrong place. It's devastating impact on the adjacent internationally recognised sites of immeasurable ecological importance, will be catastrophic, and irreversible. There will be a disastrous impact on neighbouring sites of amenity, cultural heritage, and landscape of unique and irreplaceable beauty. This location is also vulnerable to future climate changes. Particularly with regard to rising sea levels and attendant flooding. There is a significant danger that this site could be cut off from the mainland, complete with it's 5 reactors and stored waste. And the presence of 8 other planned energy projects in this area, certainly doesn't help! Environment & Landscape - Clearly the most horrific destruction generated by this nightmarish development, will fall on the uniquely beautiful, and immeasurably precious local environment. Irreparable damage will be served on Minsmere, an area of international significance. The devastating impact on Marsh Harriers alone, must surely fatally undermine the integrity of this Special Protection Area This horrendous development will generate intolerable levels of pollution from light, noise, and traffic. I note that proposals for management of dust from spoil heaps and stockpiles are inadequate. And the impact of proposed borrow pits and landfill has not been adequately addressed. Disturbingly, there is no clarity regarding drainage and supply of 3M litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond The loss of flood storage on the development site will ensure widespread flooding presents an ever present risk. As well as ensuring unacceptable risk to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology. Incredibly, construction will be allowed to sever the AONB. The location, scale, and design of this monstrous project will have a catastrophic impact on local landscape and ecology which will be impossible to compensate for.. Ever! Community. Economic & Social Impacts - This Project will generate intolerable pressure on local communities: Severance, traffic, noise and light pollution, and unacceptable disruption. 6000 workers will come and live in the area. 2400 in a 'Worker Campus' in a completely inappropriate location. The thriving local tourism looks set to lose up to £40m and 400 jobs. EDF's assurances regarding employment opportunities, are laughable, with most such local 'opportunities being in low paid jobs in 'Site Support'. Transport - Road based transport plans are an insult to the intelligence, and indeed, have already been rejected by all Statutory Consulties on Consultations. Security - In an increasingly volatile and unstable world, this Project brings to an area of relative peace and tranquillity, a tempting target for all manner of miscreants. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C."

Dr Thomasin Andrews
"Firstly, I think a digital consultation process is wholly inadequate for this huge infrastructure development which will impact on the lives of the people of East Suffolk and on our fragile coastline for the next 100 years. We have many older people and disadvantaged communities of people who are less able to express their views and who are disenfranchised by this process. The impact on the rural towns and communities whose lives will be ruined by the traffic running through pristine countryside is monstrous. The coast is so fragile and dynamic and the effects of this construction on the shore drift has not been adequately assessed and the plans for the construction itself are incomplete - how can this be? this shore line has been dynamically changing for 1000s of years and the changes in the last 500 years are mapped and evident for anyone to see. If there is impact that threatens towns, habitats, farmland, our rivers - then this should be legally wrapped into the agreement and any effects which impact on our lives and livelihood paid for and compensated by the company (which profits from this project)- this needs to be in law and in the contract. What happens when EDF goes bankrupt and the contracts are taken over and rewritten? We get screwed. The technology is going to be obsolete before this is up and running - there are real questions about whether it will ever work/ look at Hinckley point/ and real concerns that by the time it comes on line we will have much cleaner energy, without all the problems of the huge environmental cost of the build (concrete- the biggest single producer of greenhouse gases, the transport, the nuclear waste). The crunch point for our power needs will hit before Sizewell C is ready. It will be an enormous white elephant wrecking our coast line for 100 years and more. Look at the Wapping Power Project. We have wind farms off shore bringing in their power-lines (in a chaotic unmanaged way also wreaking havoc on our coasts and heaths – and without due concern/ process for the impact - always at a cost favour to the international companies and never with the oversight and foresight that these projects need). It is woeful. This is more of the same."

Edward Creswick
"I am a resident of Suffolk and a retired engineer with experience in managing major industrial projects (eg aluminium smelters). I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Sizewell C project. The principle concerns I have are: • New nuclear projects take far too long to construct, have very high costs, and tend to have significant overruns on both counts. • EDF as principal contractor have an extremely poor record on design and construction of nuclear power stations. Will they remain financially viable for the duration of the project? • It is unclear to me what involvement China will have in the project. Given the current UK-China relationship it may be prudent to keep away from adding potential problems. • The cost of nuclear construction must be fully absorbed before any power is produced to generate income. These projects therefore carry a huge cost of money (interest) over many years in addition to the actual cost of construction. • In my view the proposed site does not appear to have sufficient elevation to protect it from rising sea levels, particularly surges in the lifetime of the project that are an increasing risk with climate change. As a consequence, the it carries long term catastrophic risks to the whole of East Anglia. The alternatives of renewable energy - wind, solar and soon tidal power - have numerous advantages over nuclear power: • Renewables can be brought on stream relatively quickly and incrementally. Construction programmes can be adjusted according to changing needs while underway. • Generating power in small separate distributed units protects against major system failures. It can also reduce the cost of transmission by locating power supply nearer areas of demand. • Renewables present little risk in the event of failure of individual units, are radiation free and carry no spent fuel problems. • During their construction and operating lifetime they emit less CO2 compared to nuclear. • When they reach end of life due to age or obsolescence, they can be safely dismantled at low cost. In short, putting the money required for Sizewell C into renewables instead is a no brainer. New nuclear power projects are now on the verge of being obsolete before they start. If Sizewell C goes ahead, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s EDF’s last nuclear project."

Elizabeth Matterson
"I wish to raise my concerns about the Sizewell C project. - The serious environmental impact on this very fragile coastal area. . I feel the unpredictability of climate change and the latest predictions have not been taken fully into account. . The risk of coastal erosion and flooding up and down the coast, not only in the Sizewell Bay, and provision for sea defences should be planned. . Have the legal implications been taken fully into account? . Damage and destruction to marine ecology. . Damage and destruction of the very delicate environment, the very sensitive Minsmere and AONB. - The negative impact on the local communities during the construction period and running of the facility. .The huge increase of the workforce population will put untold strain on housing, the provision of potable water and its removal and energy consumption. .The impact and provision of services - emergency, health, schools, shops, recreational and social facilities. . The negative impact on some local businesses and the visitor economy due to traffic disruption and overcrowding. . The negative impact of heavy construction traffic creating noise, air and light pollution. The building of new roads will divide communities and farmland, destroy habitats and cause considerable inconvenience and disruption. - With 8 other planned energy projects running in this area, the lack of pooled resources and thinking on the future of energy supplies for the nation by the government and all parties concerned is deeply worrying. - I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. Elizabeth Matterson"

Eva Loeffler OBE
"I object to the proposed plans for Sizewell C on the ground that not enough attention has been given to the long term erosion of a sensitive coastal area. The Proposed building is in a designated area of outstanding beauty and near Minsmere a bird sanctuary which will be harmed by the building noise. The expected traffic for the building site will cause long standing disruption to the whole area which is an area of outstanding beauty and a popular tourist attraction putting a blight on the whole area."

Eyke Parish Council
"Eyke is a small village, bisected by the totally inadequate A1152, which already suffers disproportionately from heavy vehicles travelling to and from Bentwaters Business Park at Rendlesham. In places the road is too narrow for even medium sized vehicles to pass each other. The serious concern is that the huge increase in heavy vehicles and associated traffic travelling to and from the site will inevitably cause an unsustainable increase in the volume of traffic through this village, as drivers seek short cuts and less congested routes."

Ashtons Legal on behalf of Farnham Environment Residents & Neighbours (FERN)
"1. FERN (Farnham Environment Residents & Neighbours) is an unincorporated association of people who live at or in the vicinity of the Grade II* listed building, Farnham Manor; as well as the Manor itself, these comprise a number of other private dwellings. EDF’s proposed alignment for a bypass of the villages of Farnham and Stratford St Mary (the Two Villages Bypass- “2VB”) impacts adversely on those dwellings, as well as on the tourism business at Mollett’’s Farm and other properties. Objections have been submitted by individuals who may elect to pursue those objections individually or, in part at least, through FERN. 2. The principal focus of objection is to the alignment of the 2VB to the west of Foxburrow Wood. There is no objection to the principle of bypassing the villages but EDF has chosen the wrong route. A much better alignment exists further to the east, as put forward by the Parish Council. FERN supports that alignment. 3. EDF has undertaken consultation but has failed to address the alternative properly. Its reasons for opposing an eastern alignment are unsound. 4. FERN supports the wish of communities at Little Glemham and Marlesford to also have the A12 bypassed. EDF has to justify why it is not doing so but, given Suffolk County Council’s retention of the principle for the future, the least that EDF can do is ensure that it does not compromise or prejudice future relief for those communities. The more easterly alignment better suits extension to the south at a later date, if the Examining Authority concludes that the DCO should proceed without those communities being relieved. 5. EDF’s environmental assessment is flawed and in error in places, and not least by not examining the entire area which would be impacted by its proposed alignment. EDF has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that its cutting will not pose a threat to the ancient woodland at Foxburrow Wood and Pond Wood. As well as not considering the adverse impact on the natural environment properly, EDF has failed to take proper account of the adverse impact of its proposed alignment on the built environment, in particular for the historic environs of the listed building, Farnham Manor. EDF is unnecessarily interfering with the local footpath network, close to Farnham. 6. EDF has failed to assess the planning balance properly. The public good is better served by the more easterly alignment. 7. FERN therefore objects to the Sizewell C DCO but reserves the right to amend, add to and expand on the objection during the DCO process"

Fiona Cramb
"I am a local resident.I strongly object to EDF’s plans to build two nuclear power stations at Sizewell. The construction will have a devastating impact on East Suffolk and our fragile coast and is completely unnecessary. The cost will be huge as proved by the escalating cost of Hinckley Point, the technology is unproven and outdated, the electricity produced will be much more expensive than renewables and the decommissioning and storage of waste will take many years, the project will take a decade or more to be built there are other greener sources of energy which are cheaper and can come on stream faster. The case for Nuclear power is weak the money better invested elsewhere. Finally I am deeply concerned about the involvement of the Chinese in such sensitive national infrastructure. If the government deems Huawei to be unfit to be involved with mobile phone networks how can it think they should be involved in nuclear."

Fiona Judge
"I am very concerned about the Sizewell C project for the following reasons: 1. Site location • This project is situated in the wrong place and would have the following negative impacts on the area • The site is situated on an eroding coastline and currently EDF have not put forward any plans for how the site will be protected from rising sea levels due to climate change. • Concerns have been raised about the impact of any coastal defences on erosion rates of the coastline north and south of the site • This project threatens a very biodiverse area including SSSIs, ANOB and RSPB Minsmere with its special designation. Both the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust, I am a member of both, oppose the project. We need to work hard to protect our wildlife which is under threat not make it more vulnerable or destroy it. • This area has a large public amenity value for local residents, residents from wider area and tourists. This amenity value will be denigrated by the project with proposed closure of beaches and footpaths. EDF has stated that there will be changes to views, noise and air quality and traffic will change people’s perception of tranquillity. This is very worrying to me as this tranquillity has sustained me as I go to these places seeking this. • The project will need 3 million litres of water a day during the peak time of the build. Suffolk as part of East Anglia is one of the driest regions of the UK. This use of water is a concern to other water users e.g. farmers, and wildlife. • There are concerns about local peoples’ access to health services, blue light services and on the mental health of local people. Transport I live close to the A12. I am very concerned about the effects the increase in road traffic will have. ? I believe the road-based transport plan is not sustainable. The A12 is currently pressurised and the increase on the roads with estimates of 700 + HGVs and 700+ buses and vans, especially during peak times and concerning. Also, the negative impact of congestion, noise, pollution/air quality for road users and residents along this route cannot be underestimated. Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic ? I am concerned that the congestion and heavy traffic on the A12 and A14 would cause rat running, with disruption along smaller roads and communities including the village where I live. ? The Southern Park & Ride would not be completed until year 3. During these ‘Early Years’, there would be significant extra LGV and private car movements on the B1078, the High Street in Wickham Market. I live on the High Street and currently there are concerns about the increase in traffic on this and local roads. These concerns include: • estimated 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. This would cause a significant increase in noise, vibration, air and light pollution which will affect properties and residents. • compromised safety of cyclists, equestrians and pedestrians using promoted leisure routes and accessing the SP&R • increase in collisions along this stretch of B1078 to the SP&R. Currently there are frequent near missed collisions with cars, vans and lorries using the narrow roadway navigating parked cars on one side of the road and a bend in the road making visibility for oncoming traffic impossible • negative impact on the village of Wickham Market from fly parking as workers use local shops prior to or after their shifts. This creates problems for current road and service users. There are narrow footpaths in the village especially on some roads leading up to the village centre where shops are located. Primary school children use these to get to and from the primary school which has an impact on their safety as vulnerable road users. Environment and Landscape • Light and noise from the Park and Ride site operating 20 hrs per day 7 days per week. • the proposed site and highway lighting will create adverse impacts on current dark skies viewed from the village and its countryside setting I fully endorse Stop Sizewell C campaign and Wickham Market Parish Council’s relevant representations"

Fiona Raison
"For many years I have been mildly in favour of Sizewell B and its much talked of, and planned for, successor, Sizewell C. For a long time I worked with young people in Leiston, and felt the benefits of the employment that the nuclear industry could offer to some of them. I care deeply about the environment and felt that nuclear power offered a better outlook than coal or gas-fired power. However, times have changed. Progress within the green energy industry has advanced greatly since the 1980s and I no longer feel that Sizewell C is a sensible or rational option to be supporting or be in favour of. My opinions have changed. The research and facts that are now available make the prospect of this going ahead alarming and distressing for too many. The long term pollution and traffic congestion caused while building it; the immediate damage to the beautiful environment (no matter what promises are made for restoration in the future); the costs that are too expensive and could be put into safer greener renewable energy; the EPR reactors that are not proving to be safe and reliable; rising sea levels due to climate change make it unsafe; the highly controversial involvement of finance from China. All this, and more, for an industry that by the time it is built and up and running in 25 years time, if it all goes well, will be outdated in even more ways and for more reasons thereby being even more unworthy of support. I urge you all to think again and take a braver stand against big business and economic pressures, that in the end do us all a disservice. Invest in renewables and bring more of these to our county, not Sizewell C. It will become notorious and a blot on our coast and a shame for us all that live here that we allowed it to go ahead. You have the power to stop it. Please do."

Frances Charlesworth
"As a member of the Alde and Ore Association I am concerned about the long term affect on the rivers and the coast below Aldeburgh."

Friends of the Earth Grassroots Nuclear Network
"We would like to address: The issue of waste disposal of radioactive waste from the proposed facility. The costs of its eventual decommisioning and how this will be paid for. Whether the development is based on sound economics, offering good monetary value to UK tax payers. The potential environmental and public health impacts of the proposed development, including, but not limited to, the impact of routine discharges and emissions, both liquid and gaseous. The necessity of this development, given the rapid expansion of renewable energy in the UK."

George Knight
"i. the extensive papers submitted by EDF do not begin to address the issue of coastal erosion outside the narrow Sizewell Bay. The proposal assumes that nothing will change south of the Great Sizewell Bay. There is no evidence to explain this assumption despite what must be the obvious- the long term and integrated evolution of entire the coast, including Dunwich losing its port and the Alde and Ore Estuary being formed. ii. the EDF plans on the exact construction of Sizewell C and its sea defences are incomplete. It is not possible to assess the likely impact on coastal flows when the plans for hard core construction are not given. iii. the plant will be in situ for not only its 70 or so years of operation but many decades longer possibly in perpetuity. Yet, the plans propose ceasing to monitor the impact of the installation and any coastal defence works on front of the plant around 10 years before it ceases operations. This is mistaken as the physical plant, operating or not, will affect coastal erosion indefinitely. iv. were the plans to go ahead, there needs to be a serious legally watertight plan for monitoring the impact on the coast, not only for plant safety but for the impact on the area which would otherwise not have happened. Such a plan also needs strong clauses should any mitigation be necessary because of any adverse effects of the impact of the construction. The complete monitoring and mitigation plan must be properly funded: if the coast south of Sizewell C does get adversely affected, long term funds must be kept available for coastal defence works, including for Aldeburgh to at least Shingle Street. v. Despite the plans being submitted in 2020, the latest information on climate change, sea level rise and coastal evolution has not been taken into account, undermining the soundness of any assessments. The application uses the UK CCRA report 2018 estimates, not those of the IPPC in 2019: the developers must be aware that latest information showed that the impact of these factors would be far greater than previously thought. vi. Finally, you might state that you consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Gill Clare
"The proposed construction and operation of Sizewell C will harm large areas of marine environment. Greater Sizewell Bay extends northwards from Blyth Piers, southwards to near Thorpeness, and out to sea to the eastern flank of the Sizewell-Dunwich Bank. Each of the two planned EPRTM reactors need large volumes of cooling water to condense steam. This cooling water would be drawn from the sea, passed through condensers and then returned at a typical rate of 132m3 per second, approximately 3km out to sea from the site. Major impacts on the environment from discharge of the cooling water will be heat, and chlorination for biofouling control. When the reactors are operating at full power the cooling water will be returned to sea at a temperature around 11.6°C higher than ambient. A fish recovery and return system would be installed, but moribund biota would be discharged. The calculated decaying biomass between is seasonal at 1065.5 kg per day (December to April) reducing to 405 kg per day (April to September). This would mostly comprise fish such as herrings and sprats, possibly affecting local fishermen’s livelihoods. Trade and sanitary effluents, including radioactive material, will be released with the sea water. According to SZC’s calculations, many of the toxic chemicals in the effluents will be likely to be discharged at concentrations exceeding their environmental quality standard (EQS) or reference value, and will rely on dilution. Suffolk prides itself on its coastal towns and Areas of Outstanding natural beauty but there are no blue flag beaches between Norfolk and Felixstowe. SZC state that the nearest designated bathing waters are at Southwold and Felixstowe, approximately 10km and 35km distant, respectively. SZC predict that the sewage output and treatment will reduce the concentrations of faecal indicator organisms to be compatible with bathing at Southwold and Felixstowe, i.e. not for other beaches such as Dunwich, Sizewell, Thorpeness and Aldeburgh, where people regularly swim. Human sewage contains pharmaceuticals, some of which are especially toxic to certain marine organisms. SZC asserts that the radioactive discharge into the sea will not exceed the limits proposed and will represent a trivial risk to wildlife, quoting the nearest designated areas for shell fish as Butley Creek, about 44m south from Sizewell. Notably, the proposed annual liquid limits for Cobalt60 and Caesium137 exceed the annual expected best performance by about 17 fold. Crabs, lobsters, shell-fish and fish are caught and sold locally. Contamination of fish, shellfish and crustaceans by human sewage, toxic chemicals and radionuclides could be exacerbated by bio-accumulation and bio-magnification. New hard coastal defence and a beach landing facility will involve driving piles and dredging to maintain access. This could affect the patterns of erosion and accretion and will affect benthic species. The current proposals do not sufficiently address, avoid, minimise or mitigate the total, cumulative adverse impacts on the marine environment. No compensatory measures are proposed. If a similar area of land was treated in the same way, there would be public outrage."

Graham Booker
"Location: The proposed nuclear power station is I think the incorrect project for the site, given the following : Site is vulnerable to the vagaries of the sea, given that sea levels are set to rise due to the now scientifically proven consequences of climate change and that this coast has a history of storm surges it would to me to seem foolish to grant permission for the building of the station as proposed. The infrastructure as described will almost certainly have an impact on local coastal processes, which are already proving to be a problem on this coastline. The proposed development is likely to impact internationally important wildlife sites which have a very significant part to play in the conservation of our dwindling biodiversity. Also it is proposed to be built in an area valued for it's amenity value, drawing tourism internationally which is attractive to visitors as a consequence of the heritage sites in the locality. There of course also remains the issue of waste from the already existing power station and the very great financial cost and associated environmental impact of decommissioning that project. Please do not take us down the road of having yet more mess to clean up in the future. I object to the proposed scheme also as I feel it would very seriously impact our communities due to the seriously inflated use of our local infrastructure, increased traffic, unwelcome construction noise, industrial plant movement not to mention the increase in night time light pollution and its effect both on human and wildlife populations. The idea of importing upwards of six thousand workers all of whom will need to live locally in accomodation that in it's self I do not support. The proposed development will have a significant and long term detrimental effect on our tourist economy causing significant loss of income to the area and the consequential loss of employment , this in it's self is i feel reason enough to not allow it. We already have a problem locally with insufficient private rental property, this development will cause meaningful increased pressure on that sector. i do not believe that local people will benefit from the proposed site as most of the jobs that will be created will be low skill poorly paid and the loss of tourism will mean there is no net gain in jobs. Local services are already stretched and really really do not need increases inpreassure on health, social services, emergency services and the often hidden but nonetheless important impacts on vulnerable people. Road based transport plan is not sustainable; enormous and bad 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 I cannot stress enough how much I oppose this project for the above reasons and I would ask you to please reject it completely thank you ."

Greenpeace UK
"* National policy statement EN-6 does not have effect for the purposes of determining applications for sites not deployed by 2025, including the extant application (see Written Ministerial Statement HLWS316 (2017)). Instead it is to be determined under s105 Planning Act 2008 having regard to a ‘wide variety of matters’. Significant weight can only be attached to the prescription of the NPS if there have been ‘no relevant change in circumstances’ (WMS HLWS316); * GP argues that there exists a catalogue of such changes in circumstances, including: o CLIMATE EMERGENCY - the clear failure of nuclear newbuild to contribute to climate change targets in existence at the time that the NPS was designated, targets which have now been superseded by more ambitious legislative targets in light of the Paris Agreement, and warnings from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Committee on Climate Change; o URGENT NEED - the complete failure and inability of new nuclear to address the 'urgent need' as required under the NPS; o COSTS - a failure to secure nuclear funding, including the total renege on the 'subsidy-free' nuclear regime promised, which has become synonymous with excessive cost, harm to the consumer, and an industry devoid of investors; o RENEWABLE ALTERNATIVES - the plummeting cost of renewables including a more than 80% reduction in solar costs, and wind power contracts continuing to be awarded at record-low contract prices. Government accepts that on cost and on the ‘abundance of alternative technologies, “nuclear is being out-competed”; and o WASTE - the growing stockpile of high-level radioactive waste without a storage solution."

Heather Russell
"Please take account of the following points, which will have been raised by others, but are none the less valid.... I object to the EDF Sizewell C project for the reasons as under - and many more that there is not room to put ! The papers submitted by EDF do not begin to address the issue of coastal erosion outside the narrow Sizewell Bay. The proposal assumes that nothing will change south of the Great Sizewell Bay. This will not be the case - it must be the obvious that it is an evolving and delicate and in places receding coast line. I understand that the EDF plans on the exact construction of Sizewell C and its sea defences are incomplete. It is therefore not possible to assess the likely impact on coastal flows when the plans for hard core construction are not given. The plant will be in situ for not only its 70 or so years of operation but for many decades longer. Yet, the plans propose ceasing to monitor the impact of the installation and any coastal defence works on front of the plant around 10 years before it ceases operations ! This is mistaken as the physical plant, operating or not, will affect coastal erosion for as long as it is there. If the plans are to go ahead, there needs to be a serious legally watertight plan for monitoring the impact on the coast - not only for plant safety but for the impact on the area. Such a plan also needs strong clauses should any mitigation be necessary because of any adverse effects of the impact of the construction. The complete monitoring and mitigation plan must be properly funded: if the coast south of Sizewell C does get adversely affected, ( which I believe it will) long term funds must be kept available for coastal defence works, including for Aldeburgh to at least Shingle Street. Just think of the adverse publicity if Aldeburgh and Thorpeness flood and it can be proved it was because of Sizewell C. If you dont consider anything else, perhaps self interest in not being sued might concentrate your minds. The application uses the UK CCRA report 2018 estimates, not those of the IPPC in 2019: the developers must be aware that latest information showed that the impact of these factors would be far greater than previously thought. Others will be pointing out the horrendous environmental effect of thousands of lorries, and temporary villages and park and rides etc on an area of outstanding natural beauty but this developement is not inevitable if only people would step back a bit and truly think of the impact this grand scheme will have. EDF have also proved that they dont care about the environment, by not working alongside Scottish Power to house the substations being built just up the road at Friston - further desacrating the landscape - an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its so fragile........ they could have put competition aside but would rather see the countryside ripped up unnecessarily."

Helen Bridgeman
"I do not want Sizewell to have an affect on Minsmere Nature Reserve."

Helen Rolfe
"I am a local resident and have strong views about Sizewell C and its impact on my home area. The proposal to consturct this power station was poorly concieved initially, and is now even more unsuitable, and should be halted for the following reasons: Geographical: in view of the situation, which is on a rapily erroding coastline, where sea levels are known to be rising . Tidal surges I have seen increasingin number and force and frequency. Local impact: This is an area of outstanding natural beauty. This title is only understood by people who have witnessed the silence and beauty of the marshes at dawn or dusk, walked observing the common and rare species of all kinds of wildlife and welcomes the cycles of the natural world here. The huge importance of maintaining this balance is now understood to be essential for the wellbeing of our fragile planet. To rip up the existing landscape with this vast construction project is a horrifyingly misguided. The huge increase in heavy lorry and transport traffic disturbance to towns, villages, the road systems throughout East Anglia, and the ruination of local farmland and woodlands are not justified. The noise of construction will shatter the peace of the area, and cause light pollution as well. Cost: The cost has escalated so enormously since the original costings that it is no longer viable. The cancellation of the North Wales power station project is an indicator of how badly wrong this coulkd go if backers withdraw. Resources:The gain for the local area in terms of jobs will be short lived and minimal as much of the specialist work will be outsourced. There will be degredation of roads and infrastructure which are likley to place further strain on our local economy. The landscape is a valuable resource, used by thousands for recreation and recovery from stress during the covid pandemic. The tourist industry generates increasing sums and can be relied on to continue to do so. Wildlife: In addition to the points above, special mention consideration must be given to Minsmere RSPB Wildlife reserve. Visitors flock here from across the world and the UK to watch birds in habitats which are vulnerable to disturbance and should be treasured. Would the SpringWatch team, with an audiance of millions, want to continue filming here with a construction site and three story residential block clearly visible? Their usual filming spot overlooks the whole area under consideration. Please read the statement above as a request to halt the contruction now, rethink longer term energy needs which as new technologies come on stream, and after the pandemic, may well have changed Helen Rolfe"

Hilary Mills
"The long term effects of the Sizewell plan I feel are quite horrifying. The permanent damage to the surrounding area and destruction of a vast area of natural beauty it will cause will be There will be so many undesirable impacts on this very precious area affecting the lives of the people who live here, those who come on holiday and those who rely on the tourist business.... This area is a treasure to be saved as far as possible as it is to be enjoyed and saved for the generations to come."

Ian Cocking
"I Belive this project and others are essential towards the UK reaching the net zero target by 2050. Nuclear energy is a safe and mature source of reliable very low carbon electricity. It is essential to the UK that we must continue the learning curve started at Hinkley point C by expanding our Nuclear fleet and maintaining the skills and workforce to achieve this. I fully endorse Sizewell C and any other future Nuclear projects."

Ian Craig
"The dangers inherent in the building, operating and storing of spent nuclear waste mean that we cannot allow any new reactor to be built if there is any doubt about its future operation. We have this duty for our own generation, and the many that follow who will live with what could be the catastrophic errors of judgement. The half-life of uranium 235 is 700 million years. There are too many unknowns to allow us to take a risk on any aspect of this project. These are points that must be considered now, and for future generations: - • No one can effectively foresee the possible outcome of building a further nuclear reactor at the Sizewell site. The effect of climate change, long term issues for the storage of spent waste, sea level rises, unforeseen technical issues with an effectively untried reactor design and the post Covid 19 so-called “Green Future” are all matters that pose questions that neither EDF nor the Government can answer with any certainty even for the next few years. • Climate change makes the site at risk of sea level rises and flooding. • The site could be cut off from the main part of Suffolk by flooding and become an island. • We do not have the knowledge or the technology to guarantee the effective storage of spent fuel. This is made more pressing as a result of rising sea levels. • As a result of climate change, which is making Suffolk the driest part of the UK, the site cannot be guaranteed sufficient water supply for reactor cooling, the maintenance of the waste ponds or the expanded domestic requirement caused by the enlargement of the site. • The expansion of the imported workers on the site will put an unacceptable strain on local areas. This includes social, water supply/waste disposal, transport damage to the landscape and local tourism. • The damage to the areas of special nature beauty and of special interest to wildlife and birds. These are irreplaceable. • The effect on the local seabed of the work at the site and of the operation of two new reactors could be to cause damage to the coast over a wide area. • The construction of new roads will cause further pollution to a rural area and further irreplaceable loss of habitat for wild life and birds. • The proposed reactors are untested. Flamanville is due to be over ten years late and Olkiluoto is already ten years late and both are at present due to be three times over budget. We should not be using Suffolk as a test ground for effectively a new type of reactor. We are meant, post Covid 19, to be building a greener future. To build a power source that has at its heart a toxic isotope that will be with generations for over 700 million years cannot make any sense. This is a complex issue and must be given the fullest consideration. It is not suitable for the digital examination process. I endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, and that of RSPB."

Ian Fergusson
"The impact on the adjacent land at Minsmere along with other land that has been designated SSSI or of ecological importance has not been adequately addressed. This could cause rare species such as Marsh Harriers to be affected. The land being offered to “offset” areas to be used during construction and ongoing is not of the same nature of the land being lost and may never sustain the same eco system. Potential change to ground water in the area could affect the nearby water meadow habitat. I’m not convinced for the need for Sizewell C as it is unlikely to be on line for another 15 years in which time advances in alternative natural electricity generation and storage will probably make it unnecessary. The area already has other energy projects planned. Impact on local communities with increased traffic and noise, along with a huge influx of workers will have a knock on effect to local services (Health and social). With the increased likelihood of traffic congestion on the A12 the roads through small local villages are likely to become rat runs. Light pollution affecting areas designated “Dark Skies” is likely, especially around the Park and Ride areas. The disruption and increased traffic is likely to have an adverse effect on Tourism which is a life blood of the area. Who wants to be on holiday near a large construction site with hundreds of HGV’s on the road? I endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust. I also consider the application to be unsuitable for a digital examination process. It should be postponed until the Covid 19 situation has been resolved and groups of people can once again meet and discuss things."

Institute for Resource and Security Studies
"The so called “Sustainability appraisal key findings” on nuclear benefits generally and Sizewell C specifically to combatting climate change, as presented on page one of the Sustainability Statement are fake. The Applicant asserts that Sizewell C ‘s CO2 equivalent emissions would be “similar to wind and lower than solar ”. This is untrue. Nuclear power will not provide any useful dent in curbing harmful emissions, as when the carbon footprint of its full uranium ‘fuel chain’ is considered- from uranium mining, milling, enrichment ( which is highly energy intensive), fuel fabrication, irradiation, radioactive waste conditioning, storage, packaging to final disposal – nuclear power's CO2 emissions are between 10 to 18 times greater than those from renewable energy technologies, according to a recent study by Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, California. [Redacted] If the applicant is either so incompetent that it has not checked the figures it presents on carbon emission benefits , or has checked them, but has dishonestly presented them, either case disqualifies the applicant to be trust to build or operate a nuclear power plant. In addition, the building and operating nuclear power plants is one of the least effective technology-based ways to address the climate change crisis, due to its costs, complexity and construction times. Its opportunity cost is severely negative. I would recommend the Applicants be required to read and absorb the arguments made by Amory Lovins (Co-Founder and Chairman Emeritus, Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass, Colorado, U.S.) in his 4,000 word chapter “Climate Change and Nuclear Power “ , found in the 2019 version of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, which comprehensively demolishes any evidence-based arguments on the utility of nuclear to help address climate change. [Redacted] I also find that the supplementary “Sustainability Performance of Associated Development “totally ignores the in-situ environmental impact on communities where uranium is mined and milled. The out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach is immoral. I find this an unconscionable omission in a so called sustainability assessment, and disqualifies the document as inadequate, as it is incomplete and utterly fails in its addressing the significantly globally much wider deleterious environmental impact of the uranium fuel supply chain. A full sustainability assessment including these aspects is needed, and the applicant should be required to produce a comprehensive statement on the front end of the nuclear fuel chain. I recommend that the applicant starts with the recently published Uranium Atlas, especially the Chapter headed “A RESPONSIBILITY ABANDONED” available in English at: [Redacted] Offsite local development means much more than local roads or regional amenities. It is shameful that the applicant is not aware of this. I have also been unable to find any document addressing security in the voluminous material presented by the Applicant. No operating license could ever be granted unless the security dimension of the project were examined."

Ipswich and East Suffolk CCG and West Suffolk CCG
"This representation is composed by members of Ipswich and East Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) on behalf of the Suffolk and North East Essex CCG's Governing bodies. Consideration has been made of the documentation presented at stage 4 for planning of the Sizewell C proposal. It is important to note that the CCG have been working alongside system partners and Public Sector leaders to ascertain the impact of the development on the wider health economy. Colleagues in Fire, Ambulance and Police are consolidating their representation and we are in full support of the points they will be raising. Whilst Health partners support the principle of a new nuclear power station development to boost the local economy, it is felt the current proposals as they stand cannot be supported due to the concerns that are raised in this representation. Whilst we recognise that Sizewell C would be an important contribution to the national energy strategy and welcome the benefits such a development would bring to Suffolk, further reassurance is required that the funding package will be sufficient enough to support the mitigations for Health and Community Safety impacts. We would welcome a collaborative approach as part of the Section 106 agreement to ensure an Anchor institution approach to the development, enabling a partnership across the local economy including Health and Local Authority. The partnership would work to harness opportunities to support social, economic and environmental values, promoting a local supply chain ethic including jobs for local people, which will in turn improve health outcomes and wider health and wellbeing benefits for local communities surrounding Sizewell. 1. The CCG understands the broadly positive impact of the potential socio-economic growth created by Sizewell C and the linked and associated national, regional and local infrastructure developments. 2. We accept that an occupational health unit for the directly employed workforce providing health screening, health monitoring, subacute primary care and some emergency care may mitigate some negative impacts created by a large influx of a transient workforce on the effects of the heath care need of local population. 3. We believe there is the opportunity to work collaboratively on the strengths of the occupational health unit to build on the benefits for the health and welfare of the workforce, with alignment to public health promotion and prevention campaigns. 4. We continue to have concerns related to increased local housing turnover and the potential impact that this has on healthcare provision. 5. An unstable population creates increased healthcare infrastructure demands beyond direct GP registrations; therefore, we do not accept the mitigation calculations and impact assumptions which limit adjustments and minimise impacts on equity, access and population health. 6. The assumptions within this document use historical data about healthcare provision, health infrastructure and population health objectives, which we would seek to redress through further negotiation both with Sizewell C co and regional and national government commitments. 7. The mitigation modelling for both this project and its directly linked road and rail changes, do not go far enough. The health and well-being challenges for the population and the delivery of healthcare services faced in respect to travel, community severance and cohesion, noise impacts, access and accessibility to public amenities and infrastructure has not been effectively mitigated. 8. The lack of effective cumulative impact of the different energy generating projects related to wind farms, wind farm infrastructure (e.g. cabling) and the Port of Felixstowe changes. We disagree with the explicit exclusion of any cumulative assessments and mitigations of the housing and associated infrastructure developments. We require further discussion and support in assessing the full impact on Suffolk lives of all proposed local and regional planned developments and the cumulative impacts for the Suffolk and East Anglia population during the lifetime of the Sizewell C project. 9. Whilst we support the proposed road changes and believe that the infrastructure will leave an improved road network legacy for the people of Suffolk, we are not assured by the mitigations on noise, dust and journey times. Our concerns are largely related to the impact of a road focused strategy upon health and social care infrastructure, capacity and resilience to deliver services at the same levels of efficiency. For example, Community Services provision will be impacted with the likely impact on travel, noise and general disruption the work will bring the crucial home visits by health and care staff to support vulnerable people in their own homes is likely to be disrupted. These services operate with very small margins to absorb disruptions to travel times, with district nursing and care visits carefully planned to ensure maximum efficiency. Any disruption to that is likely to need more capacity at increased cost to be put in place to make sure we continue to meet the needs of the people that need community based health and care support, without which their health and wellbeing could be jeopardised. The CCG cannot as yet see any mitigation for impact on journey times in the early stages of road infrastructure development. Sizewell C Co have referenced 9 months for the Yoxford roundabout to be completed and 2 years for the 2 village bypass to be completed. There is no mitigation for the impact in these early years on the journey times of our local Community service providers, District nurses, GP visiting times, domiciliary care support workers. The number of AILs during this period is also increased and so further understanding of mitigation is sought for these early years until the road infrastructure is fully established. 10. We also do not see sufficient evidence or mitigation regarding the direct impacts of road capacity and strain on the health and well-being of the population. Specifically, we do not see equity assessments for the vulnerable populations identified in Suffolk, or those with specific health conditions which will be adversely affected by dust and noise pollution (e.g. COPD and asthma, mental health, frailty and dementia). We believe there is a further opportunity to improve the lives of the directly impacted population through an enhanced rail and transport legacy, including a focus on "most active county" objectives and equity adjustments for the older and younger generations where direct and indirect health risks require statutory body capacity and resilience for mitigation. 11. In respect to socio-economics, Suffolk is a net importer of over 65's and therefore has an accelerating ageing population profile. This has some predictable impacts on health and care infrastructure over the lifespan of the Sizewell C project. Within the equity and socio-economic modelling there is a failure to demonstrate methods which improve well-being for this continued demographic change. Furthermore, there is inadequate mitigation for the demographic shifts related to the projected economic local and regional economic benefits. Direct mitigation is required within the socio-economic plan to address how changes to the demographics total load upon infrastructure will impact equality, travel, amenities, community cohesion and health infrastructure in respect to Suffolk stated medium and long-term objectives. We welcome commitments to education, social mobility, affordable homes, welfare and benefits enablement and would want to see these translated into a set of legacy proposals and plans. With specific reference to equity, health recognises the relative dearth of both current data collection and collation. Moreover, there is a failure within health, care and beyond to provide relevant and robust information that would form the basis of the need related outcome focus for those with protected characteristics. We recognise that as a result of this, this planning application cannot anticipate or predict the mitigations needed in reference to the Sizewell C project or the cumulative effects related to other planned and future developments in the Suffolk and East Anglia infrastructure projects. Before moving forward, we need an assurance that this will be fully mitigated via the section 106 process, including but not limited to, specific risk group assessments and population level data collection designed to seek out the direct and unintended consequences of Sizewell C via independent and novel metrics. Subsequent concerns were raised through NHS England who commission Dentistry services in the area as to their strategy to support the increase in population due to the influx of construction workers. The feedback received has been as follows; We are currently looking to precure additional dental services, as we are aware of the lack of access to general dentistry in the area for the current population. Should the additional non-home-based workers, described below, require access to dental services after we have completed the procurement described above this will have a detrimental impact on access in the area. We would then need to determine if additional NHS provision is required in the area and even if it were, current providers may / or may not be able to provide this. It would be a commissioning decision through our internal governance structure, to determine what finances were available, which would take some time. Even if it were determined that additional NHS dental activity is required and if it went to procurement this would take 9 – 12 months to commence. All new services are funded through NHS England and NHS Improvement – East of England, with no assistance from Section 106, therefore it is unlikely that the acquired additional funding for this would be approved. Nationally there is also a shortage of dentists so it may be also difficult to recruit to this area, which will create further access issues. Book 8.8.4 Planning statement S106 Heads of terms. The references to health need to be expanded to provide a more detailed understanding of the mitigation on offer. With reference to monitoring through the Health Working Group, the CCG requests mitigation for a dedicated individual who could be a Health or Council representative to support the monitoring of the effects of the development and chair the Health Working Group moving forward. Therefore, In order to ensure collaborative working and monitoring during the construction phase suitable mitigation for 0.5WTE -professional at a Band 8, dedicated to overseeing and supporting the health economy impact and proactively working with EDF for the duration of the construction period including chairing the Health Working Group. This post would be of great benefit to all services and EDF moving forward and would be a welcome addition to ensure full collaboration in approaches through public sector organisations. As part of our representation we have undertaken a thorough review of Book 6.3 Chapter 28 – Health and Wellbeing submitted as part of the DCO. This report has been cross-referenced with local health evidence/needs assessments and commissioners/providers own strategies so to ensure that the proposal impacts positively on health and wellbeing of residents of Suffolk and North East Essex, whilst any unintended consequences arising are suitably mitigated against. Below are the queries arising from this review. The CCG are questioning the baseline general practice baseline data within the health and wellbeing assessment as per the details below. Clarification on the data set below, as an example the figure below shows The Peninsula Practice as having 953 patients per GP however the actual figure as of 1st January 2020 shows 1349 patients per GP which is a significant jump from those figures shown within the Health and Wellbeing assessment. Therefore, the CCG would need to be assured that the whole dataset is re-worked based on data provided and validated by the CCG for these purposes. The CCG would challenge the data as listed in sections 28.4.10 – 28.4.16 – can clarification be provided as to data from the latest JSNA. 28.4.8 – The CCG challenge this statement as there is no relevance for these sites being listed as these sites can only be accessed via referral only from either primary care or acute services (secondary care). 28.5.10 – The CCG need to understand more about what is included in the pre-employment health screening process and the ongoing health employing screen and to understand whether they are periodically assessed. 28.5.16 – Has there been any cross reference of data in relation to health inequalities in the area? 28.6.15 – Concerns related to measuring of Air Quality – what measures are going to be in place to monitor peak concentrations? Air quality analysis showing peaks and troughs. Within the Consultation report section there is a summary relating to the de-commissioning of Sizewell A, the CCG feels there is a lack of schedules for decommissioning, directly relating to transport and the impact on the construction of Sizewell C. 28.6.37 – significant challenge to the term of daytime timings of 0700 – 2300hrs. In the health economy daytime with extended hours goes to 2000hrs 28.6.66 – Noise mitigation scheme. Significant impact - no known mitigation. The CCG would like to understand the scale and scope of this plan. 28.6.80 -The CCG would like to raise that there is no evidence that sufficient review of the impact in the surrounding area has been ascertained. There are 2 care homes - 70+ beds dementia residential homes and high numbers of elderly residents who are housebound. Access to these vulnerable members of the community during the construction period of the Yoxford roundabout and link roads will be compromised and therefore it is proposed that visiting times and journey times will need to be closely monitored to ensure there is not a negative impact on healthcare visits. This recording should start with a baseline recording prior to construction. AIL (Abnormal Indivisible Loads), as per the statements in both the SCC and East Suffolk Coast representations, there is a need to understand more on the ongoing monitoring of the AIL’s on the general traffic and in particular the emergency vehicle response times and a contingency fund should be set aside to enable a draw down to address such impacts. The assessment has failed to pick up the impacts of the delays associated with AILs, both on general traffic and on emergency response times. 28.6.102 – what evidence is used to ascertain the statement within this section “It is anticipated that workers who bring families are most likely to be on long-term contracts and would buy properties or take private rented sector accommodation during this time. As such, they would not represent a net addition to the existing number of council tax paying households/population, and there would be little to no material change in net healthcare demand” 28.6.103 “Overall, the magnitude of impact on health and wellbeing would be low. In the context of a uniformly high sensitivity receptor and highly valued asset, the resultant effect is considered minor adverse, which is not significant.” The CCG strongly challenge this statement and request evidence to support this. 28.6.117 – The CCG would require confidence in the figures provided for employment supporting the impact on the local economy and an evidence baseline to support this statement. 28.6.118 – The CCG would like to see a more supportive statement of understanding for employment opportunities for members of the community who have a known mental health or learning disability. 28.6.119 – The CCG would like to see the development of, and agree the methodology of ongoing impact monitoring for mental health, job centre plus, active lives, social isolation; including independent metrics to support the quality of life for local people. 28.6.151 – The CCG believe it would be beneficial to install a specialist Weather station to monitor air quality and noise on the main routes and in the towns, and for this data to be frequently reported through the Health Working Group. The CCG would support the call from East Suffolk Council in their own representation 1.112 to ensure there is an agreement for mitigation, monitoring, prevention of; • Potential effects related to cultural differences between NHB workers and residents; • Potential increased spread of County Lines to Leiston (where illegal drugs are transported from one area to another); • Hate crime (including against workers); • Community cohesion and integration issues; and • Increased provision of Police Community Support Officers in Leiston and surrounding area. 6.3 volume 2 main development site – Appendices A – C Appendix A – HTN 1 In Ipswich and East CCG, primary care provision is provided on TPP SystmOne – If consideration could be made that TPP SystmOne is the IT platform of choice for the Occupational Health Service this would be mutually beneficial. We appreciate that there are GPDR issues that need to be overcome to support referrals into the health service. Community Safety Working Group – We would welcome this group to be jointly run with council colleagues to ensure monitoring and mitigation is managed real time for any issues that are identified with dedicated representation to work with SZC to gather the relevant evidence with data collection and patient and public engagement to ensure that decisions are made for the effective use of the community fund. Other contents of the Development Control Order (DCO) The CCG will continue to review and pick up further issues and comments on the Draft DCO directly with the applicant, in advance of a future examination hearing focussed on the DCO. As a general statement the CCG would like to understand what future outbreak management will be in place to combat COVID-19 and other public health emergency situations, which could include future proofing of facilities and access to OH services? What has taken place at Hinkley to support the safe access to facilities and assurance of learning to ensure that what OH services are created at Sizewell C to support social distancing and infection control requirements. Safeguarding Health partners have also raised specific Safeguarding concerns through the Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership Board – There has historically not been sufficient connection with safeguarding impacts related to developments and the CCG would therefore like to ensure the concerns raised are acknowledged by SZC. Upon discussion with the safeguarding leads, the main areas of concern are mitigation to support the impact on sex workers – potential popup brothels and the shift in these operations being managed online alongside the seasonal sex workers at key times i.e. Christmas which tend to be non-traceable opportunists. Whilst there are no clear identifiable mitigation assumptions there is a duty of care to ensure a strong link with safeguarding professionals to work in a collaborative manner in support of this vulnerable group. It would also be of benefit to understand what safeguards there will be in place against modern slavery and country lines. There are specific safeguarding concerns relating to the north of county relating to the High level of individuals with learning disabilities within the community with a limited amount of support. There should also be an acknowledgement of Pregnancy in ‘care leavers’ who turn to seeking relationships with people they don’t know and the sexual exploitation of young men leaving care who tend to reach to older men for relationships. What is EDF policy on managing these issues? What are the DBS check process that EDF carry out for their workforce and sub-contractors, in support of the safeguarding issues raised? It should be noted that Exploitation is the greatest concern relating to Safeguarding. Summary In final conclusion, As an Integrated Care System it is our ambition that every one of the one million people living in Suffolk and North East Essex is able to live as healthy a life as possible and has access to the help and treatment that they need in the right place, with good outcomes and experience of the care they receive. Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care System, recognises and supports the role of planning to create healthy, inclusive communities and reduce health inequalities whilst supporting local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all aligned to the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework section 91. The way health and care is being delivered is evolving, partly due to advances in digital technology and workforce challenges. Infrastructure changes and funds received as a result of this development may incorporate not only extensions, refurbishments, reconfigurations or new buildings but will also look to address workforce issues, allow for future digital innovations and support initiatives that prevent poor health and improve health and wellbeing. Suffolk and North East Essex's integrated care strategy defines the objectives for the forward view for this region. Sizewell C is a potential enabler to meet the challenges and the changes that the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment outlines. The planning process outlines structures and systems for negotiating mitigation of impact as defined by Sizewell C co. From our perspective, the interdependencies of service provision across our alliance of providers within this infrastructure is poorly served by the artificial divisions defined throughout the provided documentation and into the 106 suggestions. Moving forward it is critical that an infrastructure develops to manage the risks associated with Sizewell C, particularly regarding the cumulative effects that the socio-economic benefits and risks will bring. Providers of healthcare will be aiming to speak with one voice with multiple representation within each forum in order to keep the pace and focus required to fulfil our statutory and moral obligations to maintain and improve population outcomes. Many of the reasons that Sizewell is an ideal place to build nuclear power stations, are the self-same reasons why the legacy of socio-economic boom leads to enhanced risks of widening health inequalities, poverty and social stagnation. Our current health needs assessments outline the challenges faced by the population directly impacted by the Sizewell C proposals. The legacy of Sizewell B remains tangible in our health Informatics. It is a significantly deprived population, with higher levels of childhood obesity, tooth decay and smoking. There is no social mobility and the community remains isolated by poor road links and inadequate transport infrastructure. This impacts on mental and physical health. Cheap housing following socio economic boom leads to wider health inequalities and an area which continues to import a community of 65 and over. This perceptibly skews health needs and health demands. Plans for Sizewell C need to identify a legacy for this community which redresses their needs in partnership with the statutory providers, both locally and nationally. The legacy of nuclear power generation on the Suffolk coast needs to focus on achieving a connected, healthy and resilient population supported by infrastructure that meets and enhances the community resources and opportunities for both young and old, as identified in the JSNA. Post development, rural Suffolk will return to an agricultural economy supported by tourism and challenged by the needs of retirees. Plans are required to ensure that this strategic endpoint is part of the core project objectives. The Ipswich and East Suffolk CCG and West Suffolk CCG on behalf of the local health economy would welcome the opportunity to be part of a future hearing to express the points raised throughout this representation. Please see attached"

Jacqueline Smith
"I had followed closely the procedure for building Sizewell B, as both a teacher of Environmental Science in the area and a local resident. Subsequently I studied for and gained an MSc from UEA in Environmental Management and Environmental Impact Assessment and a PhD also from UEA in 'Improving the Participation of the Public in Coastal Flood Management. A case study from the Suffolk Coast, UK. A paper has been published on the subject in Ocean and Coastal Management in 2018. I understand the need for building nuclear power stations. The main consideration must be for building, operational and decommissioning safely. Besides that I have local concerns during construction. When building Sizewell B a jetty was built to move in heavy construction material. This was removed during the long delay to build Sizewell C. This was obviously a preferred solution at the time and although not considered initially for Sizewell C does seem to be an option now. It would appear to be the best and preferred way for moving as much material to and from the site as possible, followed by rail and lastly road. Is this the case? Sea defences will be needed to protect the site. It is known that defences in one part of a coastline could and often do have an impact on other sites along the coast. Is this impact been considered or mitigated for?"

James Gatehouse
"I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I think the Sizewell C application is probably unsuitable for a digital examination process. The following are my issues of concern. Vulnerability of site to climate change and rising sea levels containing 5 nuclear plants and associated stored waste. Adverse impact of development on important adjacent areas of amenity, cultural heritage, landscape value and scientific interest. Unacceptable impact on local communities of increased traffic, light and dust pollution. The contentious issue of a large workers campus in open country adjacent to a small rural community and overlooking the Minsmere reserve. Disruption and possible destruction of local economy based on tourism. Over reliance on road based supply systems and failure to exploit rail and sea options fully. Unsuitable new roads and bypasses in place of a properly assessed relief road originally proposed for Sizewell B. Totally unacceptable source of bulk aggregates spoil disposal and quarrying overlooking an internationally significant RSPB Reserve and adjacent to a small rural community. Uncertainty about impact on flooding, drainage and water supply in this sensitive marsh habitat."

Jan Dicks
"I am writing to OPPOSE the building of Sizewell C on our beautiful Suffolk coast. I am totally opposed to nuclear energy in principle for many reasons, but the main one is the storage of waste. I cannot understand how permission has been granted to build nuclear power stations when the problems of waste will be left for future generations over thousands of years. Our generation already has a lot to answer for. We must not leave this dreadful legacy. Apart from my general opposition to nuclear power, I would like to make the following points against the building of Sizewell C. Siting - It will be situated on a unique heritage landscape, and one which is becoming increasingly rare. Although we live in South Suffolk, my husband and I are frequent visitors to the Suffolk Coast. We often stay in the campsite at the Eel’s Foot Inn in Eastbridge so that we can visit Minsmere reserve and enjoy the beautiful landscape and wildlife of the area. The construction of a huge new power station is bound to have a detrimental effect on both. Cost – we believe that the huge cost of building Sizewell C should instead be used to develop alternate green energy sources. During this time of Covid 19 and massive unemployment, now is the ideal opportunity to invest in a huge green initiative so that the UK becomes a world leader in new forms of SAFE green energy such as hydrogen. Water – Sizewell C will need 3 million litres of fresh water a day for 70 – 80 years. Need I say more? Waste – the waste generated by nuclear reactors remains radioactive for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. I believe it is immoral to produce this waste and leave it for future generations to deal with. Funding – EDF do not have the funding to complete Sizewell C. This is with the current 20% funding from China which we believe to be a very unwise way of funding the UK'electricity generation. The National Audit Office has called Sizewell C ‘risky and expensive’. Traffic – the construction of Sizewell would involve an appalling traffic load and huge loss of greenfield site with new roads and labour camps. The destruction and fragmentation of the area for new roads, roundabouts, park and ride facilities and temporary accommodation, with all the noise, pollution, dust and light pollution that these, and the construction site, will bring, is too high a price to pay for a nuclear facility which is 20th century technology. Wildlife The whole area is rich in wildlife and important for biodiversity, which includes rare species like the endangered natterjack toad. The proposed development pays little attention to the potential massive detrimental effects on wildlife. It seems ludicrous to allow the destruction of such important habitats when we are being encouraged in Suffolk to turn 5% of our land back to nature. As a final point, why is no-one seeming to remember Fukushima!"

Jane Anderson Craig
"I have grave concerns over the development of reactors that have never safely operated at Sizewell, an area rich in diverse and endangered wildlife, along with many other issues. I therefore wish to raise the following concerns about Sizewell C. Firstly, I believe it is in the wrong place. Climate change is a scientific fact, sea levels are rising and flooding is likely. The site could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste with a half-life of 700 million years. It is impossible to plan for containment and maintenance of this site for this period. This leaves a unforgivable legacy for the generations of humans who will live with this short to medium-term planning decision. Also, as highlighted by the RSPB, there will be an adverse effect on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and landscape. There are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for this area and so the environmental impact surveys undertaken are inaccurate and irrelevant as presented in isolation. Secondly, there would be enormous impact on local communities and economies. Huge increases in traffic, noise, light pollution and disruption will affect the lives of local people and deter tourists. An estimated six thousand migrant workers will move to the area. I understand that two thousand four hundred people will be housed in a worker campus in a location that I oppose. There is already huge pressure on water treatment in the area. It has been estimated that the local tourist industry may lose up to forty million pounds a year and four hundred jobs could be lost. EDF itself has published a suggested figure of 29% of visitors could be deterred visiting. Local communities will be in direct competition for housing which will increase rents and house prices, further disadvantaging local people. The large increase in workers will also put extra pressure on already overstretched health, social and emergency services. Thirdly, the enormous increase in road transport cannot be supported by the local roads. The transport plan is not sustainable. HGV numbers as estimated are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. This will have a huge, adverse impact on local communities and visitor numbers. I understand that the proposed delay in the construction of new roads would result in villages suffering from two to three years of increased traffic. But even if constructed these new roads would sever communities and damage the rural footpath system. The effects of rat-running and local disruption has also not been adequately considered. In addition, any proposed alternative relief road routes with legacy value have not been adequately assessed by EDF, leaving the local community with unhelpful roads that will harm the ecology of the area. Forthly, the environment and landscape will be severely negatively impacted. The project will affect flooding in the area, the effect on Minsmere Sluice and therefore wildlife is unknown and there would be a devastating effect on wildlife from light pollution, noise and traffic. Plans for dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles are inadequate and the impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill have not been fully addressed by EDF. Crucially there will be irreparable harm to Minsmere which is a flagship destination of international importance. Indeed, the impact on Marsh Harriers threatens the integrity of the Special Protection Area. The water table will be negatively impacted by the project. There is uncertainty about the drainage and supply of three million litres of potable water caused by the site and the abstraction of water compounds will cause risks for the environment and to protected species. This will inevitably risk groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and fragile ecologies. Excavation for the development will inevitably increase the risk of flooding due to the loss of flood storage. Indeed, there will be a catastrophic impact on the character of the landscape due to the location, design and huge scale of the project: a project so large it will sever the AONB. Furthermore, it is estimated that the project will not offset CO2 from construction alone for at least six years. But as decommissioning of nuclear power stations are never included in costs and environmental impact reports the long term environmental and financial cost of nuclear power are never fully revealed to the public. Finally, the effects on marine and costal processes has not been adequately addressed. As no complete design of the hard coastal defence feature has been produced, or made public, the public and decision makers have not been allowed to assess ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes. Rates of erosion and recession are episodic and unpredictable and make the site unsuitable for the construction of reactors and storage of depleted fuel rods. Planning needs to be for the 700 million year half-life of the depleted fuel and not just the foreseeable future. In addition, the impacts of the Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes cannot be adequately assessed but even so the impacts on marine ecology will inevitably be negative. I therefore wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and the RSPB. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Janine Edge
"I have lived in Aldeburgh, Suffolk since 1998 and have owned a house in Aldeburgh since 2004. I live, work and exercise in the area including swimming in the sea almost daily. My main objections are as follows: 1. The Sizewell nuclear power station is already a huge risk to the lives and health of people and the environment, and to add a further reactor will significantly increase that risk. It is well known that there was a serious incident at Sizewell Power station in 2007 and HM NII ruled that "there was significant risk that operators and even members of the public could have been harmed.....". In addition it is well known (Chernobyl and Fukushima) that if the power supply to a nuclear power station is interrupted it becomes extremely dangerous. When I enquired at an open day what precautions would be in place the response I was given was wholly inadequate. (I was told there would be back up generators in land with a limited supply of fuel - but because of the flat landscape and the possibility of an extended time needed for back up, this is obviously inadequate and there could be other risks for which generators are useless as a solution anyway).The Sizewell power station is too close to the sea, on land that is too flat behind it and too close to residential areas to ever be a safe venue for a nuclear reactor. 2. The process of consultation and investigation of safety and security issues has been totally inadequate given the potential dangers involved and the unquantifiable risks. The process could and should be subject to judicial review by those like myself whose life and home are in danger. 3. The process of building Sizewell C reactor will destroy the area as a peaceful residential and holiday place of outstanding natural beauty, cause traffic chaos and irreversible environmental damage. 4. A nuclear accident at Sizewell will not only affect those in Suffolk but also those in Britain and potentially Europe and beyond. Given the extent of the risks, the method of consultation in the wider geographical area has been far too limited. 5. i strongly therefore strongly oppose the building of Sizewell C reactor."

Jenny Labbett
"My submissions That there should be no Park and Ride at Wickham Market for environmental and safety reasons Wickham Market is a small, and - until now - a relatively quiet village with narrow roads. It is already getting busier, following the construction of many new homes, with more planned. It cannot sustain further increased through traffic. There will be noise and air pollution throughout the village, and it will not be safe to walk on the narrow pavements. It will totally change the character of the village. Across the A12 from Wickham Market, in Lower Hacheston, traffic volumes along the B1078 (from Campsey Ashe towards the A12) are already high, with many speeding drivers. The police statistics in 2016 were as follows: 11,000 vehicles per week (Campsey Ashe to the A12) 79% of vehicles speeding The figures from the A12 to Campsey Ashe were as follows: 10,000 vehicles per week 61% speeding This part of the B1078 is used as a cut through from Rendlesham, and the volume of traffic will rise further with the construction and usage of the park and ride. This part of the B1078 is not suitable for lorries. Most of it has no pavement, and it is dangerous for residents to walk along. The park and ride site itself will blight this part of Suffolk for years. There will be a great loss of natural habitat. There will be severe light pollution which will affect the nearby villages. Please note that many of the observations and mitigation recommendations from the local community have been omitted or ignored so far. That the traffic along the A12 will increase, damaging the local economy The A12 is already busy. Notwithstanding the proposed 2- or 4- village bypass, the increased traffic will be a deterrent to using the A12, so the local economy of East Suffolk, with its coastal destinations, will be seriously affected. That Sizewell C is not safe The proposed reactor has not been successfully tried and tested. Hinkley Point C in Somerset is way over time and budget and is not yet operational. The Flamanville site in France is the same - construction began in 2007! - and repairs are currently being undertaken. No reactor of the same type should be built at Sizewell in these circumstances. That, by the time Sizewell C is completed, it will be out of date Given the lengthy delays (of many years) to other EDF nuclear projects at Hinkley Point and Flamanville, it is certain that the technology employed at Sizewell C will have been superceded by the time it is complete. That local workers will not benefit Local people are unlikely to benefit long term from the employment opportunities at Sizewell, since many of the permanent jobs will be highly skilled and will require specific expertise, which will be imported from elsewhere in the UK or abroad. That the danger to the environment of storing nuclear waste is unacceptable Our environment, in Suffolk and elsewhere, is precious."

Jenny Nutbeem
"I wish to register my concerns about the proposed Sizewell C development: The construction of the link road will impact hugely on the area In which I live. Environmental concerns: Natural habitat and wildlife at RSPB Minsmere and local SSSI will be affected and areas of national ecological importance destroyed. Tourism -in an area celebrated for its peace and tranquility- will be much reduced due to extra traffic, disruption, noise and dust pollution. Predicted loss of revenue in the local tourist industry is estimated at £40m a year. Sizewell C will require more fresh water than this water-scarce area can afford. Increased traffic will cause disruption on the A12 and other roads and result in too much traffic on minor roads. Coronation wood will be felled. Climate change forecasts predict that rising sea levels will cause Sizewell C to become an island storing lethal spent fuel. Also a risk of flooding. I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C: Site not adequate for the infrastructure proposed. Sea level rise and flooding. Other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the area. Designated ecological sites - SSSIs and AONB - affected or destroyed. RSPB Minsmere - internationally important flagship destination -irreparably harmed. Impossible compensation for landscape and ecological damage. Impacts on marine ecology. Coronation Wood will be felled. Environment Agency climate change forecasts predict that Sizewell will become an island storing lethal nuclear fuel. Massive impact on tourism- visitors will be deterred. Local businesses affected. Increased heavy traffic- up tp 1140 HGVs per day - will cause gridlock on the A12. Quiet back roads will be used as rat runs. New road construction will increase traffic and cause noise, light and dust pollution. The construction of the proposed link road will completely change the character of North Green, where I live, dividing farmland, damaging footpaths and severing communities. 6,000 workers will impact housing and local infrastructure and quality of life for residents. Pressure on health, social and emergency services. CO2 will not be offset from construction for at least 6 years. Spoil heaps unmanaged. Documentation has been of poor quality, with maps too small and difficult to read descriptions. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Jenny Rawson
"I am very concerned about the potential disturbance for wildlife through this development. The construction stage is referred to as temporary but is an extended and considerable length of time, which will undoubtedly cause impacts on wildlife, people and the local ecology and economy. The Suffolk coast & heaths AONB is a beautiful area for people and wildlife, in today's developed world the Suffolk coast is one of the best places for wildlife in the UK. We should continue to celebrate this and avoid all unnecessary developments. It is also deeply concerning that the current designations of this unspoilt area are at risk from this unnecessary development. The UK government needs to focus on other renewable options such as wind and solar which is abundant in the local area."

Jiho?eské matky, z.s.
"It is not clear if a new NPP is needed at all in UK. At this point in time, when renewables have already become cheaper than nuclear energy it is necessary to update the assessment of alternatives for every planned NPP and not to rely on older data. It would have also been necessary to update the electricity demand to substantiate the decision for new nuclear instead of the deployment of renewables. No sufficient proof of safe disposal for spent fuel and radioactive waste was provided in the documents. Interim storage capacities for spent fuel are not available yet, and it has not been made clear if they will be available once Sizewell C will be generating spent fuel. Also no information is provided on the geological final repository for spent fuel and high-level waste, neither on the site, the technology or the timetable. Before the claiming or deciding that the KBS-V3 method will be used for the spent fuel canisters for the final repository prove should be provided that copper corrosion will not become a problem in the long-term. Three reactors that are the design basis of the planned reactor type UK EPR™ are currently under construction, one each in Finland (Olkiluoto 3), France (Flamanville 3) and the U.K. (Hinkley Point C1). OL3 and FL3 are many years behind their initial schedule. The length of the construction period and the many difficulties demonstrate the complexity of the EPR design. The design of this reactor type needs to be re-examined in the light of the Fukushima accident. It is questionable if preserving containment integrity is guaranteed by the proposed safety design and features. Eight years ago an accident analysis was conducted. Since this evaluation, the state of science and technology underwent further development. This is reflected in new international and European regulations and guidelines that should have been taken into proper account. Severe accidents with high releases of caesium-137 cannot be excluded although their calculated probability is below 1E-7/a. Consequently, such accidents should have been included in the environmental impact assessment since their effects can be widespread and long-lasting. Site-specific factors, in particular possible danger of flooding and climate change effects, could endanger Sizewell C. And it has not been proved that the NPP can withstand terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage. The project flexRISK assesses that in case of a severe accident at the Sizewell site, all of Europe could be contaminated."

Jocelyn Bond
"The following combines and tries to reflect the very relevant views of as many of the residents I represent in the Ward (who have contacted me, and also my fellow Ward member Cllr Haworth-Culf) as possible. Cumulative impact of this project alongside the multiple Energy NSIPs coming forward on this coast requires urgent consideration. An early overview from the Inspectorate to the Secretary of State would be vital on this subject. Despite the 8 years of involvement in this project, the lack of in-depth detail is unsatisfactory. Of the information provided, much appears to require further challenging and interrogation. Mental wellbeing of residents affected by the process so far lasting 8 years and ongoing into the future, stress and strain that requires recognising and assistance provided. Additional burdens relating to COVID restrictions – learning new ways of communicating for all – leaves many residents feeling confused and disenfranchised. Concern that the NSIP process is inappropriate for this application. So far, no information to provide confidence that any economic boom will not result in a corresponding bust. Rural Parishes’ input lacks acknowledgment and productive action from the applicant. Concern over night rail movements’ impact on nearby residents. Dissatisfaction that a comprehensive rail use plan has yet to be provided. Unacceptable road over rail and sea bias. This would have an unreasonably adverse impact on local communities, and cause significant damage to the tourism economy both locally and in the wider area. Together with adverse publicity of the build the perception of the area as a desirable place to live and visit would be hugely diminished. Irreparable damage potentially to be caused to Minsmere and other RAMSAR / AONB land, together with biodiversity reduction, particularly relevant when there is wide acceptance of a Climate Emergency. Intrusive avoidable pylons. Inappropriate shore defence plan. Socio – Economic - the effect on residents of particularly Leiston-cum-Sizewell (and other neighbouring Parishes), of the majority of workers being based in the area needs to be acknowledged and mitigated for. Reassurance is required that any apprenticeships and skills be primarily sourced through Alde Valley Academy and Suffolk College on the Coast. Emergency services support, deficiencies of cover and availability during construction - no mention of how this would be mitigated against yet. Campus - alternative options for location require consideration by EDF; there is no legacy for the current site(s), impacts on local communities include noise, light, pollution particularly by traffic, and social pressures. No recognition that all other significant infrastructure works ought to be completed prior to commencement of building SZC. Sizewell Link Road - no justification offered for the choice of current route, which is lacking legacy or merit. B1122, Sizewell Gap Road and others – no acceptable solution offered for the first 2 years usage before completion of the Link Road. Many impacts overall would be so great mitigation would be impossible."

John Huntingford
"I am concerned about the effect of this proposal on the fragile and valued environment of the East Suffolk coast, including the permanent effect on coastal erosion. It seems to me the economic impact of this continuing erosion has not been costed into the submission. I also believe that the case for nuclear power is not made. The technology for making the nuclear waste safe has not yet been developed and so it has to be stored for future generations to deal with. This means that the cost of doing this is unknown and therefore uncosted: it is not zero. I believe there are ongoing problems with the safety and security of nuclear power in general and Sizewell C in particular. I would prefer the huge amount of money that goes into research and development of nuclear power be directed to energy saving measures and 'green' technologies. What is needed is a ring main around the UK into which the various wind and other coastal technologies can feed."

John Law
"Dear Sir/Madam, I write as someone whose family home is in Suffolk. I am also the founder of [Redacted], an organisation campaigning for an effective transition to clean energy sources in the UK, as part of our contribution to tackling global warming. I believer that, done right, the Sizewell C project could be good for the country and the region, both from environmental and economic perspectives. I note that Suffolk County Council has most recently withheld its support on the basis principally of inadequate mitigations to traffic on the county's roads by EDF, arguing for greater use of rail and sea to reduce vehicle volumes. I would similarly like to see such changes implemented. I can quite see how local people are concerned at the current road-based strategy. It does, indeed, seem a shame that EDF has lost the support of many in the local area who might otherwise have been well disposed towards the project, through inadequately addressing their concerns or at least poor communication. In this connection, I have trawled through the literature on EDF's website looking to find the reason that the marine-led strategy was abandoned at Stage 3 of the process. It does appear that it was simply dropped with little explanation, on the basis of "ecological impact" that would have taken too long/been too difficult to address. An alternative suggestion I have also seen is that the North Sea was considered too rough for landing materials. I would have thought that building a jetty for the transport of aggregates, as has been done at Hinkley C (please see link below), would have had a low/minimal environmental impact; and it would have been quite possible in the North Sea, which although windy and rough at times, is far from being the North Atlantic and does not experience major swells. The jetty could have been removed once construction was complete. This probably would have lessened a good degree of the pressure on the roads, and helped to ease local opposition, had it been adopted. In summary, I believe that Sizewell C represents a good project for Britain's contribution to limiting dangerous climate change and to securing a reliable supply of energy going forward. It would also help rebuild the country's nuclear industry and be a source of high-quality employment for local people on the Suffolk coast. However, it seems that insufficient attention has been paid, or opportunities overlooked, for mitigations to the volume of material transported on the road network, by fully exploiting the potential of rail and sea delivery. This has understandably caused bad feeling to grow within the local community. It is not too late, however, for adjustments to be made to the proposed transport methods, leading to a considerable lessening of planned truck volumes on the roads. This would lead to the feeling that concerns had been listened to and addressed, allowing the project to proceed with general goodwill. Many thanks for taking this submission into consideration. Yours faithfully, Dr. John Law"

John Sutherell
"I wish to represent the following issues of concerns on Sizewell C: Throughout the consultation period EDF have failed to address or provide sufficient detail on many of the issues arising from their proposal. Their claims/aspirations continue to be at variance with reality and need to be probed deeply, not accepted at face value. The claim that UK EPRs are proven technology is questionable. The only operating example is in China; those in Finland and France have problems. They, and Hinckley Point C, are behind schedule and over budget. EDF’s schedules and cost assessments need challenging. There is no evidence to support the claim that the coastal site is `stable and secure’; it is eroding and stormy. The suitability of the geology for the construction site is questionable. Negative impacts on local communities (severance, traffic, noise/air/light pollution, health, social and emergency services) and the environment and ecology (Minsmere/AONB/ground water) are so severe that adequate mitigation and redress is impossible. Traffic volumes have been underestimated; transparency on traffic modelling assumptions has been denied. Actual traffic at Hinckley Point exceeded EDF estimates. Traffic flows on A12, A1120 and B1122 are already a source of concern. The proposed road improvements/relief road should be brought forward in the plan. 2-3 years of unmitigated traffic impact is unacceptable. Impact on the local economy. EDF claims to benefit the `regional’ economy are not supported by evidence. East Suffolk has low unemployment. Skilled/high earning jobs will be filled by re-contracting from Hinckley to reduce costs; locals will be `poached’ from the local economy to fill un-skilled jobs. EDF’s own survey recognizes that 29% of tourists will be deterred; tourism is likely to lose £40m a year and 400 jobs. Independent analysis should be undertaken to test and enumerate EDF’s claims on employment and to have provided bursaries, training and then employing Suffolk people for Hinkley. What are the details of the promised Jobs Service; Skills fund; Young Sizewell C; Community Fund; Public Services contingency Fund and Housing Funds? Money, numbers and examples from Hinckley. Health and Social Impact. Leiston and surrounding villages were badly affected by the Sizewell B construction force. What are the details of the `Sizewell C Worker Code of Conduct’ and enforcement regime. Evidence from Hinckley, including statistics? What additional contribution is EDF making to the cost of scaling up of local policing? EDF claims that Sizewell C will save `9 Million Tonnes of CO2 every year of operation’ is suspect. EDF documents show it will take 6 years to off-set 5.74m tonnes of CO 2 from construction (not 6-8 months) once generation starts Since the build is likely to take at least 9-12 years from 2022 (without factoring in the delays seen on their other projects) so will not contribute to net zero until 2040 I endorse the relevant representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB, Middleton, Yoxford, Theberton and Darsham Parish Councils. I consider that consideration of the Sizewell C Application by a digital examination process is totally unacceptable."

Joseph Morrice
"Following a review of the planning application submitted by EDF in regard to the construction of Sizewell C I feel that this project should not be approved. My concerns and objections are briefly outlined below. Site selection, I disagree that the construction of a third nuclear reactor should take place on the Sizewell site. Not only are the assessments of the impact on the three SSSI sites and RSPB Minsmere insufficient, EDF have also failed to demonstrate how they plan to adequately mitigate the damage to the habitats, ecology and coastline which would be caused by the construction of Sizewell C. Impact on local community, I have concerns that the project will have severe and lasting impacts on those living in Suffolk. The dramatic increases in road traffic, sound, light and dust pollution for a minimum duration of 10 years during construction leads me to believe that the unique rural landscape of the surrounding area would be forever destroyed. Furthermore, the influx of a large population of external workers will have a negative impact on the local residents and their way of life; transport routes, healthcare provision and emergency service response time will all be adversely effected. The local economy of Suffolk and the Sizewell area is that of the service and hospitality sector, the number of local people who would be employed by the construction and running of another nuclear reactor is not equitable to those who are reliant on the tourism trade which would be severely damaged by the approval of this project. Finally, the site is located in an area at which has been historically effected by coastal erosion and with the effect of global climate change the site will come under ever increasing threat of loss from the sea. Furthermore, from the consultation papers I feel that the potential impact of the construction on natural coastal processes, ecological sites as well as historical and cultural heritage has not been adequately protected or investigated. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C as well as that of RSPB Minsmere and feel that the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Eamonn O on behalf of Judy James
"I am strongly against another power station being built at Sizewell. Firstly, I don't agree with nuclear power, and secondly the roads feeding into Sizewell are not suitable for the congestion which would ensue for our area over a period of approximately ten years. The thought of this plus all the extra pollution which would occur for Woodbridge and the rest of our lovely area is unbearable. Judy James"

Julianne Morgan
"I would like to object to the plans submitted by EDF for Sizewell C due to lack of information on the following: 1) long term impact on the Suffolk coast given the size and scale of the construction of Sizewell C 2) long term impact on the bird life and other animals both within the site and along its transportation links when building the site 3) the lack of planning and impact study on the traffic congestion, pollution and general disruption along the transportation routes which are already busy with local and tourist traffic 4) the negative impact on local tourism due to the about issues."

Kathleen Lording
"My personal objections along with 'Stop Sizewell C's' document, which I fully endorse. I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place . Nuclear energy in this form is outmoded, uneconomical and devastating in its development to the local community. There are other alternatives to the generation of electricity and more in the pipeline which will be available long before Sizewell C produces a spark. The pressure on health, social and emergency services on local vulnerable people appears not to have been considered. How do the local people negotiate the massive planned roadworks, followed by grid locked roads during construction, if they need to get to hospital quickly and for emergency services to attend to them. How do school children and their buses manage to attend school on time amid all the chaos. Local amenities will be swamped by workers at the expense of residents. 1. Site Selection • 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."

Katie Redgrave
"Site: - I believe this is a wholly inappropriate site, further expansion and adaption of Sizewell could cause significant impact to coastal processes - The site would have a serious and adverse affect on wildlife at a time when it is in need of most protection - including species which rely on Minsmere as a breeding site and migration site (such as Marsh Harriers). Impact on community - I oppose the influx of workers both on and off-site to an area that continues to suffer from complex social issues as a result of the previous construction of Sizewell - Huge pressure on local housing - Pressure on social and emergency services in an area with a higher proportion of elderly and vulnerable people in remote, hard-to-access area - EDF itself says 29% of visitors could be put off from visiting the area, grossly impacting one of the county's largest industries: tourism Transport - I am personally very concerned about the plans for a potential park and ride at Wickham Market roundabout - an already busy place due to entry to A12 and increase traffic from Framlingham area due to housing expansion. - New roads would cause havoc to local areas, spoil natural beauty areas, footpaths and increase driver speeds and potential crashes - Enduring 2-3 years of increased traffic not fully considered in addition to the increased traffic from new housing estates in local areas This is the wrong project in the wrong site. The country's need for additional electricity and power cannot whilst also reducing carbon emissions cannot be met by the Sizewell C plan. The CO2 caused from construction will not be offset for at least 6 years. There has not been sufficient evidence of assessments of other, smaller nuclear reactors in existing brown field sites. If brown field sites already exist, there should be no good reason to cause further destruction of the natural world, particularly when in the grip of global climate emergency. I wish to state that 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."

Laxfield Parish Council
"Laxfield Parish Council are concerned about: ADVERSE IMPACT ON LOCAL AREAS • eco-systems such as Minsmere • noise/light pollution • vibration on old/historic buildings • tourism - workers are already renting ‘holiday accommodation’ • community health care and other services - there will be 3500+ non home-based workers • there will be ‘severance of communities’ such as Theberton & Eastbridge because of road closures TRANSPORT ISSUES • originally EDF were going to deliver aggregates by sea by building an appropriate jetty - but not now • then EDF proposed all transport was going to be by rail - but not now • HGVs (say x1000 per day?) • LGVs (say x600 per day?) • thousands of workers travelling in own cars (possibly day/night with uncivilised shift hours) • night trains (say 6-8 unloading at night for 8—10 years - currently there are none) There has been no • improved jetty for sea deliveries which would alleviate most road transport issues • updating/improvement of sea defences There is rat-running by HGVs which negatively affects the local area • it is likely that this will not just affect the East Suffolk/A12 corridor, but all of Suffolk’s road system • EDF have come up with no solution after 3yrs of Wickham Market complaining about rat-running EDF based the Sizewell model on Hinckley, which is a totally different situation • 60% of freight is now by road - this number of HGVs dwarfs the Hinckley situation KEY POINTS • HGV movements • Tourist sector • Effect on local areas"

Liberal Democrats - Suffolk Coastal
"For some years now I have been looking at the concept of Sizewell C/D. Given my extensive research in to nuclear power (NP0, here in Suffolk and across at Hinkley point - plus my issues pertaining to NP as a whole I am really worried about the realistic viability of the project and would therefore like to see investigations into We wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection I believe EDF are shoehorning the 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 which is likely to happen pre planning CO2 will take years to absorb 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 I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. and RSPB The Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process given the age of locals and their skills in this regard."

Lizzi Thistlethwayte
"Concern for the fragile and constantly changing natural environment. Concern about the lack of transparency over matters concerned with disposal of radioactive waste and the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years of hazardous waste that this project will leave for future generations"

Louise
"The Suffolk coast area around Sizewell is ANOB land, this alone is reason. Enough not to build two nuclear reactors on its land. Added to this is the world famous and important Minsmere reserve just north of the proposed site. Large nuclear power stations are out of date and ridiculously expensive. The Suffolk coastal area is fast becoming a hub for offshore wind energy, lets keep working on developing their renewable resources and use the land at Sizewell for the electricity substation needed for the wind farm. The fragile coast should not be used for any more nuclear power."

Louise Gooch (East Suffolk Council Cllr)
"I write as an East Suffolk Council Cllr. I am opposed to Sizewell C for the following reasons: The site itself is a nationally and internationally recognized SSI and AONB; as such, the project is opposed by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust and Friends of the Earth. Ancient woods such as Coronation Wood would be felled, and such precious resources would be lost forever. Over 100 local businesses have recently written to the government to voice concerns on the impact this project might have on local tourism and farming. The building of the project will not be carbon neutral. Assuming that the plant is completed in 2034, it will take a further six years for the project to ‘pay-off’ the carbon debts of construction; and the actual operation of the plant in terms of the ongoing needs in campus servicing and transportation will detract from the energy gains. The A12 is not a trunk road even though it is the main highway from first and second towns in Suffolk of Ipswich and Lowestoft. The insertion of five new roundabouts would cause greater traffic congestion and environmental pollution. It is not just the land and air that would suffer degradation, but also the water. The sea water intake would create ‘marine churn’ relying as it does on sucking in tonnes of fish every day; in addition, the fresh water demand of Sizewell C would be 3 million litres per day from the water reserves of an area that is the driest region in the country. The site is prone to coastal erosion and was described by ESC in 2019 as one of the most “unstable coasts” in Europe. This erosion and the risk of flooding could maroon the proposed site within a century leaving an island of radioactive nuclear waste. The current government and those preceding have tried for seventy years to attract a community to ‘house’ a nuclear waste repository for the backlog at a cost of £12 billion. This is still uncertain and supporting an industry that will simply add to this waste with a radioactive life of 100,000 years is reckless in the extreme. I have concerns about the funding of EDF and its ties to Chinese state authorities, and its financial wherewithal to make good on the necessary decommissioning over the next century. Nuclear energy is not green or clean. The forthcoming book by Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Stanford, dismisses in chapter three any such claims. As a Cllr, I am concerned also about the lack of democratic engagement that has been permitted in the ‘public consultation’ process. Covid-19 has restricted public access to meetings and documents, and when EDF was requested by ESC, representing its parish councils, to delay Section 56 to prolong the consultation process, the response was a flat ‘no’. In short, this is the wrong technology, in the wrong place, and in the hands of the wrong company."

Louise Mangeot
"As a local resident who also runs a business, I have engaged in previous consultation stages and studied the DCO for Sizewell C, and am of the strong opinion that approval would mean harm which would be long lasting and could not be mitigated adequately. I also believe that the DCO for Sizewell C is too complex to be heard virtually, and that the impacts of Covid-19 has disadvantaged individuals such as myself being able to participate. My specific concerns include: Huge worry regarding traffic and how I will be able to travel across the area or how people attending my services will do so, with an increase of HGV, LGV, subcontractor and worker vehicles during construction. And the failure of EDF to agree to a 4 village by-pass and a new road from the A12 to the site. Unsuitability of A1094 and B1122 for heavy traffic. There is bound to be fly parking and rat runs. Increased road traffic congestion due to the failed rail strategy, and not being able to have delivery by sea due to impact on marine life and coastal processes. Impact on the coast at Thorpeness from hard defences proposed at Sizewell C and the impact on marine life, local fishing industry, coastal processes, and flood risk. Severe and real impact on physical/mental health and well-being of communities while still trying to cope with Covid-19. Impact on provision of health care and policing, with the risk of more anti-social behaviour and crime or fear of crime. Cumulative impact of other several energy projects proposed in the same geographic area and same time frame (EA1N, EA2 and European Interconnectors etc). Visual impact of 4 new over ground pylons. Site selection for EPR design twin reactors when there is not sufficient space and the need for Coronation wood to be felled to make room for this proposal when this was quoted in a previous development application for Sizewell B Dry Fuel Store as necessary screening. Impact on the fragile and beautiful environment, internationally recognised SSSI, AONB, and the tranquillity, dark skies, quiet lanes, wildlife, all of which contribute to my health and well-being. Long term changes to the landscape and visual impact of the main power station and of other temporary/permanent infrastructure. Location of worker campus, and caravan site. Threat to the socio-economic balance of this area which depends on tourism. And the fact that tourists have a different spending profile to workers. Risk to the housing markets, with blight (as someone who is selling a house I am acutely aware of this impact – actual and perceived.) Noise, dust, vibration and light pollution during 12+ years of 24/7 construction. In conclusion: The size and duration of this project over 12years+ construction, 60 years generation and 120+ years of storing spent fuel and waste means that the negative impact outweighs any local benefits, and this DCO should not be approved."

Lucy Oldham
"I am concerned about: the impacts on Minsmere nature reserve and the precious wildlife it houses particularly the impacts from light pollution caused by Sizewell C. I am concerned about impacts on the Nationally designated AONB and particularly impacts of additional traffic particularly HGVs Which will affect the tranquility of area. All of these will also negatively impact the on tourism trade to the area."

Malcolm Annandale
"I wish to raise the following issues and concerns about Sizewell C. 1. I believe the site is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding. 2. There will be unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, signifiant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. 3. Road transport plan will have enormous and adverse impact on local communities. 4. Irreparable harm to Minsmere. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C."

Mandy Beaumont
"ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Loss of AONB Impossible for EDF to mitigate environmental losses - biodiversity in this area includes many ancient sites, destruction of which is irreversible at a time of ‘Climate Emergency’. SITE: This coast is eroding - grave concern for stability of any new building work here, let alone a new nuclear power station! Local towns of Leiston & Eastbridge unable to cope with influx. Locals will suffer. Too much workforce proposed into a small area creates social problems - previous experience here and elsewhere TRAFFIC: Issues on small country roads - rat running etc not taken into account on local roads. Proposed changes to B1122 are wholly inappropriate The legacy left in this beautiful (AONB) area will be concrete and tarmac! NUCLEAR AS A POWER SOURCE: This is so obviously no longer the way forward - too expensive, takes too long to build/over-runs based on other projects…leaving nuclear waste for future generations (see also environmental issues) EDF: Not a reliable company based on their track record of operation and costs. The company pays lip service to the idea of interacting with local groups but then ignores local knowledge and experience. EDF’s marketing misinformation includes too many false statements FUNDING: The project is too expensive for what is envisaged as a return….and funding projects suggesting that all energy users will have to contribute is ludicrous when so many people now want green energy as there is a better understanding of the Climate Crisis. 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."

Mandy leathers
"I am concerned about the plutonium that is left when making Nuclear power It is used to weapons of mass detruction; Nuclear weapons. I dont want there to be any more nuclear energy after the Chernoble disaster back in 1986 the land is still radio active -never safe! The storage of plutonium will never be safe. As the sea levels continue to rise due to global warming these nuclear sites will get flooded a disaster waiting to happen, contaminating our oceans,crustations,seals,whales,birds,people the land the planet. We are suppose to be caretakers,stewards of this planet for future generations,please invest your money In Tidal power,wind,solar,all sustainable for ever! Please No Nuclear."

Margaret Douglas
"Destruction of a Nature Reserve The site is in the middle of an AONB and SSI. The P.M. is signing the Pledge for Nature, planning an increase in Nature Reserves nationally. Minsmere is an RSPB flagship Bird Reserve enjoyed by local residents, birdwatchers and visitors from around the world. It has a special feel unlike anywhere else in the UK. The rare birds who come here will not stay when there is light pollution and constant noise from the adjacent building site for more than a decade. An educational and mental health resource The local area is a sanctuary for many people. It has great educational capacity and capability for young and old alike. It is a sanctuary in mental health terms, which is important when community anxiety levels are high for various reasons like the pandemic. A threat to the flourishing tourist and hospitality sectors It is predicted that the proposed Sizewell development will lose £40 million pounds in revenue to tourism locally and cost a great number of jobs. Many people’s livelihoods depend on it. I doubt local job creation vaunted by EDF will come about as most workers will be imported into the area. This summer the whole area was visited by vast numbers of people, enjoying nature, birdwatching, walking along the footpaths and visiting the beaches. It is popular all the year round. School students hike along the footpaths for their D of E, families visit the reserve and the beaches. Visitors go to cafes, restaurants, stay in hotels, self-catering accommodation, B&B’s. A large infrastructure project is not an adequate replacement for the likely loss of multiple small businesses. Traffic Gridlocked traffic and a constant stream of 700 – 1000 lorries a day on the roads will deter visitors. The rare beauty of Minsmere Bird Reserve and the surrounding area will become a desolate noisy industrial site full of light pollution, dust and gridlocked traffic. Local residents will have their mobility severely limited and it is clear from the experience at Hinckley Point that journey times will increase exponentially. Outdated technology Windpower is now much more efficient than it was and can now be transported and stored. Renewables are the future. They are cheaper and not as dangerous. Even the smaller modern nuclear reactors are less impactful than Sizewell C. Dangerous legacy of unspent nuclear waste Rising sea levels are forecast and this is a dangerously unsuitable site for building two new nuclear reactors and storing nuclear waste. A legacy of threat for our children. Cost and value for money The British people are facing rising unemployment and an uncertain economic future They do not want to pay extra taxes to fund an ever-increasing cost which will most likely over-run by billions of pounds. The impact of the Sizewell workforce 5,800 workers will overwhelm the local community which has a disproportionate number of older people, some with vulnerabilities. The safety of local residents is another concern I CONSIDER THE SIZEWELL C APPLICATION TO BE TOTALLY UNSUITABLE"

Margaret Hallett
"Living close to the proposed Southern Park & Ride site I am concerned about the increase in traffic that will come through our village on single track roads without footways, by non-Sizewell traffic trying to avoid the bottleneck on the B1078 on either side of the River Deben bridge by Rackham’s mill. Our nearest shops are In Wickham Market and I am concerned that the disruption caused during the construction of Sizewell C will adversely affect the traders, as at present the village is a pleasant place for tourists and non-locals to visit. I am also very concerned about the increased traffic on all 3 directions at the Woods Lane roundabout. That section of the A 12 is already heavily congested throughout the day and particularly at rush hour, the school buses are frequently delayed, and the road is very tricky to cross for pedestrians and cyclists. There does not seem to be any effort made in the proposal to mitigate or reduce these problems in spite of these matters being raised at several public consultations."

Marie Zabell
"I am an individual who is in support of this planning application. Once built (hopefully!) , this power station will provide clean, low carbon, reliable electricity to millions of people, myself and my family included. It is safe and energy dense, resulting in minimal environmental costs in the big scheme of things in terms of exploitation of natural resources (mining, land footprint and waste). There are public perception problems but these concerns are psychological only In reality there are no issues of radiological significance; I know from a job I had years ago that the nuclear industry is the most careful of all energy industries and on top of that is subject to incredibly stringent (almost restrictive) regulations. This type of energy is by far the best option for the future of our country. Please please for the sake of our kids approve it. I am also involved with Mums for Nuclear UK"

Maritime and Coastguard Agency
"Part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's (MCA) wide remit includes responsibilities for the safety of navigation and search and rescue in the UK. We would like to be consulted on the establishment of any infrastructure or works in or over the marine environment, and any Harbour Orders providing statutory powers for the ongoing safe operation of the facility. We would also like to consider whether the works may have any impact on MCA infrastructure in the area, which on initial inspection is unlikely. Should any works be required in or over the marine environment, a Marine Licence may be required under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, at which time the MCA will be invited to comment on the licence application from the safety of navigation safety perspective. In addition, the MCA would point the developers in the direction of the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) and its Guide to Good Practice; they would need to liaise and consult with any relevant Statutory Harbour Authority to develop a robust Safety Management System (SMS) for the project under this code.”"

Mark Hill
"As a forward thinking nation we must focus on a carbon neutral future, generating our energy from safe, clean & plentiful sources, whilst respecting and protecting the natural world that we call home. The beautiful Suffolk countryside would come under more destruction for an expensive, delayed vanity project. Just because there are already two plants there doesn't mean we need a third. Nuclear power in my view does not have a place in that future for several reasons. Renewables - Wind, Solar, hydro and the evolving grid scale battery storage market are far far cheaper than nuclear, looks at the price per Mwh for the Hinckley C that was agreed years ago, £92.50, wind power cost is now less that half. If Hinckley point ever gets up and running the UK consumer will be ripped off for years to come by this blight on the landscape. Turbines and solar systems can be constructed/installed much much faster that a nuclear plant can be built. Nuclear plants regularly go way over budget and construction times increased by years. This is just not an industry that we should be supporting. We should push forward with renewables and do it now."

Meraylah Allwood
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection I believe that the site is entirely the wrong place for such a development - it is at high risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding. This coast is prone to volatile change! There would be an 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. The storage of radioactive waste is a vitally important part of the project, and has not been considered anywhere near fully enough. This is something that our children, grandchildren and many more generations will have to deal with into the future - we cannot be irresponsible on their behalf. There are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality, surely there should be more consideration of these, and which ones would be more beneficial for the environment. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. The disruption for local people at Hinkley Point has been enormous. 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, vital for the livelihoods of many of us, 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. 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 I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C., the 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. In the current pandemic situation the process should be extended until all interested parties are able to engage and discuss fully."

Michael Nash
"We find the whole Sizewell C proposals illogical and inappropriate for the following main reasons. Battery storage is going to improve over the next 10 years being fed by renewables that have little human and environment impact e.g. off-shore wind turbines The site is in an area with NT, RSPB land and an AONB, with the threat of flooding During construction the roads will be congested with a huge environmental and social impact. There will be rat runs and lives and villages greatly affected. If it should go ahead, why not use sea transport? The campus is in the worst possible place and with 5000+ workers there will be major impacts on the local services e.g. hospitals, GP surgeries The area relies greatly on visitor revenue, this will be severly affected A couple of years ago I raised several concerns about the project. I never, ever heard anything back from anybody, including the people I spoke to directly. I guess this will be another 'tick box' evercise i.e. not read Please think again and about the failures of nuclear in France, UK (Hinkley Point) and elsewhere. It's also unaffordable..............."

Michael Strand
"Dear Sir/Madam I wish to register the following concerns about the proposed Sizewell C development, in Suffolk: I am opposed to the proposed development on the following grounds: The proposed site is surrounded by designated sites of international and national ecological importance. The development will result in the direct and indirect loss of rare and protected habitats, impacts on protected species, especially bats, birds within the SSSI and over Minsmere Levels and coastal processes and future land use. Increased traffic including 1140 HGVs per day, 700 buses and 10,000 cars/vans per day for the entire construction period of between nine and 12 years. The cars and vans servicing the site will inevitably seek out rat runs to avoid traffic gridlock on the A12, as i have already witnessed in Woodbridge when road closures have slowed down peoples travel time. The is a higher chance that accident rates will increase, with unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic and significant increases in noise, light, air, dust pollution and disruption. 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, a challenge which is becoming an increasing problem from one year to the next. Regards Michael Strand"

Ashtons Legal on behalf of Morgan Representation
"1. I, Sarah Morgan, [Redacted] Our title includes another residential property, [Redacted], which we rent out. We wish to be registered as an interested party for the Sizewell C DCO. I am Kew trained. 2. We object to EDF’s proposed for the Two Villages Bypass alignment and support the much better alignment put forward by the Parish Council, further to the east. 3. EDF’s consultations did not represent a proper assessment of the alternative alignment. Its reasons for rejecting it were and remain unsound. 4. EDF’s environmental appraisal is poor, with many errors. It has not identified habitats in nearby gardens, ponds and woods, having failed to ask for access. This area is on a deer migratory route and hares, hedgehogs, badgers and many bird species are seen regularly. EDF has not identified notable and veteran trees and historic double hedgerows which will be lost. It refers incorrectly to the relatively narrow connection between Palant’s Grove and Foxburrow Wood as ancient woodland; it is not. Both woods are embanked and were separated by a road (now reduced to a footpath). Pond Wood is not identified properly as ancient woodland. EDF have failed to assess properly wildlife corridors. 5. An eastern alignment: - would be less invasive, due to the topography. - would not require a deep cutting next to the already stressed Foxburrow Wood. EDF has not demonstrated that there will be no risk to that wood or other woodland, trees and animal habitats through the hydrological impact of the cutting. - would not sever a circular walk close to Farnham nor require a substantial intrusion into the landscape of large bunds with a 4 metre bridge close to dwellings. - would reduce noise and other pollution. The devastating nature of that is set out in EDF’s own documents. - would significantly reduce impact on the heritage assets of Farnham Manor (Grade II* listed) and its historic environs, as well as on a thriving tourism business. 6. EDF’s supposed mitigation is appallingly weak. Consultations with residents have been poor. 7. The four A12 villages should have bypass relief but EDF is failing to do so for Little Glemham and Marlesford. If they cannot be relieved, the future intent of the County Council to provide relief should not be prejudiced or constrained. The eastern alignment better suits an extension to the south. 8. EDF’s alignment is seriously detrimental to the built and natural environment. A more easterly alignment would be much less so. It would pass through the thin connecting strip between the two woods that is of low quality, and much self-sown, given that there was a road and no woodland originally in that 110 metres width. Wildlife passage would need to be maintained and there would be opportunities for further tree planting to enhance the landscape. 9. EDF’s proposal would destroy a quiet, beautiful and rural landscape and residential community to one of blight by traffic noise and pollution. 10. From a proper perspective on the planning balance, it is clear that the public good is best served by the more easterly alignment. 11. We therefore object to the Sizewell C DCO but reserve the right to amend, add to and expand on our objections during the DCO process"

Mr David Beaumont
"I have followed EDF Energy’s consultations on Sizewell C, keeping an open mind, but I have now come to the conclusion that this planning application is flawed and inadequate, consequently I OBJECT to the proposed plans for Sizewell C. I therefore wish to register my concerns with a number of issues related to EDF Energy’s planning application for Sizewell C. 1. Impact on Environment Whilst recognising the benefits of a National, diverse, balanced, and sustainable energy industry and resource, I believe that the proposed expansion of the nuclear facility at Sizewell, with the inclusion of Sizewell C, is ill conceived and totally in appropriate for a number of reasons: a) Nuclear energy may be low carbon but it is not carbon neutral which is what the UK energy sector should be striving for or better in an era of climate change. We now know that to prolong an energy source that is expensive to build, maintain and decommission whilst leaving a legacy that contaminates its site for hundreds of years is not worthy of consideration when other low carbon, sustainable energy sources exist. b) This project will have an adverse impact on an area of internationally recognised ecological amenity (e.g. Suffolk Coast & Heaths ANOB), including the RSPB Minsmere bird sanctuary which it will abut. c) The combined Sizewell site, with multiple reactors (e.g. more than 3), will raise the risk of nuclear accidents (e.g. Fukushima, Japan) and being a potential terrorist target endangering not only the local communities but the whole of East Anglia and its economy which the UK relies on. 2. Impacts on Infrastructure In my opinion, EDF Energy’s logistical plans to accommodate, build and supply the site both in its construction and operation are totally inadequate and will have a disastrous impact on the existing and proposed infrastructure by road, rail and sea for at least a decade or more. I am particularly concerned about the use of the A12 between Woodbridge and A12/A14 Severn Hills junction with a proposed increase in heavy vehicle usage of about 300 vehicles per day. 3. Impact on Communities It seems People always come last in the pecking order when planning developments of this size but it should be noted that large housing developments are abutting the length of the A12 from the access to the proposed site to the A12/A14 Seven Hills junction. Some of these properties are less than 50m from the A12 carriageway and the occupants are already suffering noise, air and light pollution which was not in existence when the properties built. The continual pollution caused by an additional 300+ heavy goods vehicles a day for many years will be intolerable for the occupants. In conclusion, in addition to the above comments I wish endorse the Relevant Representation of Suffolk County Council, the RSPB and Stop Sizewell C. Furthermore, I consider that the Sizewell C application should be examined at a public fora and it is not suitable for a digital examination process."

Mr Graham I Bickers
"Dear Sirs Re Relevant Representation I am writing with great concerns regarding the proposed development of Sizewell C I have too make clear that is the wrong development in the wrong location 1 Siting .The development platform is to small to permit the development of two reactors, being below by the EN6 guidance 2 Transport and Freight. The road led strategy has now superseded original levels over sea and rail ( now virtually forming only a very small % of the strategy The impact of all elements of this development and its construction rely solely on access via one pinch point to the East of the site and directly on the B1122 this bring further pressures on our small community This could be mitigated by using the south side of the site to reduce congestion at the main entrance. 3 Accommodation. It is clear one of these elements is the Accommodation which increases the pressure at the pinch point and could so easily be moved to one of EDF's original options (Leiston East) which has better correlation, giving access for workers into the the south of the site and to be closers to facilities of Leiston town centre. Thus reducing pressure into the main entrance (less car movements) and the roads around the local community The report from Boyer and Cannon (July 2017) supports this, with EDF's preferred option Eastbridge Lane ( main site ) having the biggest cumulative impact of all proposals The infastraure/buildings of this site could be used as a legacy 4 The effect on Theberton & Eastbridge communities in regard to road network is of huge concern The roads apart from the B1122 are all narrow single track and are not fit for purpose (grass grows down the middle of roads) has lack of passing places and is highly likely to be used for access and exit from the development by workers, cars, vans, deliveries, all using our hamlets raod as rat run This will endanger walkers drivers and residents, also causing great concerns for access for emergency vehicles, doctors carers and nurses in what is retiring community This must be strongly conditioned in any planning consent (if given) with vehicle monitoring camera's signage, speed limits, restricted access 5 Impact on Environment & Biodiversity Wildlife will lose habitat including Marsh Harrier, Bats (endangered) and many other species This area needs to be support its wildlife not destroy it 6 No clear figures are known from EDF in regards to Pollution, dust pollution from soil heaps 100metres high, disruption, light pollution of our clear sky's, noise pollution, average sound levels at present levels being around 25 decibels 7 Other Energy Matters. Additional impact of other uncoordinated energy projects 8 Blighting. Lack of mitigation regarding the huge blight the development will have on our lives, our property values and our mental and physical health within our community over many years 9 Economic Impact on tourism, employment, housing availability I would like to endorse the submissions made by Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council and Stop Sizewell C Your Sincerely G I Bickers"

Mr John David Sinclair
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1) Cost. The price per unit of electricity that will need to be charged to the consumer once Sizewell C is operational will be twice the price of renewable from wind, wave or solar power. The cost to the Taxpayer will be astronomical were the UK Government to financially support the building of Sizewell C. 2) Site Selection. The site is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding. There is a potential impact on natural coastal process. The site could become an island containing nuclear reactors and stored waste. There will certainly be an adverse impact on the adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance. The Sizewell C site & Worker campus will impact the RSPB Minsmere. 3) Community, Economic and social impacts. There will be unacceptable impacts on local communities - The A12 corridor between Ipswich & Lowestoft will become a traffic nightmare for a decade during construction. Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and many jobs. Visitors to the area could be deterred. Local businesses will then lose staff. There will be significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. The Worker campus for 2,400 workers is in a location that is not suitable. Pressure will increase on health, social and emergency services & have a negative impact on the needs of vulnerable people. 4) Environment and Landscape. Issues include flooding as sea levels rise & landscapes change. The development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic. Dust management is inadequate. The impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill is not fully addressed. There is an unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice. There will be irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. This impacts on Marsh Harriers/Bittern/Otters & threatens the integrity of the Special Protection Area. There is uncertainty re supply & drainage of 3 million litres of water & sewerage during the construction period & beyond. There are risks to groundwater levels & surrounding habitats There will be a catastrophic impact on the landscape character because the locality, design and scale as the construction severs the AONB. It is impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage. The CO2 from construction won’t be offset for at least 6 years from the date of first operation. This is years too late as the latest science informs that a drastic cut in CO2 levels needs to be made within the next 10 years. The stored nuclear waste inherited by future generations will be an unsafe & unwanted legacy for the next century or so. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB & SWT. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. [Redacted]"

Mr Joseph H. Alexander
"Relevant Representation by Mr.J.H.Alexander, [Redacted] The main issues that concern me about the proposed Sizewell C development are listed below. However I would also like to say that I endorse the Relevant Representation made by the StopSizewellC group which covers other issues that I consider extremely important. I also believe the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital/virtual examination process.   1. Local infrastructure and Transport Options - the current road infrastructure is already inadequate for the needs of the local population and tourism even before the introduction of more Sizewell C traffic. - the proposed improvements to the A12 are totally inadequate and will not relieve even the existing traffic congestion during peak periods. A full upgrade of the road network should be completed before any construction occurs at Sizewell. - even with improved transport links, HGV numbers and Sizewell personnel traffic would severely alter the character and appeal of the area. - there would inevitably be an unacceptable increase in traffic using country lanes in the locality, making cycling extremely hazardous and ruining the ability to enjoy the peace and beauty of the area. - proposed relief road routes will have no lasting benefit for the community. Increased train movements and many heavy goods trains will create an unacceptable disturbance through noise and vibration to those living near the railway line. Perhaps a link line by-passing major settlements should be considered if the work proceeds. 2. Location of this proposed development. I am concerned that there may be adverse effects both at the site and elsewhere along the coast of erosion and similar processes. the long term effects of sea level change do not appear to have been adequately addressed. An adverse effect on the local ecology seems virtually inevitable, particularly effecting the AONB around Minsmere. 3. Impact on both the local economy and community. the increase in volume of traffic and associated noise will drastically impair the quality of life for people living in the region. Tourism is bound to be greatly reduced, a great loss to the local economy There will be additional strain on local health and other services which are finding difficulty in coping with current demand. - There will be inadequate gains in employment (especially in the long term) to offset the financial and cultural losses to the community."

Mrs Ann Hyde
"The development of Sizewell C is wrong for many and varied reasons, some of which are:- Environmental - *the proposed site is at risk from flooding as sea levels rise *drainage at the site *the required supply of 3 million litres of portable water for over a decade *noise light and air polloution *Minsmere an RSPB reserve of national importance would be irredeemably damaged Economic- *the local economy could potentially lose £40 million every year *hundreds of jobs in the tourist industry may go as visitors would be deterred from visiting the area *EDF anticipates that many of the lower paid jobs would be filled by local people *money and income would be syphoned from the local area by more skilled workers commuting to and from the site from across East Anglia and Essex *EDF has failed in its's legal duty to assess these impacts on the local economy Transport- *the road based transport plan would adversly impact local communities, businesses and visitors *lorries, vans and cars will increase vastly in number on the A12 and A14, adding to already difficult traffic manaagement, particularly on the Orwell Bridge *village bypass proposals are unpopular and deemed inapproporiate Environment and Landscape *the Hard Coastal Defence Feature has no complete design available to view *the impact on coastal processes and marine ecology of Sizewell C would be negative *the inability to predict rates of coastal erosion and recession *views from the coastal areas will be altered by the erection of huge onsite pylons *EDF has provided no visualisations of the construction site Community *6000 workers will need to be accomadated with a knock on effect for local housing and communities *construction on a separate site of a 2,400 worker campus, which may or may not be used *the construction site, campus, new roads, park and rides, rail link, beach landing facility,, will all have a massive negative impact on the whole local community *noise, light and air polloution across the whole area *local peoples access to health, emergency and mental health services will be imapcted by the extra numbers arriving *footpaths and beaches will be closed I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C and RSPB. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Mrs Beverley Russell
"The Southern Park & Ride facility will overpower the village. The four village bypass of Marlesford, Little Glemham, Stratford St Andrew and Farnham will alleviate traffic problems through these villages."

Mrs Janet Lister
"Impact on the community. It will be out of date by the time it is functioning, the waste will be a time bomb for the future ,with rising sea levels and erosion. Tourist industry will be nil with lost jobs and connected businesses, Holiday lets, Hotels and B/B. Minsmere will be ruined, no bird will stay there with the noise and 24/7 lights. Extinction is forever. Roads and Transport There is no circular route, so traffic in and out on the same roads. A12, A14, and the B1122,doubling the congestion. This will also cause rat runs on the single track lanes in the local area, and it will be total gridlock. Alternative sources of power. Wind, wave, and solar, all clean and surplus power can be stored in batteries, and not deface the country side as per Sizewell C. Site of accommodation compound. Not suitable on edge of small hamlet. Increase in traffic on single track lanes, the noise and piles of earth, .not far from the hamlet, light pollution. Elderly residents are worried as to how they will get out to do shopping, visit friends and family, and to get away from the noise. Move it closer to the actual Sizewell site, and away from the hamlet Please consider the residents"

Mrs Marilyn Checkley
"As a family we have been coming to this area since 1970: our family and friends love the peace and varied wildlife habitats, and our grandchildren have benefited enormously from the excellent RSPB children’s projects. This is an area made famous by Springwatch (c 3 m viewers) Their team signatures adorn the ceiling of the local pub. All this attracts many visitors, nationally and internationally. EDF’s plans jeopardise this part of the local economy - their own calculations assume a drop of 29% in tourism. How does EDF plan to mitigate effects of noise on harbour porpoises and other marine wildlife mitigate loss of wetlands: there are no studies on the cumulative effect on water levels of the marshes caused by extraction of water for making concrete for the proposed buildings; keeping a trench 30 m deep around an area the size of a football pitch dry, and dividing marsh and AONB in 2 by construction of causeway. These will jeopardise aquatic species on which waders and migrating birds feed. Mitigation for Marsh Harriers is inadequate. RSPB’s view is that the development will be “catastrophic for wildlife”. And when Government plans to set aside 30% of land for Nature! The land might be there, but wildlife habitats will be degraded. B. Tourism, a major part of the local economy, will be affected not only by the significant degradation of habitats: the increase in traffic that is envisaged will put off visitors: 750 HGV’s will use the B1122 and also the A12, as well as 10,000 cars, 700 vans and 700 buses. 2/3 of these will cross the Orwell Bridge, causing congestion and delays - including to blue-light services. Noise levels in Eastbridge, where we, friends and family stay, will increase 600x; dust will be blown from spoil heaps, and light pollution will blot out the wonderful night sky. Beaches and footpaths will be closed and a small town constructed near Eastbridge, housing imported workers. There will be a catastrophic change in the areas’s character: Leiston has never recovered from the construction of Sizewell B, which left a legacy of drug problems and crime - common amongst construction workers. C. But there is an even graver threat to safety. EDF have submitted no engineering drawings or measurements of planned sea defences, and ignored the Secretary of State’s directive to predict changes to the coast North of Minsmere Sluice and south of Orford. Over the 140 years of its predicted use, rising sea levels will make the site an island; nuclear waste will be buried on site - with no plans to ensure its safety! Faulty internal rivets at Flammanville betray EDF’s disregard for safety. D. EDF has a track record of overspending and underdelivering - and are asking the tax payer to fund them! Now renewables are far cheaper and environmentally friendly. I endorse the submissions of the RSPB, Suffolk County Council and Stop Sizewell C. I do not think this proposal should be examined digitally, as it is far too complex."

Mrs Melanie Wilde
"Our family owns and lives at [Redacted] We are greatly concerned about some aspects of the Sizewell C project and therefore wish to register as an interested party for the DCO process. EDF have not adequately explored ways of reducing the volume of materials they intend to move via road, which will lead to an excessive number of lorries on Suffolk's very limited road network. This will in turn cause unwarranted levels of travel disruption and harm the properties and lives of those living adjacent to the roads used. Rail transport should intrinsically be preferred over road transport, and EDF seem to have only half-heartedly looked at their rail options. Whilst we welcome the inclusion of a Two Village Bypass, we are not satisfied that EDF have chosen the most appropriate route. Their suggested alignment only benefits those Farnham residents that currently live alongside the current A12 (by moving the road away from them), without adequately considering the plight of those who currently lived in the unspoilt parts of the same parish (for whom the road will be moving closer). In common with many others, we fully support the better bypass alignment proposed by Farnham with Stratford St. Andrew Parish Council. This passes to the east of Foxburrow Wood and avoids the need for the hugely deep cuttings required by EDF's western route (which potentially puts this ancient woodland at risk and requires veteran trees to be felled). It also reduces the number of adversely affected properties from 14 down to just 1 (which is rarely occupied). It also severs less public rights-of-way and maintains direct connectivity between parishioners and their customary walks to and from this 'Bluebell wood' amenity. We are also very concerned by EDF's proposal to use land almost immediately adjacent to our property for their bypass construction compound. We believe that inadequate mitigation has been included to protect us from the adverse effects of this compound - such as noise, light, dust and visual intrusion. We also find the suggested hours of operation unacceptable, as this will seriously affect the use of our garden and therefore our well-being."

Richard Alan Newnham on behalf of Mrs Rosemary Newnham
". Health and safety: I have recently noticed an increase in traffic through our village- convoys of 8-10 heading South at about 0700 and North at 1600 hrs. It is becoming a "rat-run" and we don't want to be over-run by rats! . Mental and physical well-being of residents and tourists (the latter come to unwind). Loss of freedom to explore the coast and its footpaths through heathland and forestry.Sacrifice of an AONB. . Loss of domestic water supply- too many planning permissions are being given in the area of the village-there is very little slack in the housing market; this is one of the dryest regions in the country."

National Planning Agency
"INTRODUCTION The National Planning Agency is a state authority, under the Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources, responsible for the administration and implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act. The National Planning Agency wishes to register as an interested party on behalf of Iceland. REPRESENTATION -Significant transboundary effects not likely- After consulting with the relevant authorities on the proposed development, Iceland is of the view that the proposed development is not likely to have a significant effect on the environment of our state under normal operation. -Major accidents might lead to significant effects on marine environment around Iceland- A major accident and disaster event might possibly cause significant impact on the marine environment around Iceland. This could be from airborne contamination, long term transport with currents and via uptake through the foodweb in particular with migrating species such as Northeast Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and Norwegian spring-spawning herring (Clupea harengus). It is well known from literature that radioactive nucleotides from both Sellafield and La Hague reprocessing plants make their way north along the Norwegian coast and recirculate in the Nordic Seas, reaching Icelandic waters within a few years. Iceland suggests such accidents should be addressed in the EIA."

New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) (New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP))
"New Anglia LEP would like to highlight our support for Sizewell C and the opportunity it offers to tackle the climate emergency and progress to ‘Net Zero’ while boosting the economy in Suffolk and throughout East Anglia. We are interested in the positive impact on local business growth and investment, supply chains, local employment, skills and education, infrastructure and impact on key sectors such as tourism. The East of England and especially Suffolk is in a position to host a necessary major infrastructure project which will generate huge local employment, education and skills opportunities as well as delivering welcome infrastructure improvements and the potential for wider energy and environmental benefits such as the production of hydrogen. We have seen the employment created at Hinkley Point C in Somerset and note that nearly half of the jobs have been taken by local people. Over 650 apprentices have worked on the site. Contracts with businesses in the region have reached £1.7bn. We should be proud that the value of contracts with East of England businesses for the Hinkley Point C project is now nearly £1bn. That offers a great foundation for these regional firms if Sizewell C starts soon. We must take this opportunity for the benefit of our region’s young people. They deserve the same opportunities at Sizewell C, which will bring at least 1,500 apprenticeships and thousands of jobs to the area during an employment crisis. We support Sizewell C because we want to help Suffolk’s young people stay and develop their skills in the county so they can live, work and bring up their families in an area with a bright future."

NHS Norfolk & Waveney CCG
"Our neighbouring STP including the NHS North East Essex Clinical Commissioning Group, NHS Ipswich & East Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group & NHS West Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group have submitted a detail representation to the application. NHS Norfolk & Waveney CCG support the representation being put forward by these parties."

Nick Cook
"This plan in conjunction with many others, substations, larger wind farms all along the Suffolk coastal area will cause irreparable damage to the environment and local communities that is unthinkable in the modern day. Green energy yes but not to the cost of whole communities, local businesses, AONB, wildlife. In a time when the mental well being of our population sits at the very forefront of our concerns the whole approach by the respective power companies is to cause as much confusion and despair as possible through the continuous bombardment of their submissions and requests for feedback. There is wholesale opposition to these projects from every community in Suffolk, yet the power companies just plough on, regardless. Enough is enough, Sizewell B has another 20 years to run, now is not the time to be constructing new monolith power stations. Analysis shows that we can build bigger wind farms offshore and erect substations at sea and therefore this has to be the way forward. Yes I accept there is an increased cost associated with offshore substations but that cost is insignificant compared with the human, coastal and wildlife cost of all these projects on shore that the power companies have planned. How can any governing body, planning inspectorate or local authority endorse such wanton destruction and mental torture of great swathes of the country's rural community. This must and has to be stopped in its tracks and no planning permission be granted."

Ashtons Legal on behalf of Noble Representation
"1. We are Mike and Julie Noble and live at [Redacted] Along with our immediate neighbours’, our garden is probably old park land for the ancient [Redacted]. We wish to be registered as an interested party for the Sizewell C DCO. 2. We have a great variety of wildlife, including deer, badgers and many birds. It is evident that gardens (and their ponds) are important parts of the ecological scene; EDF have not taken proper account of that. It is clear from the DCO documentation that their alignment for a Two Villages Bypass will be seriously detrimental to both the natural world and the living conditions for many dwellings, particularly in terms of noise, pollution, visual intrusion etc. 3. We object to EDF’s proposed 2VB alignment. The Parish Council has put forward a much better alignment, passing further to the east. It rather feels that EDF cares more for fields and some low quality woodland (not ancient) than it does for the people to whom it is shifting the burden of traffic on its alignment west of Foxburrow Wood. It has been obvious this year that that ancient wood is under some stress and a deep cutting poses greater risk, as it may for Pond Wood (also ancient). 4. Farnham Manor is grade 2* star listed and at least 4 centuries old, with an old farm complex around it. That is part of the historic legacy at Farnham but EDF have taken little account of that, to the detriment of our community. 5. EDF’s notion that people would divert back to the old route is nonsense, as actual driving and simple arithmetic show. Does diversion happen from bypasses at Martlesham, Woodbridge, Wickham Market, Saxmundham or Kessingland? EDF raised cost but has not done a proper comparison, to factor in savings in compensation and construction. 6. We do not in any way say that our two villages should not be bypassed but EDF have chosen the wrong route. They have had ample opportunity to think seriously about the Parish Council’s proposal and they have signally failed to do so. We have not had any serious attempt at consultation with us on how that more easterly route would avoid the impact on homes. As it is, their supposed mitigation is inadequate. The footpath network should not be severed so close to the village. The bunding is a quite alien intrusion into the countryside and too close to our homes. 7. EDF’s proposals are bad news for Little Glemham and Marlesford. EDF must be held to account for the impact on those villages and if they are not relieved now at least an alignment should be chosen which gives them the best prospect of a bypass in the long term. 8. There is no proper planning balance here. Any objective assessment should conclude that the public good is best served by the more easterly alignment. 9. We therefore object to the Sizewell C DCO but reserve the right to amend, add to and expand on our objections during the DCO process"

Olivia Trapp
"I believe this project is going to be an expensive environmental catastrophe in an already precarious area of outstanding natural beauty. Over the last 25 years I have visited and spent time living in the area and have seen the change to the landscape as a result of coastal erosion and pressure from the many uncoordinated energy projects which come together in the area. This is not the site for this project. I have also worked in Lowestoft, just north of Sizewell, a town which is desperate for investment and industry. If this project must go ahead, why has an area reliant on tourism with a mostly retired population been selected, rather than an area which could benefit from jobs, infrastructure and other investments? I am completing this on behalf of myself but also my grandparents who have lived in the area for decades but are finding the digital consultation inaccessible. A project of this scale with the associated financial and environmental costs must be open and accessible to all."

Orford & Gedgrave Parish Council
"A majority of the Councillors wished for Orford & Gedgrave Parish Council to register an interest. Orford & Gedgrave are small outlaying villages wishing to understand what is going on with the development to enable us to ensure that the parishioners are kept informed with relevant information. The infrastructure pressure resulting from this development and the need to mitigate them maximally for the sake of the local communities , is very important. The stretched infrastructure includes education - school numbers by an influx of additional working families; health - increase numbers at GP surgeries and hospitals; transport - roads, increase in vehicle numbers from the large number of workers that are planned to come into our area from outside. Air pollution is another concern, as is any impact this may have on our coastline."

Pat Devereaux
"Nuclear power is too expensive Use wind and solar power instead Nuclear power causes waste Nuclear power is dangerous to the environment Nuclear power is not safe"

Patrick John Donnelly
"1, Nuclear power is becoming more un-necessary due to wind wave and alternatives. 2, Proposal will overload local services including GP Surgeries and hospitals. 3, Proposal will damage Suffolk economy and local arts tourism and landscape. 4, Coastal location is dangerous, difficult to maintain safely risking future disaster. 5, Transport and roads will be overloaded."

Paul Collins
"I wish to raise the following concerns about EDF’s Sizewell C DCO Application; 1. The site is too small for a dual nuclear reactor installation and is well below the expectations of EN-6 2. Site size constraints have forced the platform to be too close to the sea to allow a competent coastal defence to be designed and implemented 3. With climate change, the installation is at risk from sea level rise, increasing storm surge frequency and intensity 4. Geomorphological assessments have used an inappropriate “reasonable assessment” rather than H++ as required in planning law 5. EDF’s coastal zone of influence does not reflect Scoping Report Opinion from the Secretary of State 6. Substation connections will use pylons that are taller than existing National Grid transmission pylons and are incompatible with the AONB designation 7. The development will have an adverse effect on multiple designated sites of ecological, heritage, landscape and amenity for 12 years and the access road will sever the AONB permanently damage connectivity between Minsmere and Sizewell Marsh 8. Changes to inland hydrology will impact all fauna and flora within Sizewell Marsh and Minsmere Levels that collectively host one of the most ecologically diverse areas in the UK 9. Hydrological impacts of the development will irrevocably impact the draining of Sizewell Marsh into south Minsmere Levels and to Minsmere Sluice 10. Impacts to Minsmere Sluice and Levels are not adequately assessed 11. Impacts of noise and pollution due to the creation and back-filling of borrow pits close to Eastbridge are not adequately addressed 12. Landscape, fugitive dust and runoff impacts from 30 metre spoil, sand and gravel heaps on the 15-metre contour within the AONB are not adequately assessed or addressed 13. The cooling water thermal plume will damage the UK’s ability to meet its climate change obligations in the Paris Agreement and it’s net zero by 20250 commitment 14. Assessments of cumulative impacts within the development and between it and the eight other energy projects are inadequate 15. Eastbridge and Theberton will be subject to unacceptable noise and light pollution impacts for the 10-12 years of the construction 16. Eastbridge and Theberton will be severed to the west by the closures of Moat Road and Pretty Lane. EDF should upgrade the bridge at Pretty Lane to take vehicles to avoid severance 17. Increases in traffic on the B1122 for 4 “early” years are unacceptable, and no construction or site clearance should commence until the Sizewell Link Road (SLR) is complete 18. If SLR cannot be completed before work starts, crossings and extended speed limits mentioned in prior consultations must be introduced along the B1122 19. Eastbridge’s single track roads have no speed limits and will be used as rat-runs from Westleton. Speed limits should be introduced within the village and EDF should enforce a no tolerance policy to fly-parking in the village I endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, Minsmere Levels Stakeholders Group, Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Paul Jordan
"Sizewell C planning objection As a resident of East Suffolk I want to raise the following issues: The site is just wrong. An AONB. Next to reserves important for wildlife and tourism An area suitable for further protection to meet the PMs aim of increasing protected land. The combination with other proposals is not properly considered. Construction transport options do not meet the requirements of my elected district council I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust."

Paul Pengelly
"I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place • Site at risk from climate change, rising sea levels and flooding; and construction could have impact on coastal processes • Site could become an actual island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste • Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value • ‘Road-Led’ construction system means up to 1,500 HGVs a day on a new Link Road from the A12, potentially operating 24/7; in the ‘Early Years’ of the project up to 600 HGVs/day, would use the current B1122 before any new roads or Park & Rides were ready • Local tourist trade would suffer for a decade or more, while the project would provide very few additional employment or business opportunities • EDF’s track record of financial underestimating and overspending, with years of delay in their Hinkley project in Somerset as well as their nuclear power stations in France, gives no ground for believing they would deliver the project on time or within budget • Emerging future pattern of energy supply will demand flexibility – not possible with a nuclear installation of this size • Dangers of nuclear power, and all the present and future safety precautions that have to go with it, are no longer outweighed by its benefits as compared with other energy sources – especially renewables whose technical and economic sustainability is rapidly increasing • Sizewell C would not become carbon neutral until at least 6 years after it started generating, following at least a decade of construction • Consultation process for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project has been wholly inadequate at every stage, not least because doing it digitally has proved virtually impossible I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C"

Paul Templeton
"I have lived close to the village of Sizewell for the past 22 years: 13 years in Aldeburgh (5 miles away), and now in Sweffling, less than 10 miles from the site of the proposed new nuclear power station. My passions include walking in the beautiful woods, heaths and marshes of the coastal area neighbouring Sizewell and swimming in the North Sea adjacent to the existing power station. I strongly object to the construction of Sizewell C on the basis of the following points: - it will have a hugely negative local impact due not only to the process of construction of the site itself, but also the massive increase in traffic congestion and number of workers in the local area. The direct damage to the natural environment combined with the concomitant air, light and sound pollution over a period of many years will likely cause irreversible harm to a variety of sensitive and fragile ecosystems that support a number of endangered wildlife species. There is also likely to be a deleterious affect on the way of life of communities in an essentially rural area due to the influx of large numbers of workers and the changes in local infrastructure. - that expansion of our nuclear power generating capacity is unlikely to address the current climate emergency. Not only is it too slow and expensive to bring online, but the advance in renewable technologies over the coming years is likely to make the whole scheme a pointless and wasteful white elephant. - that an additional nuclear reactor at Sizewell increases the danger of radioactive poisoning due to leaks and accidents, potentially affecting not just the local area but the entire region. The risks are hard to quantify and the consequences do not bear thinking about."

Penelope Donnelly
"1. Nuclear power is no longer needed. Wind waves and other alternatives are available and safer. 2. The proposal will put enormous pressure on hospitals GP surgeries and all local services. 3. The proposal will inevitably damage the local economy along with tourism. the arts together with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 4. The main reason for my objection to this proposal is that the location is dangerous and is therefore risking a disaster in the future. 5. The proposal will be detrimental to all those living in the vicinity of the works during construction and on completion if the proposal goes ahead. 6. Transport and roads will inevitably be overloaded."

Peter Chadwick
"The application to build Sizewell C and D should be rejected. The negative impact of its building would greatly outweigh any benefits. EDF is hugely in debt and desperate to sell its new over-complicated unproven reactors to save itself from bankruptcy. If EDF goes under the company will not be able to afford to maintain its previous generation of nuclear reactors that France relies on. The test reactor at Flammerville was giving the go ahead despite having known flaws in the reactor casing to be mended or replaced at a later stage. Why should Britain build an un-needed massive nuclear project to bail-out EDF and France’s antiquated reliance on nuclear. These problems also indicate that the stated costs and timescale will spiral. Any UK Government or British taxpayer involvement would be extremely bad value with the much lower cost of renewables such as windpower. The government minister Ed Davey who gave the go ahead on Hinkley now says he thinks Sizewell should not be built. East Suffolk is a very special area with Minsmere bird reserve and a coastal strip of AONB with many sites of special scientific interest. A sizeable preportion of the world’s endangered Sandlings heathland is here. All this within a couple of miles around Sizewell. You could not pick a worse area environmentally to build a truly massive project like this. This coast has been eroded with villages now under the sea yet these power stations are proposed where it is likely to be an island in the next century. Nuclear is not low carbon when you take a plant’s whole life - getting the uranium, ten to twenty years construction on a gigantic scale with all the concrete and lorries, operating time and then the storing spent fuel for centuries. The cost of this has not been factored in and will fall on the taxpayer making the overall cost of the electricity produced soar more and more in the long term. Sizewell B radiactive waste is still on site as nowhere has been found for it. Loss of local jobs in the Tourism industry will out-way jobs created in the construction period or while the plant operates. Construction jobs will not be for local people. Itinerant construction workers will cause social problems as they did with Sizewell B with towns and villages becoming like the Wild West. Tourists will not want to come here for the walks, landscape, or wildlife. They will not want to come to the cultural centres of Snape and Aldebugh etc in the construction period with all the noise and pollution from lorries on the roads. Local house prices will fall and the quality of life for residents will be intolerable. Governments such as Germany and International companies are forsaking nuclear as it is not cost effective, out of date and dangerous in the long term - especially with global warming causing climatic events and global terrorism. If built Sizewell would be a very expensive white elephant with the technology out of date before it was finished. The dangerous costly legacy lasting for the foreseeable future. Its construction would have ruined one of the most beautiful parts of the country. It must not get the go ahead because of pressure by vested interests or foreign countries. The interests of the whole of the UK taxpayer and East Suffolk residents and visitors are that Sizewell C and D should not be built."

Peter Ewart
"There are fundamental issues and problems developing Sizewell C which are complex and must be considered to future proof any type of build. 1.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 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 Wording of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. and RSPB. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Peter John Richard Watson
"I urge the National Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to recommend against the construction of Sizewell C and I list a series of objections to the proposal submitted by the DCO as follow: Despite the plans being submitted in 2020, the latest information on climate change, sea level rise and coastal evolution has not been taken into account, undermining the soundness of any assessments. The application uses the UK CCRA report 2018 estimates, not those of the IPPC in 2019: the developers must be aware that latest information showed that the impact of these factors would be far greater than previously thought. The application should not be recommended until the full consequences of the siting of the development throughout its life span on the Suffolk Heritage Coastline have been fully assessed. The siting will have a significantly detrimental impact on the landscape and wildlife of the Heritage Coastline and the Suffolk Coast and Heath's Area of Outstanding Beauty. Proposals for mitigation are just that-mitigation- much better that the plant is not built on this site removing the need for attempting to mitigate its detrimental impact. The area has evolved as a prime tourist destination and is especially attractive to those seeking a quiete, largely unspoilt, coastal environment in which to live. The scale of the Proposals if approved will create years of adverse disturbance (traffic, landscape, light and noise pollution) during both construction and operation, spoiling the peace and appeal of this fragile environment. The financial impact on the area from loss of tourism will not be offset by the contribution the construction of the plant will make to the local economy, a short term hit as against long term prosperity; EDF suggests that 29% of tourists will be deterred. A fragile, strongly protected (AONB, Heritage Coastline, Special Protected Area and RAMSAR etc.) environment is being expected to accommodate this and eight other major energy infrastructure proposals without any attempt being made to strategically co-ordinate this proposed industrial scale development and ensuing traffic movements. PINS must use its planning brief to co-ordinate assessment of these schemes in 'the round', particularly in regard to the unarguably detrimental impact which they will have on a sensitive, protected, coastal and rural environment if approved. Of many issues of concern relating to unmerited disturbance to the area and its population, one outstanding one is the totally inappropriate proposed siting of a temporary 2400 personnel Worker Campus. Accommodation for 2400 workers is comparable to the local populations of the surrounding towns of Saxmundham, Leiston and Aldeburgh; the proposal to build the equivalent of a new town accessed via a narrow rural lane is utterly incomprehensible. I consider that the Sizewell C application is totally unsuited to a digital examination process. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and the Alde and Ore Association. Peter Watson FRICS"

Pro Corda Trust / Leiston Abbey
"Pro Corda Trust's representation focuses its concern as the charitable trust and business responsible for the running of Leiston Abbey, the acknowledged closest publicly accessible site to the proposed Construction worker campus for the Sizewell C project. As set out to EDF throughout the 3 stages of submission thus far, our primary concerns within this representation are: - Security, including child protection as a national music education charity serving over 2,000 children and young people at the Leiston Abbey site each year, over 50% of whom are vulnerable with disabilities and additional needs. Within security we also wish to make representation on controlling visitor flow through to the public heritage site we are responsible for which is on the doorstep of the worker campus. - Noise. (Both from construction work and also new rail route/road traffic supplying the proposed power station and campus.) We wish to make representations on the impact on our education sessions, on our public community concerts and on those young people we work with who have additional needs - especially autism - who require special consideration and mitigation should the development proceed. - Physical impact. The impact of construction phases on an ancient site - both the heritage asset (which we have responsibility for under local management agreement with English Heritage) and our listed buildings and monuments on site. - Visual impact. Impacts from the scale and massing of new build structures and infrastructure including lighting and floodlights at the worker campus, rail sidings etc. - Road layout. The impacts on access to and from a site where we have vulnerable children staying (many with additional health needs.) - Disruption to business. Our business across all the operational areas of the charity relies on the tranquil and "retreat" aspects (and selling points) of the Leiston Abbey site. The dramatic changes to the immediately surrounding landscapes together with its increased population puts this at great risk, and for which we are seeking mitigation."

Professor Mike Cowling
"In my opinion EDF has failed to make the case for the Sizewell C (SC) across a broad front, in particular, in connection with the following issues: 1. Location • The Suffolk coastline is extraordinarily vulnerable and unstable. Much has been known for a long time but recent studies, unconnected with SC, have enhanced understanding and emphasised the coast’s fragility; its vulnerability to the inevitable consequences of changing climate and sensitivity to physical changes from local interventions. • The environs around SC are exceedingly valuable from an ecosystem goods and services perspective (including the well-being of the human population – residents or visitors). This is not addressed by EDF. The sensitivity of these goods and services to a mammoth development project, spread over a long time scale, has been ignored. No relevant modelling or analyses have been undertaken. 2. Environment • Many issues connected with the environment have not been adequately addressed – too many to list here but the overall long term industrialisation of a wide area and the plethora of consequences arising have not been quantified. It is claimed that this damage is a worthwhile cost for the legacy of building SC. One only has to look at the modern-day town of Sizewell and its locality to see that, after two previous nuclear developments, there is no favourable legacy – very much the opposite, a very real blight on the area. • There are very precious environmental assets within or adjacent to the development area. There are some attempts to minimise and quantify the effects on these assets but the attempts lack realism and underplay the vast impacts that would occur. 3. Transport • Many transport scenarios for SC have been examined and discussed, in many fora, during the years of consultation. Despite many promises and assurances, various facets of the EDF transport strategy have ignored the needs of not just those who live and work in the local area but also those across a large proportion of Suffolk, and a wider area within East Anglia. The projections for the transport load on this area are overwhelming in their size and, as currently being seen at Hinckley, the consequences are vast, well beyond anything admitted. 4. Jobs • Much has been made of the economic impact of the development in Suffolk and the prospect for new skilled local jobs. However, most of the skilled jobs will be imported temporarily from the Hinckley workforce with its supply chain. What will be available locally are significant numbers of short-term low-skilled jobs leaving little legacy. As evidence, the town of Sizewell is not a hot spot of highly skilled jobs and economic strength after two previous nuclear developments. Thus the much-lauded long-term economic benefits to Suffolk are illusory. 5. Need for SC Electricity • The time for SC has passed. Much has happened with alternative generation technologies, their costs, and their ability to deliver low-carbon base load. Future development of alternative low carbon, low cost technologies will leave SC as an expensive stranded asset."

R T Rainger
"The EDF SZC construction and subsequent operation will have a significant impact on the immediate locality and region as a whole. The DCO process only explores the impact of construction of the facility and does not take into account the operational implications, these are explored in separate ONR and EA consultations. My concern is as a resident of the A1094. While EDF suggest the site traffic will take employees and deliveries via the more northern Yoxford route, this is unlikely to be the case with traffic following Sat Nav guidance. Traffic volumes on the A1094 are already at a level that makes egress on to the road a considerable challenge, this is further exacerbated by issues around speeding and the general increase in HGV and agricultural vehicle size. There are other traffic concerns caused by EDF's failure to deliver the transport Modal Split previously postulated. The locality is served by a network of low grade roads and lanes, any disruption to the 'normal' flow of traffic results in delays and disruption - (such disruption is common in the area as it is regularly under pressure from seasonal tourism traffic.) pushes traffic to resort to 'rat runs' spoiling the tranquility of areas for many residents. There will be significant detrimental impact from the high volumes of traffic over the sustained (10 - 15 year) construction phase, the sort of disruption from which the locality will never recover. I also have a concern about the lack of clarity with respect to how the potable water needs of the project will be met. If EDF and Anglian Water are unable to provide clarity on this important project element (a significant risk to the project if it cannot be delivered) then how can we be assured that the work to deliver water to the site will not add road closures and disruption to the proposed Northern route availability. Clearly other issues include those raised by others in many ways, including - the Environmental consequences of construction; the ecological impacts; the impact on flooding and coastal erosion; the social impacts from high volumes of personnel. I have seen the responses from the local groups and organisations on this project and recognise the concerns they raise on this construction project. I also have a concern with respect to the suitability of the NSIP DCO process to deliver a comprehensive consideration of this project. There are other significant infrastructure project proposed in the locality, however the NSIP process only considers those projects 'on the table', this is a flaw in that it does not allow for true consideration of the total impact or cumulative impacts from numerous individual projects. It does not allow for consideration of the traffic from SZC with the added impact of Scottish Power for EA one North, EA Three and the Galloper and Gabbard extensions, Nortilus and Eurolink cables along with the National Grid proposals for coastal cables connecting to Kent. How can so many power projects be contemplated in so few square miles, without real consideration of the cumulative impact of their consequences. While this clearly has consequences for traffic levels etc it is particularly concerning that the cumulative Environmental impacts are not reviewed how can the best Environmental out come be achieved without such cumulative consideration?"

Railfuture Ltd
"Rectifying the Missing Legacy - submission to the Planning Inspectorate by Railfuture EDF Planning application reference: Book 6.10 Volume 9 Chapters 1-12 Summary of submission Railfuture is not challenging the proposal on the grounds of generation need, and expects the application to be approved. We are however suggesting that two conditions be attached to any permission granted. 1. That EDF be required to revisit their strategy for bringing materials to the construction site, to use reasonable endeavours to make better use of rail and to enter into further negotiation with Network Rail to achieve this outcome. 2. That EDF be required to fund a full business case for improvements to the East Suffolk Railway Line, as detailed below. Background Railfuture recognises the need for additional generation capacity, not least to meet the demands created by the rolling out of electrification across the GB rail network (Network Rail Decarbonisation Task Force report “Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy”, dated 31st July 2020, refers). The East Suffolk Line is a mixture of single and double track supporting an hourly passenger service between Ipswich and Lowestoft. From the Ipswich end the first 9 miles as far as Woodbridge is a double track railway. The next 12 miles is single track as far as Saxmundham where the Leiston branch joins the railway. The next 9 miles to Halesworth is double track, followed by 16 miles of single track until it joins the Norwich to Lowestoft line at Oulton Broad. This single line includes a passing loop at Beccles, 9 miles north of Halesworth. It is this passing loop at Beccles which fixes the timetable as northbound and southbound trains have to wait there to pass each other. Until this loop was installed in 2012, it was only possible to provide alternate-hour passenger services. Historically the railway was a double track line throughout, before ‘rationalisation’ in the mid-1980’s. The whole double track-bed remains in the ownership of Network Rail. During public consultation, EDF presented both ‘rail led’ and ‘marine led’ strategies (at stage 2) and later on ‘road led’ and ‘rail led’ options at stage 3. During both consultations Railfuture stressed the desirability of maximising use of rail. This would have required the installation of a passing loop, similar to the one at Beccles, somewhere near Wickham Market between Woodbridge and Saxmundham. Public pronouncements by EDF Energy at this time suggested that they would be able to leave a ‘legacy’ benefit following completion of Sizewell C. This was widely interpreted as leaving a passing loop that would permit an increase in passenger service frequency in future, possibly an Ipswich - Leiston service which would operate in addition to the hourly service to / from Lowestoft. In its last consultation, stage 4, EDF promoted a ‘hybrid’ strategy using a maximum of just three trains per day, with no addition to rail infrastructure on the East Suffolk Line, and instead relying more heavily on road haulage. Coming from a company presenting itself as the provider of environment-friendly power generation, we consider that to be profoundly disappointing. ? The vision In making our submission, Railfuture recognises that EDF would not normally be expected to provide infrastructure beyond that which would be required to build a power station. However, Railfuture would embed the legacy value of EDF’s contribution in a more ambitious upgrading of the East Suffolk Line. This would involve more than just a passing loop - a greater length of double track which would exploit the benefits of the recent upgrading of the passenger train fleet, as well as increasing the frequency and therefore attractiveness of rail passenger services on the busier section of the line south of Saxmundham. Enhancing rail's attractiveness by reducing journey time between Lowestoft and Ipswich This can be achieved in two ways, both of which require the restoration of the line south of Saxmundham to a double track railway. 1. Performance of new rolling stock Greater Anglia have replaced their old fleet of diesel units with new 100mph-capable trains (class 755). The old fleet was a mixture of class 153, 156 and 170 units. The slower class 153 had a maximum speed of 75 mph and so the sectional running times and timetable had to be defined by and were constrained around the limited performance capability of these units. As we have seen (above) the north and southbound trains have to pass at Beccles, which dictates the other crossing points. These were just north (about 90 seconds journey time) from Saxmundham and between Ipswich and Woodbridge. If the timetable could be re-written to exploit the greater capability of these new – not just faster top speed but also, and more importantly in this context, faster-accelerating – trains then the crossing points would move further south. This however is not currently possible as the line south of Saxmundham is only single track. Re-doubling this section of line would contribute greatly to improving the attractiveness of the rail service. 2. Provision of a second passenger service If the residents of Leiston are to enjoy a ‘legacy’ benefit from the construction of Sizewell C, including the improvements to the Leiston branch, Railfuture advocates a second service on the East Suffolk Line between Leiston and Ipswich - calling all-stations at Saxmundham, Wickham Market, Melton, Woodbridge, and Westerfield (for the new ‘Ipswich Garden Suburb’, which would also be served by Felixstowe branch services). Of these five intermediate stations only the busier two, Woodbridge and Saxmundham, would still be calls in services to / from Lowestoft, giving further journey time improvements by omitting calls at the other less-busy three to be served instead by the new Leiston service. Performance risk To achieve the above improvements would require sufficient double track between Woodbridge and Saxmundham to permit the passing of north and southbound Lowestoft trains, the passing of each with the ‘stopping’ Leiston services and the passing of the two stopping services themselves. These would require more than one passing loop and so Railfuture suggests that three options be examined: 1. Doubling of the line between Wickham Market and Saxmundham 2. Doubling of the line between Melton and Saxmundham 3. Complete doubling of the line between Woodbridge and Saxmundham Option 1 would be the ‘bare minimum’ required to achieve the suggested improvements. However, the current franchise agreement includes provision of through services between Lowestoft and London. These services will be exposed to greater risk of picking up delay minutes on the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) south of Ipswich with consequent impact on timings on the East Suffolk Line. Option 2 would overcome this problem but would require the reinstatement of the former ‘up’ platform at Wickham Market. Option 3 would require the reinstatement of the up platform at Melton in addition to the above but would avoid the operational expense of switches and signalling which would incur the costs of supplying power to remote locations. Our ask Railfuture therefore recommends that the Planning Inspectorate attach a condition requiring EDF to fund the necessary business case and development work to provide a genuine legacy for the East Suffolk Line and the communities served by it. This will not be realised within the Sizewell C construction period but will provide a lasting foundation for a zero-carbon future when increasing reliance will be placed on the use of rail. In the meantime, Railfuture wishes to see EDF and Network Rail redoubling their efforts to maximise the use of rail for the construction of Sizewell C."

Rendham Parish Council
"Relevant Representation for Rendham Parish Council on Sizewell C DCO 1. Rendham is a village on the B1119 between Saxmundham and Framlingham approximately 2 miles west of the A12 and 11 miles west of Sizewell. Issues with the project extend to other parishes surrounding the village in which parishioners spend their day to day lives. 2. Rendham Parish Council accepts the general principle of sustainable energy production but has concerns about some of the negative impacts of the submitted proposals for Sizewell C. Our main points are set out below: Traffic & Transport: 3. High levels of traffic on A12 which our parishioners must cross to access local amenities, increase in HGVs, White vans and cars on the A12 will result in Air pollution, Noise pollution and may cause local roads & B1119 (which runs through Rendham) to become a rat run. 4. Hindering emergency vehicles accessing the village. 5. Reduced road safety. 6. Exacerbated by a total lack of public transport in the area. 7. Inadequate changes to the junction at A12/ B1119. MITIGATION: More sophisticated SAT NAV on HGVs and Sizewell van traffic. Signage saying “No Sizewell C traffic or construction traffic” ANPR with penalties for offenders. After construction phase, better cycle routes. Cumulative Impact: 8. Other Energy projects planned for this area include SPR’s EAN1 & EAN2 plus National Grid Interconnector, Nautilus and Eurolink. These will, if granted, impact Rendham through the additional HGV traffic they will generate on the local road network along with the cumulative environmental effects to the surrounding area. Economic and social impacts: 9. Visitors will be deterred from coming to the area during construction, thereby damaging the village’s tourist economy. 10. Construction workers in temporary accommodation in Caravan parks locally may have negative social impact. 11. Possible strain on local health and other services. Site selection: 12. No design available for hard coastal defences feature HCDF. 13. Sea level rises, Climate Change & Flooding. 14. Adverse effect on coastal process. 15. Site of ecological importance SSSI. Environment and landscape: 16. Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic. 17. Irreparable harm to Minsmere Nature Reserve. 18. Impacts on wildlife, protected species and marine wildlife. 19. Uncertainty re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of portable water a day for the construction period and beyond. 20. Impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB. 21. Carbon footprint of Sizewell C’s construction. 22. Spent fuel and high-level waste from Sizewell B and C would stay on this site until at least 2135. 23. We are doing our best to understand the risks and safeguard the environment for future generations, who will live with the ramifications of our decision-making. The safety of using this coastal site is of concern. We are trying to balance this with the country’s energy needs and the potential benefits that investment can bring."

Richard Alan Newnham
"Relevant Representation: 1. Traffic- increase of traffic using A12 and B1125 (through Westleton). Parking problems. 2 Pollution- increase in risk to residents and visitors 3 Maritime- lack of proper planning and consultation 4 Planning- increase in permissions granted within village curtilage-likely to expand village over its natural limits 5 Water supply- probable effects of increased water usage by SZC on village supply 6 Loss of much needed tourist facilities"

Richard Bacon
"Dear Sir Sizewell C I wish to express my views / concerns on the Sizewell C project as follows : The noise, air quality and vibration issues of the additional HGV movements on the A12 The considerable impact of those HGV’s on the country road through Marlesford and Little Glemham The inadequacy of EDF’s Two Village Bypass proposals and the need for a Four Village Bypass to include both Marlesford and Little Glemham The visibility of the 1,250 car Southern Park and Ride on the high ground between Hacheston and Marlesford The noise and lighting issues that arise from the Southern Park and Ride The impact of future housing development on roads already congested by EDF traffic The issues that will arise from drivers attempting to find alternative routes to avoid the congestion The increase in private cars using the B1078 between Coddenham and Wickham Market to reach the Southern Park and Ride. The increase in the traffic around Lower Hacheston and Campsea Ashe if Bentwaters is used for SZC Storage. Yours faithfully Richard Bacon, [Redacted]"

Richard Pirkis
"I would like to make the following comments regarding several issues with the proposals for Sizewell C Nuclear Power Stations The project will seriously affect an Internationally recognised site of ecological importance including valuable amenity areas which should be protected for public access. Potentially risks from rapidly changing climatic conditions which require much more research. The admitted deterrence of visitors to the locality and further afield will have a devastating effect on relatively fragile local businesses. Local workers required for the project will be unemployed when the project is completed thus creating an extra burden for the already stretched support services. The legacy from existing structure will remain for several hundred years before the area will enjoy a return to the original condition. What therefore, do EDF propose to enable a return to a natural state when the power station is finally decommissioned. I am greatly concerned that investment from partners who do not necessarily have a vested interest in the well being of the UK The example of Huawei being a case in point. New road/railway should be approved and built before the construction work is started. This alone will cause considerable disruption to existing services. To sum up, EDF has not covered its various obligations in cient detail in order for a sensible decision to be taken regarding the construction of Sizewell C I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation by Stop Sizewell C and other organisations who are seeking to prevent this project. Lastly I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Rod Annandale
"Sizewell C is being built because of asserted benefits and inevitably there will be disbenefits - some short to medium term and some measured in decades and maybe centuries. A main benefit is supposed to help slow climate change. This may have been true 20 to 30 years ago, but has been overtaken by events. Sizewell C will not contribute to net carbon reduction until at least 2040, at the expense of at least a decade's major dislocation of Suffolk's people and wildlife, much of which dislocation may endure. What will certainly endure for at least 7 or 8 decades is the significant economic burden of the project, as the strike price will look alarmingly high in 20 years time. The taxpayer and businesses and consumers will pay for this as the Government entangles itself in a French vanity project. All the disbenefits have been obscured by EdF at each stage of the planning process. They have reneged on their environmental mitigations one by one, and at Hinkley Point they have disregarded many of those finally agreed, with no enforcement or sanction from Government, who are thus effectively conspiring to subvert the planning permission by their inaction. The site is too cramped for two reactors, and Sizewell A will not be cleared away for a century. We don't need to suffer the disbenefits and risks from this project for the illusory benefits."

Brian Lowry on behalf of Rosey Lowry
"Sizewell C will take 10 to 14 years to build By 2034 this already out-dated technology will look like a huge mistake. Wind power already costs half of what nuclear provides and it doesn’t need millions of pounds spent clearing up lethal nuclear waste on an eroding coastline with rising sea levels and increasing likelihood of climate change tidal surges and storms. Hinkley Point is build on rock Sizewell C is built on sand. Alternative wind power now costs half of what nuclear provides and battery power improves year on year with more skilled jobs for local people involved. East Suffolk has already 8 different energy projects proposed. We do not need another one with millions of pounds potentially spent on dealing with the resultant deadly nuclear waste for future generations. No wonder no company is prepared to take the risk on such a complicated design that has never yet worked in France or in Finland. Even the French Government refuse to take the risk of such costing and the Chinese offer of support comes with the suspect caveat of unwelcome influence and political implications. It should not be up to the British taxpayer to take on such risk of what may be cost and time over runs especially at a time when the economy is under pressure. This project is just not logical, and it is not good for Britain or for East Suffolk with damage to tourism of a world-renowned area of international environmental importance."

Ruth VanLoen
"I currently live in London, wishing to move to Suffolk. Having lived in the capital for 50 years with a constant thrive of building works and traffic. I cannot tell you how damaging it is to life. The idea that there is a constant noise humming away, with so many people that you cannot hear yourself. Why bring all of this to an area of natural beauty. I would like the following concerns to be considered Proposed site, will do detrimental harm to Minsmere a destination for many birds, including the coastal marsh lands that are breeding areas. The proposed site will threaten this Special protection area. Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice The unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic 6,000 additional workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a location that I oppose. Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable. Yours sincerely, Ruth van Loen"

Sally Pirkis
"I would like to list the following concerns about Sizewell C. I believe the fragile coastal landscape adjacent to areas of cultural heritage and amenity will all be adversely affected by the Sizewell C proposal. I believe the Sizewell C proposal will have a catastrophic impact on the well established Suffolk tourist industry equating to a loss of 400 m a year to the local economy. I also think the increased noise, light pollution and traffic movements will all have a huge and detrimental impact on local communities. The proposed road based transport is not viable and the years of increased traffic would have unacceptable impact on many local villages and communities. There will be enormous impact on the surrounding environment and landscape, especially at Minsmere which is a designated site of international importance. Drainage, flooding and ground water levels will all be impacted by a development of this scale. I believe the damage to marine ecology, coastal erosion and recession will be immense. 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."

Sandra Gage
"I wish to object to the construction of Sizewell C for the following reasons; 1. The impact on the unique environment at Sizewell and surrounding countryside of both Sizewell C itself and associated buildings & infrastructure to; a) designated AONB b) the area of SSSI c) surrounding parishes where the proposals will be wholly out of character and permanently diminish the character of the area. 2. The lack of consideration of the overall impact on this section of the coastline and countryside of all energy projects proposed or already planned. 3. The lack of consideration of all energy generation in other planned or proposed renewable energy projects in determining the need for Sizewell C. 4.The lack of clarity over the true cost and construction over-run times to build given the actual costs of the same construction of the same reactor in Europe. 5. The lack of true cost calculated on tourism, and local businesses & local communities that rely on the coastline for income. 6. The refusal by EDF to address the repeated significant issues by various Bodies in all stages to date of consultation."

Simon Bridge
"Impact on Environment: The plans would have a serious impact on RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve and other protected sites. It would represent a severe flood risk. Damage to the landscape and ecology of the area would be permanent and catastrophic. The development would create unacceptable levels of pollution from traffic, noise, dust and light. Impact on the community The development would devastate the way of life of the local community through it's scale, associated pollution and unacceptable levels of traffic, as well as the construction of a new town, destroying a beautiful rural landscape, to house thousands of workers which the local area will be unable to support. Local businesses associated with tourism would be destroyed. Transport: EDF plans to deliver millions of tonnes of material without a jetty, significant use of rail, or an adequate road route that will protect local communities, which would be destroyed by the vast increase in traffic and proposed new roads. The road-based transport plan is simply not sustainable. All local villages would be plagued by rat-running, which has never been addressed by EDF. Site: This is the wrong place for a development of this kind, due to the fragility of the coastline at that point through coastal erosion, climate change, sea-level rising and flooding. There are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the region which would completely destroy the local environment, landscape, ecology and way of life of the area. I am strongly opposed to this development and I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C."

Simon Brown
"The main points I intend to make are in support of my strong conviction that his development should not go ahead. They are as follows: 1) Eroding coastline – detailed forecasts of the coastline do not seem to be reliable beyond ten years but we certainly know that the Suffolk coastline is eroding and that sea levels are eroding at an increasing rate, so it would seem criminally irresponsible to choose Sizewell as a site for the continuing generation of nuclear power and for the long-term storage of nuclear waste 2) Hydrology of Sizewell Marshes SSSI – inadequate assessment of the large-scale interventions that are required, and adverse impact on important plant communities 3) Loss of rare invertebrates on Sizewell Marshes SSSI – proposals for mitigation of habitat loss seem woefully inadequate; displaced species would not thrive at Aldhurst Farm 4) Claims for net gain in biodiversity are unjustifiable 5) Sizewell beach – destruction of habitat. I have little faith in EDF assurances about restoration 6) Threat to marine life from cooling system – colossal loss of marine wildlife sucked into the cooling pipes together with billions of gallons of sea water per day 7) Roads across the AONB – access roads will inevitably cause disruption to wildlife, particularly to rare bats and birds at Minsmere RSPB I am fully satisfied that the construction of Sizewell C will result in permanent damage to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and that Sizewell is a wholly unsuitable location to build a reactor and to store nuclear wate."

South East Essex Friends of the Earth
"This group is opposed to the construction of Sizewell C because there are cheaper, safer and cleaner options, with none of the national security risks associated with nuclear power. Other grounds for opposition: - 1. Site Selection The site is 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 I also wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by the 'Stop Sizewell C' campaign."

Stephen John Curtis
"Dear Sir/Madam I wish to raise the following issues, which form the basis of my objection to the building of the planned Sizewell C nuclear power station. 1. Site Selection The site is at risk from climate change. Potential flooding from rising sea levels will cause untold damage to local areas of ecological and cultural value, and the site could become an island full of nuclear waste. 2. Negative Social and Economic Impact On The Community Unacceptable increase in the level of traffic, air, noise and light pollution. Likely increase in the level of social problems due to Workers Campus. Huge increase in pressure on health, social and emergency services, which will also impact on vulnerable people. Huge detrimental impact on local Tourism. 3. Transport Colossal rise in HGV numbers and related industry transport pollution. Damage to local road network. 4. Environment and Landscape Damage and destruction to Minsmere and other areas of significant importance to wildlife. Flooding. Ecological damage. CO2 levels increased. Ecological damage to marine life 5. Application Wording of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and the RSPB. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Stephen Stansfeld
"I have the following objections. The new reactor technologies are barely tested. Renewable sources of energy are becoming cheaper than nuclear power. With continued coastal erosion and the climate crisis there is a risk of flooding to the Sizewell C site. The new plant will require huge amounts of fresh water - where will this come from in a county that gets drier year by year? Why does the spoil have to be taken away by lorry. See the example of Thames Tideway where the spoil is taken away by barge. Although the new development is supposed to increase local employment most employees will come from further afield and long term employment at Sizewell is minimal. Altogether the Sizewell C development will create enormous disruption to the peaceful life in Suffolk including to the internationally important bird reserve of minsmere."

Stephen Thorpe
"ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Loss of AONB Impossible for EDF to mitigate environmental losses - biodiversity in this area includes many ancient sites, destruction of which is irreversible at a time of ‘Climate Emergency’. SITE: This coast is eroding - grave concern for stability of any new building work here, let alone a new nuclear power station! Local towns of Leiston & Eastbridge unable to cope with influx. Locals will suffer. Too much workforce proposed into a small area creates social problems - previous experience here and elsewhere TRAFFIC: Issues on small country roads - rat running etc not taken into account on local roads. Proposed changes to B1122 are wholly inappropriate The legacy left in this beautiful (AONB) area will be concrete and tarmac! NUCLEAR AS A POWER SOURCE: This is so obviously no longer the way forward - too expensive, takes too long to build/over-runs based on other projects…leaving nuclear waste for future generations (see also environmental issues) EDF: Not a reliable company based on their track record of operation and costs. The company pays lip service to the idea of interacting with local groups but then ignores local knowledge and experience. EDF’s marketing misinformation includes too many false statements FUNDING: The project is too expensive for what is envisaged as a return….and funding projects suggesting that all energy users will have to contribute is ludicrous when so many people now want green energy as there is a better understanding of the Climate Crisis. 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."

Stop Sizewell C (Theberton & Eastbridge Action Group) (Stop Sizewell C (Theberton & Eastbridge Action Group))
"Relevant Representations of Stop Sizewell C (the campaign name of Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell Ltd) 1. Project Financing There is no certainty the project can be financed. EDF’s indebtedness is widely acknowledged and the government has given no assurances regarding funding models or direct investment. 2. Site Selection The UK’s 2011 National Policy Statement EN-6 concludes that Sizewell is a potentially suitable site for new nuclear power stations generating to the grid before 2025. This conclusion is out of date as EN-6 predates 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 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 unpredictable and adverse impact on coastal processes; It will have an adverse impact on sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value; Sizewell C’s construction will be slow, 10-12 years, and have an adverse impact on carbon targets. EDF documents show Sizewell C cannot contribute to UK’s CO2 targets until 2040 at the earliest whereas CCC says urgent reductions are needed before 2030 to meet our 2050 net zero target The 32ha twin reactor development (c.f. Hinkley Point C 45ha) requires 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; Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality will result in significant cumulative impacts on East Suffolk’s environment and economy; There is no sustainable solution for the long-term safe disposal of nuclear waste. Spent fuel would stay on this eroding coastal site until at least 2140. 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 Unacceptable impacts on local communities, in particular Leiston, Eastbridge and Theberton; and settlements along the B1122 and A12. Nearby residents will experience noise increases 600 times ambient levels; noise levels at Old Abbey Care Home will increase 200 times. 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. EDF has not adequately responded to suggestions from Suffolk CC for other locations, based on a consultants’ study. 5. Transport and related associated development EDF’s has rejected a marine transport strategy due to environmental and geomorphological concerns but extensive use of rail has also been rejected with insufficient justification. The (“integrated”) transport strategy proposed is not sustainable and would have adverse impacts on communities and significantly damage East Suffolk’s visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as EDF’s “road led” strategy rejected during consultations. Upgrades to the A12 and B1122 are not proposed to start before site preparations and significant earthworks begin. Other energy projects are likely to be underway, including Sizewell B facilities relocation. Road upgrades must be brought forward to avoid significant impacts to communities along the A12 and B1122. We oppose the Sizewell Link Road which will isolate and sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland threatening viability. It has no legacy value for communities and would perpetuate damages and community severance. Alternative Link Road routes have been dismissed by EDF with insufficient justification. We share the concerns of the respective Councils, Parishes and communities about location, design and impacts of the Yoxford Roundabout, both Park and Rides, Two Villages Bypass, A12 modifications and Freight Management Facility. 6. Landscape & Heritage The 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 designated nature conservation areas. The planned mitigations for landscape and ecological damage are inadequate and would not compensate for damage done during construction and 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 and an incomplete plan for access to potable and construction water supplies. The need to provide an adequate drainage and water supply for the construction period and beyond is not fully addressed Abstraction of water will have impacts on the environment and 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. The environmental implications of the proposed stockpile and spoil storage areas are unclear with contradictory statements and assessments The construction phase would result in unacceptable levels of environmental pollution, including 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 species and habitats in the marine and terrestrial environment. Implications for the integrity of designated sites, including internationally designated European sites and European marine sites and 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. EDF has invoked “IROPI” due to the impacts that cannot be mitigated or compensated for. 8. Marine and Coastal processes The effect of Sizewell C on coastal processes and flood risk is unclear as there is no submitted plan for the hard coastal defence structure and therefore cannot be assessed. 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 without a completed design being 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 An independent consultant concluded the Sizewell C Economic Statement does not comply with the developer’s responsibilities to properly assess impacts as described in EN-6 EDF’s own surveys reveal 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. Does not address the impact of the development on the availability of tourism accommodation, particularly during construction. Inadequate information to support claims of supply chain benefits. 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. 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 long-term negative impacts on the environment and future natural capital and tourism value of the site or long-term view of the economic legacy of a comparable project other than jobs created in the nuclear sector. No detail on how vulnerable children and adults might be impacted in the short to long- term. 10. We wish to raise concerns about the Planning Statement generally including; Proposed use of ‘Not for Approval’ plans Consents and Powers in the Draft DCO Approach to environmental mitigation, management and development flexibility (Rochdale Envelope) Approach to Subsequent Approvals Planning conditions and legal agreements 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 Construction worker Social/Community Mitigation Transport and Freight Management strategy Stop Sizewell C endorses the Relevant Representations of Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Suffolk Wildlife Trust Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council Minsmere Levels Stakeholder Group Nick Scarr Stop Sizewell C believes that the Sizewell C DCO is totally unsuitable for “virtual” examinations. Under Rule 14(3) of The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010, Stop Sizewell C may wish to call expert witnesses in support of this representation or subsequent written representations."

Suffolk Otter Group
"We are concerned about the proposed damage which Sizewell C will cause to Sizewell Belts SSSI and the local wetland - because of the impact this will have on habitat for otters. We have been studying otters intensively on the RSPB’s Minsmere Reserve for the last 6 years. They now have a thriving population in the area, having recovered in Suffolk from near-extinction, and they range far and wide beyond the confines of the reserve. These animals now have the highest possible level of protection under European and UK law, but your proposals will destroy large areas of the precious wetland, which they depend on, and will interfere horribly with their movements. Our chief concerns are: · Direct loss of 10 hectares of SSSI to concrete · Damaging changes in groundwater and surface water, crucial to otters feeding and mobility · Creation of an inappropriate crossing As we understand it, your mitigation proposals include a 69m culvert. It would be interesting to see the evidence you have for believing that this will actually be used by species such as otters. In our experience they are unwilling to use tunnel-like structures, even for quite short distances. We believe that it would take an otter with the mindset of a trainee miner to be attracted to the prospect of entering such a long culvert."

Suffolk Preservation Society
"The Suffolk Preservation Society (SPS) is a non-political, independent, self-funding charity whose charitable objects are to “promote the conservation, protection and improvement of Suffolk’s physical and natural environment for the public benefit by ensuring any change is undertaken sympathetically and to the highest level of design and sustainability”. Significant Adverse Impacts on the Special Qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty SPS objects to the Sizewell C development as currently proposed due to the harm this will cause to the special qualities of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB). SPS considers that EDF have failed to pay due regard to the statutory purposes of conserving the natural beauty of the AONB. • We do not accept EDF’s assertion that the landscape and visual effects would only occur over localised sections of the AONB and Heritage Coast, but will impact on the integrity of the entire designation. • The construction phase impacts on the AONB have been underestimated as the designated landscape will be severed in two for a minimum of 12 years. • We do not accept the assessment of the effects during operation on the AONB as not significant. • Despite embedded mitigation, significant adverse effects will remain for the designated landscape and will result in harm to the special qualities of tranquility, scenic beauty, cultural heritage, relative wildness and dark skies that fundamentally go to the heart of the designation. SPS considers that the site is insufficiently large to accommodate the proposals demonstrated by its encroachment into the designated landscape. In particular this includes the permanent developments including the causeway, access road, outage car park and pylon line which will cause an unacceptable level of development into the AONB. Embedded mitigation is not possible given the site’s physical constraints. • The workers’ accommodation campus at Eastbridge will cause an unacceptable level of development in the deeply rural landscape which will harm the setting of the AONB. Significant Adverse Impacts on the historic environment and setting of heritage assets SPS objects to the level of harm to the historic landscape character and setting of heritage assets resulting from the main development, together with the associated works which fall outside of the AONB including: the accommodation campus; the Two Villages Bypass, the Green Route railway line, the Sizewell link road, the Yoxford junction alterations and the Southern park and ride. • SPS considers that the impacts on the setting of many heritage assets that have been identified in the Environmental Statement underestimates the level of harm that will occur. Furthermore, the adverse impacts to the setting of heritage assets located along the wider access routes during the construction phase have not been adequately assessed. • The proposed access routes will change the rural setting of many heritage assets, introducing extreme visual and physical change, through the addition of urbanising and highly engineered features (such as the bunding at Leiston Abbey measuring between 1.8m and 2.4m in height, topped by security fencing), with associated noise and traffic movement, resulting in the erosion or loss of historic field patterns and the characteristics of a farmed landscape. In particular the setting of Leiston Abbey, Theberton Hall, Glemham Hall, Farnham Hall, St Mary’s Parish Church, Farnham, Cockfield Hall and Moat Farm, Theberton. Need for adequate compensation for the historic natural and built environment • SPS objects to the inadequate mitigation/compensation set out in the draft S106 and calls for a proportionate environmental fund to mitigate and compensate for permanent large-scale heritage and landscape harm. • The applicant’s Sustainability Appraisal states that the setting of 90 heritage assets will be affected, yet the compensation is limited to two sites, Leiston Abbey, and Upper Abbey farm which is in the ownership of EDF. • The harm to the historic environment should be properly and adequately compensated through a Community Impact Fund which includes restoration of heritage assets and their settings in the form of landscape restoration/enhancements. SPS would like to highlight that the Government’s response to its recent consultation on siting of nuclear facilities (Consultation On The Siting Criteria And Process For A New National Policy Statement For Nuclear Power With Single Reactor Capacity Over 1 Gigawatt Beyond 2025, July 2018) stated a clear outstanding requirement on EDF to demonstrate how the Sizewell site will conform to new, more stringent site selection criteria before being accepted as a suitable site. SPS considers that this is a significant omission which should be addressed before a project of this magnitude proceeds."

Suffolk Wildlife Trust
"The Sizewell C Project Development Consent Order Application Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010012 Relevant Representation from Suffolk Wildlife Trust 30 September 2020 1. Introduction Suffolk Wildlife Trust (SWT) has engaged fully with the applicant throughout the pre-application phase, with particular input into the Evidence Plan process. The process enabled some, albeit limited, progress to be made in a number of areas. Throughout the Evidence Plan process, technical meetings and the rounds of public consultations, SWT were clear that we had a range of significant concerns over the plans for the project. These concerns largely stem from the fact that evidence was often limited, resulting in various assessments and conclusions not being robust. There are also a number of areas where we disagree with the interpretation of the data. The resulting mitigation and compensation will not offset the loss to biodiversity, or the impacts to protected sites and species. Despite lengthy discussions with EDF, many of the issues have not been resolved at the application stage. Despite this, SWT remain committed to ongoing dialogue to try and resolve areas of concern where possible. Future representations by Suffolk Wildlife Trust can provide more detail at Examination. General Approach to European Protected Sites. It appears that assessments of impact on the Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) rely on the delivery of monitoring and mitigation plans that are not actually contained within the DCO application. Consequently, it is impossible to determine potential impact in many cases. Furthermore, assessment of the synergistic effects of different impacts is weak, effectively meaning that the conclusions regarding adverse effects on the integrity of the sites has not been fully determined. Coastal geomorphology There is a lack of detail on coastal defence design, making it impossible to fully determine what any medium to long-term impacts might be. Therefore, we remain concerned what the long-term impacts of the Sizewell C frontage and beach landing facility might be on local coastal processes and how these in turn might impact the Minsmere frontage, its protected sites and the function of the Minsmere sluice as well as important County Wildlife Site shingle areas directly in front of the development. Marsh Harrier Compensation Areas Whilst there has been some effort to provide compensation for the loss of marsh harrier foraging over Sizewell Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the southern half of Minsmere Levels, we remain concerned that areas of foraging provided will be inadequate to offset overall loss. We believe the extent of dry habitat provided will not offset the loss of valuable wetland, with lower quantities of prey items available. We also consider that disturbance levels within the compensation site, due to the proximity to noise and visual disturbance, has been underestimated. Noise and visual disturbance We are concerned that the impact of noise and light spill on breeding, migrant and non-breeding birds within Minsmere Levels (part of Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SSSI) has not been fully captured. There is a lack of detailed assessment on the impacts of night-time noise and from the construction of the water management zone bordering Minsmere, specifically. There remains little assessment of impacts of lighting on birds on the Minsmere levels. Detail is lacking in the lighting strategy for the SSSI crossing and along Upper Abbey Farm bridleway and around Ash Wood and how this will avoid impacts on bats specifically. Hydrological impacts on water quantity and water chemistry We are concerned that the proposals for the cut off wall and Sizewell Drain alignment may significantly change the local water quantity and quality within Sizewell Marshes SSSI and Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SSSI. We believe there is potential for increased water flow from the development which may then create capacity issues at the Minsmere Sluice. This in turn could compromise water level management at RSPB Minsmere and its designated features and Sizewell Belts SSSI. It is not clear if there is any long-term plan for the Minsmere sluice, which the Sizewell C development will rely on for drainage in the future. The Minsmere sluice has a limited lifespan, well within the operational and decommissioning timeframes of the power station, and there is no clear plan of what to do once this sluice begins to fail. We remain concerned that there is long-term risk from contaminated leachate emanating from the borrow pits, potentially entering the Minsmere-Walberswick designated sites. Specific hydrological impacts on Sizewell Marshes SSSI Sizewell Marshes SSSI comprises of nationally important fen plant communities that are reliant on a defined water chemistry range and high water quality. Efforts to maintain the water levels can only be achieved, when groundwater will be displaced, by replacing high quality groundwater with surface water of a very different chemistry and quality. This is very likely to have significant deleterious effect on the plant community. We also believe that the realignment of Sizewell Drain may have significant impacts on both water quantity and chemistry, significantly impacting key botanical communities. Water levels can only be maintained within a relatively broad range. We are concerned that micro-topography, such as small depressions, which often support the rarest plant communities, will see significant water level changes, that are not picked up in the monitoring. We also have concerns that the proposed on-going monitoring is not detailed or sophisticated enough to pick up early changes in water level and plant community response. In addition to the important plant community, the SSSI also supports an exceptional invertebrate community. Many of the rare species rely on high water quality and will therefore be extremely vulnerable to changes in water level and quality. Despite modelling, such is the complexity of the system, we believe there remains a significant amount of uncertainty that the proposed mitigation will not be enough to prevent long-term damage to the SSSI. Loss of Sizewell Marshes SSSI We are concerned that the loss of SSSI via the causeway/culvert option instead of the bridge option, which will lead to a much larger loss, has not been adequately and clearly justified. We dispute the term ‘temporary’ damage and we believe it is likely many of the activities that will take place (such as repeated tracking across the SSSI) will result in the permanent damage to nationally important fen habitat. We are concerned that the proposed habitat compensation sites will not be able to offset the loss of biodiversity, with the outcomes likely to be deficient in quality and quantity. Aldhurst Farm habitat creation has been designed to compensate for the loss of reedbed habitat. Due to the high nutrients found in the surface water, it is likely to only support more generalist species, with a resulting overall loss of biodiversity. It is likely this will also apply to the fen compensation sites. Protected species - Bats We have considerable concern that the overall impact on the nationally important bat population within the main development site has not been fully recognised. Specifically, the impacts of lighting and noise on bat foraging and the loss of connectivity across the landscape. Our main areas of concern relate to the loss of woodland at Goose Hill, impacts on the current dark corridor along Upper Abbey Farm bridleway, loss of the barn at Upper Abbey Farm and lack of adequate compensation, impacts on three sides of Ash Wood, loss of the Sizewell Marshes SSSI north to Minsmere and the total loss of an important foraging corridor north from Kenton Hills. We are also concerned that the assessment of cumulative impact from a variety of potential stressors is not adequate, failing to fully capture the effect of all impacts when assessed together. Furthermore, we are concerned that the importance of the area of land impacted by the Sizewell Link Road has not been fully recognised. Protected species – Natterjack toad We are concerned there may be significant impacts on natterjack toad as a result of loss of hibernation sites due to the current proposed footprint of the Water Management Zone. It appears no alternatives to the location and extent of north eastern Water Management Zone have been considered. This is an extremely vulnerable population and we are concerned over the limited scope of the proposed mitigation to improve habitat to the north and connectivity with potential breeding areas on RSPB Minsmere. Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) We dispute the conclusions of BNG. It is crucial that mitigation measures are secured separately and not counted as contributing towards BNG. We are also concerned that the biodiversity value of existing habitats has not been adequately captured. Problems with habitat misclassification, numerical error and unjustified discounting of impacts have been identified. Looking Forward Suffolk Wildlife Trust recognise the value of EDF’s ongoing work with us to try and resolve some of these issues. We will continue to engage EDF on all of these issues and endeavour to find common ground where possible. It is our intention to work closely with the RSPB during the examination process on issues of mutual concern, such as protected species and impacts on important habitats. Where appropriate this will include joint submissions or support for each other’s position. We are also supportive of the RSPB in other issues raised in RSPB’s Relevant Representation. Suffolk Wildlife Trust reserves the right to add to and/or amend its position in light of changes to or any new information submitted by the Applicant."

Susan P Jones
"Concerns the transport of materials and people to the site during construction and after. Increasing HGV traffic on the A12 and minor roads is unsustainable. The Wickham Market vehicle park is a particular problem as it will feed traffic onto the A12 where it becomes single lane and is an accident risk. More traffic through Wickham itself would cause enormous congestion because of rich points at entry and exit. EDF has not taken account of public concerns about road use. Far more needs to be done about prioritising rail and sea transport to the site. The impact on residents and tourism on our coast would be deleterious and offset any economic value of this development."

Swilland and Witnesham Grouped Parish Council
"Witnesham and Swilland Grouped Parish Council objects to the proposal to build Sizewell C. Whilst we are not in the immediate vicinity of Sizewell C, so will not be affected by the enormous local disruption that the construction site will cause over at least 12 years, we do anticipate that the project will bring significant negative changes to the quality of life of our residents. It is difficult to see how the claimed benefits in terms of our local economy and employment will be so overwhelming as to make the disruption and damage to the environment worthwhile. The astronomical cost of the scheme, including the risk for future generations of Government Guarantees, should be challenged. There are other approaches to addressing the national energy strategy. It is suggested that the development is essential for the UK’s clean energy needs in the future, this claim alone demonstrates the abject failure of successive Governments’ long term energy strategies, actions and investment over several decades. Our Areas of direct concern Traffic The 325 HGV deliveries to the site a day will be forced to use the A12 and A14, (EDF figures) will result in at least 650 HGV movements along these already heavily used trunk routes (the vehicles will need to return) ie about one a minute over a 10 hour day. This alone will impede our residents’ ability to reach towns such as Woodbridge, Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as the Suffolk Heritage coast and countryside. In addition, the B1078 passes through our community and will become a rat-run for other traffic to and from the site, if not for deliveries, then certainly for construction workers and visitors keen to avoid the HGV choked A12. Transmission Lines For the last 55 years the main 400kv transmission line from Sizewell to Bramford has passed through Witnesham. This double line of huge 75m pylons and wires has dominated the environment and landscape of the southern end of the parish and has had a major detrimental visual impact on our village and in particular where it crosses the attractive Fynn Valley defined as a “Special Landscape Area”. There has never been any compensation nor amelioration for the impact this national infrastructure has had on our community. The development of Sizewell C will mean that the lifespan of this transmission line and its’ detrimental impact to our village will be extended for another 50 years or so. This is not acceptable to our community. If Sizewell C is to be developed then the transmission of its electricity should not be dependent on1960s overhead transmission technology. It should be a requirement of EDF to undertake the work and include the costs for undergrounding the whole length of the transmission line in its total budget for the scheme just as Scottish Power has provided and financed the undergrounding of the 37km, 220kv transmission cables from the off-shore EA ONE wind farm to Bramford, which also passes through our parish. With already two electricity transmission cable corridors through our parish, the Parish Council has repeatedly asked for a strategic and coordinated approach to the overland transmission of electricity from Sizewell and the various off-shore wind farms off the Suffolk Coast and the impact of these on local communities. The Parish Council is concerned that this has not be addressed and as such our parish will continue to be impacted, long term by transmission lines and is at risk of further developments in the future. Housing There is already a shortage of affordable homes in our area, whilst some of the 25,000 strong construction team will be housed on or near the site, or will hopefully already live in the area, many will not. Understandably many will seek accommodation elsewhere either to purchase or rent. This puts enormous pressure on current and planned housing stock. One risk must be that much of the current holiday rental stock in the area is swamped by the construction team, with a resulting devastating effect of the travel and tourism sector; There is a great deal of detail on these points on the STOP Sizewell C website, so we will not repeat them here. Society A sudden influx of 20,000 plus individuals to the area, many of them single young men, will provide challenges (or opportunities) to our local towns - particularly in the evenings! Overall Environment A visit to the area around the identical Hinkley Point development in Somerset with apparently little benefit to Bridgewater, the nearest significant town, is enough to convince one of the enormous impact such a massive project will have on our environment. There is also some doubt over EDF’s ability to actually build this power plant; the company has recently been under some scrutiny by French regulators because it has yet to successfully complete a power plant of this design. It seems there is a finite risk that the project could be abandoned part-way through! Is Sizewell C actually essential? The argument for the development seems to be that nuclear, and water-cooled fission technology is the only answer to the ‘base load’ requirements of the National Power Grid, because current renewables are unreliable due to weather dependency. We beg to differ. It is tragic that if a fraction of the £billions being invested by the Government in this old and inelegant technology, had instead been spent on engineering safer nuclear fusion, where the only waste product is valuable Helium; we might have kept the lead that we once had as a nation in nuclear energy. Instead we plan to use outdated and unproven French technology. The current approach is inelegant because a high proportion of the cost and complexity of construction is in ensuring that inherently unstable reactors remain safe, by removing excess heat, containing any radioactive leakages, then later managing waste, and safe de-commissioning. Furthermore, the economics of renewables are improving all the time. Wind turbine technology is now becoming cheaper than gas or coal and is already far cheaper than Nuclear. Development is needed in energy retention or storage using technologies such as Hydrogen conversion (where the raw inputs are water plus excess renewable energy) and its use to fuel conventional generators or large fuel cells to provide base load during those periods when the weather is unproductive. It is likely that the investment needed in such developments, combined with an ‘over-deployment’ of wind turbines and photovoltaics will be less, and will certainly be less destructive and cleaner than the Sizewell C approach. Such an approach could provide a sustainable boost to our local economy; we would also be developing the skills needed for the future, not training people to work on the solutions of the past."

The Aldeburgh Society
"The Aldeburgh Society is the civic society for the historic coastal town and cultural centre of Aldeburgh. The objects of the Society are to encourage public interest in and care for the character of the town and its surroundings, and the preservation, development and improvement of general public amenity in the area. The Society opposes the application by EDF for Development Consent for the construction of two new nuclear reactors at Sizewell. It is gravely concerned that this application is having to be examined alongside the application by Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) for the development of two offshore windfarms and their onshore infrastructure, which would seriously impact the same geographical area of Suffolk. The Society is not opposed to nuclear power, and it supports the Government’s net zero target for energy production. However, it views with great concern the damage to the Suffolk Heritage Coast, including the important nationally and internationally protected sites RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve and Dunwich Heath, which the construction of this very large industrial project would entail. If there were no existing nuclear power station on this coast, the proposal to develop one here would be unthinkable in today’s heightened awareness of environmental issues. We are greatly concerned that very large volumes of construction materials required for a project of this size would have to be delivered over a rural roads system, causing environmental damage, noise and disruption to the whole area. More environmentally friendly options for delivery of materials by rail or sea appear to have only a very limited role. The simultaneous application by SPR, involving further major pressures on the same local infrastructure, makes a coherent integrated approach to both development proposals indispensable. The Society is not persuaded by the claims made by EDF regarding the employment and associated benefits which the construction process and the operation of the power station might bring. It also questions the validity of the series of pledges towards the local community suggested by EDF. There still remain doubts about the design of the proposed reactors, none of which has as yet operated successfully elsewhere in Europe. The projected storage of radioactive waste for 140 years on an eroding coastline, however well monitored, also gives us major cause for concern. The construction project would inevitably have a seriously damaging effect upon the tourism business and the cultural offerings for which Aldeburgh is renowned and upon which its local economy is largely based. The Society has concluded that the damage to the fragile East Suffolk coastal area – its environment, economy and society - which the project would wreak is too high a price to pay for electricity, which should be generated increasingly by renewable technologies, supported by improved storage capacities and possibly smaller-scale nuclear projects."

Tina Smith
"I wish to raise the following points of concern regarding the proposed Sizewell C nuclear power station development: Site location Sizewell is the wrong place to locate this project. Sea level rise will threaten the viability and safety of the site. The coastline around Sizewell is also very unstable and subject to coastal processes and erosion that are not fully understood and are set to get more intense due to climate change, and so are unpredictable over the lifespan of the project. Putting a nuclear power station so close to an unstable coastline is too much of a risk. The rising sea levels could make the area an island and the planned hard coastal defences needed to protect the power station are likely to make coastal erosion worse to the north and south of the site. The adverse impact that the project will have on the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest is simply unacceptable. Noise, light, vibration and air pollution will threaten both the health of local people and of wildlife habitats and populations. The RSPB has said that the development will be "catastrophic for wildlife" at their internationally-renowned Minsmere reserve and it is also opposed by Suffolk Wildlife Trust. The Prime Minister Boris Johnson has just committed to "restoring to nature 30 per cent of Britain by 2030, to turn back the clock of the loss of biodiversity." Destroying vital and sensitive wildlife habitat goes against this commitment. Community, economic and social impacts The project requires 6000 temporary workers to come and live in the area during the construction phase, with 2400 living in a worker's campus in an unsuitable location which I oppose. The local amenities will not be able to cope with such an influx. Health, social and emergency services will be placed under extra pressure. Transport The road based transport plan is not sustainable and would 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 the statutory consultees in consultations, with up to 1140 HGVs and 700 buses a day on the A12 and local roads. Suffolk County Council has said that EDF's link road will have no long-term use and it would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. Environment and Landscape The site will be at risk of flooding due to the loss of flood storage from the development site. The development will result in noise, light and traffic pollution. It will cause irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. Impacts on Marsh Harriers threaten the integrity of the Special Protection Area. It will have a catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; the construction severs the AONB. It will be impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage and the project won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. There are risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology, and abstraction of water compounds these risks. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations 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."

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) (Together Against Sizewell C (TASC))
"Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) is a group of people formed to oppose the building of Sizewell C and its associated works in a legal, open, peaceful and fully accountable manner. At this preliminary stage, TASC’s main concerns are summarised below and stand as TASC’s Relevant Representation. TASC will refine and amplify its case through its written representations. (1) The insufficient justification for the proposal. Whilst SZC is noted within EN-6 as a potentially suitable site, that only applies to reactors deployable before 2025 (EN-6 para.2.2.2). Pursuant to that framework, a DCO was granted for Hinkley Point C in 2013. A new nuclear policy statement (for post 2025 deployment) has yet to be published, following consultation on siting criteria in 2017-2018. It follows that there is no NPS which establishes the “need” for a new nuclear power station post 2025, or the appropriateness of SZC for that purpose, when judged against the reasonable alternatives. To this end TASC will draw attention to the Government’s siting criteria in the December 2017 consultation (“Draft Siting Criteria”), as a material consideration pursuant to s.105(2)(c) Planning Act 2008. (2) The impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. TASC endorses the observations of the AONB Partnership Board and notes the Promoter acknowledges adverse effects during the operational phase (60 years) on the character and appearance of the area, including on the AONB. These include a significant adverse effect on the Estate Sandlands and Coastal Levels LCA and a range of prominent viewing points, even after mitigation, see ES Volume 5, Chapter 13. The impact principally arises from new roadways, access connections to the rail head and potential new transmission lines, potential impact from new flood defences and loss of the historic landscape character, acknowledged in ES Volume 2, Chapter 16 at paragraph 16.6.122. The Government’s view is that new nuclear power stations should be sited to avoid “significant adverse impact” on designated sites of amenity and landscape value (Draft Siting Criteria, para.2.81). (3) The impact on cultural heritage. The Government’s Appraisal of Sustainability of SZC (October 2010) identifies the potential for an impact on a number of heritage assets, including a Scheduled Ancient Monument, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings (paragraph 5.60). EN-1 provides that there is a presumption in favour of conservation of assets (paragraph 5.8.14). Within the ES, Volume 2, Chapter 16, the Promoter identifies harm to the significance of a number of heritage assets during the operational phase, of particular concern is the impact on the Pillbox in Pillbox Field and Leiston Abbey. Moreover, there are significant effects identified during the construction phase (9-12 years) on the Leiston Abbey Scheduled Monument (first site) and a Grade II Listed Cottage 450m west of Upper Abbey Farmhouse. (4) The impact on the public rights of way network. The proposal would seek the stopping-up and diversion of a number of rights of way (ES Volume 5, Chapter 2). EN-1 acknowledges the social importance of rights of way (paragraph 5.10.24). TASC are particularly concerned about the enduring adverse effect on the coast path arising from the beach landing facility and loss of Bridleway 19 known as “Black Walks” and the connectivity to other well used footways along the coastal stretch. (5) The impact of the construction, decommissioning and storage phases on carbon generation. TASC considers there to be inadequate evidence on the carbon impacts of the construction, decommissioning and storage phases of the proposal. Without assessment, TASC consider the proposal cannot be said to make a meaningful contribution to meeting the UK’s obligations under the Paris Agreement. (6) The proposed freight and transport strategy is inadequate. TASC endorses the observations of Suffolk County Council in this respect. Moreover, TASC notes the acknowledged significant adverse effect during the operational phase on pedestrian access arising from the two-village bypass and Sizewell link road (ES, Volume 2, Chapter 10). Access to and from the very rural and remote site during construction will cause an unacceptable level of HGV, bus, van and car movements. It will also promote car and van displacement onto many minor roads. The proposed Link road will cross and divide existing viable farms, impinging on many C class roads and cycle routes. The suggested rail delivery programme is also a contentious matter with many unresolved issues (7) The impact on the Sizewell Marshes SSSI, SPA and SAC. TASC endorses the observations of Suffolk County Council in this respect. The promoter acknowledges that during the construction phase, even with mitigation, there would be a significant adverse effect on Red Data Book species such as Deptford Pink (plant species), Marsh Harrier and barbastelle and Natterer’s bats which have been identified due to habitat fragmentation during construction. The Government’s view is that it would be preferable for sites to be located in an area unlikely to cause an adverse impact on nationally designated sites of ecological importance (Draft Siting Criteria, para.2.71). Moreover, EN-1 provides that proposals should avoid significant harm to biodiversity and that appropriate weight is afforded to designated sites (such as here) (paragraph 5.3.8). (8) The impact of the access road dividing the AONB in two together with the SSSI crossing over the water courses to the SZC site by a culvert. This is unacceptable, causing irreparable damage to the SSSI: water management, quality and levels are key to the overall ecology of the Sizewell Belts SSSI and changes must be avoided. No mitigation will suffice to counter the damage to this sensitive area. (9) TASC’s other concerns:- The Planning Statement - excessive use of Rochdale envelope where more detail should be provided now - lack of application of the UK Marine Policy Statement 2011 - use of IROPI to justify the development - Common Law Nuisance and Statutory Nuisance - lack of integration with numerous other energy infrastructure projects affecting the region -implications of local and regional planning policy Coastal Processes, Flooding & Hydrology - insufficient detail of hard sea defences -inadequacy of hard sea defences to protect SZC site, staff and local communities until decommissioned/waste removed-should be applying precautionary principle - adverse impact of sea defences on SZC’s neighbours especially as seaward building line further east than SZB - impact of permanent beach landing facility on coastal processes and environment - EDF’s unsubstantiated reliance on recent history and offshore geomorphology leads to an understatement of the vulnerability of the site to flooding - recent concerns over the rapid melting of the East Antarctic icesheet predict a 3.5m sea rise over a relatively short period of time - impact on water-level dependent flora and fauna, affecting nationally and internationally designated areas, due to fluctuations the development will cause to groundwater levels and drainage Site Safety - danger to SZB from construction - proximity to SZB viz physical security with 1,000s of workers adjacent to working plant - at 32ha the site is too small for all the buildings to safely accommodate 60+ years of operation (lack of location/description of all essential buildings and structures in DCO) - SZC will be a de facto nuclear waste storage facility for at least 150 years, but indefinitely if no Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) built - impact on SZB emergency planning Landscape, Heritage & Visual Impact - impact on the qualities that gave rise to the AONB designation, compromising the status/integrity of the AONB - nighttime light pollution for a twelve year period causing negative impact on Suffolk’s celebrated ‘dark skies’ - visual and ecological impact of SZC site buildings, associated construction works and pylons unacceptable and mitigation measures inadequate or non-existent - lack of visuals during construction Land Habitats & Wildlife - damage to protected habitats: SSSI, Ramsar, SPA, SAC, - impact of vibration, noise, dust, light, air pollution on wildlife/residents - inadequacy of compensatory wildlife areas eg for Marsh Harriers - question biodiversity net gain - chemical, particulate run-off from vehicles/construction activities/ concrete batching plant into extremely sensitive water systems and wider environment - EDF promote new roads, roundabouts, park and ride facilities and rail as mitigation, but they cause more environmental damage and pollution in the affected communities, also adding to the project’s carbon debt - no assessment of overall cumulative impact within the environmental statement - inadequacy and omission of Environment Impact Assessment data means proper scrutiny not possible Marine Environment & Marine Conservation Zone - unsustainable fish/other marine life take from cooling water intake pipes, impacting on dependent wildlife - impact on recreational/commercial fishing - pollution & heat from sea water outlet pipe - environmental damage from constructing pipework & beach landing facility Community Impacts - boom & bust effect - EDF overstatement of local employment gains, including the unemployed - transfer of workers from HPC & not being locals ie undermining the economic case - negative impact on existing tourism industry - loss of qualified staff by existing local businesses e.g. care services - construction starts before new infrastructure in place - 24/7 noise, vibration air, dust and light pollution from traffic, construction, accommodation blocks, spoil heaps, borrow pits, concrete batching plant etc - potable water consumption by SZC is unsustainable: water co. says they can't supply amount needed during 10+ year construction and 60-year operation - inadequate assessment of predicted impact on fresh water supplies due to climate change/new housing/commercial developments and seasonal demand fluctuations on people, farmers & businesses - usage during operation understated when compared to the Environment Agency Generic Design Assessment for UK EPR reactors - post-operational low-level radiation health effect poorly understood - up to 7,900 workers overwhelming the area - impact on health and fire emergency services, doctors' surgeries, hospitals - impact on local housing availability is unacceptable - risk of virus introduction into local community from large influx of personnel National Policy - matters referenced to the Draft Siting Criteria in paragraphs (1), (2) & (7) above are similarly referenced in the extant EN-6, including paragraphs C.8.2 and C.8.4, C.8.68, C.8.52 onwards and C.8.60 onwards, respectively - no energy white paper despite promises from Government - no public consultation since 2007/8 on need for new nuclear, despite promises - Defra’s 25-year environment plan- SZC fails on most/all of 10 key aims Finance - EDF's precarious financial position means it is unsuitable as developer and/or future operator of SZC - EDF’s application states that it does not have the funds to build SZC - EDF cannot demonstrate they can meet payments for compulsory purchases - Nuclear electricity is more expensive than from renewables: unfair on the consumer, particularly lower paid - EDF has proposed RAB funding model. Unfair to expose UK bill/taxpayers to SZC’s costs and risks Carbon Targets - IROPI undermined by historic reduction in electricity demand and plant’s predicted failure to make significant contribution to climate change gas reduction as net zero carbon required by law in 2050, only ten years after Sizewell C has repaid its carbon debt from construction, leaving no energy sector carbon to off-set between 2050 and plant’s predicted closure in the 2090s - lack of information for independent verification of EdF’s carbon emission claims: which government body is responsible for checking EDF’s carbon calculations? TASC are dissatisfied with how EDF have conducted the DCO application process - Developer should have postponed the process until such time as communities impacted by SZC had no Covid-19 restrictions - potential that possible restrictions on public gatherings/shielding/ lack of access to libraries etc will have compromised the ability of many to fully engage in the DCO process - Non-availability of reports referred to in DCO - the maps in the DCO documents are, in many instances, hard to read and understand especially as they show no grid references - the mobile bus was a pitiful attempt to engage, especially when many were too scared to visit due to Covid-19 worries - SZC DCO is not suitable for a purely digital examination/virtual hearings TASC reserve the right to comment further if the developer releases additional information. TASC refutes as entirely false the EdF claim that the proposed development will bring a net gain in either economic activity or environmental gain in respect of increased biodiversity. Conversely, it will wreak havoc on a heritage coast renowned for its tranquillity and natural beauty, bring economic hardship to its thriving tourist industry and devastate the lives of residents over a protracted period of time, leaving a lethal nuclear waste legacy for future generations to assume."

Tom Ash
"While I am in favour of nuclear power providing an element of the UK’s power needs I have grave reservations about EDF’s proposals for Sizewell C. 1. There is no strategy in the UK for dealing with the waste generated by nuclear power stations. The options for storing it on site are not acceptable. It leaves the area where the power station is/was located bearing the brunt of this long lasting problem whereas the rest of the country has in the main benefited from the output from these plants yet they take no part in resolving the issue. Until it is resolved nationally we should not be building new nuclear power stations. 2. This is a large power plant remote from the area where the power is required. There will be significant power losses from transmitting the power to the areas of need. It relies on imported technology whereas the UK has failed to explore the opportunities that ‘home grown’ smaller factory built and cheaper reactors could provide in meeting the UK’s power needs and the advantages this has to the UK economy as a whole. The building of Sizewell C should at least be deferred until this opportunity for the UK has been explored further. 3. EDF’s proposals on the promise of local jobs are not clear. If there is to be a reliance on local employment why is it necessary to build such a large accommodation block? It is evident that EDF intend to import the majority of its skilled workforce from elsewhere in the UK or from abroad. We don’t have the necessary infrastructure locally to train the necessary workforce and there are no concrete proposals on how this can be achieved. There are only 1500 apprenticeships planned. This only leaves low skilled jobs for the local people. Currently the local economy is reliant on the tourist industry that is generated through the existence of the AONB and SSSIs including the RSPB’s flagship reserve at Minsmere, on the doorstep of Sizewell C. This significant part of the local economy will diminish during construction but there is no indication that the Sizewell C will fill the gap in local employment. 4. Transport during construction will be quite significant. The construction of a two village bypass will overcome the difficulties of the narrow corner in Farnham but Marlesford and Little Glemham will still suffer from the noise, vibration and pollution of the significant number of additional HGVs passing through the heart of the villages. There will undoubtedly be a lot more traffic on the A12 and the surrounding roads. While EDF might restrict the HGVs to certain routes this will not be the case for workers cars and other traffic associated with the site. 5. In addition to pollution from construction and delivery vehicles due to the nature of the area there will be significant dust pollution, and noise will spread. Light pollution will affect the local area with the consequent and detrimental effect on the local wildlife."

Tom Langton
"This nuclear power station should not be built. It permanently threatens an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), nature conservation interest of international quality and the wider landscape and will add to the biodiversity crisis in England over the next 20-30 years or more. • Biodiversity impacts of using AONB land as a temporary workers town bigger than Leiston, just south of Minsmere RSPB (the most biodiverse bird reserve in the UK), for thousands of workers is a truly extraordinary proposal due to the massive and unnecessary landscape intrusion. Siting the construction village inside the AONB is irrational. • The EDFE proposed provisions for nature protection are minimalist, poorly-evidenced and in-part appear flawed. Biodiversity Net Gain claims by EDFE are, in key areas un-evidenced, appear incorrect in substance and in presentation with inappropriate and misconstrued attempts at ‘offsetting’. • Permanent damage to the eco-hydrology of marshland. Water table disruption from station construction risks loss of special interest to the SSSI (especially aquatic macro-invertebrates), on land functionally linked to SAC, SPA and RAMSAR site interests. Protected species, including those designated for local, national and international interests of the AONB will also be disrupted by water level changes. • Depletion of threatened and declining vertebrate species, over a wide area, particularly protected reptile populations but also of birds, bats, natterjack toad and otter; which is (alongside other locally important species) highly vulnerable to increased road traffic. • Loss of and change to large areas of marine and coastal habitats and species including shingle beach and dune habitat now partly (not completely) recovered over c.25 years with large and significant populations of plants & animals. • Permanent severance effects to wildlife caused by the creation of a busy new road (Yoxford to Sizewell) over 9.0 Km in length, with large car park. Permanent transport proposals with a damaging alignment cut across multiple fields and hedgerows, water features and narrow lanes east of the A12 Then across the AONB. • Inadequate protection of people and wildlife from increased road vehicle traffic collision. The large proposed car parks at Wickham Market, Darsham & Sizewell and associated roundabouts and support developments are alien to the landscape as you enter the remoter Suffolk coast between Woodbridge and Kessingland. The largely two lane A12 road north of Saxmundham and villages in close proximity are already under traffic strain especially the A1120 and Yoxford and Peasenhall High Streets. Increased traffic will harm local wildlife such as hedgehogs, owls and other birds to a wide distance and increase vehicle-deer collisions with human fatality and injury predicted. Extensive planning for wildlife barriers and fences and underpasses has been completely overlooked. Greater (or total) use of rail should have been considered from the start. This nuclear power station should not be built. It permanently threatens an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), nature conservation interest of international quality and the wider landscape and will add to the biodiversity crisis in England over the next 20-30 years or more. • Biodiversity impacts of using AONB land as a temporary workers town bigger than Leiston, just south of Minsmere RSPB (the most biodiverse bird reserve in the UK), for thousands of workers is a truly extraordinary proposal due to the massive and unnecessary landscape intrusion. Considerations could only ever rationally have sited it outside the AONB. • The EDFE proposed provisions for nature protection are minimalist, poorly-evidenced and in-part appear flawed. Biodiversity Net Gain claims by EDFE are, in key areas un-evidenced, appear incorrect in substance and in presentation with inappropriate and misconstrued attempts at ‘offsetting’. • Permanent damage to the eco-hydrology of marshland. Water table disruption from station construction risks loss of special interest to the SSSI (especially aquatic macro-invertebrates), on land functionally linked to SAC, SPA and RAMSAR site interests. Protected species, including those designated for local, national and international interests of the AONB will also be disrupted by water level changes. • Depletion of threatened and declining vertebrate species, over a wide area, particularly protected reptile populations but also of birds, bats, natterjack toad and otter; which is (alongside other locally important species) highly vulnerable to increased road traffic. • Loss of and change to large areas of marine and coastal habitats and species including shingle beach and dune habitat now partly (not completely) recovered over c.25 years with large and significant populations of plants & animals. • Permanent severance effects to wildlife caused by the creation of a busy new road (Yoxford to Sizewell) over 9.0 Km in length, with large car park. Permanent transport proposals with a damaging alignment cut across multiple fields and hedgerows, water features and narrow lanes east of the A12 Then across the AONB. • Inadequate protection of people and wildlife from increased road vehicle traffic collision. The large proposed car parks at Wickham Market, Darsham & Sizewell and associated roundabouts and support developments are alien to the landscape as you enter the remoter Suffolk coast between Woodbridge and Kessingland. The largely two lane A12 road north of Saxmundham and villages in close proximity are already under traffic strain especially the A1120 and Yoxford and Peasenhall High Streets. Increased traffic will harm local wildlife such as hedgehogs, owls and other birds to a wide distance and increase vehicle-deer collisions with human fatality and injury predicted. Extensive planning for wildlife barriers and fences and underpasses has been completely overlooked. Greater (or total) use of rail should have been considered from the start. This nuclear power station should not be built. It permanently threatens an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), nature conservation interest of international quality and the wider landscape and will add to the biodiversity crisis in England over the next 20-30 years or more. • Biodiversity impacts of using AONB land as a temporary workers town bigger than Leiston, just south of Minsmere RSPB (the most biodiverse bird reserve in the UK), for thousands of workers is a truly extraordinary proposal due to the massive and unnecessary landscape intrusion. Considerations could only ever rationally have sited it outside the AONB. • The EDFE proposed provisions for nature protection are minimalist, poorly-evidenced and in-part appear flawed. Biodiversity Net Gain claims by EDFE are, in key areas un-evidenced, appear incorrect in substance and in presentation with inappropriate and misconstrued attempts at ‘offsetting’. • Permanent damage to the eco-hydrology of marshland. Water table disruption from station construction risks loss of special interest to the SSSI (especially aquatic macro-invertebrates), on land functionally linked to SAC, SPA and RAMSAR site interests. Protected species, including those designated for local, national and international interests of the AONB will also be disrupted by water level changes. • Depletion of threatened and declining vertebrate species, over a wide area, particularly protected reptile populations but also of birds, bats, natterjack toad and otter; which is (alongside other locally important species) highly vulnerable to increased road traffic. • Loss of and change to large areas of marine and coastal habitats and species including shingle beach and dune habitat now partly (not completely) recovered over c.25 years with large and significant populations of plants & animals. • Permanent severance effects to wildlife caused by the creation of a busy new road (Yoxford to Sizewell) over 9.0 Km in length, with large car park. Permanent transport proposals with a damaging alignment cut across multiple fields and hedgerows, water features and narrow lanes east of the A12 Then across the AONB. • Inadequate protection of people and wildlife from increased road vehicle traffic collision. The large proposed car parks at Wickham Market, Darsham & Sizewell and associated roundabouts and support developments are alien to the landscape as you enter the remoter Suffolk coast between Woodbridge and Kessingland. The largely two lane A12 road north of Saxmundham and villages in close proximity are already under traffic strain especially the A1120 and Yoxford and Peasenhall High Streets. Increased traffic will harm local wildlife such as hedgehogs, owls and other birds to a wide distance and increase vehicle-deer collisions with human fatality and injury predicted. Extensive planning for wildlife barriers and fences and underpasses has been completely overlooked."

Tom Milligan
"i. Coastal erosion implications from the positioning if Sizewell C have not been addressed or apparently considered in the EDF submission. The proposal would have a significant build that will affect large parts of the neigbouring coast, which has a historically dynamic relationship with the sea (e.g.: Dunwich / Slaughden / Alde estuary development). Given the significance of the build and the term of the commitment, coastal erosion implications over wider areas should be addressed and considered now. ii. EDF plans on the exact construction of Sizewell C and its sea defences do not include any plans for the hard core construction. These specific plans need to be made available and with time to consider the implications of them before any decision is made. iii. The length of time that the plant will be operating (including post de-commissioning) will have implications on coastal erosion throughout the 60 years of proposed monitoring - andf significantly beyond. These longer terms implications need to be considered, too. iv. It is possible that the coast south of Sizewell C does get adversely affected, for some considerable time. Funds need to be made available and maintained in escrow indefinitely for coastal defence works, including for Aldeburgh to at least Shingle Street. v. The IPPC estimates in 2019 relating to coastal erosion and sea level rises should be addressed by the developers, instead of relying on out of date data as is the case currently. vi. Whilst I understand the implications of Covid and the associated difficulties arising, the Sizewell C application has far reaching geographical and time consequences that make it entirely unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Tony Morley
"1. The plans submitted in 2020 do not take account of the climate change forecasts in the IPPC report of 2019. This means that EDF have not taken into account the additional flooding risk that increased climate change would cause. This is a serious safety concern and EDF should revise it’s plan to take account of the latest forecasts. 2. No account has been taken of potential erosion north and south of Sizewell Bay due to the airing of the two new reactors and their increasingly tidal exposure as the coast recedes. 3. The site must be monitored for the whole of it’s existence to ensure that any dangerous erosion is repaired immediately. 4. This extensive and complicated application is quite unsuitable for a virtual Enquiry. A large section of the residents of this area will not be able to cope with the IT requirements and would therefore be disenfranchised if there are not open meetings. There are venues such as cinemas, concert halls and other buildings that could safely be combined to hold all interested parties with social distancing backed up by large screns and staff with microphones."

Wiener Plattform Atomkraftfrei
"It is not clear if a new NPP is needed at all in UK. At this point in time, when renewables have already become cheaper than nuclear energy it is necessary to update the assessment of alternatives for every planned NPP and not to rely on older data. It would have also been necessary to update the electricity demand to substantiate the decision for new nuclear instead of the deployment of renewables. No sufficient proof of safe disposal for spent fuel and radioactive waste was provided in the documents. Interim storage capacities for spent fuel are not available yet, and it has not been made clear if they will be available once Sizewell C will be generating spent fuel. Also no information is provided on the geological final repository for spent fuel and high-level waste, neither on the site, the technology or the timetable. Before the claiming or deciding that the KBS-V3 method will be used for the spent fuel canisters for the final repository prove should be provided that copper corrosion will not become a problem in the long-term. Three reactors that are the design basis of the planned reactor type UK EPR™ are currently under construction, one each in Finland (Olkiluoto 3), France (Flamanville 3) and the U.K. (Hinkley Point C1). OL3 and FL3 are many years behind their initial schedule. The length of the construction period and the many difficulties demonstrate the complexity of the EPR design. The design of this reactor type needs to be re-examined in the light of the Fukushima accident. It is questionable if preserving containment integrity is guaranteed by the proposed safety design and features. Eight years ago an accident analysis was conducted. Since this evaluation, the state of science and technology underwent further development. This is reflected in new international and European regulations and guidelines that should have been taken into proper account. Severe accidents with high releases of caesium-137 cannot be excluded although their calculated probability is below 1E-7/a. Consequently, such accidents should have been included in the environmental impact assessment since their effects can be widespread and long-lasting. Site-specific factors, in particular possible danger of flooding and climate change effects, could endanger Sizewell C. And it has not been proved that the NPP can withstand terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage. The project flexRISK assesses that in case of a severe accident at the Sizewell site, all of Europe could be contaminated."

William EDDIS
"I am a local resident, living about 6 miles from the proposed site. I spent my childhood living in Aldeburgh and watched Sizewell A being built. My contact details are: William Eddis [Redacted] My relevant representation is as follows: • When Sizewell A was constructed in the early 1960s, we were assured that nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter”. We now know this was a serious misrepresentation. For the design proposed here the 3 projects currently under construction in Finland, France and at Hinkley Point are all way over budget and increasingly late. We can have no confidence that the proposed time scale and costs associated with this project are realistic. The likely delays and cost overruns are such as to destroy the economic case for the station. • The Suffolk coast is notoriously unstable with the only thing known for certain from the experience of past centuries being persistent if intermittent coastal erosion. To the North, the town of Dunwich, once a major port of national significance, is now under the sea together with at least 8 churches, as is the village of Slaughden, South of Aldeburgh, which finally vanished only about 100 years ago. Added to this trend we now have climate change, increased surge tides and sea level rise which all together call into question the ability of the proposed site to avoid being inundated well before the end of the station’s useful life, not to mention the extended period after that before it can be safely dismantled. I was in Japan at the time of the earthquake and tsunami, and know from personal experience how devastating the inundation of the Fukushima nuclear power station was. • Renewable technologies are developing very fast, with major improvements likely in the conversion efficiency of photo-voltaic cells, while developments in storage technologies, both batteries and hydrogen, as well as related developments, in the next few years. These are likely significantly to reduce the attractiveness of nuclear power even before this station could start generating. • The Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB and associated nature reserves etc are very precious and special areas, internationally important, that need to be protected. The transport and housing infrastructure of the area, even with the modest proposed investment, is insufficient to support the traffic and employment that would be generated over the extended construction period, with the resulting risk of serious environmental degradation over a wide area."

William Halford
"I wish to raise the following issues of concerns regarding Sizewell C Project Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010012 1. National Security and safety of the local (East Suffolk) population • Greatly increased risk to national and local security through the concentration of power generation capacity and infrastructure into just 4 square miles between Sizewell, Thorpeness and Friston - a tempting target for terrorists and any hostile power. • A concentration of too many power generation facilities (SZB, SZC, SZD, Galloper, Greater Gabbard, EA1N, EA2, Nautilus, Eurolink etc etc) in just one place –a tempting target for terrorists and any hostile power. • The need to retain critically dangerous nuclear waste on site until the year 2135 is madness - a time bomb sitting close to future generations of East Suffolk's inhabitants and businesses. Climate change has accelerated far further than previously forecast and, together with the ongoing erosion of the East Suffolk coast, it must now be inevitable that sea levels at Sizewell will rise very significantly over the next 100 years and that an inundation of the site including the nuclear waste ponds will occur. 2. Site Selection • The proposed Site is 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 including RSPB Minsmere • Owing to rising sea levels, the site may become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors (A, B, C1, C2 and D) together with dangerous stored waste. 4. 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, a new"town"* comprising accommodation blocks just outside Leiston at Eastbridge, tiny picturesque village of just 50 inhabitants, close to Minsmere. • EDF should reconsider and plan the bulk of accommodation at nearby towns e.g. Lowestoft and Ipswich • Negative impact on Visitor economy owing to construction noise, clogged up rural roads clogged up with construction. • Pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. • Leaching of staff from local firms attracted by higher pay and prospects (The area currently enjoys virtually full employment, few unemployed workers are available in the local area. • Pressure on health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people. • The social impact on the local area of having so many construction workers (mostly young men) imposed on such a peaceful rural area will inevitably highly damaging, especially at evenings and weekends. No lessons seem to have been learned by EDF from the earlier CEGB Sizewell B project, during which crime, unsocial behaviour and drug dealing soared with local police unable to cope. • EDF should reconsider and work with local authorities to put together plans for accommodation at the nearby towns of Lowestoft and Ipswich - similar to its approach at HPC where the majority of accommodation was provided at the town of Bridgewater and where the plan provides the opportunity for a housing legacy once construction is complete. 5. Transport • I continue to prefer a Marine led strategy* until such time as EDF can provide an acceptable and comprehensive justification for it to have been be abandoned • A Road based transport plan is not sustainable in this small locality; enormous and adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV volumes would be as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations • Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means the A12* and villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic. NB It is estimated that 85% of HGV traffic will arrive from the south via the single lane A12. • New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. • Contractor and worker rat-running, fly parking and disruption have not been adequately considered. • EDF previously calculated that the benefit of a rail led strategy relative to road led would be a reduction of 450 HGV's per day (39%) crossing East Suffolk's narrow rural roads. • EDF must engage Government at ministerial level (Transport and BEIS) to ensure Rail Track are obliged to support a Rail Led strategy for SZC • Road Improvements : I prefer the original D2 route* for a A12 to Sizewell Link Road to support a Marine and Rail led Integrated Transport Strategy - as was proposed for Sizewell B but not implemented. • Whichever link road is built must be suitable for retention as a legacy after construction is completed 6. Environment and Landscape • Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic • Insufficient information provided the supply and drainage of vast quantities of potable water during 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 • Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage • Low carbon energy generated when operational will not offset the CO2 emitted during construction for at least 6 years. • Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB • Requires up to 190 million litres per 24 hour day of sea water for cooling when operational. When both SZB and SZC are running, combined throughput would be 217 million litres per day. 7. 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 • Potential cumulative effect of SZC and the several other offshore energy projects on the Coraline Crag near Thorpeness • Impacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes • Impacts on marine ecology 8. Cumulative impact • EDF's Environmental Impact Assessment must fully evaluate the combined impact of SZC, EA1N, EA2, Nautilus, EuroLink , Greater Gabbard extension, Galloper Extension et aliter.. The combined effect of so much construction, all during the same 10-15 years period and in just 4 square miles of rural will together destroy the environment and residents’ lives in an area of the Suffolk Heritage Coast between Sizewell, Thorpeness and Friston. • PINS NSIP Advice Note 17 on Sumulative Assessment is not able to support an uncoordinated programme of so many consecutive unconnected energy project proposals coming forward, all targeting the connections to the National Grid in the same local area. 9. Alternative power generation technologies • EDF EPR technology has yet to be proven . EDF continues to encounter serious engineering difficulties with this technology in elsewhere. • Advances in High Voltage battery storage technology and the prospect of much smaller nuclear power installations distributed close to where the power is used now may provide an opportunity for much lower risk and lower cost power generation situated close to where the majority of the power is to be consumed i.e. in SE England. 10. Project Funding • Hinckley Point C (HPC) project latest (September 2019) published forecast of a further £3,000,000,000 overspend provides evidence that EDF cost estimates have been grossly understated. It must now be impossible for sufficient funding to be found such that the retail price of the electricity eventually generated can be competitive with other forms of power generation. Even if consented, there is ahigh probability that it will be cancelled later. • The proposed Regulated Asset Base (RAB) financing model has not yet been accepted and it will be politically difficult to gain parliamentary and public approval with respect to the generation of nuclear power."

Yoxford Parish Council
"Yoxford Parish Council wish to raise the following concerns: Transport 1. The proposed development is too dependent on roads for transport. There will be significant adverse impact to local communities and businesses from noise and increased journey times. The increased road traffic and congestion will deter visitors and significantly impact tourism and associated local jobs. It is not reasonable for tourism to bear this cost. The problem could be mitigated by a marine led transport strategy and/or increased use of rail. 2. A marine led strategy was dismissed too readily and should be reconsidered. 3. Insufficient use is being made of rail as an alternative form of transport. 4. We have repeatedly asked for transparency on traffic modelling assumptions and remain concerned that they underestimate the traffic volumes during construction. The estimated versus actual traffic at Hinckley Point illustrate the issue. We are concerned about traffic all year round but are especially concerned about the traffic during the peak holiday season which we do not believe has been modelled fully. 5. There is an environmental impact to road building so the proposed A12 link road must use a route that has legacy value. The proposed route does not and there is a significant risk it will need to be removed after construction compounding the environmental damage. A better route should be used. 6. The relief road and other road improvements need to be brought forward in the plan. It is not acceptable to have 2 to 3 years of very significant unmitigated traffic impact whilst this work is completed. 7. There is no mitigation of the community severance caused by increased traffic on the A12 and A1120 in Yoxford. Environment 1. There is insufficient mitigation of the risks from climate change, rising sea levels and flooding. 2. The noise, dust and light pollution during construction will significantly impact RSPB Minsmere’s role as a key tourist destination. 3. The proximity and scale of the finished construction will devastate the character of the local area and be a blight on the AONB and the Minsmere Nature Reserve, its wildlife, environment and associated tourism forever. 4. The visual impact of 65m high transmission towers for power export connection is not acceptable. Power export connection can be achieved with cables in surface troughs and/or gas insulated lines. 5. The approach of separately assessing the environmental impacts of parts of the development means consequential impacts have not been assessed. For example, increased air pollution due to increased traffic volumes on stretches of roads where no mitigation is taking place. 6. The noise and light pollution from the northern park and ride will adversely impact some Yoxford residents with no mitigation. Economic, Social and Accommodation 1. EDF have recently described how re-contracting Hinckley Point C workers will reduce costs for Sizewell C construction. This will mean fewer jobs for local people and a reduced economic benefit for the local area. It will also lead to more incoming people requiring accommodation locally. 2. The proposed campus will not provide enough accommodation. 3. The accommodation need will distort the private rental sector of the local housing market making it harder for local people to secure housing. That will have a knock-on increase on demand for social housing from local people. 4. The housing need will encourage the repurposing of current tourist accommodation for Sizewell C workers reducing the number of tourist beds in the area. Fewer tourists will negatively impact tourist focussed businesses not involved in accommodation. General 1. There is insufficient consequence to the applicant of failing to achieve their proposed mitigations in a complete and timely way or even at all. Similarly, there is no consequence to the applicant if dubious forecasts and estimates turn out to be incorrect. 2. The combined impacts of this application and several other local energy projects need to be considered."

Adrian McInerney
"Cumulative impact of this project alongside the multiple Energy NSIPs coming forward Inappropriate site – too small Lack of in-depth detail in the application is unsatisfactory. Claims of benefit appear over inflated additional jobs to be created, will these be additional to or replace the jobs currently provided by sizewell B? Concern over boom and bust scenario Will this 3rd attempt to elevate Leiston from being near the bottom of the educational attainment league be any more successful than for sizewell A & B? Ditto raising Leiston's general socio-economic levels? A comprehensive rail use plan must be provided to avoid unacceptable road over rail and sea bias. Damage to the AONB Unnecessary pylons. Poor – amateur sea defence and SSSI land bridge plans. No recognition that all significant infrastructure works ought to be completed prior to commencement of building SZC. Suffolk deserves better from EDF."

Adrian Nutbeem
"I have owned and lived at my contact address in East Suffolk, approximately 7 miles from the proposed build location of the Sizewell C double EDF Nuclear power station complex since 1979. My wife and I chose to settle here because we adore the wild and bio diverse pastoral beauty of this part of Suffolk that until now has maintained an acceptable and well considered balance of new building and new industrial development with sensitivity and respect for the unspoilt natural landscape and its coexistence with long established mixed and arable farming and the sensitively well balanced development of new housing as required to accommodate the families and workforce of the area. As this proposed project concept has developed, my wife and I and our family have become deeply disturbed and concerned at the extent of the spacial vastness that the service delivery and industrial workforce will have on this entire location during building and on completion as reported and illustrated in the EDF project literature that has been made available over particularly the past 3 years. It does appear that for my family and I, and the majority of the people living within the proposed development zone, the negative impact on the current quality of life (that was and is the reason for choosing this part of East Suffolk as home), will be deeply adversely affected if this vast expansion of power generation infrastructure goes ahead at the proposed location, possibly doubling the built environment in this part of East Suffolk. with incalculable collateral impact, particularly on the increasingly precious wild life habitat that is the precise coastal zone selected as the site and focus of the proposed industrial complex, and the broader undesirable structural and environmental affects it will entail over the anticipated lengthy period of construction."

Jonathan Bolton on behalf of Aimee Colcombe
"As a resident of the area around the proposed site, I object to the massive and ongoing disruption to local life - increased traffic from construction and use, environmental impact of works (including building of new roads), the small but significant risk of radiation and explosion at the site and other factors. More specifically, the proposed park and ride site at Wickham Market will vastly impact the village and nearby traffic levels, including on-street parking outside my house, making it very difficult to get my two small children to and from home. While the construction phase will be temporary, it will last long enough to have a negative impact on house prices and our ability to move away from the area (should we choose to do so). After construction the direct impact will be lessened, but there will still be increased traffic flow on the A12 and the above environmental impact to consider."

Aldeburgh Town Council
"Aldeburgh’s setting is rural and coastal. In addition to a population of 3000+ it attracts numerous tourists and long-term visitors all-year-round, on whom its economy is now dependent. Famous for its beach and river, history (Newson-Garrett-Anderson) its diverse Arts/Music/Literary and Sport/recreation associations and events: many people retire to Aldeburgh. With a number of lively businesses and local services (such as; a Hospital, GP Surgery, Cinema, Churches & Community centres, Library and Primary school/nursery) the town and community of Aldeburgh has a significant role in this beautiful Heritage area, and is closely linked to Thorpeness and Leiston. Aldeburgh Town Council actively engaged in all previous consultation stages, has studied the DCO for Sizewell C, and have become convinced that approval would mean real and lasting harm for this area. Our concerns include specific impacts for residents, businesses and visitors from the construction of the station complex and the associated infrastructure across the area (as we travel in the course of life activities) as follows; Absence of front-loading evidence within all stages of the consultations - impossible to assess the efficacy of avoidance/mitigation/compensation strategies. Failure of applicant to ‘listen’ to our engagement, or act on relevant/practical suggestions to reduce impact. Lessons from Hinkley Point C (HPC) of significant problems: measuring benefits, missed targets, changes made to agreed conditions, and monitoring mitigation. Lack of evidence/clarity, and exaggerations in claims by the applicant such as; • Low carbon, reducing CO2, contributing to net zero targets. • ‘Local’ jobs when this is defined as 90mins travel and likely to be low-skilled, low-paid. Worker/contractor & supply chain migration from HPC, from other local companies, SZA/SZB and employment law (selection based on postcode not permitted). • Apprenticeships (can be nationally based individuals). • ‘Regional’ versus local benefits. Uncertainty of how Housing and Tourism funds will be delivered - previously problems with mitigation for Dry Fuel Store (S106 funds). Lack of detail in design, timing and delivery of key infrastructure. Site selection for EPR design twin reactors (33 hectares at SZC versus 46 at HPC and requirement to relocate SZB infrastructure). EN-6 weight on developments in AONBs being designed to fit in the landscape. The felling of Coronation wood to make room for this proposal which overturns previous development application for SZB DFS which used the woods as screening. Location of worker campus, and caravan site. Impact of increasing numbers of workers into our rural area. Environmental impacts (including but not limited to SSSI, AONB, flora/fauna, wildlife, RSPB, Sizewell Marsh, Marsh Harriers etc) Noise, light, vibration and dust pollution, air quality. Historic setting and impact on nearby located listed buildings. Landscape and visual amenity of main structure and of other temporary/permanent infrastructure. Late inclusion of new over-ground pylons and visual impact thereof. Impact on independent businesses from decline in tourism, and on Arts/Music events, walking/sailing, leisure/nature amenity and non-industrialised tranquillity. The wider Community and Socio-Economics, boom and bust. Housing problems (private rental & tourism accommodation including Airbnb, caravan parks) and potential blight. Transport and traffic – HGV, LGV, subcontractor and worker vehicles during construction and beyond. Impact from Operation, Outages and Decommissioning. Fly parking/rat runs. Impact of proposed new by-passes, link roads, junction ‘improvements’ and timing of delivery. Limited opportunity to reduce road traffic due to failed rail strategy. Effect of hard coastal defences, intake & outfall on marine life, local fishing industry, coastal processes and flood risk. Loss of footpaths, bridle/cycleways and beach access. Uncertainty re: drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction onwards. Abstraction of water - risks to the environment and protected species, groundwater levels, surrounding habitats and ecology. Access to Healthcare, Police/Fire services and emergency response/evacuation Anti-social behaviour, crime (actual and fear of), prostitution/drugs – based on experience of construction of SZB. Impact on physical/mental health and well-being. Storage of spent fuel and waste on site. Cumulative impact of other energy projects proposed. In conclusion: ATC regards that the massive disadvantages of a project of this size and duration (12years+ construction, 60 years generation and 120+ years of storing spent fuel, Intermediate-Level and Higher-Level Waste until any Geological Disposal Facility is available with EDF fuel being the last to be dealt with, so at least 2140) outweigh any local benefits and cannot be ever, adequately mitigated. We believe this application should not be approved."

Aldringham-cum-Thorpe Parish Council
"Aldringham-cum-Thorpe Parish Council We, as one of the adjoining Councils, would like to register as an interested party in the next phase of the Sizewell C planning process. We feel that opportunities have been lost in EDF’s proposals that were governed by their own economic interests rather than leaving a beneficial mark on the area in the future rather than a short term gain during the construction phase. The area that we, and the proposed development, occupy in this part of the Suffolk Heritage coast is one of great ecological sensitivity and includes the AONB itself and the Sizewell Marshes SSSI and we feel that up to this date EDF have yet to demonstrate a willingness to treat this with sufficient delicacy. The site itself with its permanent and temporary constructions utilizes almost entirely AONB land and EDF do not seek alternative areas where alternatives might provide a more lasting benefit on less valuable land and environments. It is hard to imagine that construction on this scale will not cause lasting damage to the natural landscape of the likes of RSPB Minsmere and the Suffolk Sandlings with the effects of massive water abstraction and noise, dust, vibration and light pollution. This is not to mention the nature of the proposed sea defences and their interaction with the coastal process which at this moment is threatening the northern edge of Thorpeness. We are deeply concerned over the effects of the influx of the large workforce and its impact on the area’s infrastructure and services in health, schools, shops and housing. Accommodation would be at an absolute premium and despite the works’ campuses there would be great demand for more permanent housing that would eat up holiday lets and hotel space to the detriment of our biggest local industry- tourism. The choice of the large accommodation block is questionable. Smaller units placed outside the AONB, perhaps the old Leiston airfield site could have greater future use as accommodation for EDF’s workers during outages, while such units could be used as a focus for a science park or for affordable housing. It is pleasing to see that EDF has come some way towards a mixed transport strategy of road, rail and sea. The inclusion of a temporary jetty structure for the larger deliveries and of aggregate is encouraging as is the upgrading of the rail link through Leiston. There will be problems with co-ordination of this particular item as is relies heavily on Network Rail and it is worrying that a hurried start will lead to reliance on road deliveries that our local villages are dreading. The location of the Sizewell Link road junction, we feel, is too far North for traffic from the south and not providing the necessary relief to the existing road network. As a conclusion, if this development is to go ahead, which is questionable, more thought should be given to a sustainable future of the construction works rather than what looks to be short term savings to EDF."

Alexander Gordon Martin (aka Sandy Martin)
"Construction of Sizewell C on the proposed site will involve the destruction of sites of ecological importance, including Coronation Wood, and an increase in the level of local road traffic. East Suffolk is an area of important and growing tourist interest, and harm to the local environment will also harm the local economy. None of this can be justified unless there is an overriding need for nuclear power. If the need for nuclear power is assumed to outweigh all the local detriments, without any scope for arguing that point, then the Examination is pointless. The only sensible course for a meaningful Examination will be to weigh the local detriment against the national need for a new nuclear power station."

Alexandra Alexander
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. The impact that Sizewell C will have on the local community, economy, tourism and the environment will be hugely detrimental. The Suffolk coast is currently a peaceful and beautiful area which attracts thousands of tourists, provides a habitat for millions of species and endangered birds, and produces a significant amount of food to the UK economy (which reduces C02 emissions). All of these elements create a sustainable economy for the local area, keeping the unemployment rate well below the national average. The construction and running of Sizewell C will cause unacceptable impacts on all of the above. • There will be a significant increase in noise, light pollution and disruption. • Traffic for the site will cause huge delays to the one lane road in and out of the area, causing frustration for the daily lives of the community and putting off tourists from visiting the area. • Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred and when you consider that visitors will come to the area because of the beauty, peace and tranquillity, and wildlife and nature that percentage is likely to be significantly higher. • There will be pressure on local housing, especially in private-rental sector and whilst developers may welcome this, more housing which in turn creates more traffic, will also create more pressure on local services. For example health, social and emergency services, which all impacts disproportionately on vulnerable people. The environmental impact will be catastrophic causing • Flooding. • 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. • 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 I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Alice M Eastaugh
"I believe that further development of nuclear power stations at Sizewell is detrimental due to: Destruction of natural habitat and the impact on wildlife in an AONB and surrounds, Strain on local infrastructure especially in terms of road usage & local communities. Lack of economic viability Poses a threat to our national security. Is a long term contamination hazard creating an unacceptable legacy for future generations"

Alison Bladen
"I am very worried that a beautiful part of our coastal countryside is a risk of being spoilt. There are not many parts of our country that I enjoy spending free time more. All the work put in by the RSPB etc should be praised not destroyed. I think there will be a negative impact on local housing, traffic etc. I will have lost my brilliant walks ending up at the Eels Foot! The landscape will never recover. Please leave Suffolk alone! I wish to state I consider the Sizewell application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Amanda Gaylard
"Lack of evidence on the impact on European Protected Sites Lack of detail on coastal defence design making it difficult to determine impacts on coastal processes and the communities of plants and animals living in this coastal zone Underestimation of importance of marsh harrier foraging areas available and the quality of the mitigation areas for foraging Little assessment of impact of noise and lighting on bats and birds The hydrological impacts on water quality and chemistry on protected sites The loss of SSSI (Site of special Scientific Interest) at Sizewell Belts The overall impact on the nationally important population of barbastelle bats The loss of hibernation sites and disturbance of natterjack toads The overall impact of biodiversity loss across the development site Environmental concerns. It will cause considerable further visual and environmental damage to the Area of Outstanding Beauty and the Suffolk Heritage Coast. RSPB is concerned about damage to the internationally important Minsmere nature reserve. It is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Area of Conservation, a Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. Nuclear waste. If built it will add materially to the nuclear waste problem. My understanding is that the waste will be stored at the proposed station. There are currently major difficulties at Sellafield the government’s national reprocessing centre, which has also accepted waste from other countries to reprocess. The concrete storage areas are already leaking. These problems remain unresolved and are likely to get worse. There is real concern that in due course radiation waste will escape into the Irish Sea. The contamination problems impose difficulties for future communities – for at least thousands of years, maybe tens of thousands of years into the future. This should not be a problem that we as a nation impose on our successors. I agree with the concerns around this nuclear energy is not environmentally sound and we are storing up huge problems for future generations. Economics of Sizewell C. My understanding is that the economics of new nuclear power stations still do not (almost certainly cannot) properly allow for the true cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations and tackling the nuclear waste problem. Setting aside the issue of the cost of decommissioning, the numbers just do not stack up and Sizewell C is just not economically viable. I agree withthe views of the RSPB and SWT · ‘The RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust (SWT) say that Sizewell C must not go ahead. · The charities have not seen the evidence that Sizewell C can be built without detrimentally impacting internationally and nationally important landscapes, habitats, animals and plants on the Suffolk coast, at RSPB Minsmere nature reserve, Sizewell Belts Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and beyond. · Without this evidence, the charities have been forced to conclude that the build must not go ahead given its anticipated harmful impacts on the environment. · Both organisations also highlighted concerns about the timing of proceeding with this decision, amid a public health crisis, which is likely to impact public scrutiny of plans."

Andrea Smith
"- I am strongly against the proposed development. - The site is situated in an area of outstanding natural beauty, on a very fragile receding coast and surrounded by extremely important sites of ecological scientific interest. - The development would be catastrophic for the environment and no amount of 'mitigation' could compensate for the loss. - The development would be hugely detrimental to the wider surrounding area and permanently change the rural character of the countryside by bringing in intolerable amounts of industrial and infrastructure development (new roads, lorry parks, spoil heaps, water abstraction etc etc), traffic, noise and light pollution and people (eg workers campuses). - There would be catastrophic impact on tourism resulting in huge economic losses for the area. - New nuclear is far too expensive with no acceptable financial options. - The nuclear industry is in decline and the funding and innovation should be redirected to the thriving renewables industry, in particular the offshore wind projects IN THE SAME AREA. - EDF energy have a dreadful track record in building EPRs safely, on time and on budget!! Finally, the consultation should be put on hold during this time of global pandemic."

Andrew Blois
"We are writing as farmers and local business owners close to the Sizewell construction site. One of our businesses is an award winning five star Camping and Caravan park, Haw Wood Farm. We are particularly concerned that by EDF’s own estimates there could be a 30% drop in tourism over the build period. This will result in a projected net loss of revenue of over £1,000,000 and possible loss of 40% of our workforce. We are only one small business and employer in the area so cannot believe that the proposed job losses will be offset by the project, and in 10yrs time, when Suffolk’s tourism reputation is still in tatters what will happen to the staff then? Suffolk’s agricultural produce is renowned throughout the country and we are proud to be one of those producers. However the increased traffic from the project will likely significantly impact on agricultural operations. In addition much of the magnet of jobs to Sizewell will be to the detriment of agriculture, rendering some crops and operations uneconomic. This planned destruction of the two largest areas of the economy of East Suffolk will be nothing short of catastrophic for the long term prosperity of the area. In short we can see no positives for our business and staff and can see no benefit for Suffolk in general. Even once completed there will be no benefit to Suffolk, we already generate more electricity per capita than most areas in the UK but in rural Suffolk sufficient electrical supply to meet the Clean, Green Electric dream that Sizewell C is supposed to supply is unaffordable. We do not feel that this outdated technology offers the best solution for the UK energy needs"

Andrew Eastaugh
"I believe that further development of nuclear power stations at Sizewell is detrimental on the grounds of: Destroying natural habit and the impact on wildlife in an AONB and surrounds, Put a huge strain on, and permanently damaging the local infrastructure especially in terms of road usage and local communities. Lack of economically viability, Pose a threat to our national security. Be a long term contamination hazard that is an unacceptable legacy for future generations"

Andrew Fordyce
"As a resident of East Suffolk and a UK citizen, I object to the proposal to construct another nuclear power station at Sizewell. Such a scheme would cause irreparable damage to the local environment, but, more importantly - at this critical point in history - the UK should review how we secure our future energy security and back the safer, greener and more cost effective options available. Now is the moment for the UK to invest in diverse renewable energy solutions and infrastructure - and in the development of new technologies. These are deliverable in the short term, are scalable, and would provide jobs, skills and export opportunities. They would allow the UK to reduce our reliance on carbon-based fuels and inflexible, expensive nuclear energy, foreign construction firms and imported systems technology and fuels. For the UK, Sizewell C would be a poor investment financially. At present there is no agreed model for financing. It’s a fact that the electricity it would generate is already poor value. As renewables get cheaper (as technology improves and economies of scale accrue) nuclear power becomes even less cost-effective. Also, EDF are an unsuitable, unreliable partner. They have a very poor record for on-time, on-budget delivery of nuclear power stations. Financially, EDF only survives as a business thanks to French government support. Finally, Sizewell C will need management for an indefinite period after its operational lifespan is over - an ongoing, unavoidable legacy cost for future generations. The construction and operation of Sizewell C would have a highly significant, detrimental impact on East Suffolk, including but not limited to: - irreparable damage to the heritage coastline, the AONB the site is situated within and unique, valuable wildlife ecosystems (including RSPB Minsmere). - over the 10-12 years of construction, a vast increase in heavy vehicle road traffic on Suffolk’s limited and unsuited road infrastructure. Some new roads will be built, but these will serve little purpose once the construction is complete. This will have a significant environmental and societal impact over a wide area of East Suffolk, not just at the site. - the huge, light polluting building site will adversely effect bird populations and behaviours. - after the limited time (50-60 years) that the power station is operable, Suffolk will be left with the permanent legacy of a vast white elephant of a building, containing nuclear waste for which there is no satisfactory long-term storage plan. - during the construction period, Suffolk’s thriving tourism industry - which employs thousands - will suffer badly. The income brought in by both construction and operation will in no way compensate for the damage of this project to existing, thriving industries. - few of the jobs working on the construction site will be new jobs for local people. Most workers will be from other areas of the country, necessitating the construction of large scale dormitory sites in order to house them. - once up and running, the power station will not be a significant employer for the area. The number of jobs is small in relation to the scale of the project. The Suffolk coast itself has historically suffered from erosion. With a significant rise in sea levels over the next few decades an inevitability, it would be folly to build a nuclear power station in such a location. The sheer scale of this building project in what is a largely rural area will fundamentally change the way of life of residents, cause irreparable damage to the environment, and alter the character of East Suffolk for ever by effectively urbanising large swathes of the area. Suffolk’s economy depends to a large extent on its rural character and reputation as a peaceful, relaxing place to visit. Tourism and hospitality are important local industries, which create jobs for many others in food production and distribution, trades, construction, shooting and many ancillary services. The impact of the construction of SZC on these should not be under estimated. For Suffolk, this project would be highly detrimental to our economy, our community and our environment. For the UK, it would be a poor investment, would be very likely to be delayed and cost more than budgeted, and would create a costly, dangerous legacy for future generations. Thank you."

Andrew Kay
"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"

Andrew McLardy
"WHY would anyone want to make yet another attempt to build a massive unproven infrastructure project - when the others have been plagued by problems, delays, huge cost over-runs - that will produce something at double the cost of other means? Why would they then choose to put it in a beautiful area of the Heritage Coast, popular with tourists, and bang next to a famous bird reserve on land that is eroding and which some experts say is dangerous? Why have the plans been watered down, cutting back on the necessary road improvements, rail provision and sea transport for this massive project? Instead there will be around 1,000 lorry movements a day, disrupting normal road travel for residents, business and tourists for many years. There is a new age ahead that will outpace this nuclear project before it is finished in10-12 years’ time. Our two giant oil companies Shell and BP are both repositioning themselves into renewables, windfarms and solar are getting cheaper and are now largely subsidy-free. Meanwhile improvements in battery storage and floating windfarms are progressing rapidly. Sizewell C will use 3million litres of potable water daily for 60 years, during and after construction. This in the driest area of the country, increasingly affected by drought. Where will the water come from without causing cuts?"

Andrew Moir
"I am a local resident with an o pen mind. I think it is important that all aspects of construction tion of a facility such as Sizewell C requires open and honest consultation concerning traffic, environmental impact and pollution. This should be weighed against requirement for power, employment and benefit for the local economy and population such as social issues a large influx of personnel may bring. As a local on the cusp of retirement I feel able and available to assist in these aspects of the potential upheaval against the benefits which there will also come with the construction."

Andrew Parker-Jervis
"I object to the Nuclear Power station because the EDF plans are incomplete. Renewable power (wind & solar) is now much cheaper than nuclear. There is a serious environmental risk"

Angela Biggs
"My concerns regarding The Sizewell C Project are as follows: I think that the site is too small to accommodate 2 more nuclear reactors and it is too close to RSPB Minsmere. Climate change & rising sea levels may cause this area to flood within the next 40 years. The project will permanently damage environmentally sensitive areas nearby. Nuclear power generates dangerous waste that requires safe long term storage. The cost of the project is exorbitant and other similar projects have exceeded their initial budgets. Other similar projects have also taken much longer times to complete than were initially estimated. Green energy production would be quicker to build & less damaging. The road realignments and worker accommodation required, along with the building of the power stations would create unacceptable disturbance to local residents in Eastbridge & Theberton for at least 10 years. The Sizewell Project would damage local businesses and be detrimental to tourism. This is an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a Heritage Coastline used by thousands of visitors for holidays & respite throughout the year. The A12 would not cope with the extra volume of HGV traffic required & the construction of lorry parks would create further environmental damage at a time when Britain has already lost many Nature Reserves and SSSI sites. I"

Anglian Energy Planning Alliance
"Under the process you have provided for Relevant Representation I would like to raise the following concerns which I believe are fundamental and clear reasoning for denying the planning application for Sizewell C. 1/ We are entering a New Age of zero carbon and renewable energy sources. This project will leave our children’s children’s children with a nuclear headache they won’t be able to dismiss. It is and will for ever be old fashioned technology which isnt suitable for dealing with our future power needs. Future generations deserve better than this. 2/ The site is inappropriate . There is nowhere in the world with 5 reactors in such close proximity . So why should we In rural Suffolk be contemplating this in a heritage , AONB , massive tourist and agricultural area ..? Not only is the coast eroding but it is also home to some extremely rare species and habitats all of which will be threatened even further by this new invasion. 3/ The economic benefits are dubious at best...for the region. Firstly its too expensive and who is to pay for that ? Likely not to be the applicant ..! So no doubt the contractors and power company will benefit but what about the people who live in the region..? Two previous nuclear rapes of the countryside have failed to provide the economic boom that was promised and this new application will be no different. 4/ The logistics as planned will annihilate the entire region socially for at least 15 years. The infrastructure is entirely incapable of handling the volumes envisaged. This is in isolation from the other energy projects being applied for simultaneously which combined effect will have a longer and deeper detrimental effect on the area massively affecting people ,economy and health and welfare. 5/ The duplicitous and contemptuous way that EDF have gone about the process is sickening and there seems to be no way that ordinarily people can be protected and given a voice. There are numerous instances of EDF misrepresenting statistics, job figures, projections etc . And yet no one seems to be able to take them to task.. We wholeheartedly endorse the representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, and TASC. AND....we consider that this application is wholly unsuitable for any form of examination by digital or online process. This process would no doubt an infringement of ordinary peoples rights. G.Murray For AEPAlliance."

Angus Andrews
"I am writing to object to the Sizewell C application. It would blight the local landscape, which is special and vulnerable, and the lives of Suffolk coastal residents. Moreover, coastal defences would be jeopardised, the transport and infrastructure issues have not been addressed. There is also no need for it, as EDF has stated it could extend the life of Sizewell B for 20 years, thus covering any potential shortfall in energy over the period."

Angus Grogono
"I wish to register my sincere disapproval of the plans for Sizewell C and the way that the consultation has been arranged. Although I am only representing myself, as an inhabitant and appreciator of the local area, I know of a number of relatives and non-tech friends who have not registered and responded because they do not have the competence online. It would have been easy to get a genuine sample of opinion on the impact - but those designing the process have chosen to exclude the population who are not active online. I am a supporter of nuclear power. And I appreciate the difficulty of finding a 'backyard' where local people are happy for the government to locate such facilities. And we already have a nuclear power plant here, which we have learned to 'love'. But with all these caveats, I still cannot understand why the Sizewell C proposal has not been pursued in an appropriately cautious, careful, evidence-based manner. It will take more time - but the year that might be added to the process (in terms of assessing the impact on the coast line, in terms of completing the plans for the sea defences, and in terms of ensuring that responsibility is taken for adverse impact in future decades) will ensure that we do not have a century of unnecessary disruption and destruction. I assume that I am writing to an interested, diligent, probably exhausted reviewer, who has been tasked with trawling through a pile of these responses. If one plea gets through, let it be that caution is the better part of valour"

Anita Stirzaker
"Please see attached"

Annabel Jermyn
"I would like to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place As I understand it the site is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding There is a huge potential impact on the coastal processes Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value It’s a beautiful stretch of heritage coastal line which will be utterly ruined Possibility of the site becoming an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. Community, Economic and social impacts Social impact on the area is enormous . This project will completely change the feel of an area of outstanding natural beauty . Stunning beaches will be ruined by the noise from the site . Beautiful rural landscape will be ruined by traffic and noise . Peaceful ancient villages will have their character diminished. Unacceptable impacts on local rural communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area 2400 of whom will live in a university like campus in a location that I oppose close to beautiful heritage buildings ( Leiston Abbey) . This is horrendous for all those living close and will massively impact quality of life . Visitor economy: Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys 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” 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 Again this will adversely affect all the people living in surrounding villages who live here for a quiet rural existence Carbon footprint of thousands of weekly trucks for years and years not to be underestimated. Eight other uncoordinated energy projects are also planned for the locality 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 Nuclear energy will also be no longer relevant by the time it is finished . There are much more sustainable ways of providing energy . I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Annabel Ward
"1. The site is unsuitable owing to climate change with sea levels rising. Also costal erosion. 2. 6,000 workers coming to the site will have a huge impact on the local infrastructure: medical, social and vulnerable people. 3. The problems caused by the transport to and from the site will affect peoples health and welfare. Diesal fumes will be detrimental for all and also for crops growing on the route. 4. The damage to Minsmere will never be undone. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I wish to state that I consider Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Anne Lauton
"- traffic through the village of Westleton will inevitably increase. The lanes through from Blythburgh to Middleton have not been considered and there are many pinch points which are already a hazard. Elderly people, narrow or no pavements will combine to create a highly dangerous area for pedestrians, cyclists, mobility scooters - as well as private cars. - the Proposals for the site are quite incompatible with its ANOB stays. - the concerns of RSPB are considerable and have not been addressed. - the site is quite unsuitable for the intended development. - impact of an extensive workforce in such a rural area is going to disrupt and devastate local life for residents. - site work, destruction and disturbance of wildlife and peaceful enjoyment of the countryside and an influx of workers will be a disincentive for visitors and with the inevitable negative knock on effect to local businesses already struggling through the pandemic. They will not survive such an enormous hit. - living accommodation for workers next to four 11-storey soil dumps (Potentially transporting 24 hours a day) looks and sounds horrendous. The proposed leisure facilities on site will not compensate for a workforce “contained” on the site. - this is old technology. Better solutions can and must now be supported. - the project is completely inappropriate to the site."

Ashley St Clair
"This project clearly proposes an irreparable blot on the landscape and the psyche of the country for many thousands of years, all in the name of promoting over-consumption in the name of short-term financial profit. Whereas your term may be four years or seventy years, the damage to the land and the understanding of the public will continue for a thousand times longer. A similar sum of money and energy invested in education, particularly that of politicians and mutually self-appointed officials, would allow the area to survive long enough for future generations, wiser than us, to decide its fate. There is no argument that damage will be caused. There is no suggestion that this development will advance the higher development of mankind. There is, therefore, no valid motive to blight this particular area of the world."

Beach View Holiday Park
"We are registering as Beach View Holiday Park located at Sizewell Common IP16 4TU (David, Sylvia Nicholas, Kristian & Kimberly Thorp) We agree with the concerns raised by Suffolk County Council and STOP Sizewell C campaign (formerly TEAGS). Beach View Holiday Park is a neighbouring tourism business, just over a mile south as the crow flies from the proposed Sizewell C site. We are concerned that in seeking to achieve a cheaper build, EDF’s DCO plans fail to adequately address transport, design, environmental impact and the impact of many years of heavy construction and localised disruption to communities, businesses and the local tourism industry. Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB Proposals do not adequately address that this DCO will be one of Europe's biggest building projects within an AONB, adjacent to RSPB Minsmere (SSSI SAC SPA & Ramsar Site). NSIP energy projects ignore protected landscape status over and over again, whether here on the Suffolk Coast, or elsewhere around the country. This is extremely concerning and calls into question the point of having protected landscape status, and why the NSIP planning process is failing protected landscapes. EDF’s DCO does not do enough to address the potential for Sizewell C construction to result in a man-made environmental and economic disaster on the Suffolk Coast. EDF has talked about legacy but these DCO proposals do not provide for an enhancing legacy for the area, instead they have real potential to cause lasting damage to the area environmentally, socially & economically. Coastal Erosion & Site Viability EDF’s Flood risk assessments contain a lot of unknowns, the ability of 1,000, 10,000 100,000 year modeling to provide accurate projections is questionable on such an exposed coast with only sand cliffs and offshore sand banks for protection. It remains questionable whether or not the DCO proposals pass the ‘NPS EN-1 Exception Test’. We would ask that if this DCO moves to examination, examiners seek independent reassurance that there is, or can be effective embedded protection against rising sea levels and natural erosion both in the immediate term and over the life cycle of Sizewell C and beyond. EDF must surely commit to providing foolproof solutions to deal with rising sea levels given that the site will need to be secured until 2190 at least, possibly even longer. The case for Sizewell C is a multi-generational conundrum as proposals will affect many future generations, our generation responsible for leaving future generations the task of cleaning up our generation's nuclear mess. Tourism EDFs DCO fails to adequately assess or propose tangible mitigation for the impact on the local tourism sector during construction and just as importantly post construction. The minimal reference to tourism and how EDF proposes to include enhanced mitigation for the effects of unexpected/unplanned prolonged construction is also lacking. Proposals as they stand show EDF does not understand the concept of the peaceful & unspoilt Suffolk Coast AONB and its accessibility and importance to the sustainability of local tourism. Our Tourism Business The effects of a Sizewell C will undoubtedly be felt by our business, Beach View has had many years of growth and we have invested considerably in our business. We welcome a ‘tourism fund’ but we don’t know details of monetary value, or how it will work and for how long it will be in place. It is essential that it is weighted to support businesses in closest proximity like Beach View Holiday Park. Ongoing financial assistance/compensation would be essential to offset any decline in revenue comparable to historic data for individual businesses. Where figures are available to show consistent year on year growth prior to Sizewell C, against negative financial impact during/after construction then a compensation package should be in place and made available at the earliest opportunity to support individual tourism businesses. Questionable Local Legacy The Sizewell B construction should have left a lasting and tangible legacy. ln Leiston it is now felt that while there was a construction boom in terms of spend in shops, cafes and pubs, after construction the towns businesses and residents suffered for many years getting back to normality. This cannot be allowed to happen with SizewellC, an ongoing community fund would be essential long after construction is completed if EDF is to remain a good neighbour and mitigate against causing a localised boom and bust in nearby towns like Leiston & Saxmundham. Cumulative Impact of Energy Proposals It is clear East Suffolk and the Suffolk Coast AONB is in the midst of an onslaught of energy proposals, the interaction and compounded effects on the landscape, environment, infrastructure (roads, rail and public services), communities & tourism industry cannot be brushed over. Much more needs to be done to assess and address the impact of multiple energy proposals, and whether the AONB & surrounding area will be able to cope with what is being proposed. We feel an independent ‘cumulative impact study’ should be commissioned and acted on if the AONB & wider area is to avoid catastrophic damage from multiple large scale industrial projects which include: Sizewell C, Scottish Power EA1N & EA2 wind farms, Nautilus & Eurolink and SCD1 & SCD2 Interconnectors."

Ben Horwood
"I am concerned about the following: - the safety of the site given coastal erosion and likely rises in sea levels given climate change - the location of such a major civil engineering project, both during and after construction, with its environmental impacts on a range of sites of special scientific, natural, ecological interest together - the impact of such a major civil engineering project on local social, health, education resources and transport infrastructure - the unfounded claims for economic benefit which do not consider the negative impacts on such things as local tourism - the length of time for the project to contribute to electricity generation and the relatively short lifespan of electricity generation, given the cost of construction, maintenance, waste storage and decommissioning which renders the project uneconomic - the amount of electricity generation required to off-set the 'carbon cost' of the project which invalidates the claims made for this project to contribute to the UK's reduction in carbon emissions I wish to endorse the representations made by the RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and local organisations such as Stop Sizewell C."

Bess Harrup
"I believe the vast amount of money needed to build Sizwell c could be better spent investing in renewable energy with minimal disruption to the local area and environment. Our beautiful, fragile coast with it's special and rare flora and fauna needs protecting not destroying or temporarily moving. Where as some businesses may benefit from the build at Sizwell many will suffer including the small businesses such have been so vital and valued by the locals during the lock down and which are part of the interest to visitors to the area."

Beth Goose
"My family and I live in Theberton on Main Road. Theberton is a small village close to the proposed Sizewell C site. We are concerned that: 1.the site for Sizewell C is too small for the proposed reactors 2.suitability of putting an accomodation site on the edge of Eastbridge 3.access to the site from the A12, the proposed link road and bypass will cut Theberton in two and we will have traffic at both the front and back of our properties, back roads will used as rat runs 4.environmental costs of the proposed build"

Bill Parker
"As the former Head of Coastal Management for Suffolk I wish to express deep concerns about the proposed EDF development at Sizewell C, especially: Application process and documentation A digital examination process in the current pandemic is totally unsuitable for this application due to its complexity and size, making it very difficult for local community to respond. Documentation is excessive and incomplete. Illustrations/cross-sections are often misleading and without reference points. Some evidence documents have been withheld preventing proper independent examination. The EDF application fails to adequately address many issues: Site selection: • The site is at significant risk from sea level rise, flooding and climate change with inadequate mitigation. • Non-compliant with EN-1 or EN-6. • Inappropriate scale for such a fragile coastline and environmentally sensitive location. Coast and marine: • Ambiguous location of hard coastal defence feature (HCDF). • Defences fail to meet design standards or requirements of ONR/EA FCERM advice. • EDF’s unevidenced confidence about the exposure of HCDF from 2053 on coastal processes for 160+ years if not in perpetuity. Inadequate mitigation of the impact coastal processes on adjacent coastline, especially Minsmere and Thorpeness. • Vulnerability to climate change of site critical functions (eg nuclear waste). • The DCO submission doesn’t reflect CEFAS scientific reports’ evidence • Intake and discharge proposals contravene Habitat Regulations • Confused/misleading timescales • Failure to follow precautionary principle, inadequate mitigation. • SSSI crossing and culvert function lacks clarity and hydrology is poorly assessed. • Unclear future for fresh and potable water management and Minsmere Sluice • Incomplete tsunami and Coralline Crag risk assessments. • Unacceptable loss of beach access • Potential in-combination risks ignored • Lack of independent assessment of proposals. • Environmental Impact Assessment severely compromised. Local Community: • Woefully inadequate road infrastructure to deal with huge increases in traffic/HGVs. Marine/rail options not fully explored. No legacy value in road improvements. • Delayed access to emergency services and inadequate healthcare capacity. • Heightened pandemic risk • Distortion of the housing sector due to worker influx. Economic impact • Devastation of tourist economy and infrastructure with predicted loss of visitors. • Disruption to existing businesses through loss of staff for unsustainable short-term EDF roles. Environment and Landscape • Poor air quality; existing high regional ozone pollution exceedances exacerbated. • Disastrous impact on landscape which is impossible to compensate for • Catastrophic destruction of fragile protected habitats: impossible to mitigate for; intolerable given UK biodiversity losses. • Poor understanding of ground and surface water relationship despite being a Scoping Report Opinion requirement. Long Term Future • A contaminated residual core will remain and impact the coastline in perpetuity, this has not been taken into account. • Climate change predictions do not take the precautionary approach are woefully underestimated. • Claims of benefits in tackling climate change are selective and inaccurate • Issue monitoring and mitigation response is weak. • The long-term legacy will leave East Suffolk with untold costs and have little benefit I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, TEAGs, RSPB, Minsmere Levels Stakeholder Group, Suffolk Coastal FOE, Alde and Ore Association and from Mr Nick Scarr. This application should be rejected by PINS as being unsuitable for this location."

Bill Turnbull
"I am deeply concerned about the proposed construction of Sizewell C because: It will do untold damage to local wildlife, particularly at RSPB Minsmere. Marsh Harriers and many other birds will be scared away, never to return. The proposed site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The construction work would cut right across a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The construction work would play havoc with water levels and drainage on what is a very fragile ecological site on the Minsmere Level, causing damage that cannot be repaired or mitigated. The site of the project is at risk from coastal erosion and rising sea levels. EDF has not provided nearly enough adequate environmental impact assessments. The construction project would cause massive disruption to the local community. The people of Leiston would suffer severe socio-economic impacts, as they have done before with the construction of Sizewell B. The lucrative local tourist industry would be significantly damaged. The relief road chosen to accommodate the huge amount of extra traffic is the wrong route. There is a more direct and feasible route, which could cause disturbance to far fewer households. Why has this not been chosen? The Sizewell C application is completely unsuitable for a digital examination process. Sending a bus round our part of the county for a few days was also unsatisfactory. People need to be able to peruse the plans in person and at length. This has not been possible owing to Covid-19. Therefore the application should be put on hold until people can have a proper look at a project which is going to have a massive impact on their lives for years on end. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Together Against Sizewell C, and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust."

Blaxhall Parish Council
"Dear Sirs, Blaxhall Parish Council feel that EDF Energy have still failed to respond to the widespread concerns raised at Stages 3 & 4. The Parish Council are appalled that the rail & sea options for the movement of materials have been discounted with what seems to be inadequate justification even though it would be thought these would have been the preferred options. Blaxhall Parish Council favour the sea and rail led options although it is noted the rail option could impact and result in some level crossings closing in Blaxhall to which there are concerns. It is noted the rail led option would remove around 150 HGVs off the roads every day at peak construction, which is essential given the fact that the roads are very near their capacity at present. If the roads are clogged up this would also have a detrimental effect on tourism. Again, there has been lack of information as to why this option has been discounted and if this is due to the fact that EDF will not pay for the revamp of the Leiston line neither will Network rail this is disgraceful and in the Parish Council's opinion the rail led option needs to be addressed again. The Parish Council felt if road led this project could ruin the countryside and the environmental impact would outweigh any positives in respect of the project overall and therefore it was preferred that the sea and rail led option should still take priority. It is also felt that the development is too large and if smaller the construction time would be shorter. There are many pockets within East Suffolk where mobile coverage is extremely poor or non-existent and this also needs to be taken into consideration. I trust that you will take the above comments into consideration. Yours sincerely, Joanne Peters Clerk to Blaxhall PC"

Brian Dicks
"I am writing to OPPOSE the building of Sizewell C on our beautiful Suffolk coast. I am totally opposed to nuclear energy in principle for many reasons, but the main one is the storage of waste. I cannot understand how permission has been granted to build nuclear power stations when the problems of waste will be left for future generations over thousands of years. Our generation already has a lot to answer for. We must not leave this dreadful legacy. Apart from my general opposition to nuclear power, I would like to make the following points against the building of Sizewell C. Siting - It will be situated on a unique heritage landscape, and one which is becoming increasingly rare. Although we live in South Suffolk, my wife and I are frequent visitors to the Suffolk Coast. We often stay in the campsite at the Eel’s Foot Inn in Eastbridge so that we can visit Minsmere reserve and enjoy the beautiful landscape and wildlife of the area. The construction of a huge new power station is bound to have a detrimental effect on both. Cost – we believe that the huge cost of building Sizewell C should instead be used to develop alternate green energy sources. During this time of Covid 19 and massive unemployment, now is the ideal opportunity to invest in a huge green initiative so that the UK becomes a world leader in new forms of SAFE green energy such as hydrogen. Water – Sizewell C will need 3 million litres of fresh water a day for 70 – 80 years. Need I say more? Waste – the waste generated by nuclear reactors remains radioactive for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. I believe it is immoral to produce this waste and leave it for future generations to deal with. Funding – EDF do not have the funding to complete Sizewell C. This is with the current 20% funding from China which we believe to be a very unwise way of funding the UK'electricity generation. The National Audit Office has called Sizewell C ‘risky and expensive’. Traffic – the construction of Sizewell would involve an appalling traffic load and huge loss of greenfield site with new roads and labour camps. The destruction and fragmentation of the area for new roads, roundabouts, park and ride facilities and temporary accommodation, with all the noise, pollution, dust and light pollution that these, and the construction site, will bring, is too high a price to pay for a nuclear facility which is 20th century technology. Wildlife The whole area is rich in wildlife and important for biodiversity, which includes rare species like the endangered natterjack toad. The proposed development pays little attention to the potential massive detrimental effects on wildlife. It seems ludicrous to allow the destruction of such important habitats when we are being encouraged in Suffolk to turn 5% of our land back to nature. As a final point in considering increasing nuclear energy production, why is no-one seeming to take account of Fukushima Daiichi."

Bridget Chadwick
"I am concerned about the following issues about the potential building of Sizewell C: The site is unsuitable because: - the coastline is eroding as I have seen in the time I have lived here and is further at risk due to climate change, storms and flooding - it could become an island of nuclear waste that would need to be protected for centuries - the ecological impact on the Suffolk sandlings which are a rare habitat suitable for a number of threatened species of birds and reptiles, as well as the Sizewell belts and various SSSIs - the wildlife corridors for birds and animals would be cut in half for years; we are already one of the most wildlife depleted countries in the world The Heritage Coast and AONB which stretches from Felixstowe to Lowestoft and includes RSPB Minsmere would be hugely impacted: - the local tourist economy could lose £40m a year, businesses will be affected by reduced numbers of visitors (estimated by EDF’s own surveys to be down 29%) leading to the loss of permanent local jobs - thousands of workers from outside the area add pressure on housing, local health and emergency services and have a negative effect on local communities, especially an enormous campus built in a small village surrounded by nature, loved by tourists and totally unsuited to such numbers - the effects of traffic, noise, light pollution and disruption on communities, wildlife and birdlife would cause irreparable harm to specially designated areas and Minsmere in particular Social impact: - the construction of Sizewell B caused Leiston to become like the wild west with drunkenness and fights in town and led to a huge increase in drug dependency locally, still affecting people today - the negative effect on mental health because of (a) influx of thousands of workers affecting local communities and (b) the loss of the amenity which is known to be of such beneficial effect to the thousands of visitors who come for the quiet and relaxation of enjoying nature The negative effects of this project would greatly outweigh the benefits as the technology will be redundant by the time it is built (if ever) and way too costly for the taxpayer compared to other energy sources coming on line. It is also anything but a low-carbon source of energy because the CO2 emissions of construction will not be offset for at least 6 years and then millions of vehicles driving to site during it’s lifetime of operation and centuries of maintaining waste cannot be calculated I believe it is totally unsuitable for the examination process to be done digitally as it is impossible for so many of the population to take part, either due to technology limitations (internet) or familiarity. I wish to endorse the representation of Stop Sizewell C."

Briony Sones
"This development MUST be considered with other energy projects proposed for this area - the cumulative effect will be devastating and long lasting for the residents and this beautiful area. I am opposed to this project for the following reasons: - it is too close to residential areas - there will be a detrimental effect on important local and migrating wildlife and AONB land - it will impact on the tourist industry which is vital for local economy - jobs for locals is a lie and will be minimal - (Already trained people will move in from other areas ie Hinkley Point) - the increased traffic during construction will affect the heritage coast along the A12 and further inland and impact on local residents and tourism - this is a fragile area of coastland susceptible to erosion and flooding"

Britten Pears Arts
"Background Britten Pears Arts (BPA), reg. charity 261383, was originally formed in 1948, with the creation of the Aldeburgh Festival of Music and the Arts. The organisation, founded by the leading international composer Benjamin Britten and his partner Peter Pears, has evolved and grown in recent years, culminating in the recent merger of Snape Maltings and the Britten–Pears Foundation in April 2020. BPA is located at two sites – the world famous Snape Maltings Concert Hall, with a range of music facilities, shops and restaurants, and at The Red House in Aldeburgh, Britten’s former home, where his archive is held. Although famous as an international composer and performer, Britten settled in Aldeburgh, largely because of the peace and tranquillity of the area. Every year, more than 525,000 visitors come to the two sites. These visitors are crucial to the economic viability of the organisation. Approximately half of the concert audience live outside Suffolk, and their visits have a substantial positive local economic impact. The experience of visiting the sites is unique internationally, being the combination of world class music performance taking place in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. BPA is a tier 3 Arts Council National Portfolio Organisation, and a national centre for musical excellence. BPA is an internationally significant cultural, heritage and tourism centre and major local employer. BPA is a member of The Suffolk Coast DMO, which is a key marketing partner. Snape Maltings is poorly served by public transport so it is imperative that the road network (especially the A12) is running smoothly. Areas of concern Having reviewed the DCO materials, some of BPA’s concerns are that: • SZC would cause damage to the perception of the area as a place of peace and tranquillity. The unspoiled environment is a key reason that people visit our two sites. • The road-led strategy will create traffic congestion which could deter visitors. • A downturn in visitor numbers would create significant financial harm to BPA and some of its accommodation partners. • The cumulative impacts of SZC and other nearby significant energy projects have not been given satisfactory consideration. Conclusions BPA is highly concerned that, in its current form with a road led strategy, SZC will damage businesses reliant on the visitor economy. BPA is aware that The Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation, and other tourism stakeholders, are in discussions with EDF Energy about a promised Tourism Fund. BPA understands that if SZC is to go ahead a substantial fund will be needed to mitigate the harm. However BPA would much prefer the project did not go ahead, avoiding harm in the first place. BPA intends to contribute to future stages of the DCO process when details of the process are published."

Carole M Wilson
"I strongly object to the plans for two more nuclear power plants at Sizewell. Our coastline is fragile, our landscape is gentle, nature has provided such a rich variety of coastal habitats for a wide diversity of species. Put simply, it's beautiful and precious. The plans that EDF have to cut down so many trees, destroy the habitat of so many species and alter the landscape from its current form to one where roads and concrete culverts, in addition to all the more obvious construction, will predominate; the foundations alone will see so much soil dug out and deposited, where? on a hillside that will be denuded of trees for this purpose. The removal of much of the land and walks that local people currently enjoy without ensuring that these same people are fully aware of what the plans involve horrifies me. Its savagery of a cataclysmic order. As a nation we do not need nuclear power, it's hugely expensive in terms of land use, construction time and taxpayers money etc and will leave a terrible legacy for generations into the future. The documentation has overwhelmed me by its sheer volume. I cannot comment on the technical arguments but all the same I just want you to know I feel so appalled by the proposal in its entirety. I'm sure that if all the good people who enjoy Sizewell Beach, Coronation Wood or Sizewell Belts truly knew what was being proposed, there would be many more people expressing their concerns - and their surprise that in these days when environmental issues have risen so far up the agenda, EDF have been given the go-ahead for wanton destruction of environmentally valuable coastline on an enormous scale. Please don't let this come to pass."

Ashtons Legal on behalf of Caroline Ogilvie
"1. I, Caroline Ogilvie, own [Redacted]and have lived here since 1987. I wish to be registered as an interested party for the Sizewell C DCO. I do not support the construction of the new Nuclear power facilities, for reasons I will amplify later in the DCO process. 2. My immediate focus is on the huge impact of EDF’s alignment for the proposed 2 Villages Bypass. This affects the whole of the Farnham and Stratford St. Andrew community. The Parish Council have presented sound arguments (and evidenced) why a more Easterly route is more favourable to the environment and most importantly highlighting how the 20dwellings will be very badly affected. 3. I am part of the community in the Farnham Hall area and my property is obviously close to St. Mary's Church. There is a long history to the settlements at Farnham and Straford St. Andrew. The church is believed to be on the site of a Roman encampment. A church may have been first constructed circa AD800 but the oldest parts are 12th century, indicating an early Norman reconstruction. The fact that Farnham Manor is dated 1602 on its plasterwork and the long existence of a farm complex suggests strongly that this was the original medieval manor, with a church in close proximity and The Old Vicarage coming off the access road to the Hall and farm complex. The group of buildings should be regarded as related to each other and of architectural, historic and heritage value as a whole as well as individually. The impact of EDF's proposals on the built environment should be considered in that light. It is seriously detrimental. 3. I support wholeheartedly the principles of communities on the A12 being bypassed; existing traffic problems will be made that much worse as a result of Sizewell C, and also Scottish Power's windfarm projects, which must be taken into account in terms of overall traffic impact. The need for relief along the A12 extends also to Marlesford and Little Glemham but as regards Farnham and Stratford St. Andrew specifically EDF is pursuing the wrong route which detrimentally affects 20 dwellings, including my own. The problems along the A12 are being dealt with incorrectly, by imposing the burden flowing from high traffic levels onto those 20 dwellings, EDF has consistently underplayed the impact of its proposed alignment (eg the number of dwellings affected) but chose to print in their brochures that they are doing the opposite. This is a misrepresentation of their actions and they have failed to look sensibly at the Eastern alignment submitted by the Parish Council . Their consultation exercise was flawed on many levels but: a) EDF argument that the bypass could not be realigned to the eastern side of Foxburrow Wood was that connecting corridor to Palents Grove was Ancient Woodland. It has been officially confirmed by Natural England that this corridor is not Ancient Woodland, thus "blowing out" EDF's reasoning. This information is not covered properly in EDF’s DCO documents. b) The Eastern alignment will be cheaper and easier to build, with much more limited impact on the built and natural environment, principally affecting a 20th century farm bungalow, of little architectural merit and used in recent years for the odd holiday letting. 4. I live in a pleasantly landscape setting at [Redacted] (which EDF have not even looked at). My woodland backs onto the Farnham Hall woodland. I am aware of the passage of animals and the western alignment proposed by EDF will be a real barrier to these corridors. EDF's environmental assessment is generally poor. 5 In conclusion: • Many people are in favour of an Eastern alignment. • It does not go through Ancient Woodland. • The Eastern route is cheaper and easier to build. • The difference in the time between the Eastern and the Western route is minimal. • EDF has ignored all the evidence laid out above and are trying to "bulldoze" the western route through when it is very clear the 2VB can easily be built on the eastern side of Foxburrow Wood. 6. I reserve the right to amend, add to and expand on my objections during the DCO process."

Catherine Bacon
"Representative in relation to farmland affected by compulsory purchase, plus residential property affected by increased traffic at a separate location."

Catherine Langton
"The Suffolk Coastal Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is an inappropriate location for Sizewell C nuclear power station. Construction work including new roads would permanently damage the wider landscape, cause loss of significant habitats, and threaten the local diversity of internationally important habitats and species. There would be huge biodiversity impacts from using AONB land as a temporary construction area. Proximity to Minsmere RSPB would cause unavoidable disturbance as well as pollution and huge landscape intrusion. Siting a part of the construction area inside the AONB is unreasonable. Proposed provisions for nature protection are inadequate. Claims of ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’ from EDFE are not adequately evidenced. They appear to be misleading, with selective facts and misrepresentation. It appears inevitable that there will be permanent damage to the eco-hydrology of marshland adjacent to the Sizewell C site. Disruption to the water table from station is likely to lead to loss of special interest to the SSSI (especially aquatic macro-invertebrates), on land which has the designations SAC and SPA with RAMSAR site interests. Construction of Sizewell C will lead to depletion of threatened and declining vertebrate species over a wide area. Notably, protected reptile populations, birds, bats, natterjack toad and otter are all likely to be impacted negatively. Increased road vehicle traffic is likely to lead to a large increase in wildlife road mortality. In particular, hedgehogs, owls, badgers, deer and otters are predicted to suffer increased collisions, with human injury & fatality also likely. Provision for wildlife barriers and fences and underpasses does not appear to have been made in EDF plans. There would be a permanent change and loss of very high quality shingle beach, dune and dune scrub habitat, all rare habitats which have barely recovered from the construction of Sizewell B. Sizewell C spine and link roads would cause fragmentation of natural and semi-natural habitats, with potentially severe and permanent severance effects for wildlife . The building of over 9.0 Km in length and a large car park on habitats and farmland would be enormously damaging in this respect including to the general character of the area."

Chris Fox
"As a resident of Darsham I would wish to make you aware of my concerns about the proposal for another Nuclear Power Station at the Sizewell site. Adjacent to the Sizewell sites is the Minesmere Nature Reserve, the reserve is one of the largest nature reserves in the country that has a delicate eco-system that requires our protection from human encroachment. How many more natural places in the world are to be lost to industrialisation before it is too late and we find ourselves in danger. The world cannot sustain anymore projects such as the Sizewell C project, which is a short-term fix that only supplies about 7% of our electricity requirement for not more than 50 years. The cost and maintenance of Nuclear waste and damage to our environment will be felt for thousands of years. The cost and maintenance of the Power stations once they are spent will be greater than providing much of the country with improved domestic insulation and greener, long term power generation. The cost and maintenance of providing greater and greater sea defences to protect the old power stations after decommission. Just because there is a power station there already does not mean another should be placed by its side and encroach into areas of SSSI, AONB and highly sensitive countryside. What is the point of designating SSSI and AONB, if not to protect future generations from short sighted, quick fix projects such as Sizewell C. I urge you to not recommend the Sizewell C development."

Chris Goff
"I wish to raise the following objections about Sizewell C: 1. Environment • Impossible to compensate the damage to landscape and ecology because of the location, design and scale of the construction which severs AONB • Will cause irreparable harm to RSPB Minsmere, a flagship destination of international importance and significance. • Impacts on Marsh Harriers (amongst other species) threaten integrity of Special Protection Area • Flood risk due to loss of flood storage from development site • Unknown effect on Minsmere Sluice • 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, surrounding habitats and ecology • Pollution from light, noise and traffic. Dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles inadequate and impact of proposed borrow pits and landfill not fully addressed. • Won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 2. Site Selection • On a coast already at high risk from sea level rises and flooding due to coastal erosion which will be aggravated by climate change, and site itself will potentially have an adverse impact on coastal processes • Have an adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value • EDF design to enable to become an ‘island’ but this ‘island’ will contain 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. • 8 other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality 3. Marine and Coastal processes • The HCDF (for which no complete design is available) and beach landing facility will have ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes and marine ecology • Erosion and recession rates episodic and unpredictable 4. Socio-economic impacts • Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. • 6,000 workers arriving to live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in an unsuitable location • Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs as EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. • Pressure on local housing (especially private-rental sector). • EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in “Site Support” • Negative impacts on local businesses from traffic and losing staff • Pressure on already over stretched health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people. 5. Transport • Road based transport plan unsustainable; enormous adverse impact on local communities and 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 residents in a wider area would endure years of increased traffic • New roads would sever communities, damage 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 I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust and I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Chris Maloney
"I have concerns about - Over reliance on foreign companies for key infrastructure projects Environmental effects on unspoiled natyral areas Pressure on traffic infrastructure Pressures from a large transient workforce, on local services (e.g. health provision) and amenities"

Chris Nice
"As a resident of Suffolk I wish to raise my concerns about Sizewell C: 1. The long term environmental risk of handling the radioactive waste that will be generated by Sizewell. 2. The possible short term catastrophic enivronmental consequences of a sudden rise in sea level and subsequent effect on Sizewell C. 3. The local environmental degradation that will happen as a consequnce of the build and transportation of materials. 4. The fact that windpower is a far more cost effective way to generate power and the money planned for Sizewell C would be far better used to support storage and energy saving projects. 5. The involvement of Chinese money and companies in the building project."

Chris Sheehan
"I am against the proposed development of Sizewell C. My main concern is the devastating effect it will have on wildlife and loss of important habitat along the Suffolk coast."

Christine Wall
"As a long term visitor and onetime resident of East Suffolk I wish to register my objections to the proposed construction of Sizewell C. These I set out below in no order of priority: Environmental • The site proposed is in the heart of an AONB and evidence has been provided by Suffolk Wildlife Trust and RSPB that it will irreparably damage the flora and fauna unique to the heath and dunes of Sizewell beach and the Minsmere reserve • The dangerous and unpredictable effect of storing yet more radioactive material at Sizewell, into the next century after it is decommissioned, on an unstable and eroding coast. Damage from the construction process • At its peak the site will demand 3 million litres of water a day from an area which already suffers droughts increasing in frequency with climate change. EDF have not provided evidence on how this water will be provided and the impact it will have on the livelihoods of local farmers and residents and existing groundwater levels • An influx of an estimated 6,000 temporary workers will create huge pressure on local services, health, housing and education, which are already weakened by austerity and the effects of covid-19 • The increased amount of road traffic will pollute, damage and affect the daily lives of local residents. The A12 and local B roads are not suitable for large numbers of HGVs • The huge carbon footprint caused by construction which will take over 6 years to off-set. Social Impacts • Building another nuclear reactor will have a devastating effect on the local tourist economy, both during construction and after. This will impact on many local jobs • New jobs created by EDF will not benefit local people who are expected to provide 90% of posts in servicing i.e. catering, maintenance etc. but only very few in skilled, salaried and professional positions • Daily life for local people, Leiston in particular, as the nearest town to the construction site, will become extremely difficult – especially as this application does not take into account concurrent applications for further expansion of other energy producers at the same site • The resulting site of a group of decommissioned but still dangerous reactors is a poisonous legacy to leave future generations This part of the Suffolk coast, a designated AONB, has already suffered from the construction of two nuclear reactors, Sizewell A built 1961-6 and Sizewell B 1987-95. While the first was built in the white heat and optimism of the post-war period, opposition to the second resulted in the longest running public enquiry in Britain. Nuclear power is now a redundant and expensive twentieth century technology and it seems perverse and backward looking to construct a third facility when renewable energy is now the cheap and environmentally sound option for the future. I fully support the representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and the RSPB."

Christopher George
"The application fails to take account of the latest Intergovernemental Panel on Climate Change projections on predicted sea level rise and in particular the likelihood and magnitude for tidal surges along this coast during the operational lifespan of this reactor. Leaving aside that much of this coast including Minsmere will in any case be suffering inundations, there needs to be a revised risk assessment examining these latest parameters. The consequences to life both to employees through drowning and the ensuivant complications due to release of radioactive contaminants on the local populace renders this reactor a danger and a major risk to life. This comment is made without considering the implications of an inundation affecting the safe operation of the reactor as I assume there will be a "fail safe" shut down mechanism. This project must not go ahead without any appointed "underwriters" fully appreciating the consequences of these latest projections."

Christopher J Leggett
"This site is inappropriate for the proposed development due to the serious damage that would be done to the fragile coastal landscape, known for its beauty and instability. There would be immediate damage to a local economy dependent upon visitors drawn by the tranquillity of the countryside and by RSPB Minsmere. This loss would be permanent, and not offset by the temporary increase in local trade during the construction phase. The local population should not be placed at risk from the further handling and storage of radioactive material beyond that which already exists at the present site, the instability of the coastline is relevant."

Christopher Smith
"Sizewell C will have a significant negative impact on the area. - It is in an area of outstanding natural beauty including the nature reserve Minsmere which will suffer from the development of the site. - Nuclear power is an outdated technology and investment should be made in renewable energy sources instead. - Little consideration has been given to the cumulative effects of different energy projects in the same area including Sizewell and numerous windfarm projects. - The simultaneous development of these different energy projects will have a severe negative impact on the whole of East Suffolk including in tourism, transport and the environment."

Claire Chilvers
"I object to Sizewell C as it is a huge development in an area with poor roads/infrastructure and the impact it will have on wildlife. Most businesses have trouble getting permission to build one house next to a SSSI and AONB but here we are thinking of building a double nuclear reactor and huge accommodation complex with hundreds of lorries visiting for years! The spoil heaps, noise and disruption will have a devastating effect on RSPB Minsmere and Suffolk Wildlife Trust Dunwich Forest. We need low carbon options now not in 12 years time when it is finally operational. The money would be better spent on renewables"

Claire Whittenbury
"This would be a disaster for the region"

Clare Sheehan
"I am very much opposed to the Sizewell C development. it will decimate a beautiful area of suffolk coast, much of which is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I understand we need to generate power but I believe that in the 10 or 12 years it would take to build Sizewell C, focus could be on harnessing power from mor natural sources."

Clare Turner
"Outdated and hugely expensive technology. Site selection Impacts on Minsmere, nearby SSSI i.e. the very narrow corridor near Sandy Lane between land and sea and all the wildlife in the broader area. Noise, light and air pollution badly affecting me and my neighbourhood on Eastern side of Leiston by the rail line Transport overload Tourism industry ruined Community and social impacts Influx of workers Inadequate health provision for workers especially mental health as evidenced at Hinkley. Potential overload of local NHS surgeries. Damage to marine and coastal areas Flooding I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell, RSPB and all local group representatives. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process"

Clive Gissing
"This remote part of the Suffolk coast is completely inappropriate and impractical for building such a large Nuclear Power Station. This is obvious to many in Suffolk opposing the development - we’re not NIMBYs as the development not in people’s backyard, it’s in nature's. - This is an area of outstanding natural beauty, with development amidst many designated sites of international and national ecological importance, renowned for remoteness and habitat connectivity. - Here is RSPB Minsmere, a ‘flagship’ site, but the Sizewell C campus for 6,000 workers is planned right next door. - Another example of the huge threat to biodiversity is the new main access road for the entire nuclear site across Sizewell Marshes SSSI - a permanent human and motor vehicle presence brought here? Roadkill, water level issues and air, noise, light, and chemical/particle run off pollution brought to a SSSI, and a huge obstacle for habitat connectivity. Fragmentation of habitats is a main reason for plummeting wildlife numbers and extinction threats to many species; - Wildlife mitigation offered by EDF does not look promising in making up biodiversity loss. - Alderhurst Farm Habitat creation has been ruined by dog walkers, and other human intrusion, and also appears to lack proper management (Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth Newsletter September/October 2020). - Two other sites recently announced are close to residents of Benhall and Halesworth (and an Industrial Estate here) so may go the same way. Only 3 weeks work are going into these (EADT) and neither will enjoy habitat connectivity like land lost at Sizewell. Transport links to the project area are very poor. - No motorways in Suffolk and trunk roads runs out around Ipswich about 30 miles away. - Only small sections the A12 are duelled above Martlesham and the road leaves resources still 6 miles away. - East Suffolk Rail Line has single track sections and competes with Felixstowe container transportation and passenger routes around Ipswich. - Existing ports are too far away to offer any real assistance. - Lack of local workforce and accommodation. Sizewell is threatened with flooding in the future as sea levels rises and coasts erode - recent flood alerts have shown the Sizewell C site at risk. Cost and clean energy arguments for nuclear compared to wind/solar power continue to diminish, especially with advances in battery storage technology – how will this look by the time Sizewell C produces electricity? If the Government still feel justified in building new nuclear power stations, surely there’s better places. Places where heavy industries have up and gone (e.g. coal and steel) leaving landscapes already scarred and local communities desperate for investment and jobs. Places close to decent transport links and ready supply of raw materials and workers needed for such a project. Places on a stable coastline where nuclear power stations and spent fuel storage won’t be paddling in water. I.E. all things Sizewell does not offer. If we’re serious about saving our natural environment we must stop building in places like Sizewell, else we cannot complain about other habitat destruction around the world."

Cllr T J Haworth-Culf
"Cumulative impact of this project alongside the multiple Energy NSIP’s coming forward on this coast requires consideration as the current plans would result in chaos. An early overview from the Inspectorate to the Secretary of State would be vital on this subject. Despite the 8 years of involvement in this project, the lack of in-depth detail is astounding, and of the information provided sufficient amounts to give concern require further challenging and interrogation. Mental wellbeing of residents affected by the process so far lasting 8 years and ongoing into the future, stress. Additional burdens relating to COVID restrictions – learning new ways of communicating for all – leaves residents feeling confused and disenfranchised. Lack of acknowledgement by the applicant of the rural Parish’s input by those most nearly affected by the application. Woefully insufficient mitigation for the areas locally affected. Unacceptable road over rail and sea bias for transport of materials. It would have an unreasonably adverse impact on local communities, and significantly damage the important tourism economy and the wider area. Irreparable damage potentially to be caused to Minsmere and other RAMSAR / AONB land, together with biodiversity reduction, no amount of ‘recreation’ can replace these. Socio – Economic - with in excess of 80% of the construction work and workforce projected to be based in the parish of Leiston-cum Sizewell, the effect on residents needs to be acknowledged and mitigated for. Currently there has been no reassurance that promised apprenticeships and skills are primarily sourced through Alde Valley Academy and Suffolk College on the Coast which is of great importance. Alde Valley Academy must be the GO TO place of education to fill these skills and the possible 900 permanent jobs. Emergency services support, so as not to have deficiencies of cover and availability during construction. There is no mention of how this would be mitigated against yet. Campus - alternative options for location of this campus offered require real consideration by EDF; there is no legacy for the current site(s), which will have significant impact on local communities due to their location, noise, light, pollution particularly by traffic and also notably social pressures. Lack of meaningful engagement with Parishes affected. There has been no recognition that the relief road and all other significant infrastructure works ought to be completed prior to commencement of building SZC to date. Sizewell Link Road - EDF has not offered justification for the choice of the current route. The current route is without legacy or merit. B1122, Sizewell Gap Road – no acceptable solution offered for the first 2 years usage before completion of the Link Road, or mitigation to make safe the latter. Currently suggested usage of both, causing an unreasonable burden on residents in close proximity to the B1122 and users of the Sizewell Gap Road together with similarly situated residents in proximity to other access roads both immediately surrounding and approaching. So far no confidence that any economic boom will not result in a corresponding bust. Housing – displacement of private rentals. Even though there may be a housing fund this will not help those families already embedded within the community who will be left homeless (family/job/school/mental health) Tourism – all sectors in tourism may suffer due to lack of accommodation/traffic/noise/light tripadvisor will play an important part as bad reviews will have an ever lasting impact on the whole district. Legacy has to be placed to stop Leiston repeating as a boom and bust town, being left in a disgrace once again. A12 4 village bypass is paramount, there is time to look into this. Some items are way beyond mitigation or compensation The consultation process has been lacking without the correct detail/s needed for many to contribute and respond at all levels. People should not have to wait until the DCO has been submitted to see vital information needed. Clearly this project means that any building within the AONB is permitted and sets a precedent for all other applications, however large or small."

Colin Cooper
"It is my opinion that the Sizwell C application should be approved and the station constructed - because 1 - This area desperately requires the the quantity and quality jobs that will be created during construction and the ongoing running/maintenance of the station 2 - The large number of apprenticeship positions created by the project will provide excellent opportunities to the areas young people 3 - The money spent in the region via supply chain will enhance local business opportunities for decades 4 - The money spent in the region by workers during construction and ongoing will provide a powerfull boost to the local hospitality and retail businesses 5 - The UK must cut it's CO2 emissions which will require stopping the generation of electricity from coal, natural gas and biomass, a lot of which is imported 6 - The country must have the carbon friendly electricity generated by the station as we move away from vehicles with internal combustion engines and over to EVs which will place large demands for electricity on the grid"

Cordelia Richman
"This project must not go ahead and please do not allow it to 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 and takes little account of the special needs of rare species. I'm particularly concerned about the 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, Friends of the Earth have researched this and show that many of the rarer specialist species would not thrive here due to high nutrient levels in the water."

D Watson
"Local geology stability concerns. This site is marshland over sand/clays and saturated chalk, essentially on an ancient riverbed. This proposed area is highly vulnerable to future engulfment from the sea, land slippage, erosion and the cutting off from the higher mainland further inland to become a concrete nuclear island in time and eventually becoming under the North Sea. See also the History of The Lost City of Dunwich which was on the local soft, unstable land too. The Sizewell area had an Earthquake and small Tsunami Wave in 1931 I was informed. I was interested in the local East Coast archaeology some 30 years ago; I did know of a long fault line that exists across the Southern North Sea from the Netherlands and Germany. An Earthquake in 1992 (5.8) was recorded in Holland, I was near Amsterdam and the building I was staying at was rapidly shaking (at higher frequency than another Earthquake I had previously experienced). The building sank into the ground 75mm. Not the ideal conditions for radioactive graphite cores due to core fracture risks and coolant leaks, potential for melt down or similar. I heard afterwards (from the Dutch) that the Earthquake was caused by an old riverbed collapsing. Whilst Sizewell A and B and are on the BGS geology that extends back towards Norwich, this new site C is planned at a potential geological edge; possibly a fault line to be expected at a far deeper level? This needs thorough checking. The local Environmental cost is far too high. EDF wants to concrete over the fields behind and beside B during construction (750 acres?). The area next to B station is a RAMSAR International Protected Wetlands Site and an SSSI and all within an AONB. It is unique, sensitive and irreplaceable. The RSPB Minsmere Reserve is remarkably close by too. EDF want to put a new road for 700-1000 lorries a day nearby. EDF clearly do not care enough about the Marsh Harriers, rare Amphibians and Wetland Birds or any other natural ecology and habitats. They did buy an existing field somewhere and say, that is it we will be ecologically beneficial/positive, whilst at the same time wanting to chop down a woodland in advance of this planning consent. Reactor design and building construction Issues. EDF has not actually managed to get their construction of the EPR reactor to work yet in Europe. EDF EPR Construction started at Olkivoto in 2005 and Flamanville 3 in 2007. Beset with expensive problems and were not designed to the new post Fukashima standards. EDF’s Hinkley Point C in the UK may appear to be constructing a piece of outdated specification technology? They should at least finish and start both HPC reactors first to see if the design and build is up to European standards, Flamanville and Olkivoto were not, and, as yet, are still to be completed by EDF. Highly Radioactive spent fuel rod storage and risk issue. See also the Sizewell A cooling pond leak reports."

Daisy Haworth
"Cumulative impact of this project alongside the multiple Energy NSIP’s coming forward on this coast requires consideration as the current plans would result in chaos. An early overview from the Inspectorate to the Secretary of State would be vital on this subject. Despite the 8 years of involvement in this project, the lack of in-depth detail is astounding, and of the information provided sufficient amounts to give concern require further challenging and interrogation. Mental wellbeing of residents affected by the process so far lasting 8 years and ongoing into the future, stress. Additional burdens relating to COVID restrictions – learning new ways of communicating for all – leaves residents feeling confused and disenfranchised. Lack of acknowledgement by the applicant of the rural Parish’s input by those most nearly affected by the application. Woefully insufficient mitigation for the areas locally affected. Unacceptable road over rail and sea bias for transport of materials. It would have an unreasonably adverse impact on local communities, and significantly damage the important tourism economy and the wider area. Irreparable damage potentially to be caused to Minsmere and other RAMSAR / AONB land, together with biodiversity reduction, no amount of ‘recreation’ can replace these. Socio – Economic - with in excess of 80% of the construction work and workforce projected to be based in the parish of Leiston-cum Sizewell, the effect on residents needs to be acknowledged and mitigated for. Currently there has been no reassurance that promised apprenticeships and skills are primarily sourced through Alde Valley Academy and Suffolk College on the Coast which is of great importance. Alde Valley Academy must be the GO TO place of education to fill these skills and the possible 900 permanent jobs. Emergency services support, so as not to have deficiencies of cover and availability during construction. There is no mention of how this would be mitigated against yet. Campus - alternative options for location of this campus offered require real consideration by EDF; there is no legacy for the current site(s), which will have significant impact on local communities due to their location, noise, light, pollution particularly by traffic and also notably social pressures. Lack of meaningful engagement with Parishes affected. There has been no recognition that the relief road and all other significant infrastructure works ought to be completed prior to commencement of building SZC to date. Sizewell Link Road - EDF has not offered justification for the choice of the current route. The current route is without legacy or merit. B1122, Sizewell Gap Road – no acceptable solution offered for the first 2 years usage before completion of the Link Road, or mitigation to make safe the latter. Currently suggested usage of both, causing an unreasonable burden on residents in close proximity to the B1122 and users of the Sizewell Gap Road together with similarly situated residents in proximity to other access roads both immediately surrounding and approaching. So far no confidence that any economic boom will not result in a corresponding bust. Housing – displacement of private rentals. Even though there may be a housing fund this will not help those families already embedded within the community who will be left homeless (family/job/school/mental health) Tourism – all sectors in tourism may suffer due to lack of accommodation/traffic/noise/light tripadvisor will play an important part as bad reviews will have an ever lasting impact on the whole district. Legacy has to be placed to stop Leiston repeating as a boom and bust town, being left in a disgrace once again. A12 4 village bypass is paramount, there is time to look into this. Some items are way beyond mitigation or compensation"

Daniel Thompson
"The science is clear that Sizewell C is a vital step forward in our fight against climate change. It is by far the cleanest and least environmentally impactful way to provide energy for the local area."

Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of David and Belinda Grant
"Our client's concerns are outlined in the ‘Outline Representations’ detailed below prepared by NFU and LIG. Our client may decide it is necessary to appoint a barrister and experts to act on their behalf to expand on the below points as well as; • Clear facts as to why the ‘Road D2’ option was not taken forward. • What mitigation and enhancement measures are to be adopted to protect the ecological and historical environment along the route? These experts will include; Highways consultant Ecological consultant Heritage consultant IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SIZEWELL C PROJECT BY SZC AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited identified as the Sizewell C Project. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Clarke & Simpson, and Strutt & Parker (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar infrastructure schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 One to one meetings have been held with [Redacted] who are the acting agents for the Applicant but they have been limited and the detail required by landowners has not been available or forthcoming. It is only since the end of August 2020 that [Redacted] have taken on board that meetings need to be held with the relevant experts who have full knowledge of the project. Due to the lack of specific information and detailed plans of the proposed new road that will directly affect landowners it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 LIG has asked for a relevant project manager from SZC to be present at meetings but [Redacted] is informing clients and members that this is not necessary. 3. Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 Voluntary heads of terms were sent out in December 2019 and two meetings have been held with [Redacted] to discuss the heads of terms. The agents acting have raised issues over the lack of detail within the heads of terms and have requested further information. 3.3 LIG believes that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4. Funding 4.1 NFU and LIG do not understand how the project is to be funded and further information on this has been requested but as yet no clarification has been forthcoming from either[Redacted] or SZC. 5. The Link Road 5.1 LIG on behalf of their clients have requested further information on the necessity of the road and details on the road design which has not been forthcoming, in particular in regard to the following: • It is understood that the link road will not be completed and available to use until over two years in to the project. By this time the majority of the large machines to be used for the construction of the power station will already be in situ, whereby access will have been obtained through the existing road network. Further justification for the link road is required? • The suitability of the road junctions on/off the new SLR. • Concerns have been raised that ‘rat runs’ may be created where the new road links into local road network in particular to some of the local minor roads which are very narrow. It is believed that the link to the B1125 will encourage a rat run through Westleton and Middleton. • Potential impacts on road safety at peak times of shift change and HGV movements early/mid/late in the working day. • The suitability of the configuration of the junction onto Fordley Road. Further, on the current plans, Pretty Road and Moat Road are cut off. • What mitigation landscaping is to be carried out to mitigate the noise, and light pollution created by the new SLR? • What is the legacy for the link road post construction? 6. Access to Land 6.1 NFU and LIG would like further information on the access points which are to be provided to enable access to land which is severed by the new SLR. The plans submitted with the DCO do show access points (i.e. cattle gates) in to retained land but as yet no discussions have taken place with landowners in regard to the location of suitable access points. 7. Habitat Mitigation 7.1 LIG were surprised when clients received a letter on the 11th September 2020 informing them that they were the owners of land that had been identified at Westleton for additional habitat mitigation. It is understood that this land has been identified as land that might be needed to meet the requirement for the Marsh Harrier Habitat to mitigate against the loss of foraging habitat on the Sizewell Marshes SSSI. The loss is due to the temporary construction compound site that will be built on the main development site. 7.2 There are further sites which have been identified for habitat mitigation and the landowners were also not aware of these sites until the DCO was submitted at the end of May 2020. 7.3 The NFU and LIG believe that consultation should have been carried out with the landowners at a much earlier stage in regard to these additional habitat areas and would like to receive further information as to why these additional habitat areas now may needed. 8. Green Rail Route 8.1 LIG requires further information as to the land that is to be taken to build the ‘Green Rail Route’ and whether this land take will be permanent or temporary. Detailed information has not been forthcoming to the agents acting. 9. Construction Compound Sites 9.1 SZC on plans submitted under the DCO has identified some large areas of land to be taken for construction compound sites. The NFU and LIG would like to see the detail of use for each compound site being detailed in the DCO particularly within Schedule 17. At the present time it is stated that the areas will be used as a construction compound associated to work no. XX. We require further detail on exactly what works may take place and what type of storage. This should be explicitly detailed for each compound. 10. Balance Ponds 10.1 The NFU and LIG would like information to be provided to explain why the size and location of balance ponds are required and where these are to be located. Further relocation next to field boundaries would help minimise the impact on the farm land in question. 11. Creation of Public Rights of Way 11.1 The NFU and LIG believes strongly that the powers that SZC are granted to carry out this project should not include powers to create new public rights of way (PRoW) including the creation of cycle tracks and bridleways. Under this proposed scheme new public rights of way are proposed. 11.2. These proposed new public rights of way will take further land out of agricultural production. The Applicant should not be authorised to acquire more land than is needed for the highway scheme itself. 11.3 The Applicant must agree any temporary diversions of PRoW in conjunction with the landowner. 12.0 Waste and Spoil 12.1 The NFU and LIG would like information to be provided to explain how waste and spoil is to be treated. In particular on the field adjacent to Therberton House which is Grade 2 listed building with historic parkland which has been identified for borrow pits. No detail has been provided about the type of works, reinstatement or use post construction. 13. Private Water Supply 13.1 It is imperative that these farms are guaranteed a permanent water supply to replace their private borehole and well supplies if they are contaminated or supply is affected in anyway during the construction of the project or after construction. 13.2 No information has been found within the Code of Construction on how water supplies if contaminated or cut off on a temporary or permanent basis will be reinstated as part of the DCO application. SZC need to address this issue and agree to general terms of how water supplies should be treated. 14.0 Field Drainage 14.1 Land drainage is always one of the main issues which landowners are concerned about when land is taken for construction purposes of major infrastructure. To date no detail has been provided by SZC on how it will treat field drainage during construction and carry out reinstatement post construction. This is particularly important were land will be returned to agricultural use. 14.2 No information has been found within the Code of Construction on how field drainage will be reinstated as part of the DCO application. SZC need to address this issue and agree to general terms of how field drainage should be treated. 15. Soils 15.1 As above the treatment, reinstatement and aftercare of soil during and after construction is another main issue of concern. Limited detail on treatment during the works is provided in the Code of Construction in the Agriculture and Soils. The NFU and LIG would like wording to be included to cover soil reinstatement, aftercare and the existing soil structure. It is stated that there will be a Soil Resources Plan and it is the intention to create and maintain a register of land condition. The NFU would like to see a record of condition and soil statement with detailed wording as to what needs to be included within these agreed and set out in the CoCP. 15.2 Further information needs to be agreed with SZC as to what measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place. A soil statement will need to be set up of the soil condition pre construction for each farm. An aftercare plan should be included in the CoCP. 16. Flood Issues 16.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the new road, the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 17. Dust/Irrigation 17.1 It is noted that within the CoCP that dust will be controlled during construction but clarification is needed on how dust will be controlled during construction to protect arable crops. The project will impact a vast quantity of high value vegetable and irrigatable crops that are grown in this area, quality of the crop is paramount. NFU and LIG require detail on the measurements to be put in place to ensure crops can continue to be irrigated. 18. Agricultural Liaison officer 18.1 There is no mention of how liaison will take place with landowners and their agents during construction within the CoCP. The NFU and LIG would like to see that the main works contractors will have to employ an agricultural liaison officer to carry out liaison with landowners. The role of the ALO should be stated in the CoCP. 19.0 Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 19.1 The NFU does intend to lodge a full Written Representation in due course and request to make oral representations at the issue specific, draft DCO and compulsory acquisition hearings which may be held. 19.2 The NFU and the agents represent 25 members and clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. [Redacted]"

David Breen
"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 – 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 – 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. The construction of the campus in Eastbridge will essentially kill the community 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 HGV’s. 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. Sizewell C’s daily fresh water demands will require up to 3 million litres during construction and up to 2 million litres during operation, in an area which is the most water-scarce in the country Spoil 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 and drainage 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, further east of existing building lines, 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."

David Freeland
"I am against this development, on the grounds of cost, storage of waste on site, the impact on the surrounding environment and this technology is flawed"

David Mandela Jesse
"I don't think nuclear power is a safe or acceptable technology to be carrying forward into the future."

David McLean
"My comments relate to Pledge 4 of the Sizewell C documentation. As a general observation, the reference to “40% of construction materials by rail and sea” is completely unsatisfactory because it conceals the respective quantities for these two modes of transport. Without a specific proportion of traffic committed to carriage by sea, this undertaking is pointless, as it could be met by a token 1% of materials by sea and it fails to ignore the obvious benefits of sea-bound traffic. Technology has come a long way since World War II and the invasion of France via the Normandy beaches. With the inevitable resistance to increased road traffic, the transport cries out for an alternative solution, so why has no-one raised the option of sea-borne movements with a floating harbour? Surely there is a case to be made for a temporary, floating structure to provide roll-on/roll-off facilities, bringing materials in and allowing empties to be taken away? As a temporary structure, there would be less interference with the interface between sea and land, which could therefore be more easily reinstated. Furthermore, as a by-product of a sea/land interface, and given the appropriate joined-up thinking, it should be possible to co-ordinate the design and planning for the coast protection requirements in this area of the Suffolk coast (which do not yet appear to have been addressed). Logically, the foundations for Suffolk C’s floating harbour should then be designed and built as part of the overall coast protection system. Cost savings should benefit both projects."

Deborah Thomas
"The reason so many of us choose to live and work in east Suffolk and more come here to holiday is its outstanding natural beauty . This would be massively impacted by the construction of this huge project , both in immediate surrounding areas and further afield from increased traffic and other infrastructure . There is no justification whatsoever for Sizewell C that could possibly negate the damage to our environment ."

Denise Parry
"Dear Sir/Madam, I am opposed to the proposed Sizewell C development on the following grounds: The damage to our fragile Suffolk coastline will be immeasurable: our areas of natural beauty will be destroyed or lost, and our wildlife will be severely impacted, including marine life. RSPB Minsmere, a prized national asset for birds and wildlife, will be put under strain and suffer as a result. Coronation Wood will be needlessly felled, natural habitats will be ruined and the resulting structure would be a grim replacement. The detriment to our coast will not only mean that the landscape from our valuable heritage, our childhood, will be lost, it will also mean that the appeal for future generations will not exist. The negative impact will mean many tourists no longer wish to visit, affecting the tourism trade and local livelihoods. There is also the risk of building such a project in a place so vulnerable to the whims of the sea. In recent years we have had increasingly dangerous storms and high tides; areas of cliff are already crumbling- it wasn’t that many years ago there was a tragic cliff fall in nearby Thorpeness. Coastal erosion/accretion processes are unpredictable, but siting the development on an eroding coastline, further east of existing building lines, would not only appear to be an irresponsible placement, but dangerous as well. In addition there will be the longstanding disruption to everyone’s daily lives for the next 10-12 years, with vast amounts of lorries and work vehicles rumbling along our already pot-holed roads, and extra strain on already stretched facilities, including NHS services, causing significant detriment to local communities. Not to mention the additional Nuclear Waste, lingering for years to come. Sizewell C would be the second largest Nuclear Waste site in England- this is what Suffolk would become known for, instead of its beautiful landscape. 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. It is important to think not just of current generational impact, but what it could mean for future generations also. The claimed carbon reduction benefits of Sizewell C are limited- considering there are so many more options for greener, cleaner energy, I would ask that you seriously consider these concerns regarding the proposed Sizewell C.   Regards, Denise Parry"

Derek Walduck
"I believe that if the Sizewell C development were to go ahead it would have a very detrimental effect on our area. My reasons include, among others: * our rural communities would be overwhelmed by the scale of development, especially when combined with the proposals for developments by Scottish Power and National Grid. * the character and appearance of our rural landscape would be irreversibly changed to one with an intrusive industrial element. * there would be an adverse effect on tourism, which is a very large part of our local economy. People come here for the rural tranquillity, wildlife and dark skies, all of which would be impacted. * a large area of a SSSI would be covered in concrete, having a devastating effect on wildlife. Saying that compensatory land would make up for this loss is not a valid defence - it takes a great many years for nature to mature and find a balance. The application proposes the ruination of a wonderful part of rural England by an outdated and expensive method of generating power and must be rejected."

Diana Huntingford
"I am concerned of the effect of this proposal on this fragile and valued environment of the East Suffolk Coast, on the continued effect of coastal erosion. It seems to me the economic impact of this continuing erosion has not been costed into the submission . I also believe that the case for nuclear power is not made. The technology for making the nuclear waste safe has not been fully considered as developed fo that it is being stored for future generations to deal with in the future This means the cost of this is unknown and therefore I costed snd unknown not zero I believe there are ongoing problems and unresolved issues with nuclear power not yet addressed safety and security in general especially eith sizewell c I would prefer that the huge amount odfmk when going into research for nuclear power goes to energy saving projects and green matters technologies What is needed is a ring main around the uk into which the various winds and other coastal technologies can feed"

Diana Quick
"I am concerned about the IMPACT on the local environment including *Transport and the increase of traffic and access on inadequate roads, and the siting of the 2 park and ride facilities *the housing of the workforce , including the creation of a "campus" * the strain on local life, including medical resources, noise pollution, the degrading of Minsmere and other local sites designated as SSSI's, spoil heaps * the nature of the proposed coastal defence - I am not convinced it will be adequate, nor that the site is adequate for the scale of the proposed nuclear reactor. *the lack of a long term strategy for the storage of nuclear waste *loss of tourism, a significant income for local businesses *the involvement of China at a time of sensitive political relations *the competence of EDF to deliver a safe and functioning system in a reasonable time and at a proportionate cost, given their historical record of delays on their current projects at Flammaville, in Finland, and at Hinkley point * the proposed "R A B" as a way of financing the cost, and the burden on the taxpayer *the absence of a visualisation of the construction site * the lack of co-ordination with the other energy projects proposed for the area including substations for up to 8 wind farms:"

Don Foster
"Concerns regarding the environment, transport and the tourism economy"

Dorothy Richards
"As my representations are unlikely to exceed 500 words, I am setting out what I expect them to be here. I am opposed to the building of Sizewell C Nuclear power station on the following grounds: There is no safe way to manage the radioactive waste produced. This waste presents a danger to people, animals and the natural world in general. The building of Sizewell C would represent a security risk as it would be a potential target for terrorist attacks. The east coast is eroding and unstable so the site is not suitable. EDF has no money and China has a morally corrupt political system with major human rights violations. This country should not be doing any business with China. Building Sizewell C would pass a terrible inheritance of pollution onto generations to come. Nuclear fission is old, out-dated, not wanted and has no future. This country’s energy needs should be met entirely with renewables and efforts and expenditure should be focussed on no-polluting energy generation. Dorothy M Richards (Mrs) [Redacted]"

Dowley Family Business
"Relevant Representation I run a farming business which will be directly affected by the building of the two reactors at Sizewell. I am especially concerned about a number of aspects of the project: 1. Environment - light, noise and air pollution which will affect our ability to farm successfully -air pollution arising from dust/mud, some of it possibly even contaminated) blown around from the proposed borrow pits on the Eastbridge road. EDF has not identified anything they plan to do prevent this problem which has the potential to make it imposible for us to pursuse both arable and livestock farming, or carry on our shooting business, on the land adjacent to the pits. - noise, light and air pollution that will be disastrous for the internationally renowned bird sanctuary at Minsmere. - potentail damage to Minsmere sluice which could damage grazing land needed to feed livestock - the propsed sea defences for the project have been described as 'unbuildable' - pollution arising form the hige amount of traffic involved in building SZC - SZC will not contribute positively to climate change obligations until 2040, the CO2 emissions involved in building SZC taking 6 years to offset 2. Working life - the traffic and all the attendant nuissance value of the workers campus nearby will adversely affect out ability to carry on our normal farming business and quite likely mean the end of it, with the loss of 3 full time and 4 part time jobs. - loss of revenue and amenity value at our campsite at Eastbridge - the 12 year length of the disruption will cause lasting damage to the land and farming businesses in the area 3. Traffic - traffic will put unsustainable pressure on the local road network, with damaging consequences for local communities, existing businesses, farming and tourism - the proposed link road has no legacy benefit and not all available options were properly canvassed during the consultation process 4. General - complete lack of coordination or strategic planning in relation to other energy projects in the area - lack information provided by EDF - consultation process deeply flawed and EDF not prepared to be open about the results or listen to or act on the concerns of the community - even SUffolk County Council can't support the proposals because the advers impact of the project heavily outweighs any benefits."

Dr David Perry
"I have a number of concerns about the suggested project at Sizewell: 1. Living in Yoxford, I can see that the road-based transport plan provided now has not adequately been shown to be the best of the alternatives given during consultation; 2. Also, the subsequent effects on the local tourism industry have been underplayed. There seems to have been no consideration given to, for instance, pollution levels arising from the increased traffic idling at the proposed Yoxford roundabout. The Kings Head on the A12 is one of only two cafes/restaurants providing meals in Yoxford and surely the levels of pollutants arising from diesel fuel consumption here will be toxic and above so-called safe levels with the increase in traffic and the proposed roundabout; 3. I feel that the EDF consultation process has not adequately addressed the many ecological and environmental problems likely to occur in this AONB from the proposed Sizewell C plan. 4. I moved to Yoxford 7 years ago and find it non-sensical that such a major project plan for Sizewell could be deemed suitable for such a small but environmentally important area, lacking suitable road and other infrastructure; 5. Additionally, I wish to state that 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."

Dr Jonathan F Dean
"Please register me as an Interested Party for this examination. I am particularly interested in the needs case for this proposed development, primarily the economics of integrating nuclear power with renewable wind power"

Dr Kay Laskey
"1) This project proposes building works and permanent structures which will damage and/or destroy areas of the fragile Suffolk coastal area which are legally protected, ie:- - The Suffolk Heritage Coast and the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB (Countryside & Rights of way act 2000) The main development site is entirely within this ''protected landscape'' - Sizewell Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - Minsmere sites (Conservation of Habitats & Species 2017 - Suffolk Shingle Beaches County wildlife Site (CWS) WHAT IS THE POINT OF THESE DESIGNATIONS IF THEY ARE TO BE IGNORED? 2) The disruption caused by construction over 12 years will damage our LOCAL ECONOMY which relies heavily on TOURISTS who come to enjoy the beauty and tranquility here. 3) This COAST IS ERODING rapidly especially either side of the site, at both Thorpeness and Cove Hithe. This is too fragile a site to store 38,000mtons of radioactive waste and proposed new defences are expected to cause flanking erosion. 4) As a resident and GP in Leiston during Sizewell B's construction I have first-hand experience of the DAMAGE DONE TO OUR SMALL RURAL COMMUNITY by the influx of thousands of itinerant workers at nearby Sizewell (7,000 at peak compared to 5,500 local residents) with extreemly limited leisure facilities There were many fights, much drunkeness, prostitution, sexually transmitted disease and abandoned pregnant girls at a level hard to cope with in such a small town 5) Since first proposed other forms of energy generation have improved hugely. Is this expensive and poluting project now actually nesessary? It will greatly increase costs for the consumer while cheaper, cleaner (lower Carbon footprint and no nuclear waste) wind and solar energy have become more efficient as has battery storage of electricity"

Dr Michael V Dale MRCVS
"Suggested issues for your Relevant Representation I am a semi-retired veterinary surgeon, resident of Wickham Market. I wish to raise issues of concern about Sizewell C. I represent residents whose lives and environment will be irreversibly blighted if this dubious project is allowed to proceed. My prime concern is the impact on a disproportionately large area of Suffolk representing the very essence of this beautiful county. It will be damaging to people, wildlife and infrastructure. 1. Sizewell C will be obsolete before it is completed ? Integration of Renewable Energy is happening faster than ever predicted ? Suffolk has an established and expanding renewable energy programme ? Nuclear power in the UK is diminishing fast as a player. Sizewell, in the opinion of experts is unnecessary ? EDF track record demonstrates that the project will be completed over budget and well behind schedule. 2. The Site is wrong. ? Highly vulnerable to climate. In the last 5 years sea level has risen 66% more than predicted. EDF offer no engineering solutions and have no accurate predictions ? Massive impact on coastal erosion north and south of Sizewell has been charted. EDF have no solution ? Devastation of unique internationally designated site of ecological importance. ? Impact on rare species. E.g. EDF themselves acknowledge impact on Marsh Harrier. ? Outstanding area of Suffolk coastal heritage will become a nuclear waste dump. ? Eight other uncoordinated energy products planned for the locality ? Flood risk ? Inadequate water supply. EDF have NO plausible solution. 3. Impact on the communities ? New town of thousands of construction workers will bring: o Overcrowding o Violence o Drugs (what happened when Sizewell B was constructed o Prostitution o Litter o Sewerage overload o Pressure on Emergency services, medical services o The promised increase in job opportunities is deceptive. Many roles being filled by workers from Hinckley and other nuclear establishments due to close. ? Light, dust, noise and carbon pollution ? Impact on Tourism A large chunk of Suffolk becomes wholly unattractive. 4. Transport • EDF logistic plans are pathetic.. A12 is already close to capacity particularly through villages like Marlesford, Little Glemham. Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic. • • Existing, vital freight traffic from the second largest port in UK, Felixstowe, will be catastrophically impaired by the enormous increase in HGV and plant moving traffic. One day closure of Orwell Bridge alone creates days of disruption • New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpaths and divide farmland. • Rat-running and disruption not adequately considered. • Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed by EDF I endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. Finally, I deplore the potential for yet more foreign financial control over a UK utility, particularly involving a nation with a lousy track record in human and animal rights."

Dr Stephen J Wright
"The success of the Minsmere Nature Reserve is dependent on the surrounding land having a low level of development and a low footfall. The plans for Sizewell C include developments for housing which encroach on the village of Eastbridge and indeed close to the nature Reserve itself. With all the recent reports about the near extinction of many natural species, it is most important that all nature reserves should be protected, and that includes the surrounding peripheral land too."

Dr Tony Hasting CEng FIChemE
"I have a number of major concerns regarding Sizewell C. - The proposed location is inappropriate due to issues associated with climate change such as flooding - There are impacts on local issues such as housing, traffic and pollution - Environmental concerns for areas such as Minsmere and the impact on these created by the project e.g. water supplies, impact on CO2 from construction - Coastal impact on erosion and marine ecology I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and the RSPB."

Duncan Armour
"One of the safest industries .... the airline industry has around 20 major crashes per year - every year. Human error and inefficient design and faulty automation all play their part. Reported nuclear energy "accidents" are over the 100 mark - with unreported incidents and discharges expected to have been many times that. In that light, let us consider the extreme damage of Chernobyl, the USD400 billion cost of its sarcophaguses, which could be considered as bolting the stable door when the horse has bolted (and has unleashed severe additional radiation all over Europe). Let us consider the ongoing untameable nature of the Fukushima outpouring of highly radioactive water into the Pacific - making that vast ocean into a marine desert - as well as toxifying all agricultural produce in the Asian and probably also US regions. Spending billions on putting nuclear plants in the UK is unnecessary, as wind and batteries are far cheaper and more efficient, and far and away safer. Any nuclear plant disaster anywhere in the UK would be devastating for the whole country - such a disaster in Suffolk would immediately wipe out the agriculture and tourism we rely on, as well as destroying the lives of residents. Whether it be the expected rise in sea levels, which will put Sizewell's nuclear cores under sea, and beyond our abilities to manage safety, or design fault, or human error, we just can't take the reckless gambling with lives and environment - all being done to make stupendously rich investors even more stupendously rich."

Duncan McGregor
"Edf have sadly rolled back on their promises to mitigate the damage that this project will cause."

East Anglia ONE North Limited
"Introduction This Relevant Representation is submitted by East Anglia ONE North Limited in relation to the Development Consent Order (DCO) application for the proposed Sizewell C Project (PINS ref: EN010012). East Anglia ONE North Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited (SPR) which in turn is part of the Iberdrola Group, a world leader in clean energy and the leading wind energy producer worldwide. East Anglia ONE North Limited is seeking development consent for the proposed East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm Project (the East Anglia ONE North Project), which is scheduled to commence Examination on 7 October 2020. The East Anglia ONE North Project will have an operational capacity of up to 900MW and will include onshore and offshore infrastructure, some of which is in the vicinity of the proposed Sizewell C Project. Background The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) identifies the need for 25 GW of new offshore wind-derived generating capacity in the UK Renewable Energy Zone (REZ) and the territorial waters of England and Wales. More recently, the UK’s target for installed offshore wind energy has been raised to 40 GW by 2030. As the East Anglia ONE North Project contributes to addressing this need, East Anglia ONE North Limited considers that the delivery of the Sizewell C Project should not adversely impact the construction and/or operation of the East Anglia ONE North Project. In developing the proposed East Anglia ONE North Project, East Anglia ONE North representatives have engaged proactively with Sizewell C representatives to better understand the scope and impact of the proposed Sizewell C Project and its potential cumulative and in-combination effects, in particular on transport related matters, and we will continue to engage as our projects progress through their respective Examinations and beyond. East Anglia ONE North Limited attends regular forums which promote collaboration and communication amongst energy project representatives, such as the Suffolk Energy Coast Delivery Board. These forums have proven to be an effective means of communicating and collaborating on our respective projects and we will continue to proactively participate in these forums. Onshore Matters The Order limits for the East Anglia ONE North Project and proposed Sizewell C Project overlap in three areas of the public highway, namely: • Sizewell Gap (close to the Junction of Sizewell Gap/King George’s Avenue); • Junction of A12/A1094 (Friday Street); and • Junction of A1094/A1069 (Snape Road). East Anglia ONE North Limited will continue to liaise with Sizewell C Project representatives in order to understand the nature of the works proposed and explore opportunities for co-ordinating works in these areas which will be to the benefit of the wider community. East Anglia ONE North Limited however must not be hindered from undertaking the necessary works or maintaining the necessary access for the East Anglia ONE North Project as a result of the Sizewell C Project works at these locations, or indeed within the public highway in general, and will seek such assurances during the Sizewell C Project Examination. Offshore Matters Over the course of 2017/2018, when establishing the boundary of the East Anglia ONE North Project’s offshore export cable corridor, the latest publicly available information on the Sizewell C Project was referred to, specifically Figure 7.2 of the SZC Stage 2 consultation (published on 23-11-16) which “shows the main development site in the wider context and includes areas required offshore for cooling water and marine transport infrastructure.” The boundary of the East Anglia ONE North offshore export cable corridor, which was presented to the Sizewell C Project by East Anglia ONE North representatives in February 2018, was developed to ensure the following (amongst other matters): • No interaction of offshore order limits between the Sizewell C Project and the East Anglia ONE North Project; • An appropriate separation distance from the proposed Sizewell C Project’s cooling water intake infrastructure; • Sufficient flexibility to microsite the offshore export cable to take into account environmental and technical constraints identified during pre-construction surveys; and • Delivery of the offshore export cable in an efficient and economical way. The SZC Stage 3 and Stage 4 consultation (published 04-01-19 and 18-07-19 respectively) and the subsequent application for the proposed Sizewell C Project presented a significant increase to the proposed SZC offshore development area from that published within the SZC Stage 2 consultation, to the extent that it now overlaps with the Order limits of the proposed East Anglia ONE North Project. East Anglia ONE North Limited note that whilst the Sizewell C Project’s Work Nos. 2B, 2D and 2F fall outside the East Anglia ONE North Project’s Order limits, there remains an overlap in the Order limits. East Anglia ONE North Limited must not be hindered from undertaking the necessary works for the East Anglia ONE North Project as a result of the Sizewell C Project works at these locations and will seek such assurances during the Sizewell C Project Examination. East Anglia ONE North Limited reserves the right to make further comments through the Sizewell C Project Examination process. Statement of Common Ground East Anglia ONE North Limited requests that the Sizewell C Project enter into a Statement of Common Ground with East Anglia ONE North Limited in order to progress the above matters and to provide the opportunity to establish a clear understanding of the interactions between both projects. Ongoing Engagement East Anglia ONE North Limited will continue to liaise with Sizewell C Project representatives in order to understand the nature of the works proposed and their timing, and to explore opportunities for co-ordination of overlapping works which will be to the benefit of the wider community. Interested Party By this Relevant Representation submission, we request that East Anglia ONE North Limited is treated as an Interested Party throughout the Examination for the proposed Sizewell C Project (PINS ref: EN010012)."

East Anglia TWO Limited
"Introduction This Relevant Representation is submitted by East Anglia TWO Limited in relation to the Development Consent Order (DCO) application for the proposed Sizewell C Project (PINS ref: EN010012). East Anglia TWO Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of ScottishPower Renewables (UK) Limited (SPR) which in turn is part of the Iberdrola Group, a world leader in clean energy and the leading wind energy producer worldwide. East Anglia TWO Limited is seeking development consent for the proposed East Anglia TWO Offshore Windfarm Project (the East Anglia TWO Project), which is scheduled to commence Examination on 7 October 2020. The East Anglia TWO Project will have an operational capacity of up to 900MW and will include onshore and offshore infrastructure, some of which is in the vicinity of the proposed Sizewell C Project. Background The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) identifies the need for 25 GW of new offshore wind-derived generating capacity in the UK Renewable Energy Zone (REZ) and the territorial waters of England and Wales. More recently, the UK’s target for installed offshore wind energy has been raised to 40 GW by 2030. As the East Anglia TWO Project contributes to addressing this need, East Anglia TWO Limited considers that the delivery of the Sizewell C Project should not adversely impact the construction and/or operation of the East Anglia TWO Project. In developing the proposed East Anglia TWO Project, East Anglia TWO representatives have engaged proactively with Sizewell C representatives to better understand the scope and impact of the proposed Sizewell C Project and its potential cumulative and in-combination effects, in particular on transport related matters, and we will continue to engage as our projects progress through their respective Examinations and beyond. East Anglia TWO Limited attends regular forums which promote collaboration and communication amongst energy project representatives, such as the Suffolk Energy Coast Delivery Board. These forums have proven to be an effective means of communicating and collaborating on our respective projects and we will continue to proactively participate in these forums. Onshore Matters The Order limits for the East Anglia TWO Project and proposed Sizewell C Project overlap in three areas of the public highway, namely: • Sizewell Gap (close to the Junction of Sizewell Gap/King George’s Avenue); • Junction of A12/A1094 (Friday Street); and • Junction of A1094/A1069 (Snape Road). East Anglia TWO Limited will continue to liaise with Sizewell C Project representatives in order to understand the nature of the works proposed and explore opportunities for co-ordinating works in these areas which will be to the benefit of the wider community. East Anglia TWO Limited however must not be hindered from undertaking the necessary works or maintaining the necessary access for the East Anglia TWO Project as a result of the Sizewell C Project works at these locations, or indeed within the public highway in general, and will seek such assurances during the Sizewell C Project Examination. Offshore Matters Over the course of 2017/2018, when establishing the boundary of the East Anglia TWO Project’s offshore export cable corridor, the latest publicly available information on the Sizewell C Project was referred to, specifically Figure 7.2 of the SZC Stage 2 consultation (published on 23-11-16) which “shows the main development site in the wider context and includes areas required offshore for cooling water and marine transport infrastructure.” The boundary of the East Anglia TWO offshore export cable corridor, which was presented to the Sizewell C Project by East Anglia TWO representatives in February 2018, was developed to ensure the following (amongst other matters): • No interaction of offshore order limits between the Sizewell C Project and the East Anglia TWO Project; • An appropriate separation distance from the proposed Sizewell C Project’s cooling water intake infrastructure; • Sufficient flexibility to microsite the offshore export cable to take into account environmental and technical constraints identified during pre-construction surveys; and • Delivery of the offshore export cable in an efficient and economical way. The SZC Stage 3 and Stage 4 consultation (published 04-01-19 and 18-07-19 respectively) and the subsequent application for the proposed Sizewell C Project presented a significant increase to the proposed SZC offshore development area from that published within the SZC Stage 2 consultation, to the extent that it now overlaps with the Order limits of the proposed East Anglia TWO Project. East Anglia TWO Limited note that whilst the Sizewell C Project’s Work Nos. 2B, 2D and 2F fall outside the East Anglia TWO Project’s Order limits, there remains an overlap in the Order limits. East Anglia TWO Limited must not be hindered from undertaking the necessary works for the East Anglia TWO Project as a result of the Sizewell C Project works at these locations and will seek such assurances during the Sizewell C Project Examination. East Anglia TWO Limited reserves the right to make further comments through the Sizewell C Project Examination process. Statement of Common Ground East Anglia TWO Limited requests that the Sizewell C Project enter into a Statement of Common Ground with East Anglia TWO Limited in order to progress the above matters and to provide the opportunity to establish a clear understanding of the interactions between both projects. Ongoing Engagement East Anglia TWO Limited will continue to liaise with Sizewell C Project representatives in order to understand the nature of the works proposed and their timing, and to explore opportunities for co-ordination of overlapping works which will be to the benefit of the wider community. Interested Party By this Relevant Representation submission, we request that East Anglia TWO Limited is treated as an Interested Party throughout the Examination for the proposed Sizewell C Project (PINS ref: EN010012)."

Lawson Planning Partnership Limited on behalf of East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
"The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EEAST) provide accident and emergency services and non-emergency patient transport services across the East of England, including Leiston, and raise a HOLDING OBJECTION to this application for a development consent order (DCO), for the following reasons. Review of the Environmental Statement (ES) and related DCO application documents indicates a lack of recognition of EEAST - as both a key health service provider and emergency service, who form an integral part of a ‘Health & Blue Light Partnership Working Group’ with the Suffolk & North East Essex CCG’s, Suffolk Constabulary and Suffolk Fire Service. The level of engagement and scope of joint technical work with EEAST is therefore deficient at this stage. As a result the ES is considered to be; ? INCOMPLETE - as it omits any assessment of the impacts arising from a coronovirus pandemic (such as Covid-19) on health partner service capacity: The transport modelling for Abnormal Indivisible Loads (AIL’s) is also insufficient from an emergency response perspective; ? LACK ROBUSTNESS - as the ES assesses the risk of a pandemic as ‘minor’ which is not borne out by the evidence of infection, urgent care referral & health service impacts associated with the current Covid-19 context; ? INSUFFICIENT - in its proposals for mitigating & managing the impacts arising on EEAST’s staff, fleet & estate assets which would need to provide for increased service delivery as a result of the development; ? INCONSISTENT - with aspects of Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6), the National Planning Policy Framework, & Suffolk Coastal Local Plan; ? ADVERSE SOCIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - are not therefore sufficiently ‘avoided’ ‘reduced’ or ‘compensated’ & sustainable development is not fully delivered by the proposals at this stage; In view of this, including the serious overstretching of EEAST and health partner resources, and ongoing service implications as a result of the current Covid-19 pandemic, an EXTENSION OF TIME is required to work with EDF Energy before the Preliminary Examination Meeting, to address the areas outlined above and below, to; ? Scope the work required to assess how the development can avoid, reduce or compensate for the effects of a coronavirus pandemic on the health and emergency services; ? Scope the additional AIL modelling work required to determine the likely impact on EEAST (& other health/ blue light partners) emergency & non- emergency response times; ? Scope the level of additional EEAST staff, fleet & estate assets (& additional health & blue light resources) required to mitigate the impacts arising from the development, including any ‘Covid-19 specific’ impacts; ? Establish appropriate Terms of Reference & Membership - for a Transport, Health & Wellbeing Group to advise on the funding, resource & infrastructure measures necessary, to adequately mitigate the impact of the development (both non- Covid & Covid 19 specific) on service provision by EEAST & its health & blue light partners. Please see attached"

East Suffolk Internal Drainage Board
"This representation is written on behalf of East Suffolk Internal Drainage Board (ESIDB), a Member Board of the Water Management Alliance. The development area is partially within the Internal Drainage District (IDD) of the East Suffolk IDB and the site is wholly within the watershed catchment of the aforementioned and the Board are the regulator for several elements of the proposed works which require consent as per the Land Drainage Act (including the Board’s Byelaws). The Board are concerned by the possible impacts the Sizewell C project may have on flood risk both within the Internal Drainage District (IDD) and the wider watershed catchment area. The Board is therefore an interested party due to the potential impact of the project on the Board’s ability to carry out its statutory functions. The main issues the Board wishes to highlight can be summarised as follows: 1. Watercourse Diversion The project proposes to realign two ordinary watercourses known to the Board as Leiston 2 and Leiston 1 (DRN163G0202 and DRN163G0201) but collectively referred to in the submitted documents as the “Sizewell Drain”. These watercourses are both designated by the Board as ‘Adopted Watercourses’. The status of an ‘Adopted Watercourse’ is an acknowledgement by the IDB that the watercourse is of arterial importance to the IDD and will normally receive maintenance from the IDB in accordance with water level management requirements. Major drainage works such as the realignment of an adopted watercourse (and the installation of associated control structures) must be done in liaison with, and subject to the approval of, the relevant Drainage Board so as to ensure that the works do not adversely impact the wider catchment (and in this instance to ensure the realigned watercourses retain their current arterial function). Resultantly, the Board is the regulator for the proposed works to alter the Watercourses as per Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. Additionally, please note that consent is required to do works controlled by the Board’s Byelaws (made as per Section 66 of the Land Drainage Act 1991). Specifically the principle aim of Byelaw 10 is to ensure watercourses can be maintained by the Board now and in the future without restrictions being placed on the Boards access, and to ensure operatives are aware of third party structures when undertaking maintenance. To summarise, the proposed works to alter the adopted watercourses has the potential to impact water levels within adjacent land parcels and within the wider catchment and I am concerned that insufficient information has been presented regarding the proposed realignment. 2. Hydrological Impacts and Surface Water Discharge The Board are concerned that the project has not fully considered the holistic hydrological impacts of the development or the associated drainage strategy. Changes to water levels within the wider catchment may be associated with potential adverse impacts across a wide spectrum including but not limited to flood risk and drainage management as well as ecology due to the way the drainage systems in the area are currently optimised for breeding and overwintering bird populations. Specifically, the Board is concerned regarding the following: • Changes to the hydraulic connectivity (including surface water to groundwater interaction) resulting from the cut-off wall may lead to a change in water levels within the adjacent watercourses. The Board does not feel that sufficient research into the possible impacts of these changes have been considered despite the Board previously raising with the applicant that we were concerned regarding the impact of an increase (or decrease) in surface water flows. • The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Environmental Statement (ES) only assess the impacts of an infiltration led drainage strategy, despite the feasibility of the scheme remaining unknown. The Board therefore believes that the FRA and ES should consider and assess the impacts of discharging additional surface water (including volume where the rate is reduced to a greenfield figure) to watercourses, where the feasibility of infiltration has not been evidenced. • The Board is concerned that in maintaining the option to discharge surface water to the sea, due consideration has not been given to the impact of potentially decreasing the volume of surface water into the drainage network, relative to the greenfield scenario. • The potential infilling of the Borrow pits with new materials is likely to lead to a change in infiltration rates and a possible result of this could be a change in the surrounding water levels or risk of flooding. 3. Water Management Zone (WMZ) and Detailed Drainage Design: There is a consistent and continuous lack of detail and evidence in the available drainage strategy which makes it very difficult to assess how the various proposals intend to manage surface water as part of the development and how feasible they are. Our concerns include, but are not limited to, the following: • The timeline for Water Management Zone (WMZ) implementation is currently unclear. This could result in substantial flood risk if development takes place before the drainage infrastructure within a Water Management Zone is not ready to operate. • We understand that the currently planned attenuation basin in WMZ 1 may be subject to changes at detailed design due to encroachment on a wildlife habitat. If these changes result in the abandonment of this basin, it is possible that all discharges from WMZ 1 (as well as those from WMZ 7,8 and 9 before the Combined Drainage Outfall is ready) would either be discharged to a watercourse or to WMZ 2. The impacts of these potential scenarios have not been investigated and subsequently could increase flood risk. • On occasion (e.g. WMZ 6) it appears that where an infiltration system cannot be designed to accept flows from the entirety of a WMZ catchment, discharge is to be directed to a watercourse with no attenuation. Any unattenuated discharge is strongly discouraged by the Board, the NPPF and National Best Practice without appropriate justification. • The available information states that some of WMZ 8 will drain ‘naturally’ to the adjacent environmentally sensitive Marsh, but has not advised whether this is through the means of infiltration, discharge to a watercourse or overland flows. I am concerned that no drainage strategy has been provided for the increased impermeable area and therefore increased volumes (rather than ‘natural’) of surface water flows. • The drainage strategies for WMZ groups 1 and 2, as well as WMZ 10, the Northern and Southern Park and Ride Sites, the Two Village Bypass, the Yoxford Roundabout, the Link Road and the Freight Management Facility have not been evidenced as being feasible due to the lack of infiltration testing. • Where infiltration has been deemed impossible from geological surveys, nearby watercourses/rivers have been identified but no direct discharge location has been proposed. At this stage, the Board is not able to comment on these discharge locations due to the lack of information provided. • The Board has been unable to locate a drainage strategy for the Depot South of the WMZ 10. 4. Minsmere Sluice While the Environment Agency are the most appropriate Risk Management Authority to comment in detail on the assessment of the impact on the Minsmere Sluice, we wish to highlight the importance of the Sluice in relation to surface water drainage form the catchment (and therefore from the proposed development area). It is our understanding that the Sluice may be nearing the end of its useful life (a milestone which will have a significant impact on surface water drainage, and may result in the requirement for a pumping station) and therefore any impact on the Sluice may act to accelerate this process. We therefore have the following concerns: • With the changes in water-level and discharge volumes that are likely to result from the development the Board is concerned that the existing pressure on the sluice will increase thus furthering any adverse impacts discussed in section 2 of this representation. The applicant has indicated that they might consider placing a temporary pump upstream of the sluice to redirect water for re-use within the catchment when needed. While this might prove useful in the short term, the drainage impacts of the development will persist beyond its operational timeframe and a temporary solution is therefore not sustainable. • As the applicant has identified, changes to long term sediment flow off the Coast because of the hard-coastal defence will likely lead to accretion to the North of the development. I am concerned that this could hamper future discharge to the sea from the gravitational drainage system at Minsmere and that this has not been sufficiently considered. • The Board feels that a suitable long term solution to the above problems may be the installation of a new pumping station to replace the gravity sluice. Any such structure would likely be managed by an appropriate Risk Management Authority on completion. 5. Development Consent Order – Protective Provision As a Flood Risk Authority responsible for several areas within the development boundary and a large section of the surrounding hydrological catchment the Board would welcome the consideration of the benefits of including a protective provision for drainage and flood risk authorities (including Internal Drainage Boards) within the Development Consent Order. We consider that it is possible that such a provision may act to avoid conflict between the planning process and the Board’s regulatory regime and consenting process (as per the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Board’s Byelaws) while assuring the Board that their interests and ability to undertake their statutory functions are subject to due consideration."

Eastern Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority
"The role of Eastern IFCA is to lead, champion and manage a sustainable marine environment and inshore fisheries within our district, which extends from the Humber to Harwich, and six nautical miles out to sea. As the proposed Sizewell C facility is within those boundaries, and the project may generate effects which interact with our core role, we consider it appropriate that Eastern IFCA comment on the proposed project. We acknowledge the considerable amount of work which the Sizewell team and consultants have undertaken, and the large volume of documents that this work has produced. We restrict our comments to those aspects of the potential project that interact with our remit – namely effects which may have an impact on fishing opportunities and quality (including related impacts on the wider marine environment), and any activity with the potential to directly affect access to such opportunities. Within the project there are aspects of potential impacts on features of Marine Protected Areas. We defer to the advice and comments of the relevant Statutory Nature Conservation Body in connection with these potential impacts, except where there may be an interaction with Eastern IFCA core remit. Within the project there are aspects of potential inputs of substances (whether radioactive, toxic or not) and energy (such as heat) into the marine environment. We defer to the advice and comments of the relevant authority (such as the Environment Agency) in connection with these potential impacts, except where there may be an interaction with Eastern IFCA core remit. In connection with our core remit, we retain concerns over the general approach to the assessment of potential impacts on fish populations as presented in numerous studies and publications connected with the Sizewell C project. It is the norm in such studies that effects of e.g. mortalities due to interaction with the water abstraction / fish return systems are considered against the population (or some proxy measurement) over a wide area, such as the southern North Sea (or even wider). We do not consider that this is an appropriate approach, and we suggest that such local effects need to be considered against a much more local population. We note that early proposals for the project (for instance, The Sizewell C Project 5.1 Consultation Report Appendices D.1 - D.7 Part D: Stage Two Pre-Application Consultation, Section 7.4.56) included provision for a fish deterrence system associated with the cooling water intakes. This deterrence system would have the effect of reducing the number of fish that would interact with the cooling water system. We have not identified any section within the package of material supplied that determines that such a system would have no beneficial effect, and we suggest that the option should be considered. Due to our concerns over this fundamental aspect of the assessment of effects, it is not possible for us to supply more detailed appraisal of any impacts which may arise. We are willing and eager to engage with the Sizewell C team in order to develop an appropriate approach to the assessment of impacts which interact with the Eastern IFCA remit. Eastern IFCA continually seek to improve how we respond to consultations, both in terms of efficiency and content. Therefore, if any of the points raised in this response are reflected in the outcome we would appreciate being informed. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries on the above response."

EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd
"The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN 30 September 2020 PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER STATION – SIZEWELL C RELEVANT REPRESENTATION IN RELATION TO DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER EN010012 EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Limited operates nuclear power stations across the UK, including the Sizewell B power station which adjoins the site of the proposed Sizewell C power station. We are strongly supportive of the principle of a new nuclear power station being developed at Sizewell, particularly given that seven of our eight nuclear power stations are due to cease generating over the next ten years. Nuclear power is a vital part of the UK's energy mix – supporting security of electricity supply, and the UK Government's ability to reach its net zero climate change target by 2050, as well as providing a significant boost to the local economy in Suffolk. We have worked with NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited ("SZC Co") for a number of years, to seek to ensure that the construction and operation of Sizewell C is compatible with the operation and decommissioning of Sizewell B, and that the project deals sensitively and appropriately with use of the wider EDF Energy Estate. Those conversations are productive and are currently ongoing. As a party with land falling within the Order limits of the proposed development consent order we recognise that we will be an interested party for the purpose of the examination. We look forward to engaging with SZC Co to agree a statement of common ground to assist the Examining Authority in considering the application, and expect to be kept closely involved and updated in respect of the progress of the application throughout. We will submit written representations and participate in hearings to the extent needed and will keep the Examining Authority updated on our joint progress on our ongoing discussions regarding all relevant matters (including protective provisions and land rights) relating to the safe operation of SZB and the proposed Sizewell C power station. Yours sincerely Robert Gunn Station Director"

Edward Pitt
"1. The public must be satisfied that there is a need for "baseload" capacity which can only be met by large nuclear power stations and that emerging technologies will not do the job better and more cheaply. 2.The public needs an explanation as to where all the new generation of power station can be placed to cause minimum disruption (Hinkley Point, Anglesey, North Kent or elsewhere). 3.The public needs an explanation as to why "mini reactors" as being developed by Rolls a Royce and others are not sufficient. 4. Safety - we must be reassured that Sizewell A will have been completely decommissioned AND demolished by the time Sizewell C starts. Edward Pitt"

Edwina Galloway
"Relevant representation about Sizewell C As a resident in a directly impacted Parish I wish to raise concerns about: Sustainability re: NPPF 27 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities & 30 9. Promoting sustainable transport A. In addition to increasingly erratic weather due to Climate Change, East Anglia is one of the driest areas of the Country and water may run out in 20 years (Source: Anglia Water), therefore the largest development in Europe on top of many other energy projects and increased house building as per the recently approved Local Plan is not sustainable. B. The State of the World's Plants and Fungi report from Royal Botanic Gardens (RBG) Kew estimated that 39.4% of plants are now threatened with extinction, a jump from one in five plants thought to be at risk in Kew's 2016 report. Researchers say the planet may be losing plant species more quickly than science can find, name and study them, which could have big consequences in the search for food crops that are resilient in the face of climate change and new medicines. Fast track risk assessments so key areas can be protected, and species can be conserved without delay is recommended. Not only this, but with Britain at the bottom of the G7 biodiversity league table with the Natural History Museum finding humans have destroyed half of the country’s nature, scientists are blaming a past destruction of nature and what is happening today. EDF’s assessment of biodiversity and the impact of their proposals are not keeping pace with the need to preserve and enhance the valued ecological assets of Suffolk. C. The transport proposals include 60% delivery by road and bring congestion and emissions which will cause harm to air quality and public health in a rural area. As the A12 is ‘the’ artery for coastal Suffolk, any issues with the A12 cause chaos to daily life. For example, strong winds close the Orwell Bridge, and in total, this has led to 50 hours and 53 minutes of closures since the start of 2020 already higher than the total time closed during the two years preceding this. Similarly, strong winds and torrential rain cause trees to fall on A12 (not a trunk road and not dual carriageway throughout) blocking lanes and causing congestion, the alternative routes being on unpaved minor roads. Again, this is not sustainable. D. The transport proposals are encouraging a culture of car use. By providing a large car park at the main site, combined with unambitious car share targets (achieved elsewhere by contractual arrangements both for employees and contractors) the proposals are not sustainable. E. There will be significant impacts from the proposed development on the transport network (both in terms of capacity and congestion), for example an additional 10,000 car movements (EDFs figures) are expected to made at peak, and due to the siting of the link road, without change, much traffic will be drawn to our Parish funnelling through to Sizewell. The residual cumulative impacts on our small winding, un-paved, unlit, single track road network will be severe. In the parish of Kelsale-cum-Carlton we would be impacted on all sides by transport related issues and it would reduce the ability to meet day-to-day needs and not improve the health, social, cultural well-being of all sections of the community in making access to services and facilities difficult. F. EDF’s plans are not wholly a ‘brownfield site’ development. With areas for wildlife becoming increasingly small and fragmented all over the world, it means habitats that support rare and vulnerable wildlife need to be protected from the worst impacts of human development. Minsmere is vitally important, but wildlife does not follow rules, so other areas in Suffolk also need to be protected against the impacts of such a development. The proposals are for the wrong part of the country and not sustainable. G. The Parish has tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their amenity value. Although primarily agricultural it also has tourism, with both residents and visitors enjoying the intrinsically dark nightscape and nature conservation. Our parish has 2 organic farms, roadside nature reserves, nature reserves and wildlife recorded by both residents and its Biodiversity group with the Suffolk Biodiversity Information service including red list species. Much of this you can see on the Parish Councils website [Redacted]. Many of the impacts described here can also be found on the responses to previous consultations which can also be found on the same website. Thank you for your time reading this."

Roger Ball on behalf of Elizabeth Ball
"Sirs, I wish to object to the building of Sizewell C because I believe it will; Spoil one of the most beautiful parts of the English coastline, and certainly the most outstandingly beautiful part of the Suffolk coast. Overload this local area with industrial complexes - there is already more than enough in the way of new energy installations planned in this small part of Suffolk - causing irreparable change for the worse to the serene nature of this area. Create many transport problems, both during construction and after due to the unsuitable road network serving the site. Already traffic from Sizewell B causes congestion and pollution when shifts change."

Ella Parker
"I do not live in Suffolk at the moment but it is where I grew up and I visit my family their regularly. I object to this proposal. The development is too big for the site and the surrounding infrastructure in Suffolk. I am also aware that the Suffolk coastline is subject to long term erosion, SZC (and the waste) will be unsafe and expensive for future generations to manage. Specific concerns are: • The roads are inadequate to deal with the huge increase in traffic • Access to the emergency and hospital services will be delayed by congestion. The rural location means the journey to Ipswich hospital is already quite long, any delays caused by traffic could be very dangerous. • 8,000+ additional workers mostly from outside the local area will put a strain on health, social and emergency services. • Coronavirus is not addressed in EDF’s application. he huge number of workers and their close social/transport/working conditions means that risks of an outbreak on site will be greatly elevated in this rural area (the near-miss at Banham Poultry illustrates the risks). SZC construction could cause: o increased risk of local lockdowns o heightened risk of infection (particularly serious for older residents) o pressure on emergency services and hospital facilities at Ipswich o impacts on anyone suffering from ill-health for any reason, as hospitals struggle to catch up • The demand for housing will raise prices and rents, creating difficulties for local low earners. If I want to return to live close to my parents, it may be unaffordable. • Suffolk has a beautiful landscape which makes it so attractive to tourists and this would be destroyed. I am concerned of the impact of SZC on the tourist industry • It will create unacceptable noise, light and air pollution. My dad has asthma and my mum has respiratory and cardiac problems, they live near to Sizewell. EDF has taken no account of ozone pollution despite levels exceed government objectives every year. Traffic and construction emissions will increase levels of ozone precursors and make pollution episodes worse and more frequent. • The proposed building phase over 12 or more years will remove access to the beach at Sizewell which is very popular with locals. • Disastrous impact on the AONB with an unacceptable impact on the area’s fragile habitats and wildlife (especially at Minsmere and Sizewell marshes). This is impossible to mitigate for. • The cooling plant will adversely impact marine life and feeding grounds of sea birds. • Highly vulnerable nuclear waste storage facility, given predicted sea level rise, greater likelihood of extreme weather and ongoing coastal erosion. The safety of east Suffolk will be compromised, especially for future generations. • SZC does not address the UK’s climate change needs: it takes too long to deliver and will generate too much carbon in its construction. This development is inappropriate in such an environmentally sensitive and vulnerable location. I endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, TASC, RSPB, and Suffolk Wildlife Trust. This application should be rejected."

Ellen Shailes
"I am a resident of the local area, living, working in and enjoying the beauty and wildlife of the Suffolk Coast. These are my reasons for opposing the construction of Sizewell C: destruction of invaluable wildlife habitat; impact on neighbouring wildlife habitat; effects on the marine environment; damage of the appeal of the local area and potential affects on tourism and local business."

Emma Bateman
"Hi intend to make a representation about the fact that there is not enough fresh water in the vicinity to supply the required amount to Sizewell c water abstraction will damage the environment the new housing planned for Leiston will require fresh water which will impact the amount available the effect of water abstraction on local farming and agriculture the effect of the abstraction of sea water for cooling on the marine life - up to 2 tonnes of fish killed per day the effect of the heat going into the sea water coastal erosion the increased traffic on the roads leading to air pollution"

Emma Sitch
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. I believe the project is in totally the wrong place. I am concerned about the impacts on local communities. Flooding and the effect on Minsmere Sluice. This has not been made clear. Inadequate dust management of spoil heaps. The devastation it will cause to Minsmere and the impact on Marsh Harriers and other wildlife within the ANOB. The detrimental impact on the character of the landscape and the effect on the ANOB. I wish to endorse the relevant representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the RSPB and SWT. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Enid Kimes
"I live just off the A12 in Martlesham, approximately 20 miles from Sizewell, and therefore am registering as an interested party. I am deeply concerned about the negative impact that Sizewell C will have locally and across East Suffolk, particularly on the area’s: • Residents and visitors • Economy • Housing • Health, social and emergency services • Transport network • Environment (including coastal erosion) • Wildlife and marine life In addition, certainly today and in the future, one of our prime concerns is climate change and thus we must be implementing renewable energy sources, not nuclear power. Even the nuclear industry admits that renewables are quicker, cheaper and save more CO2 than nuclear, meaning more can be done to fight climate change for the same budget. I hope that this admission from the nuclear industry surely puts the final nail in the coffin for Sizewell C. In light of my above comments, I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by: • Stop Sizewell C • Royal Society for the Protection of Birds • Suffolk Wildlife Trust • Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council • Minsmere Levels Stakeholder Group • Nick Scarr I also wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination. Thank you."

Environment Agency
"Representation sent to project email address Please see attached"

Evelyn Thomas
"• Sea levels are rising and will continue to rise, posing serious risks for all coastal areas, and all adjacent operations, including the this huge unnecessary project • The possibility of flooding is high and will increase over time; local coastal defences already show that there is no solution to coastal erosion • The wildlife will be devastated by the building works and the operation of the proposed reactor • The risks to the local community could be severe, including pollution from traffic, lighting, dust and other forms of waste • The effects of pollution will in turn lead to adverse effects on health and increased pressure on local health services • Many visitors will not want to come to the damaged local ecology sites adversely affecting those who currently benefit from tourist income • Building new roads will also adversely affect levels of pollution, noise, waste • The major changes proposed, with mental health risks not obviously being mitigated, will create severe stresses for local residents and increase mental health problems among vulnerable people • New roads will damage the ecology, flora and fauna in the wider areas around the proposed project • Farmland and local pathways for people and animals will be adversely affected by new roads • It would be quite wrong to pursue activities that would so severely damage Sizewell Marshes, an adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest, and other nearby designated sites"

Feadora Morris
"I would like to state my opposition to the proposed development for the following reasons: The area 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 and irrevocably impacted. These designated sites are protected by a range of national and international nature conservation designations including SSSI (a type of protected area with special or exceptional wildlife features), SPA (which recognises an areas importance for rare and vulnerable birds) and SAC (designed to protect habitats and wildlife species of European significance). and Ramsar (wetlands of international importance). • The Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) contains a complex of habitats, notably mudflats, shingle beach, reedbeds, heathland and grazing marsh and supports populations of important birds, including bearded tit, Cetti's warbler and shoveler, scarce plants such as whorled water milfoil and a number of rare wetland moths. • The Minsmere to Walberswick Special Protection Area (SPA), is designated for its breeding bird populations, including bittern, marsh harrier, avocet, little tern, nightjar, woodlark and several wildfowl species. It is also designated for its wintering birds, such as hen harrier and bittern. • The Minsmere/Walberswick Heaths and Marshes Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is designated for its coastal and dry heathland habitats. • The Minsmere/Walberswick Heaths and Marshes Ramsar site is designated for its variety of marine, freshwater, marshland and associated habitats. It also supports a number of rare plants, such as red-tipped cudweed, invertebrates including the narrow-mouthed whorl snail, and important rare breeding birds such as teal and avocet. Sizewell C will require the acquisition and destruction of areas which are inside the area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). Ineffective and insufficient mitigation measures have been proposed that have been widely dismissed by local ecologists, environmental scientists, conservation groups and nature enthusiasts nationwide. Furthermore, 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. There is also insufficient protection afforded by hard sea defences leading to an elevated risk of flooding. 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."

Fiona French
"I am seriously concerned about the environmental impact of Sizewell C. It will decimate the surrounding area, including the area around the RSPB reserve at Minsmere. In view of the position of Sizewell C and the coastal changes that are taking place due to climate change and coastal erosion, I do not think that the impact of future coastal erosion on Sizewell C has been properly considered. It’s even more concerning that this seems to be a project run by the French and the Chinese, who will not be affected by the impact of the building of Sizewell C and living in the vicinity of it. Living in Aldeburgh, I worry about the effect that the project will have on my children. The disruption that will be caused in the construction is enormous and again will affect air quality and quality of life for many years to come."

Fran Crowe
"SZC would blight this protected area permanently. What I value cannot be mitigated for: I am appalled at the destruction of such a tranquil, unique and fragile area. The character of AONB landscape and settlements would be irrevocably transformed by road construction, traffic congestion, loss of coastal access, division of the AONB, harm to irreplaceable and protected wildlife and habitats, social disruption due to huge worker influx, destruction of tourism businesses, and an unquantifiable legacy to future generations dealing with nuclear waste and decommissioning on an eroding coastline. Specifically: • Application’s complexity/size is unsuitable for digital/on-line examination. • Rural road infrastructure cannot deal with huge increases in traffic/HGVs. Marine/rail options not fully explored. No legacy value in road improvements, whereas there could be with rail. • Traffic congestion impact on everyone locally - adversely affecting well-being, increasing air pollution and adding cost to businesses. Delays to emergency services potentially life-threatening. Journey times to hospital in Suffolk already amongst the longest in the country. • Increased air pollution in the region due to traffic/HGVs and the construction itself not adequately addressed, in particular: o insufficient attention given to PM2.5 particulates o ozone pollution omitted without explanation, despite consistently exceeding government objectives in this region; will be exacerbated regionally by increases in precursor pollutants caused by traffic and construction. o seasonal, meteorological and climate change impacts on air pollution ignored. o action plan in event of forecast exceedances required. o preventative and mitigatory measures required for the worst affected - especially elderly and children/schools. • Measures for communication of works and impact on the public (including cumulative impact of multiple infrastructure projects in region) inadequate, as is proposed system for complaints monitoring, analysis and remediation. I lack confidence that EDF would act promptly and effectively on serious complaints, or assess/report cumulative impact effectively. Additionally, insufficient measures to monitor their contractors’ compliance. • Inadequate plans for sea defences, taking insufficient account of sea-level rise and extreme weather events arising from climate change. Proposed nuclear waste storage on site until at least mid-22century represents a huge risk to local residents/businesses across the region. It leaves an unacceptable legacy of unquantified costs for future generations of taxpayers, and enormous safety risks, which residents and businesses cannot insure against. • No account taken of risks of pandemics, which would be heightened due to huge influx of workers, living/working/socialising/travelling in close proximity. Devastating potential impact on businesses and local population arising from: o increased risk of local lockdowns o heightened risk of infection o overwhelming pressure on emergency services and hospital facilities o severe knock-on effect to anyone suffering from ill-health for any reason, as hospitals are overwhelmed by waiting list backlogs. • Catastrophic destruction of fragile protected habitats: impossible to mitigate for; intolerable given wider UK biodiversity losses and Government’s pledge to increase measures to protect biodiversity. • Disastrous impact on landscape character (SZC’s location, design, scale); iconic views from north and south blighted by huge soviet-style industrial complex and pylons. I endorse the Relevant Representations of Stop SZC, TASC, RSPB and Suffolk Coastal FOE."

Frances Barnwell
"My concerns are as follows - The proposed traffic numbers and the gridlocks that are likely to follow would isolate this community from access to emergency services as well as work and leisure activities. - This coastline is subject to continuing erosion, and now the threat of sea level rise. What protection is there for local communities in the event that the works impact on coastal management or the site is flooded? - This is an AONB dependent on the beauty and tranquility of the area to attract and maintain revenues from tourism. This huge infrastructure project will harm tourism and the businesses relying on it as well as damaging the quality of life of those who live here. - The size of the project and lorry movements threaten an increase in air pollution. - Is the technology proposed appropriate? - it is understood that other facilities built to this design have yet to function or function fully. - There are less damaging alternatives which may themselves provide local long term employment without the damaging impact of Sizewell C. -"

Frances Bee
"I wish to register the following concerns about the proposed Sizewell C development: I am opposed to the proposed development on the following main grounds: 1. The economic case for Sizewell C no longer stacks up as renewable energy sources such as windpower and solar have become a cheaper way to supply electricity and new technology in the area of batteries is addressing the issue of having a reliable supply. 2. 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. Suffolk County Council have a Zero Carbon target by 2030 - the construction of Sizewell C will make this even more difficult to achieve. 3. I am very worried about the environmental impact of the the project on wildlife in the area and particularly on the world reknowned RSPB Minsmere Reserve. This at a time when there is strong evidence of catastophic declines in wildlife and biodiversity in this country. We ought to be taking steps to enhance the environment not put it further under pressure. 4. During the construction, it will have a devastating effect on tourism in the area - tourists are attracted to the beauty and tranquilllity of the Suffolk coastal area. This will be severely compromised by the development."

Frances Hedley
"I am concerned about the following: * location of the site in an area of coastal erosion, and with a construction road network * impact on local environment especially Minsmere nature reserve * construction impact on local roads and lack of thought to alternate transport methods * influx of temporary workers and the construction of a temporary workers village * impact on local tourism * noise, light and environment pollution during construction * duration of construction in relation to uk carbon goals *.likely balance of jobs created for local people between high value and menial jobs * impact on local housing market, both rental and privately owned I do not believe a digital review of the proposal is appropriate"

Geoff Bones
"1. Sea levels are currently rising in line with the highest predictions of meteorologists of 20 years ago, and will likely continue to outdo current predictions. The coast around Sizewell is unstable and will become more unstable as sea levels continue to rise. Building a new quay is likely to have unpredictable effects on the shape of the coast. To approve the location of a nuclear reactor on this coast - of all coasts - is irresponsible. 2. EDF have given many pledges to protect and enhance the sensitive and valuable ecological environment in which the reactor is to be sited. But, given the EDF's record of adhering to similar pledges to respect the marine environment at Hinckley Point, these are worthless. At Hinckley Point, once budgets tightened (i.e. early on in the project) plans to protect marine wildlife from entering the water intakes were shelved. It was then found that there was no way to enforce them. Approving Sizewell C is a way of allowing EDF a carte blanche to do to the surrounding area just what their balance sheet demands. 3. The coronavirus has changed everything. With electricity consumption reducing, and a fresh demand for new investment in clean renewable energy, Sizewell C is going to be out dated and represent yesterday's thinking long before it is fully operational."

Geoffrey Prescott
"To, Planning Inspectorate. Re Suffolk Sizewell C Reactors C and D planning permission and related issues. Dear Sir/Madam, Please register me as an interested party in the Sizewell C planning matter. 1. Emergency and Safety Plans As an experienced emergency planner and implementer of emergency response programmes for natural and man-made disaster response, the application is woeful and extremely worrying. Incidentally I also commissioned the first and only manual for responding to CBRN disasters for the humanitarian community. The summary view therefore is not of a lay-person but of someone active in the field. • The necessary upgrading of the fire service is non-existent, with meaningless words replacing adequate resourcing, adaptions and action. • The necessary specialist provision of CBRN (radiation and fire) materials for the build and the resulting 4 reactors (!) is non-existent. • The infrastructure to provide an emergency response from the West, North and East is entirely inadequate and essentially no plans have been presented to explain how fire or radiation hazards can be managed from an access and logistical point of view. • The lack of a long or medium term solution for the storage of radioactive materials is a concern. Not least because this was the prerequisite for the build and indeed all new reactors. For reasons unexplained that requirement has now been waived, without an explanation or a nod to the safety implications. The emergency ponds in Sizewell are wholly inadequate and there have already been confirmed reports of leaks from them. • The local community are neither, briefed or prepared with for Iodine supplies to an international standard, nor provided with evacuations and protection plan should n event occur. From experience, if an event occurs the entire population will be on the move, yet there is not logistical or planning provision for road, helicopters, rail etc. 2 Poor Choice of Location. • The initial planning and Government’s Environment agency maps showed that Sizewell would flood. This was changed couple of years ago to suddenly show Sizewell as becoming an island in 50 years’ time. This is an insane location. • Can anyone realistically accept that from a “flooded” site to an island located in wetlands, is a good place for two new reactors? • As a local resident this part of the UK, East Suffolk has the highest number of Areas of outstanding Natural Beauty in the entire country. The impact of the plans, will both from a build and operational point of view lead to massive disruption and destruction of this are. there is no mitigation of the degree of damage that will be caused. 3. Over development • There are another eight uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality. This is massive over development and harms the wildlife and beauty. • There is also a degree of concern about how sensible it will be to have 20-25% (depending on whose figures you use) of the UK’s power coming from a small patch of Suffolk, with terrible narrow roads and a resistant populace. Off shore wind, nuclear and a postage stamp to provide it, is a very vulnerable and short sighted dependence. 4. Yoxford • As a Yoxford resident there is a nonsensical plan for the roundabout causing significant tail backs on the A12 and A1120. • The A1120, “Tourist Route” will be choked by cars and white vans let alone lorries. It is not built for it and is a thriving village about to be ruined, as will all the villages along the A1120. All cars and commercial traffic for Sizewell should be banned from this route, but no plan or mitigation is present. • The A12 will be slowed down and the plan will institute unacceptable extra roundabouts. In truth the whole A12 needs to be upgraded anyway to dual carriageways and the current plan is the worst possible, introducing slowness, choke points and chairs. Good luck with that. • Rail and sea can be used but have been reduced on costs grounds in the plan. This is unacceptable. The cost of building i should include this eco transport options, not going for the cheapest which is to use vehicles to wreck East Suffolk. • 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, a very low crime and tranquil haven for wildlife. 2,400 in one worker’s campus alone. • 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. My own family will not be able to find affordable accommodation and so leave the area (Four children between the ages of 13 and 21). • There is no explanation for an increase in health, social and emergency services, despite the demand for these planned to escalate dramatically. 5. Review I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. Your Sincerely Geoff Prescott"

Geoffrey Tebenham
"a power station at sizewell will contaminate that area for many yeas leaving a problem for many generation with better technology and reusable energy onstream is the way forward that part of the coast is of outstanding beauty and will be lost to the country the proposed car parks at hacheston and yoxford will only bring heavy traffic on back roads leading to them as they rush to the parks and leave as we all remember the blue buses and cars from sizewell A these car parks will be big so what will happen to the land when sizewell is finished will these vast areas be returned to farm land if change of use be granted to these areas these areas will be lost from are country side for housing or commercial sites which is not keeping for this area i for one is not looking forward to the devastation to are coast and farm land i strongly appose this planning application"

George Powell
"The cost of the Sizewell C electricity is too high in relation to other alternative forms of electricity. The technology is flawed. There are other forms of nuclear power being developed by British companies that will be cheaper, safer and less burdensome on local communities. The planning process is inappropriate given the Covid situation. The process should be put on hold until Covid is behind us. Particularly as there are expected to be up to 7 other planning applications related to the onshore facilities for the offshore windfarms. We deserve a comprehensive plan before any new large scale applications are approved. Sizewll C will severely adversely affect the local environment and businesses, particularly during the build stage due to construction traffic, imported labour, dust, noise and light. This will not help the leisure/holiday businesses which are so critical to the local economy. The flood risks, coastal erosion potential and impacts on marine ecology have not been adequately addressed. In summary this application is attempting to push through a dubious project by using Covid to avoid the full glare of publicity. It is yesterday’s solution. We need a solution which meets our needs by using the new and exciting technologies. GCJ Powell"

Georgina Harrison
"I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. Looking at the plans it seems that there are a lot of impacts on the local environment and communities that far our weigh the benefits of building a project that will run for over 10 years and by the time of its completion be extremely outdated and what looks like excessively expensive technology. I run a local tourism based accommodation business but I am very apprehensive of the possible development and its impacts on tourism on the Suffolk coast, what is currently an expanding area and market for tourism, but a building site of this size right next to an area of such outstanding beauty the growth the industry has seen in the last ten years in Suffolk we will see people turn away from Suffolk and lose the income and jobs to other unspoilt parts of the country. Apart from the sad destruction of ancient forests and the beautiful countryside around Minsmere the impacts of all the road traffic over the 10 years of the build would also drive away visitors to the area out of fear of the congestion and gridlock. As a manager of a campsite not far from Sizewell we have worked hard to develop and promote the accredited dark sky status of the caravan park there are a very limited number of campsites in the UK with Dark sky status and also very few areas in east Anglia that have accredited dark sky status and this will be lost due to the light pollution from the building site More information and dark skies can be seen here [Redacted] The many guests we get at the campsite stay with us to visit Minsmere and I fear for irreparable loss of natural habitat to Minsmere and its amazing wildlife diversity that the development will undoubtedly destroy and ultimately loose The influx of 6000 workers to the area will also put a desperate strain on the local environment, the local area is just about recovering from Sizewell B being built and the reputation of anti-social behaviour it brought it would be a shame that for that to return and spoil a beautiful and inspiring county. In summary the ridiculous costs and the terrible environmental impacts of the project do not seem to balance with by the time it is finally completed what looks like out dated and inefficient technology and toxic waste that we do not know how to get rid of"

Gillian Horrocks
"1. Site Selection The site is at risk from sea level rise and flooding owing to climate heating. It could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. It poses an adverse impact on globally important sites adjacent. There are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned at the same time. 2. Social disruption The construction will place unacceptable burdens on local communities - from traffic to noise, light pollution and disruption. During the construction of Sizewell B the levels of drug abuse, prostitution and presence of illegal firearms became a significant nuisance for local people. The Worker campus is proposed for a wholly unsuitable location. This area is designated the Heritage Coast and as such boasts a burgeoning tourist industry. EDF's own surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred from visiting because of unprecedented traffic pressures, social disruption, loss of peace, and damage to the prized leisure areas and activities by the construction process. As during the building of Sizewell B, there will be unsupported pressure on health, social, education and emergency services. 3. Transport The increase in HGV traffic is going to destroy the fabric of this rural area. Rat-running and disruption has not adequately considered. 4. Ecology and Landscape Sizewell sits within 2 marine protected areas: the project's impacts on marine ecology have not been addressed adequately. Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic (as exists already at Hinkley) The project does not protect spoil heaps and stockpiles from dust contamination and other pollution. There is no clear proposal for the water supply of the region - either during construction or after. Abstraction of water brings risks to groundwater levels and to surrounding habitats and ecology, while the loss of flood storage from the development site brings its own flood risks. It will have catastrophic impact on the landscape character because of locality, design and scale; its construction severs the AONB and destroy's the government's aim of connectivity in attempting to restore diversity and habitat in natural England. There is no mitigation that can compensate for the landscape and ecological damage wrought by the construction. 5 Carbon footprint The energy required to build the power station, including creating building materials, mining, and transport damage, will cause huge amounts of carbon to be released."

Gillian Richmond
"My house is very close to the proposed parking site near to the Fiveways Roundabout at the junction of the B1116 and B1078. My house is situated on the B1078. I am extremely concerned at the inevitability of increased transport outside mu house. This stretch of the road has no footpath and there is already a history of drivers massively exceeding the speed limit. If, as I believe is inevitable, the volume of traffic increases as people head for the parking site, then an already treacherous stretch of road will become even more dangerous. The character of the area will be damaged for a very long time, possibly permanently. I think the costs of building Sizewell C generally and this parking site in particular dwarf any potential benefits."

Graeme West
"Sizewell C I live near Bury St Edmunds and visit the coast frequently to visit family and friends, sites of interest and for leisure. Those people and we have expressed grave concerns about the proposed plans for the development of Sizewell C. I therefore wish to raise the following concerns. Site • The building of Sizewell C will impact on the area which is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty • It will effect the tourist trade upon which many local people depend • There are huge implications for safety once the facility is built and a concern about the storage and disposal of waste Community • The impact on the local community will be huge; noise, influx of workers, available accommodation • There will be increased demand on health and welfare services which are already stretched. (Do EDF plan to support an increase in these services?) Transport • There are going to be huge problems with increased traffic on the roads • the A12 is at present often gridlocked or the traffic slow moving and despite the planned redesign of roads and building of a relief road with the influx of lorry and employees traffic there is likely to be a huge impact on the infrastructure and the local community. Environment and Landscape • There is going to be a huge risk to natural flora and fauna which abound in this region • There is a worry about the particular impact on Minsmere • Water requirements on the construction and operation of the facility will be detrimental to the wildlife and general landscape. (Farmers require water too). Time Scale and Costs • The project is planned to take 10 years for construction, an unacceptable period of disruption • Similar projects have overrun the planned time scale for construction and the projected costs • There are also security concerns about the involvement of China General Nuclear in this project Application • Wording of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the RSPB and SWT I wish to state I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Graham
"REGISTRATION IDENTIFICATION NO.[Redacted] To test email was working I emailed the empty form a while ago which gave me a reg no I have included above. I would that just being an ordinary person with no experience at objecting I humbly request that should my my representation include any of the prohibited material which will have happened without my meaning it to that those that you eliminate those that breach the rules leaving those that are valid: My representation and it’s objections are focused around the 4-Village bypass more especially Farnham where I have lived [Redacted]and are as follows: 1) Cost of road excessive for such little gain both in respect of time saving as: a) more priority should given to sea and train transport more especially in view of what we have learnt during COVID and our need to create greener energy to arrest climate change as well as to create long term jobs around greener energy by the governments own declarations. b) A paltry 3 minutes speed gain from Ipswich to Felixstowe calculated by yourselves c) Cost ratio excessive when there are several other possible and cheaper solutions: i. A temporary road to be removed once the largest equipment has been installed ii. New technology, e.g.,Electric lorries combined with electric roads iii). d) Whichever side of the ancient Foxburrow wood, wood that figures on the earliest maps of the area, the woods will suffer since it is not accustomed any traffic or human interference whatsoever from pollution, night lights, frequent visitors, etc. e) Whichever side of Foxburrow wood the bypass is sited will merely be robbing Peter to pay Paul as the new road will either visit the noise, light, and pollution on to those of us that live there which will will force my sons and I to move as they will lose any sense off independence as once the road is started they will be come landlocked until the road and bridge or tunnel are finished which will deprive them of their 2 mile daily walk along a secluded footpath down to the railway track which maintains them healthy and mobile. 2) The major reason for moving the road during previous consultations has been the higher than legally permitted pollution in front of the Stratford Service Station which by limiting the speed limit has now been removed. 3) The service station at Stratford and various other businesses nearby and over near the farm cafe with all their workers such as the caravan showroom, other shops, industrial mestate, etc. will be severely adversely affected by the A12 being moved."

Graham Peck
"I was born in Southwold where I grew up, I subsequently moved to Aldeburgh and now live with my family near Little Glemham. During that time I have experienced the building of Sizewell A, Sizewell B and am now faced with Sizewell C. The overall impact of Sizewell B on the locality during the build process was significant and my concern now is that given the size of the proposed Sizewell C project, this area of Suffolk will be seriously compromised for the ten years or so that it will take to complete. I have observed the impact that Hinkley Point has had on a wide area around that complex and expect that this will be no different in the case of Sizewell. EDF appear to be focussing on the road network to deliver the materials when far more use could and should be made of the rail and sea options. Suffolk relies on a large tourism industry which will be negatively affected by large numbers of heavy haulage and associated vehicles blocking our roads and any increases in job opportunities with EDF will be overtaken by those lost within the tourism industry. Suffolk is also a major farming County and a key supplier of cereals and vegetables much of which will also be negatively impacted by the power station construction. All this of course is now being exacerbated by the steadily increasing offshore renewables industry that is bringing with it requirements for power switching and distribution sites that also require large areas of land and access to the local road network. Suffolk contributes greatly to the supply of vital generated power and food to the country but is in danger of becoming an industrial building site in the process. In conclusion I question the viability of building a further nuclear power station within a few hundred metres of a low lying coastline that is suffering from significant erosion all in the face of more violent storms and a steadily increasing sea level?"

Graham Riches
"Risks and suitability of Sizewell as a location for a new generation reactor: I am concerned that risks and foreseeable impacts associated with the Sizewell location, along with insufficient or impractical means of providing adequate countermeasures, make it unsuitable for this development, for reasons including or related to the following: a) Future vulnerability to sea level rise and associated issues. The site is low lying and adjacent coastline is vulnerable. It is accepted that climate change will cause significant sea level rise over the lifetime of the project. Past glacial calving rates cannot predict future sea level rise and models must plan for the worse case scenarios, not hope for something more benign. Higher sea levels will make the site more vulnerable to exceptional natural marine events of meteorological, geological or other origin, or the direct or indirect effects of erosion (e.g. outflanking of the site). b) The location would exacerbate the impact any accidental discharge on population, farming and food production, and on the environment, at both a local, regional and national level. Sizewell is not a remote site. 2.6 million live within 50 miles. The East Anglian region annually produces enough wheat to make over 6 billion loaves of bread. c) The permanent damage that physical proximity of construction to Minsmere will cause to this unique site of environmental importance, and international renown, and to AONB – along with long term impact to nearby forest, villages and beauty of the entire area. d) The risk of permanent detrimental impact to vulnerable surrounding inland, coastal and marine environments, including possible significant impact on local coastline erosion rates. For example, the proposed sea landing site is likely to affect natural shingle movements and beach replenishment to the south of the site, potentially affecting beach levels at Sizewell Cliff and Thorpe Ness, and in turn affecting rates of erosion. This may hasten erosion and lead to loss of environment and property to the South at Thorpeness. e) Short and long term detrimental effects on local population, from loss of tourism and disruption to business, and detrimental effects to health and quality of life, for many thousands of people local to the site but also across all of East Suffolk (including increased heavy and general works traffic on inadequate roads, loss of rights of way, loss of community through detriment to the social, financial, environmental and spiritual integrity and outstanding beauty of the area). f) Vulnerability of the site to direct adverse human intervention from the determined and well-equipped saboteur, Fukushima showed how vulnerability of satellite installations can cause critical events and could be exploited."

Great Glemham Farms
"Thank you for the opportunity to present professional views and feedback on the application to build a new nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast. I am writing as a Partner in a family owned farming business, Great Glemham Farms. I also work as the owner, director and curator of the Alde Valley Spring Festival Ltd; and on a voluntary basis as Patron of Poetry in Aldeburgh and International Patron of Pesta Nukenen dan Kebudayaan Kelabit - a community owned food and cultural festival in Central Borneo / East Malaysia. My professional interests revolve around sustainable development, with special interests in the interweaving food, landscape and the arts with renewable energy technologies and high capacity ICTs in rural areas. Key targets and measures of success / KPIs that are work with are : protection of natural / heritage / landscape assets; delivering developments that are sensitive and proportionate to the local socio-economic and landscape setting; ensuring direct onsite ecological enrichment; delivering dispersed ownership of new technologies and their economic opportunities; delivering knoweldge gain and deispersal. I have worked on capacity-building projects in the UK and South East Asia, delivering through-supply chain benefits to private businesses, local communities and local economies. Looking at the proposed development, the following issues seem to have remained unaddressed, and are directly relevant to the long term safety and welfare of East Suffolk residents, including the value of their local economy and the quality of their natural resources. Point 1. Risk Analysis : Locating a Nuclear Power Station on a Soft, Low-lying Erodong Shoreline. Strategically, during a period of rising sea levels, climatic instabillty and increased risk of storm surges, it seems to make no sense to locate a new nuclear power station, with a proposed lifetime reaching decades into the 21st century, on a soft, low-lying and rapidly eroding shoreline. To do so would seem to invite unnecessary levels of risk to both the proposed development itself and to the local area. Sizewell A and B were both developed prior to an awareness of the real extent of risk that we are beginning to encounter due to climate change. The Greenland ice shelves and Arctic sea ice are melting at previously unimagined rates. Tidal surges and storm surges are also becoming more severe. Locating a large nuclear power station on this site - compared to a site on an elevated, rocky or secure coastline - seems completely illogical. It makes no geographic sense and introduces risks that are of potential very high, both for the local area and also for the broader region. Point 2. Risk Analysis : Potential Impacts on Local, Regional and National Food Supply Chains Some of the UK's richest farmland lies within a 20-40km radious of the proposed development site. The area produces significant proportions of the UK's root vegetables, potatoes and pork. The nearby Alde Valley and associated Suffolk River Valleys of the Waveney, Deben and Orwell are home to one of the UK's most job-rich, innovative and diverse local food economies - as evidenced by the abundance of small independent food producers, processors, distributors and retailers. The accident at Fukushima has resulted in an exclusion zone that extends up to 20km inland. God forbid that such an accident should ever happen at Sizewell, but the potential impact - and therefore risk - to the local, regional and national food economy should not be ignored nor underestimated - which in turn raises the significance of Point 1 above. Point 3 : Potential Impact upon Subterranean and Surface Water Resources in East Suffolk I work in the Upper Alde Valley. My farm is located in the valley bottom and includes fields / flood meadows that lie in the floodplain of the River Alde. In 2017 I was responsible for researching a WEG / Water Evironment Grant for a larger family-owned farming business that I am a partner in - Great Glemham Farms. Part of the R&D process for this application involved receiving multi-agency advice and input from Suffolk Wildlife Trust, the Environment Agency and Natural England. The intention was to adopt a water catchment area and landscape-scale approach to farm management practices over the five farms that we are fortunate to have in our care. During this process of consultation and field research on our farms, it became clear that the subterranean and surface freshwater resources of the Suffolk River Valleys [previously deisgnated as one of the UK's Environmentally Sensitive Areas by English Nature, as was] are in a parlous and vulnerable state. This is because there is no geological break or seal between the chalk aquifers that underly East Suffolk and the Alde and Ore rivers [including the Upper Alde and Fromus rivers] and groundwater - ie the water column is continuous. This introduces very significant risk of falling surface and groundwater levels in the valley bottoms - including river levels and flow rates, pond levels and well water levels. At my farm, the ground level in fields adjacent to the River Alde has fallen noticeably by up to 40cm as the river level has dropped and groundwater levels have fallen. This seems to be largely due to local water extraction of potable water by a pumping station at Benhall Low Street. This has put pressure on a local protected water source and the local water company has sought to buy out a protected source. From talking to various government agencies and from direct personal experience as a private sector water resource researcher, my observation to the planning inspectorate is that the local aquifers can or could in no realistic way sustain the scale of freshwater supply needed for Sizewell C : neither for its proposed labour force and temporary residential development; nor, especially, for the scale of the proposed building works and cement mixing. And to suggest otherwise would seem to defy reality. I would queston the abilty fo the aquifers to deliver the required water; and, given that the water column in the chalk aquifers is directly connected to and continuous with river levels and groundwater levels, there seems a very real and very significant risk of very considerable environmental disruption through sustained damage to the local groundwater resources. The Upper Alde Valley is already under water stress from current abstraction licences; increased housing developments in the area are also introducing similar stresses into the Fromus Valley in Saxmundham - and I presume closer to the coast too. It seems reasonable to place a requirement that all freshwater for the proposed development - for both drinking water and construction purposes, should be provided by a de-salination plant. To suggest and propose that the water requirements could be derived from local aquifers seems unreasonable and unwise, given the above-explained vulnerabilities. Point 4 : Impact of the Development Works on the Landscape Identity of East Suffolk The exceptional landscape quality of East Suffolk, The Suffolk River Valleys and the Suffolk Coast is one of the area's primary or foundational assets. It serves as both an anchor and a value multiplier for much of the local economy : through high value food production, processing and retailing; and also through relatively low impact, high income tourism. Recent estimates place the value of the local food and landscape based tourism sector for East Suffolk at over £1billion / annum. The scale, character, duration and above-identified risks of the proposed development do not seem proportionate or sensitive to, nor in keeping with the character and quality of the local landscape and its associated economy. Point 5 : Proposed Energy Supply Prices and Opportunity Cost The proposed supply prices of electricity generated by Sizewell C do not seem to compare favourably to electricity generated by offshore wind or onshore solar installations. From 2012 - 2018 I was responsible for managing the Landscape Management Agreement at Great Glemham Solar Park for BayWa renewables. As a local comparison, this 19MW site provides electricity at a fraction of the cost of nuclear - in terms both of the installation cost per MW generating capacity and the supply price to consumers per KWh. The conventional argument is that we need nuclear to bridge the transition gap between fossil fuel dependency and renewables, primarily onshore solar and offshore wind. In 2003 I spent a year researching onshore and offshore wind power for a farm policy report. It became clear that issues of intermittency in windpower begin to fall away as the grid geography increased - with a geographical grid reach of 1000km at the time being considered a critical threshold at which intermittency issues would begin to subside. With grid connectors now running between the UK and continental Europe, we are reaching this threshold. At the same time, as solar and wind generating technologies are improving, installation costs per MW or GW installed capacity are falling away rapidly - and battery storage technologies are also beginning to follow very similar trajectories, in terms of cost per MW / GW capacity and supply prices for re-released electricity. The time delay in building Sizewell C means that it is very likely - if not certain - that the entire development would be out of date by the time it became operational. The water resource needs, environmental impacts, build costs and electrocity supply costs of the equivalent installed generating capacity for renewables are miniscule by comparison. On most if not all fronts, nuclear power seems to be a fading energy technology. It is also one which generates highly dangerous waste as a bi-product - a waste for which the UK still has no long-term storage capacity. Overall, Sizewell C does not look like a development that is proportionate to or sensitive to the local Suffolk socio-economic and landscape setting. Nor does it seem to stack up financially in terms of installation costs and electricity supply prices, relative to cheaper, low-impact / high yield, less polluting renewable energy sources. Continued innovations in windpower, wave/tidal power and solar, combined with battery storage technoligies, seem to be the future : they are the sectors in which innovation, jobs, commercial opportunities and environmental gain all seem to be clustered; and, given appropriate investment in low-impact transmission infrastructure, they would seem to offer much more appropriate and relevant opportunities for expanded generating capacity in Suffolk and off the county's coastline. To push for or promote further nuclear power development would, from this perspective, certainly have an unneccessary, costly and potentially damaging impact on East Suffolk - whilst also introducing very real risks. A push in this direction, instead of and therefore at the expense of equivalent investment in renewables and associated 21st century grid infrastructure can therefore be viewed as a very real negative opportunity cost for the area : - on the basis that the Planning Inspectorate could instead issue a policy statement that favoured renewables for the area. Note : National Security I include this as an aside, but it seems bizarre that Sizewell C is being proposed in its present form, whilst central government is rapdily stripping out Chinese commercial interests from the UK telecom 5G network on issues of national security. Regardless of the merits or veracity of claims one way or another, there seems a huge inconsistency or contradiction in not applying the same rules to the UK telecoms 5G network and the UK's nuclear power generating capacity. Yours sincerely, Jason Gathorne-Hardy Copy retained. 30th Sept 2020."

GreenSnape
"GreenSnape is an environmental community group with over 100 members. We believe this application poses a significant threat to the environment and rural way of life of Snape village and the wider East Suffolk community. We share the many concerns raised by organisations including the RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, and the AONB. We also endorse the Relevant Representations made by Stop Sizewell C. At a time when the UK has been named one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, we believe this massive infrastructure project would damage irrevocably one of England’s most diverse habitats for wildlife. In particular: 1. 10 hectares of nationally important fen habitat within Sizewell Belts Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) would be concreted over for a four lane access road. Mature woodland which supports crossbills, badger setts, rare white admiral butterflies and nationally important bat populations – particularly the barbastelle - would be destroyed. 2. An area of Sizewell beach would be destroyed by enormous pipes for cooling the reactor. This fragile habitat which includes vegetated shingle, one of the rarest environments in the world, would be lost. 3. Levels of noise and lighting during construction would displace many rare breeding and migrant birds within the SSSI and Minsmere Levels. Changes in water levels in Minsmere’s ditches would impact on rare wetland wildlife - bitterns, marsh harriers, water voles, otters, ducks and wading birds. 4. EDF’s road-based transport plan is not suitable for our rural roads. New roads would fragment wildlife habitats, narrow country roads would become gridlocked, and quiet lanes used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders would become dangerous rat runs. Snape village itself would come to a standstill when LGVs and cars headed for Sizewell C avoiding the A12 converged with all the construction traffic travelling along the A1094 to the Friston energy projects site. The additional traffic on Church Road would also pose a health threat to the children of Snape Primary School. 5. EDF have failed to properly assess the cumulative impact of SZC with the 8 other energy projects proposed for this part of East Suffolk. The development of all these projects in isolation has left local communities, whose very real concerns have largely been ignored, fearful for the future. The industrialisation of the Suffolk coast on this unprecedented scale would be life changing for our rural communities, and for the environment which we have a moral responsibility to protect for future generations. 6. We have a climate emergency right now. SZC would not be up and running until 2035 at the earliest (no nuclear project has ever been on time or on budget) and would take another 6 years to offset the CO2 from construction. At £20 billion and rising SZC is too expensive and too late."

Greg Lusted
"As an interested layperson, it is my opinion that Sizewell C needs to be approved as nuclear power is the only low-carbon power source that can truly match coal and gas on grounds of both scale and dispatchability. It is apparent from observation of real-time electricity sources on websites such as [Redacted] that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, being weather dependent, are unable to make any guarantee of power output (i.e. solar power outputs zero every night, and wind power regularly outputs under 10%, occasionally even 1% of installed capacity), with the remainder of demand having to be met by gas. Meanwhile nuclear power typically operates at full power as standard, only needing to shut down for reduelling or maintenance. Therefore it is clear that if we are serious about replacing fossil fuels we must accept the current high price of nuclear power on the basis of efficacy and the promise of future projects becoming sequentially cheaper due to replication. With regards for safety, I see no reason to doubt the safety of any new British nuclear project, having had no major incidents in commercial nuclear power generation since its inception in the 1950s, nor any measurable public health impacts from those incidents that have occurred."

Hannah Katinka Morris
"This is ruining the environment and nature conserves, causing pollution and offshoring the wealth. We must protect our planet and local communities."

Hayley Chilver
"I am against the construction and running of Sizewell C, for the following reasons; • Irreparable damage to the local environment, which include habitat for a diverse range of wildlife, vegetation and landscape, due to all the construction needs. • Carving up local landscape and villages for transport. Increased traffic in an unsuitable rural area. • Damage to the local economy which thrives on holiday makers.It is not right to use the fact that it will provide more jobs, if this decimates the holiday trade , so many businesses would suffer, some that have been running for decades and others that are newer. If thus happens it means these businesses are worthless, not just in monetary value but compared to Sizewell C, the little people that don't matter. . Concern if there was an accident and the terrble impact this could have, also that how the waste is stored or transported this is another risk. . Impact of long term building work , plus other types of energy could be much more effient by the ti.e the reactor is built."

Hayley Pitwell
"I would like to make representation on the ecological impact, the debts EDF has in France, the impact on the tax payer and the electric bill for UK citizens, the impact on the sssis, the climate and ecological impact, the Paris agreement, the rising sea levels and the public interest."

Henry Turnbull
"I am opposed to the construction at Sizewell C because: It will do untold damage to local wildlife, particularly at RSPB Minsmere. Marsh Harriers and many other birds will be scared away, never to return. The proposed site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The construction work would cut right across a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The construction work would play havoc with water levels and drainage on what is a very fragile ecological site on the Minsmere Level, causing damage that cannot be repaired or mitigated. The site of the project is at risk from coastal erosion and rising sea levels. EDF has not provided nearly enough adequate environmental impact assessments. The construction project would cause massive disruption to the local community. The people of Leiston would suffer severe socio-economic impacts, as they have done before with the construction of Sizewell B. The lucrative local tourist industry would be significantly damaged. The relief road chosen to accommodate the huge amount of extra traffic is the wrong route. There is a more direct and feasible route, which could cause disturbance to far fewer households. Why has this not been chosen? I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Together Against Sizewell C, and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust."

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP on behalf of Heveningham Hall Estate
"1. The Heveningham Hall Estate (HHE) OBJECTS to NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited’s (Promoter’s) application for development consent for the Sizewell C project (the Project). 2. Part of HHE is located south of the temporary Northern Park and Ride site (NPR site) west of Darsham, which forms part of the Project. A proportion of HHE also falls within land to be compulsorily acquired to facilitate the roundabout at Yoxford (plot OHI/24/02). 3. HHE’s objection concerns three principal grounds: ecology; transport and heritage. ECOLOGY Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment (Shadow HRA) 4. The air quality work that underpins the conclusions in the Shadow HRA is incomplete, such that the assessment is not informed by the best available scientific evidence and there are lacunae. (a) Only a limited number of receptor locations used for modelling (usually only one per designated site) and no justification for the location selections. (b) No assessment of ammonia deposition in Environmental Statement (ES). In contrast, see Institute of Air Quality Management’s May 2020 guidance. (c) Promoter assumes predicted exceedance of critical loads and levels for nitrogen oxides concentration, nutrient nitrogen and acid deposition are only relevant to “proportions of the site immediately adjacent the road”. This conflicts with Natural England guidance. Promoter should quantify or model the geographical extent of effects to enable consideration of potential ecological effects. (d) Save for two brief references, there is no evidence that Promoter has considered other plans or projects to identify in combination effects. 5. Assessment of recreational effects not supported by best available scientific evidence and there are issues with Promoter’s approach. (a) Out-of-date data from 2014/2015 informs baseline position on visitor pressure. (b) Focus on the DCO application with no consideration of other plans and projects to identify in combination effects. A material oversight. (c) Reliance on a Rights of Way and Access Strategy to mitigate potential significant effects on designated sites, yet the strategy has no specific details on the affected sites or any proposed measures. (d) Draft s.106 Heads of Terms refer to European sites contingency fund to “support measures where monitoring identifies a potential risk of harm occurring as a result of additional use of these areas” arising from recreational displacement. Also reference to ‘resilience funds’ for RSPB Minsmere and the National Trust Dunwich Heath and Beech relating to “increased use by visitors or works and potential visitor displacement as a result of the Sizewell C project”. The need for these funds undermines conclusions in the Shadow HRA that the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of any European sites. Promoter appears to agree that there is uncertainty. Also no clarity as to precisely which avoidance/mitigation measures this would fund, the mechanism for remedial work if required or how this would be agreed with the relevant authorities. 6. Promoter’s compensatory measures for marsh harriers have not been finalised and are uncertain. (a) Feasibility and Design Report not provided. Impossible to assess assumptions and calculations to ensure these are robust. (b) Doubt over adequacy of compensatory measures: Promoter proposes to replace wetlands with 48.7 hectares of terrestrial habitat, which is less than half the size of habitat to be lost. (c) No information provided regarding scope, timings or methodology for monitoring surveys. (d) Unclear whether the methodology for quantifying marsh harrier foraging behaviour to inform compensatory measures is based on precedent. If not, there is uncertainty over the likelihood of success. NPR site 7. There are significant issues with the ecological surveys undertaken at NPR site. (a) Most surveys informing baseline at NPR site undertaken over 3 years ago (most 5 years ago). Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management advises reports based on data over 3 years old unlikely to still be valid. Updated surveys required, otherwise Promoter’s conclusions on potential effects weak and open to challenge. (b) Limited (if any) weight should be attached to 2018 walkover survey given lack of information about methodology, scope or findings. (c) Promoter has failed to assess whether NPR site supports protected species, specifically roosting bats and reptiles. Further work is also needed to establish whether use of the site by badgers has changed. 8. Promoter’s assessment of ecological effects is weak in a number of areas. (a) Assumptions that Great Crested Newt meta-population is spread across 6 ponds is not supported by evidence and is based on aquatic data for one pond, which is over 5 years old. Assumptions about the A12 representing a fundamental barrier to the movements of newts are incorrect. (b) Lack of clarity in relation to the condition and value of habitats both within and adjacent to the site, including Little Nursery Wood. 9. Doubts over adequacy of proposed mitigation measures, which are scant on detail and inconsistent. (a) To protect roosting bats, ES advises that lighting along Little Nursery Wood will not exceed 0.1 lux. However, the Illustrative Lighting Plan (Figure 2.5) shows greater light levels (potentially 7.5 lux). (b) Ecology chapter refers to 20 metre buffer between the development and Little Nursery Wood, yet no details provided regarding the composition or design of this zone. (c) ES states there will be 10 metre buffer between the development and the on-site pond recorded to support a population of Great Crested Newts. However, certain drawings show works in this zone and details are unclear. (d) Considerable uncertainty regarding restoration of NPR site post construction, as the retention of any mitigation planting remains to be agreed with the landowner. Yoxford Roundabout site (YR site) 10. Additional work needed to ascertain the presence or absence of protected Sandy Stilt Puffball, roosting bats and reptiles from within the site. Otherwise, impossible to grant a legally robust consent. 11. Inconsistencies within surveys. E.g. dust report asserts there are no sensitive habitats within 500 metres, yet Roadside Nature Reserve 197 (a non-statutory designated site which the Promoter has assessed to be of national importance) is immediately adjacent. TRANSPORT The Transport Strategy 12. No justification for lack of marine-led strategy. Some abnormal indivisible loads (AILs) to use road. DfT has a “water preferred” AILs policy. No information on numbers of AILs using beach landing facility (BLF)/road. No information on anticipated use of BLF. Justification for road based AILs and underutilisation of BLF required. 13. Shift arrivals/departures should be staggered particularly at peak times. Clarification required whether shift patterns in Transport Assessment (TA) Appendix 7B are to be employed or if only used for worst case scenario modelling. 14. Tidal movements of 3000 on campus/caravan workers Friday evenings/Monday mornings not obviously included in trip generation and model. Confirmation required. 15. On campus/caravan workers not distributed in the gravity model (TA Appendix 7A). 16. Average vehicle occupancy at NPR is given as 1.06 (1,230 workers in 1,158 vehicles; Table 2 of Appendix 7A); this is lower than the range of 1.10-1.54 assumed in TA for home-based and non-home-based workers respectively. Clarification required. 17. Various mathematical inaccuracies in TA Appendix 7B. See tables: (a) 3 and 4 - sum of the workers in the second column is not 580 but 531; (b) 5 - NPR predicted to be used by 1,221 main site workers. 1,230 recorded in Gravity Model (Table 2 of Appendix 7A) and a total of 1,419 workers (they were 1,429)); (c) 6 – Suggests 970 total vehicle trips (of main site workers) predicted to use NPR, while Table 2 of the Gravity Model suggests 1,158 trips. 18. Some data unclear in TA appendix 7B (e.g. did Visum model include “busiest day” or “typical day” HGV figures during the peak construction scenario?). See Tables: (a) 2 - what does “or 20 / 30 / 30 / 20” in Early Shift row (last column) refer to? (b) 8, 9 and 32 - Tables 8 and 9 set out assumptions in relation to lead time for arrival trips to main site and lag time for departure trips from main site, respectively. Why does Table 9 not include allowance for waiting for the bus (like in Table 8)? Same query Table 32; (c) 13 - Car park accumulation during peak construction estimated through arrivals/departures profiles, assuming, however, `base level’ of occupancy during quietest hour of the day. How was 69 cars base level calculated for NPR (Table 13 – between 02:00 and 03:00)? (d) 26 - Why no bus journeys shown in some hours (e.g. between 09:00 and 13:00, including the column of the NPR?) Does it mean no buses will run? 19. Inconsistent use of Junctions 9 (J9) in standalone junction modelling. Base scenario of the YR not modelled in J9. Other junctions modelled in Vissim and J9. Explanation required. 20. Modelled queues at Darsham level crossing do no match observed queues (see Figures 8 to 13 of the Technical Note at Appendix 9B). Not even “reasonably well matched” (see Paragraph 4.3.6 of the Technical Note (Doc Ref 8.5)). Typical conditions not modelled. Tables 12, 13 and 14 misleading as all individual sections of the routes appear to meet WebTAG criteria (“Pass”). 21. No evidence for assumption that North/South HGV distribution is 15%/85%. Evidence to be provided. HGV routes queries. HGVs appear (from the plans) to use the B1122 even east of the new link (via a roundabout) with the Sizewell Link Road (SLR), some 800 metres east of the Yoxford roundabout. Is that right? Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) does not specify how many HGVs are anticipated to arrive from south and how many from north. 22. Total and daily numbers of AILs not assessed. AIL route assessment not yet undertaken. Considered required for DCO to properly assess impacts on local roads and villages. 23. Not yet clear that impact assessment relies on solid and flawless assumptions and models. Whole assessment is to be questioned. NPR site 24. Site selection process fundamentally flawed: (a) Not a “rail and bus interchange”. 100 workers predicted to come by train daily, across two stations, Darsham and Saxmundham; i.e. around 50 at Darsham (see Table 7.1 of the TA). Increase in rail mode share not predicted/encouraged in Construction Worker Travel Plan (CWTP). Shuttle bus could easily include a stop at Darsham to collect these workers. Reality is NPR could be anywhere on A12. (b) No assessment of Darsham level crossing. Fails to acknowledge risks associated with the crossing. 25. Inconsistencies in data in numbers of hourly and daily bus movements. Also appears that there are hours with no bus services. Are there 322 daily bus movements (See Table 7.1 of TA – 644 assumed to be split 50-50% between NPR/Southern Park and Ride (SPR)) or 198 (Table 26 of the Technical Note at Appendix 7B of TA)? Clarifications required. 26. Gravity model has produced unreliable results. Workers living west of Saxmundham are predicted (Plate 7.4 of TA) to use NPR when they live closer to SPR. Workers living adjacent to the NPR are predicated to drive to the main development site. Query if TA numbers therefore reliable. 27. No evidence that NPR needs 1250 car parking spaces to meet demand. TA suggests 1006 max number needed at construction peak. Say 1056 (5% buffer). Could be less given flaws in gravity model. 28. No direct pedestrian connections to Darsham station. Link to southbound platform and footbridge to northbound platform could have been provided. Lack of connections surprising given suggestion is NPR located at station to create multi-modal hub. 29.Pedestrian infrastructure at Darsham station includes narrow footways and a level crossing. Mitigation package proposes no improvements to existing provision. Existing provision may present challenges for mobility impaired workers. Upgrades required. 30. Network Rail’s (NR’s) risk rating for Darsham level crossing is F2, with an Individual risk rating: F (Moderate), and Collective risk rating: 2 (Very High). “Very high” is one step below max level. NR identify key risks as: (a) Crossing is near a Station (b) Large Numbers of HGVs (c) Large Numbers of Users (d) Sun Glare (e) Deliberate Misuse or User Error (f) Blocking Back Addition of 150 HGVs (15% of 1000 HGVs from/to the north) plus 322 bus journeys (or perhaps 198 bus journeys) could exacerbate the Collective risk rating. Fundamental highway safety issue overlooked in the evidence base. 31. NPR would result in “unacceptable impact on highway safety”, (para 109 NPPF); it should be located elsewhere, or mitigation proposed to lessen the impact to an acceptable level. 32. Promoter needs to justify current NPR location. Alternative locations for NPR should also be explored, as there are better options. YR 33. Fundamental flaws in J9 modelling. Geometries manipulated to replicate anticipated driver behaviour and predicted uneven lane usage – J9 model is able to carry this out with Lane Simulation tool. Promoter should update model accordingly. Model therefore underestimates capacity, overestimates queues/delays. Existing layout (simple priority) to be modelled too in all base/forecast scenarios to demonstrate need for a roundabout. 34. Clarification required why roundabout designed for max RFC 0.77; RFC 0.85 would be expected, potentially RFC 1.00 during peak hours of peak construction period (i.e. limited time period where degree of queues and delays acceptable). Roundabout oversized. 35. Vissim model does not replicate observed queues “reasonably well” as validation report claims. Reliability of its outcome questioned. 36. No evidence junction requires a 60m ICD roundabout to offset development impact. Evidence needed to demonstrate why smaller one inappropriate. 37. Central overrunable / demountable island with demountable signs and bollards to be used for AILs should be removed and AILs rerouted to BLF. Overrunable / demountable areas should be removed at end of construction period. 38. Given inconsistencies, flaws and errors, query whether transport assessment can be relied on. 39. At the written representations stage Promoter will be asked to explain/justify various points, including: what has been agreed with stakeholders e.g. Suffolk County Council and NR; the size and location of NPR (including impact on Darsham level crossing), underutilisation of BLF; over-engineering of YR. HERITAGE 40. For circa 12 years construction traffic will pass through towns and villages that contain heritage assets. E.g. approximately 150 heritage assets are located on HGV/park & ride (P&R) bus routes noted in TA and CTMP, including Grade 1 and Grade II* buildings and scheduled ancient monuments (based on HGV routes 1a, 2a, 3a on Plate 3.2 and 1b, 2b, 3b on Plate 3.3. of CTMP and P&R routes on TA Plate 7.5). Yet the Promoter has only assessed the effect of construction traffic on heritage assets near the two village bypass, YR and SLR during the “operational” phase. A material oversight given significant construction volumes. At peak construction (busiest day) 12,694 movements are predicted by the Promoter and 12,342 movements (typical day) (excluding motorcycles/mopeds): (a) TA includes following daily figures: 10,092 car trips (Table 7.2); 702 LGV movements (Table 7.3 and Table 7.1); 1140 HGV movements (busiest day) (Table 7.4; Table 7.1 states 1000 HGV movements); 790 HGV movements (typical day) (Table 7.4; Table 7.1 states 650 HGV movements); 700 P&R bus movements (Table 7.5; Table 7.1 states 644 bus movements); 24 shuttle bus movements (Table 7.1); 32 coach trips (Table 7.6); (b) CTMP predicts 2.2 AILs daily (paragraph 3.3.11 CTMP) based on 4 abnormal deliveries by road per day on 50-60% of days. 41. Other concerns not addressed by Promoter include: (a) the need to ensure character of ancient settlements/landscape not eroded by accretive change in vehicular movements. Noise and visual intrusion can be very harmful in rural settings and 12 years is a long time; (b) even small changes in a sensitive setting can be harmful; (c) noise and visual mitigation measures may be inappropriate for heritage assets (e.g. additional glazing or screen planting); (d) deposits from vehicle exhausts may damage or effect the appearance of heritage assets; (e) given its proximity to YR, unassessed effects on Cockfield Hall. 42. Heavy volumes of daily construction traffic (including HGVs/AILS) over circa 12 years may adversely affect the setting (rural or otherwise) and therefore the significance of certain designated heritage assets. While some assets located on the A12 may already experience some noise and visual intrusion, it cannot be assumed that there will be “no harm” without assessment. 43. Some assets on HGV/P&R routes include places of quiet contemplation, faith and remembrance and therefore may be particularly sensitive to additional noise intrusion (even a minor change may have significant adverse effects on setting). As all of these heritage assets are Christian places of worship, Equality Act 2010 considerations are engaged. Promoter has not carried out an assessment. Compensation 44. Compensation considered most appropriate, since mitigation or compensatory measures in respect of each potentially affected heritage asset would be impracticable. A historic environment fund should be established and secured by s.106 agreement from which sums can be drawn down for compensatory measures relating to specific assets, or groups of assets, at a later date. Appendix 8.4J (Draft Section 106 Heads of Terms) proposes various different funds; none relates to the historic environment. Petition 45. TASC and SSC have launched an on-line petition asking the public to confirm their objection to the application. The petition has already been signed by 9300 people."

Historic England
"The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (HBMCE) is better known as Historic England, and we are the Government’s adviser on all aspects of the historic environment in England - including historic buildings and areas, archaeology and historic landscape. We have a duty to promote conservation, public understanding and enjoyment of the historic environment. We are an executive Non-Departmental public body and we answer to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Digital Culture, Media and Sport. In addition to our remit for the conservation of the historic environment the National Heritage Act (2002) gave HBMCE responsibility for maritime archaeology in the English area of the UK Territorial Sea. Please note we do not intend to attend the preliminary hearing, we will however be submitting full written representation at a later date. We summarise our representation for this project as follows. Representation: 1. Introduction The proposal is to build and operate a new nuclear power station, and will consist of two new nuclear reactors and associated infrastructure. 2. Onshore Historic Environment We note the applicant has provided a full Environmental Statement which includes a detailed historic environment chapter (Chapter 16 Vol 2). Our primary consideration is the impact of the main development site (platform and reactors) upon the significance of two designated heritage assets known as the Leiston Abbey First and Second Sites. The first site is the initial foundation of a community of Premonstratensian monks in the marshes to the north of Sizewell, and the second the ruins of the re-located priory to the west of the development. This is known to have some of the finest surviving architectural ruins in the County and publically accessible. We have previously raised concerns about impacts on the significance of these assets during the construction phase and with regards to the residual impact of the proposal during the lifetime of the project. We intend to further explore the degree to which these effects have been considered within the submitted version of the ES. The proposal also includes new rail infrastructure which would be close to Leiston Abbey (Second site), and additional impacts arising from this element of the scheme will also be considered in more detail. We are also aware the development will result in a range of potentially significant impacts on a number of other designated and non-designated heritage assets, particular in relation to the link road, the two-village by pass, park and ride and freight management facility and the Yoxford roundabout. 3. Marine Historic environment Chapter 23 of Volume 2 of the ES presents the assessment of potential effects of the proposed development on the marine historic environment. Whilst we are aware there are no designated heritage assets present in the offshore works area, and the potential for a significant effect on the marine historic environment is considered to be low. There is a range of known heritage assets in the area surrounding offshore works area and in the intertidal zone, and we will consider the potential impact upon the marine historic environment. 4. Archaeology and Peat Strategy Archaeological investigations within the redline boundaries have identified extensive archaeological remains and surviving pre-historic peat deposits. We consider there is the potential for significant effects and we will therefore be considering the proposed Archaeological (see Volume 2, Appendix 16H) and Peat Strategies (Volume 2, Appendix 16G) in more detail. 5. Summary Historic England’s primarily concern is to ensure that the historic environment is adequately and appropriately considered within the submitted ES, and that any concerns we have previously raised have been addressed. Likewise, that the DCO is worded to ensure appropriate mitigation for the historic environment and the dissemination of the result. Our full written representation will therefore make further, detail comment with regards to the impact of the scheme upon the on and off-shore historic environment, and the archaeological and peat strategies. Dr Will Fletcher [Redacted]"

Holly Scholfield
"The Suffolk coast is a beautiful place. I believe this is the wrong project in the wrong place. The impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. We have dark skies here, free from light pollution. I am very worried about the damage to the environment, the RSPB is so close by, and yet seems to be ignored. The risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology. l and the impact on marine biology. Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; the construction severs the AONB. As a resident of the area I am incredibly concerned with the planned road led strategy which will cause chaos along the A12 not to mention the small local roads along which people and wildlife live. I am concerned that the different energy projects happening locally are not working together with progressive forward thinking ideas, helping to shape a cleaner world for our children and grandchildren and free from nuclear waste. Why are EDF energy not working closely with Scottish Power renewables to assess the accumulative impacts of the different projects? New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. Rat-running and disruption not adequately considered. I am also wondering who would want to come on holiday to the energy coast during and after the build - the view from Walberswick will be horrendous, as we have seen from the construction work at Hinkley. The tourism sector provides a huge amount of jobs in the area and helps to define the character of Suffolk."

Howard Nash
"I oppose the Sizewell C development and urge the Inspector to REFUSE permission. There are numerous individual grounds for doing so, each of them sufficient in itself to justify withholding consent, and which collectively make up an overwhelming case against the development. Further enlargement of this site is fundamentally unacceptable, and unmitigated by any commitment by the industry to ensure the recovery of the natural environment on the site vacated by the decommissioning of Sizewell A. The preservation of the natural beauty, tranquillity and biodiversity of the Suffolk coast is of vital importance not only to residents of East Suffolk but to the many visitors from further afield who come in search of respite from urban life. Its enormous popularity with day visitors and holiday makers from London, Essex, Cambridge and the Midlands speaks for itself. It is their escape, their green lung, their recreation and their chance to reconnect with an undisturbed natural and marine environment and its wildlife. The issues of concern raised by this development include: Among the many issues of concern raised by this development are the following: • Loss of habitat and reduced biodiversity • Visual intrusion on a vast scale • Light pollution of night skies over wide areas of land and sea • Impact on the AONB and other nationally and internationally designated sites • Impact of high volume of construction traffic in a rural area • Combined /cumulative effect of this project and other energy-related projects on the special character of East Suffolk generally • Potential loss of tourism and impact on the local economy • Increased public health risks and pressure on health services • Potential impact of hard flood defences on locations elsewhere on coastline from unpredictable changes in natural maritime processes • Safety concerns from flood risk potential • Reduction in water table (already falling due to climate change and agricultural abstraction practices • Increased demand in the local housing market leading to further development pressures across the district Author: Howard Nash September 2020"

Iain Brown
"I am registering to object to building a twin nuclear reactor, Sizewell C, adjacent to Sizewell A & B I also endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Suffolk DMO. It is also unacceptable to have the Sizewell C application at this time of Covid -19. The DCO process should be halted until in-person hearings can be held. The main objections are as follows: Coastal erosion and climate change makes it a risky prospect for all on an unsuitably small site. This could become an island of 5 nuclear reactors and untold stored waste. There will be the destruction of AONB, Dunwich Marshes, Sandlings SSI and other protected areas. And the combined effect of 4 Wind Farm projects, plus 4 National Grid interconnectors will blight the Coastal region for Generations. This construction of 10 energy projects will paralyse the region for up to 20 or 30 years, with another 10-20 years to re-wild again. Subsequent negative social impact on local communities is severe. With 6000 + workers incoming, the policing and social strains will be immense. Who will be liable for this? The negative impact on local businesses as local labour leave to service construction, then have nothing to return to. Tourism affected – Suffolk DMO predicted loss of up to £40m pa and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors may be deterred. The local community impacts of villages affected, traffic congestion, increase in noise, light and air pollution, resulting in on negative impact on health, social and emergency services. Flooding, coastal erosion, drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond are major concerns. Adversely affecting the landscape character because of location and scale. The construction cuts through the AONB - Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage and its loss."

Ian Culf
"Cumulative impact of this project alongside the multiple Energy NSIP’s coming forward on this coast requires consideration as the current plans would result in chaos. An early overview from the Inspectorate to the Secretary of State would be vital on this subject. Despite the 8 years of involvement in this project, the lack of in-depth detail is astounding, and of the information provided sufficient amounts to give concern require further challenging and interrogation. Mental wellbeing of residents affected by the process so far lasting 8 years and ongoing into the future, stress. Additional burdens relating to COVID restrictions – learning new ways of communicating for all – leaves residents feeling confused and disenfranchised. Lack of acknowledgement by the applicant of the rural Parish’s input by those most nearly affected by the application. Woefully insufficient mitigation for the areas locally affected. Unacceptable road over rail and sea bias for transport of materials. It would have an unreasonably adverse impact on local communities, and significantly damage the important tourism economy and the wider area. Irreparable damage potentially to be caused to Minsmere and other RAMSAR / AONB land, together with biodiversity reduction, no amount of ‘recreation’ can replace these. Socio – Economic - with in excess of 80% of the construction work and workforce projected to be based in the parish of Leiston-cum Sizewell, the effect on residents needs to be acknowledged and mitigated for. Currently there has been no reassurance that promised apprenticeships and skills are primarily sourced through Alde Valley Academy and Suffolk College on the Coast which is of great importance. Alde Valley Academy must be the GO TO place of education to fill these skills and the possible 900 permanent jobs. Emergency services support, so as not to have deficiencies of cover and availability during construction. There is no mention of how this would be mitigated against yet. Campus - alternative options for location of this campus offered require real consideration by EDF; there is no legacy for the current site(s), which will have significant impact on local communities due to their location, noise, light, pollution particularly by traffic and also notably social pressures. Lack of meaningful engagement with Parishes affected. There has been no recognition that the relief road and all other significant infrastructure works ought to be completed prior to commencement of building SZC to date. Sizewell Link Road - EDF has not offered justification for the choice of the current route. The current route is without legacy or merit. B1122, Sizewell Gap Road – no acceptable solution offered for the first 2 years usage before completion of the Link Road, or mitigation to make safe the latter. Currently suggested usage of both, causing an unreasonable burden on residents in close proximity to the B1122 and users of the Sizewell Gap Road together with similarly situated residents in proximity to other access roads both immediately surrounding and approaching. So far no confidence that any economic boom will not result in a corresponding bust. Housing – displacement of private rentals. Even though there may be a housing fund this will not help those families already embedded within the community who will be left homeless (family/job/school/mental health) Tourism – all sectors in tourism may suffer due to lack of accommodation/traffic/noise/light tripadvisor will play an important part as bad reviews will have an ever lasting impact on the whole district. Legacy has to be placed to stop Leiston repeating as a boom and bust town, being left in a disgrace once again. A12 4 village bypass is paramount, there is time to look into this. Some items are way beyond mitigation or compensation Ian Culf"

Ian Gordon
"The scheme as proposed should be rejected. The local issues which particularly concern me include the following: (1) road transport disruption. The road network cannot reasonably support the volume of site traffic proposed. (2) there is a failure to take the opportunity to upgrade public transport, including reopening a passenger service from Saxmundham to Leiston (3) the adverse impact on tourism, the lifeblood of employment in the local area, is unacceptable (4) the development phase would involve the destruction of areas of natural beauty (5) the environmental impact, noise/pollution is unacceptable. Additional grounds for objection (6) unacceptable economics and (7) a threat to national security in terms of Chinese and French involvement and (8) we need to see a “successful” completion of Hinckley before consideration for this scheme."

Ian Taylor
"1. Renewables are cheaper and have been quicker to bring online than nuclear. 2. Renewables provide far more jobs than nuclear 3. Whilst nuclear power produces less green house gases than solar, the mining and disposing of nuclear material generates relatively significant amounts of greenhouse gases I am representing the future health and well being of my children and generations to come, as well as that of an ecosytem to support them Ian Taylor,[Redacted]"

Ibby Alcraft
"I am raising the following points of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Impact on Environment and Landscape - Minsmere is a flagship destination of national importance, recognised by many environment experts. Sizewell C will destroy the majority of this site. - the construction period requires millions of litres of portable water, where will this be re drained - impossible to compensate ecological damage in a rapid global climate crisis - It won't offset CO2 emissions for years - uncertainty, based on all EDFs other projects, of construction length and cost. - flooding - Sizewell C has not addressed impact on proposed borrow pits and landfill. 2. Social and community - visitor economy: will hugely damage the tourist industry on which many locals rely for their entire income. e.g. The Cow Shed Farm and Eels foot east bridge. - it will devastate local communities with traffic, noise pollution, light pollution. -6,000 workers will come and live in an area - 2,400 in a worker campus in a location I think unsuitable, and oppose. -huge pressure on local renting sector, which is already a struggle for low-income families such as mine. -pressures on health, social and emergency services, impact on vulnerable people. -local people will realistically be offered majority low-skilled, low paid and temporary jobs. there is no exact proposal, empirically, for the number of suggested high-paid employment opportunities for local people. - tourism, which many early school leavers in our community go into, may loose £40m a year as a result of Sizewell C, jobs will be lost. 3. Coastal and Marin processes - unpredictable rates of erosion -damage to marine ecology -effect on Minsmere sluice. 3. Transport - plans for road based transport are unsuitable. Huge damage to many local communities and visitor economy. - farmland would be divided by the proposed roads, and communities divided. -alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately addressed by EDF. 4. Motives of the project - planned cost to taxpayer in order to secure profits for EDF and investors is unacceptable. - unclear whether the cite will be provide weapons research in years to come. 5. Site Selection - The site choice is confusingly irresponsible given the risk from rapid climate change, sea level rise and flooding - likely impact on coastal processes - the area could become an island with five nuclear reactors and stored waste. - 8 additional, uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality. 6. Application - The wording of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement. - Inaccessible and deliberately evasive nature of the planning process regarding local communities. I believe it has been undemocratic. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by RSPB, SWT and Stop Sizewell C and TASC. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be unsuitable for digital examination process."

J Buckland
"Issues of concern I wish to raise about Sizewell C. 1. Suitability / risks of Sizewell as a site: The area suffers coastal erosion, project will further impact this - sea landing site likely to cause knock on effects along coastline due to shingle movements Too close to Minsmere Reserve, an area of exceptional and international importance. Heritage Coast - the natural beauty and tranquility will be destroyed Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - it will be damaged and divided up by construction. Current climate emergency - rising sea levels is a real risk especially along this coastline which is low lying - presents long term safety concerns for building reactors here Proximity of the site to a highly populated and farmed area. The safety of the area should there be any form of accident and contamination would be devastating to millions of people and affect food production. Impact to local communities - villages and towns very close to site, likely to adversely affect them The area is too small to sustain a development of this scale - it is not remote enough 2. Impact on local communities and tourism: Significant increases to HGV traffic, noise, congestion, traffic and light pollution - disruptive to local residents. Massive strain on existing infrastructure and health services Influx of workers to the area - pressure on housing, sites to build extra accommodation for workers Villages are not designed to sustain years of continual heavy traffic increases. Construction of new roads would damage land, interfere with footpaths and cause traffic disruption Quality of life for existing residents will be negatively impacted by these disruptions. Especially stressful for elderly or vulnerable residents Negative impact on tourism - potential visitors to Heritage Coast deterred both during and after building due to massive changes to the area Sections of beaches and footpaths likely to be closed impacting on public access, rights of way, enjoyment of the area 3. Environmental damage: Minsmere - there will be irreparable damage to a Special Protection Area, threats to protected wildlife including Marsh Harriers, rare plants and species Minsmere, the most important bird reserve in UK should not be put at risk Landfill issues - excavation and disposal of materials for such a massive development. Toxic waste / spent fuel will have to be kept on Suffolk’s eroding coast for 100+ years High levels of dust pollution, noise and traffic pollution causing health issues Light pollution causing disruption to wildlife and residents Scale of project will negatively impact and change the landscape forever The risk of contamination and harm from safety incidents / accidents can only be classed as a high risk due to close proximity to people, wildlife and marine environments Risks to groundwater and increased sea pollution Marine ecology will be impacted Flood risks at the site - coastal erosions and rising sea levels could result in site becoming an island in the future Impossible to compensate for the damage to wildlife, landscapes and ecology Quick recovery of rare habitats is not possible Increase CO2 emissions from the construction of the site over many years I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by RSPB. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process due to its complexity"

J Chanay
"EN010012 Relevant Representation: Sizewell C New Nuclear Power Station DCO Application CONTENTS 1. Representation resource capacity: gross asymmetry 2. Radioactive waste 2.1 APP-192 para.7.7.20: Low Level Radioactive Waste Facility 2.2 APP-183 Figure 2.2: Proposed on-site Spent Fuel Storage Facility (Building 44) and Intermediate Level Waste Storage Facility (Building 45) 2.3 No defensible justification on avoidable preference for SZC, a radioactive waste producing DCO Project 3. Need justification questionable 3.1 APP-062: Statement of Reasons 3.2 APP-590 & APP-591: 8.4 Planning Statement & Appendix 8.4A Site Selection Report 4. APP-066: Funding Statement: insufficient information 5. APP-344: Major Accidents and Disasters 1. Representation resource capacity: gross asymmetry 1.1 As lay Interested Party, lacking necessary resource capacity to commission expert appraisal of the SZC DCO Application, any representation is bound to fall short of adequacy. 2. Radioactive waste 2.1 APP-192 para.7.7.20: Low Level Radioactive Waste Facility What is the plan for LLW in the event of backlog accumulation resulting from delay in availability of new disposal facilities? What annual radioactivity inventory might that be? 2.2 APP-183 Figure 2.2: Proposed on-site Spent Fuel Storage Facility (Building 44) and Intermediate Level Waste Storage Facility (Building 45) 2.2.1. Lack of information on annual and cumulative lifespan radioactivity inventory in each Facility: APP-192 para.7.7.73. 2.2.2. Lack of information on what entity is guaranteed to be around to decommission these on-site Facilities after 120 years: APP-192 paras 7.7.89 and 7.7.92. 2.2.3. Neither Facility is designated an NSIP under section 14 of the PA2008. The following reasonably warrant deletion from Schedule 1, Work No. 1A of the dDCO (APP-059) and from any Grant of DCO by the Decision Maker: (f) intermediate level waste store, including structures and plant; (g) interim spent fuel store, including associated structures and plant; and, (h) (xxx) interim spent fuel store equipment storage building. 2.2.4. In planning terms, on what basis are these three facilities not properly classed as standalone non-NSIP developments in their own right, subject by default to land use planning consents determination under the TCPA 1990? It would be inappropriate to deem these facilities as permitted development under any Grant of SZC DCO. 2.2.5. It could not be acceptable for the Applicant to include these buildings in the SZC DCO Application while withholding information on design details, elevation and construction commencement (relative to commissioning the first reactor), until after winning a Grant of DCO for SZC: APP-590 para.4.8.4, as well as a vague para.7.7.68 in APP-192. 2.2.6 Furthermore, the Applicant seeks to avoid direct obligation (and, legitimate expectation) under APP-192 para.7.7.93. The Applicant inexplicably expects taxpayers (or, some other unnamed entity) to establish and provide a centralised spent fuel interim storage facility, as alternative to on-site interim storage. This is surely, as it properly ought to be, the responsibility of radioactive waste producer(s). 2.3 No defensible justification on avoidable preference for SZC, a radioactive waste producing DCO Project 2.3.1 Misleading and inadequate Section 56 Public Notice published in national newspapers (for example, The Times on 8 July 2020). Under the “main aspects of the Project”, the Applicant inexplicably failed to inform the wider public of on-site storage of highly radioactive waste. It is a particularly egregious omission given, a. that on-site storage has a proposed lifespan of twice (if not three times) the life span of the SZC nuclear generating station itself; and, b. the continuing and proposed accumulation of highly radioactive waste is proving to be a most intractable and significant long term waste problem in the UK. After nearly 80 years of waste production and accumulation, there exists no proven environmentally sound permanent disposal solution for highly radioactive waste. Verified reliable technology, materials and solution (GDF) evidently does not yet exist in the UK. 2.3.2 Ensured safe containment integrity of nuclear waste burial over 250,000 years into a distant future remains unproven. Nine years on from the 2011 conclusions in nuclear NPS EN-6 at para.2.11.1 and section B5, respectively, there’s not even an indication of availability of a suitable GDF site anywhere in the UK. Moreover, proof of evidence on ensured technical achievement is not in sight either, failing the 1976 RCEP Recommendation 27 test: “demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt”. In the absence of proven up to date evidence from the UK Government on a UK operating GDF, in respect of EN-6 para.2.11.4, the ExA could not reasonably disregard materially significant implication of: a. Recommendation 27 of the 1976 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP); and, b. a salient fact noted by the former Chief Inspector (HM Inspectorate of Pollution) Dr Allan Duncan, in a Letter to the Editor of The Times newspaper, published on 19 September 2020. There’s false equivalence afoot between low carbon nuclear electricity generation and other low carbon modes of electricity generation. None of the latter create, produce or generate a 250,000-year legacy burden of highly radiotoxic nuclear waste for future generations. 2.3.3 Regarding APP-590 para.7.3.87, EN-6 para 2.11.4 ought not necessarily constitute an insurmountable absolute bar on the ExA for all time, regardless of circumstances, for the purpose of taking into account and considering such material matters as identified in the Royal Commission’s Recommendation and in Dr Allan Duncan’s Letter. Moreover, the persisting manifest deficiency on ensured safe permanent disposal of radioactive waste from the proposed SZC DCO project could be said to negate the entirety of para.11.1.20 in APP-590. Not the least, considering the daunting requirement on ensuring safe bio/geo-chemical and geophysical isolation of buried nuclear waste radioisotopes and actinides from geological, surface and sub-surface biospheres for prolonged periods up to 250,000 years. 2.3.4 In all respects, the SZC DCO Application comprises rank failure to evidence low-carbon alternatives for equivalent electricity generation capacity that do not inflate the radioactive waste legacies. 3. Need justification questionable 3.1 APP-062: Statement of Reasons 3.1.1 The Applicant claims need for SZC is a done deal (paras 7.5.3-7.5.11, inclusive), by virtue of the 2011 NPSs EN-1 and EN-6, while accepting unreservedly “it is no longer possible for deployment to take place by the end of 2025” (para.7.5.4). a. Could EN-6 be construed as justifying established need for new nuclear beyond 2025? Arguably not. Presumption on need was limited to DCO proposals deployable by the end of 2025. That presumption could not be relevant consideration in the determination of SZC DCO Application. Strategic assessments of need, impact and alternatives beyond 2025 simply do not exist: section 6(7) of the PA2008, referring. APP-590 para.3.9.4 would appear misconceived. b. The 2011 nuclear NPS did not set out level of urgent need beyond 2025. EN-6 anchored “urgent” need for new nuclear to a 2011-2025 timeframe. Deployment beyond 2025 could not reasonably continue to be regarded as meeting defined urgent need beyond 2025. 3.1.2 Reliance on a 2017 Ministerial Statement (para.7.5.5), and on a consultation on a proposed new nuclear NPS (para.7.5.6), would not appear material. Neither document complies fully with requirements of section 6(7) of the PA2008. 3.1.3 Lack of evidence in APP-062 proving no realistic prospect of alternative modes of electricity generation being able to produce a comparable amount of low carbon electricity on a comparable timescale (para.7.5.9). 3.2 APP-590 & APP-591: 8.4 Planning Statement & Appendix 8.4A Site Selection Report 3.2.1 APP-591 para.1.2.10: see section 3.1, above. 3.2.2 APP-591 para.1.2.11 studiously ignores “relevant change of circumstances” spelt out in the Ministerial Statement to Parliament on 17 January 2019. Particularly, in respect of the economics of the energy market subsequent to adoption of the EN-6 NPS in 2011. 3.2.3 APP-591 paras 1.2.15-19: until Parliamentary requirements under section 6(7) of the PA2008 are fully satisfied, the Sizewell site reverts to the status of nominated site for deployment of nuclear new build between 2026 and 2035. The Applicant accepts in APP-590 para.3.9.2 that “NPS EN-1 and EN-6 do not formally have effect to the Sizewell C DCO application”. a. To that extent, the Applicant could not therefore seek to take advantage of the 2011 NPS EN-6 under APP-650 paras 7.3.28-35, inclusive, and paras 11.1.1-8, inclusive, respectively. b. It is not clear whether the Applicant has established in full requisite assessment evidence necessary for appropriate site designation, in order for the proposed DCO nuclear power station to be considered properly by the ExA for the site in question. Sections 3.8 and 3.9 in APP-590 would not appear sufficient. 4. APP-066: Funding Statement: insufficient information 4.1 Neither the ExA nor the Decision Maker could reasonably take APP-590 para.7.3.10 at face value. a. Subsidy free financial viability of new nuclear continues to remain persistently elusive for a mature technology, despite absorbing eye wateringly vast public development and deployment expenditure over the past 80 years. Nuclear continues to prove toxic for private sector investors. It is characterised by exceptionally high construction costs. And, it demands excessively high electricity generation “strike price”, in comparison with the wholesale electricity market price and the generation costs of equivalent renewable energy electricity generation capacity. b. There exists rank uncertainty on prospect of raising requisite balance of funds in the world’s financial and investment markets. At the very least, the ExA might respectfully require the Applicant to provide detailed independent assessment of impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic on financial and investment markets, including market turmoil and volatility over the next ten years (a likely timeframe for final investment decision on SZC). 4.2 Lack of information on projected generation cost per kWh. Generation cost informs the basis of “strike price” negotiations for grid supply contracts. If the strike price is in excess of the wholesale market price, consumers face correspondingly higher bills for SZC nuclear electricity than for renewable energy electricity. The ExA are respectfully requested to require rectification. 4.3 APP-066 para.3.1.3 provides insufficient public interest material information on CGN (a Chinese state owned parent of General Nuclear International Limited). The ExA are respectfully requested to require full disclosure on all China General Nuclear Corporation’s (and its Board members’) direct and indirect associations and links with the Government of China and organs. a. CGN would be legally entitled to a proportion of the electricity “strike price” income generated under any SZC supply contracts with the UK National Grid. This potentially commits UK electricity consumers to effectively defray/finance/fund/subsidise/replenish/off-set (directly or indirectly, whether through leakage or otherwise) the coffers of the totalitarian state that is China. This possibility could not readily be discounted. b. China has transformed over the past 80 years into a leading global economic and technological powerhouse. However, the one party state remains possessed of unquenched thirst for territorial expansion and annexations, under various claims on territories of neighbouring countries. Strikingly, the Chinese Government refuses to acknowledge and abide by a 2016 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague (the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea), concerning certain islands in the South China Sea: [Redacted] 4.4 An unaccountable cost of the proposed SZC DCO Project lies in the continuing creation of additional accumulative legacy of highly radioactive waste. The legacy has to be dealt with by future generations. It’s an avoidable legacy, when it comes to boiling water to produce steam to turn turbo-generators to generate electricity. 5. APP-344: Major Accidents and Disasters 5.1 Lack of evidence on assessment and evaluation of adequacy of emergency preparedness arrangements and measures, from the latest full scale simulation exercise involving the Sizewell nuclear complex, incorporating both on-site and off-site extended scenarios. J Chanay 29.09.2020"

Jacqueline Bridgeman
"I wish to register my concerns about the proposed construction of Sizewell C. 1.I am very concerned about the way it will wreck this lovely part of the Suffolk coast. I frequently visit Dunwich cliff and Minsmere and find it shocking that anyone could even think of building this monstrosity in such a place of natural beauty and ecological importance. 2. It is also a dangerous place for this construction because the coast is eroding quite quickly in this area. We frequently see maps warning us about the predicted flooding of this part of the coast in the near future so storing waste there from nuclear reactors would be extremely unsafe! 3 It will ruin the tourist industry in the local area and is bound to have a detrimental effect on the very special Minsmere RSPB. 4 I have many other reasons for opposing Sizewell C but these are my most imortant concerns."

Olivia Snowden on behalf of Jan Snowden
"I wish to raise the following concerns regarding Sizewell C: I wish to raise concern regarding the radioactive waste and furthermore the storage of said waste. I wish to raise to concern about the investors and the overall international involvement with the project. I wish to raise concern regarding the environmental impact. I wish to raise concern about the lack of infrastructure needed to support such a project. I whish to raise concern regarding why this project has been considered as the money could be invested in renewable energy, which would also create lots of jobs. I wish to raise concern regrading the community and societal impact. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Jane Anderson
"This is copied from a template because I have no time to re-word it. I mean every word from the bottom of my heart and trust that is understood. 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."

Jane Eade
"I object to Sizewell C because the 10 year construction is going to cause irreversible damage to the environment and species depending on it, including rare bats and mammals such as otters. I don’t think the Suffolk coast is able to take the pressures this project will inevitably cause."

Jane MacFarlane
"1). EDF state that Sizewell C will be an environmentally friendly way to provide electricity. It fails to mention that it will generate a waste product, spent fuel rods, which will have to be stored for possibly millennia. This presents the risk that radioactive material could in the future, be released by earth movements, terrorist attacks, erosion or by inadvertent negligence. The amount of CO2 that will be emitted during the construction of such a project will be enormous. 2). I feel renewable energy should be given priority. We have plenty of wind, and solar power is becoming cheaper to generate, and we appear to have enough sunlight for this purpose. 3) The nuclear reactor model EDF plans to build at Sizewell, EPR, has been found to be basically unsafe and not fit for purpose, in France and Finland. Why would anyone commission a NUCLEAR reactor that is not safe in the UK. 4) EDF claim that ‘hundreds of jobs will be generated’ locally, but presumably, many of the skilled jobs required will be provided by skilled workers from Hinkley power station, which presumably will be finished by the expected start of Sizewell! 5) The environmental and economic impact on the local infrastructure will be devastating. It may bring short term prosperity to a few, but the natural habitat, farmland and SSSI’s, once gone cannot be replaced as in their original guise."

Jane Mason
"I do not believe that this development should go ahead. This is because of: 1. Direct damage to an area with the highest level of designated protection (SSSI). Sizewell Marshes SSSI supports rare plants, invertebrates and other wildlife, and mitigation is impossible - rich communities of wildlife and the habitats which support them take many years to develop. Aldhurst Farm mitigation site, as a recent creation, will not have the ecological complexity to sustain them. 2. Severe damage to the hydrology of Sizewell Marshes SSSI, with vast amounts of fresh water being demanded by the reactors resulting in de-watering and a negative impact on rare and protected plant and animal communities. 3. Negative impact of de-watering on agriculture, which in this area often struggles with insufficient rainfall. 4. Negative impact on the adjacent Minsmere RSPB Reserve – also a highly protected area under national designation – through disturbance, noise and air pollution and altered hydrology. 5. Contradiction of national policy on protecting and increasing biodiversity - there is now a national commitment to increasing the biodiversity we have lost over the past decades and yet legally protected wildlife will be disturbed and destroyed. Rare shingle and marsh flora, the hibernation site of Natterjack toads, Barbastelle bats – all are examples of plants and animals which will have their habitat destroyed or fragmented or be disturbed by increased levels of noise and light. There can be no net gain for biodiversity at this site, due to the extraordinary richness of its existing biodiversity. 6. Destruction of enormous numbers of marine animals from the cooling system in the legally protected Outer Thames Estuary SPA. This cannot be legal. 7. Damage to the landscape character of this unique Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, renowned for its tranquillity, by such huge scale construction and development – creeping urbanisation will result. 8. Negative impact on the physical health of local people caused by air pollution from vehicle emissions, dust from the on-site development, access roads and associated infrastructure. 9. Negative impact on the mental health of local people, resulting in stress and increasing rates of depression – for example, the quality of my life would be severely damaged by the noise and visual pollution and my awareness of the damage being done to wildlife and the environment. 10. Destruction of small businesses depending on rural tourism, and the livelihoods depending on these businesses, as people stay away from what has become a giant building site. 11. Negative impact on the communities of Leiston, Theberton, Eastbridge and surrounding areas caused by the heavy traffic, building site, road construction and influx of large numbers of male workers looking for entertainment. The construction of Sizewell C will result in permanent damage to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Sizewell is a wholly unsuitable location on which to build a reactor and to store nuclear waste."

Jane Tempest
"Have taught in Lewiston and community suffered considerably for many years after the exodus of workforce who built previous plant. Leiston had very high social needs as a result The site is beautiful and currently cut off, new infrastructure will ruin a very special environment"

Jane Williams
"Jobs/Traffic/Pollution There will not be quality jobs for local people, despite local educational establishments’ promotions. At Yoxford Village Hall, an EDF representative said most skilled jobs will be brought over from Hinkley - majority (90%) of unskilled labour will be in ‘housekeeping and catering’ . ‘Local’ defined as commuting from up to 90 minutes away: Colchester, Norwich, Cambridge providing us with more traffic. Commuting will add to traffic, noise and air pollution. Up to 1,140 HGVs, 700 buses, 700 LGVs and 10,000 cars will be on the A12, A14, A1120, B1122 daily & ratruns sought through villages as workers seek to avoid congestion. At Hinkley, a previous 5 minute car journey now takes longer than 25 because of traffic increase. Suffolk CC’s Air Quality recommendations advises residents to report excessive pollution for investigation. Particulate matter will increase, affecting health as at Hinkley. Residents in Yoxford are especially worried about idling vehicles at the proposed massive new roundabout from the North and South fed by Darsham Park and Ride. The EDF promotional image of a neatly placed Sizewell C (and D) on this area of unspoiled countryside belies the fact that we will necessarily be turned into an industrial estate for 12 years (Scottish Power also planning) deterring tourists and the £26m they bring annually to ‘Suffolk - the Greenest County’. Jobs in tourism will also be lost and poached. The current estimated financial cost of Sizewell C is £20 billion ( up from initial proposed 6 billion). EDF require an RAB finance model. Environment EDF (The Times 25/8/20) admits it will be 2040 before the build is done and it has paid back the 5.74 million tonnes of CO2 generated/released during construction yet advertisements suggest it is carbon neutral. EDF (as in Finland and France) has struggled with safety issues and faults. It admits that renewables are quicker, cheaper and CO2 effective. Many politicians are now changing their minds. Noise pollution will increase by 600 fold for some residents - 24/7, 365 days,12 years, site lights on and noisy machinery impacting on bats and birds. Habitation of many animals will not recover. Insufficient impact assessment. Mitigation is not possible. We have serious concerns about impacts on the internationally renowned RSPB Minsmere. If we have Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and SSSI, then what is the point of designations? Rising sea levels could put the site at risk, making it an island. Using 3,000,000 litres of water a day for 60 years in the driest county will cause problems for farmers. Multiple energy projects are planned in East Suffolk, putting it at risk from gross industrialisation. This will change its essential character and affect local people. Communities will be split apart by new roads, endure an influx of 6000 workers and face amenity closures of footpaths and beach access. EDF’s magazine tone seems very honourable. However, we have spoken with Hinkley residents who were also promised the Earth by EDF but the promises failed to be kept once permission had been granted. During the pandemic, we pleaded for EDF to defer submission until proper public scrutiny of the 56,000 documents had occurred. They ignored us. 10 years to produce plans yet 12 weeks to allow study of them is sign of a rushed project with no thought of the consequences."

Janet Laurie
"Not only will it spoil a beautiful area of theSuffolk coast but will mean a terrific upheaval in terms of road building, housing for the workers etc so a huge area will be ruined. Why choose such a special part of our coastline for this project? More money and thought should be spent on developing more modern, ecologically friendly forms of energy. The problem of getting rid of the waste has not been solved and is very unlikely to be. We shouldn't leave this horrendous problem for future generations. It’s immoral."

Janice Frost
"I object to this development on the following grounds: • The damage that it will do the local environment. The construction process will impact on the local drainage which feeds into the nearby Minsmere Nature Reserve , the home of extremely rare Marsh Harriers. The disturbance caused by all the additional traffic will also impact on the local wildlife in both the terrestrial and marine environment. It will be impossible to recover from the loss of habitats that host rare birds, animals and plants. The RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust now oppose Sizewell C; the RSPB says it could be “catastrophic for wildlife”. I agree with this. • The impact of the construction traffic on the local communities in terms of noise, air pollution and damage to the local road network which will be unable to cope with the nature and volumes of lorry traffic that will be generated. • It is not value for money. The economics of the energy produced by the new facility do not stack up. It will be some of the most expensive electricity generated in the UK, at a time when the cost of wind and solar energy which are much cleaner alternatives, is falling. • The long term legacy of a radioactive site to decommission and tonnes of highly radioactive waste to dispose of. Despite being a nuclear nation for approx. 70 years we do not yet have a safe way to dispose of the highly radioactive waste that will be produced within the plant or the highly radioactive plant and machinery and buildings etc. that will need to be decommissioned at its end of life. This is an unacceptable burden for future generations to have to deal with. • I endorse Stop Sizewell C’s Relevant Representation."

Jeanette Elizabeth Collins
"I wish to raise the following concerns in relation to EDF’s Sizewell C DCO Application; 1. The site is too small for two nuclear reactors, being only 32 hectares, whereas Hinkley Point C is 45 hectares 2. The constraints of the site have forced the platform to be very close to the sea, which does not allow a reliable coastal defence to be designed 3. The site is at risk from sea level rise and increasing storm surges as climate change worsens 4. Sizewell C will use pylons that are taller than the existing National Grid transmission pylons and are incompatible with the AONB designation 5. This development will have a massive adverse effect on the multiple designated sites of ecological, heritage, landscape and amenity that surrounds it for 10-12 years 6. Impacts of noise and pollution due to the creation of borrow pits close to Eastbridge are not adequately addressed 7. The effects to the environment and landscape of dust and runoff from the anticipated 30 metre spoil heaps on the 15-metre contour within the AONB are not adequately assessed or addressed 8. Inadequate assessment of drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond 9. Assessment of the cumulative impacts of this development and the eight other energy projects planned for this area are inadequate 10. Eastbridge and Theberton will be subject to unacceptable noise and light pollution for the 10-12 years of the construction 11. Eastbridge and Theberton will be severed from the surrounding area by the closures of Moat Road and Pretty Lane 12. EDF’s road-based transport plan is unsustainable, having a huge adverse impact on local communities and the tourist/visitor economy. EDF’s own estimate of HGV movements are now as high as under “road led” proposals, which were rejected by all statutory consultees previously 13. Increases in traffic on the B1122 for the first 2-3 years are unacceptable, and no work should commence until the Sizewell Link Road is complete 14. If the link road cannot be completed before work starts, then crossings and extended speed limits mentioned in prior consultations must be introduced along the B1122 15. Eastbridge’s single track lanes have no speed limits and will be used by traffic avoiding the B1122 coming from Westleton, via Minsmere. Speed limits should be introduced within the village and there should be a zero-tolerance policy from EDF to fly-parking in the village I endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, Minsmere Levels Stakeholders Group, Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Jeff Redgrave
"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"

Jennifer Pearson
"I live in the area that would be affected by the building of Sizewell C however my objections are not totally parochial. This particular area of East Suffolk was originally a sleepy fishing village. It has Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty with some rare flora. Minsmere is a bird reserve of International renown. This would be seriously affected by Sizewell C including the marsh lands around it.I personally know of visitors from new Zealand who visit it. The area is visited by walkers and enthusiasts from all over therefore the hospitality section of the local economy is essential. This would be devastated by the builing of Sizewell C and may never recover. With regard to the technology I believe it is already out of date. 15 years to build would mean it was even more outdated by the time it was finished whereas other tecnologies are advancing all the time. Smaller nuclear power stations are cheaper quicker to build and cheaper therefore to decommission. Even though there may be a price difference per kilowatt and the strike price, there is no doubt these will be cheaper with wind power. Renewables are the way forward either with wind wave or solar. One of the advantages of wind power is that we in the UK have the technology to build it ourselves. Within 15 years we be plugging electric cars into our houses and even putting electricity back into the grid. Also battery storage as lithium cheap to obtain and so electricity even cheaper and less wastage. FOR MANY REASONS WE REALLY DONT NEED SIZEWELL C"

Jenny Morris Bradshaw
"I am registering my opposition to the proposed Sizewell C development. My reasons include The site is coastal land which is currently being eroded to such an extent that it will be flooded within 10-20 years because of climate change. The site is part of an AONB supporting endangered flora and fauna which will be irrevocably damaged. The energy this facility would generate is not required there are far cheaper, safer and environmentally better options. The disruption, pollution and damage to the local countryside, wildlife and communities would be enormous and without end. The oft quoted economic benefits in terms of job creation would be far better achieved by smaller investments in renewable energy, insulation and energy saving technologies."

Jeremy Raison
"Nuclear waste can’t be recycled, lasts thousands of years (in Scotland they’re talking about having an action plan for Dounreay the very first phase of it which won’t kick in for three hundred years), the new reactor doesn’t actually work and IS dangerous (it’s the French govt’s last ditch attempt to keep their nuclear industry alive but they haven’t yet worked out how to stop the concrete shell from cracking, making it susceptible both to inward ingress of sea water - like Fukushima - and leaking radioactive waste into the land), it’s way more expensive than wind energy, wave energy, thermal energy and sun energy, none of which need to harm the planet. Scotland has days when all its energy is met by renewables and that’s with the UK govt refusing to subsidise the renewables industry with a fraction of the subsidy given to nuclear, and constantly changing the rules. We’re meant to be saving the planet not contributing to its destruction."

Jessica Ratcliff
"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 o Too many other energy projects in this area, and these are not coordinated o Too much, and unacceptable, risk to internationally important wildlife sites o The site is on an eroding coast 2. Community, Economic and social impacts • Unacceptable impacts of light and noise pollution • 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, which will be an unsustainable pressure on the amenities in the local area. • A 2,400 in a Worker campus is in a location that I oppose. • Pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. • Skilled jobs will not go to local people in any case. The total number of jobs that will become available is under question. 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 • Provision of new road infrastructure will be too slow to mitigate adverse impacts to the local communities and is not appropriate at all in any case - would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. • Rat-running and disruption are a real problem – they occurred frequently during the building of Sizewell B and will no doubt happen again 4. Environment and Landscape • Irreparable harm to Minsmere which is designated as an SAC an SPA and a RAMSAR site, in addition to being sited within and SSSI, within the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB. • Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice • Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic • 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 • Mitigation measures will not be sufficient to compensate for landscape and ecological damage. • The CO2 from construction will not be offset for at least 6 years post commissioning, even if construction is completed on time. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Theberton and Eastbridge Parish Council, Minsmere Levels Stakeholder Group. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Joan Craighead
"I wish to raise the following concerns about Sizewell C: - The detrimental environmental impact of the vast site itself and the new road systems necessary to carry the transport to build it, that will spoil ancient footpaths and be destructive to Minsmere, nature habitats etc. - Detrimental impact on tourism and local businesses and during the long building process. - The impact to the coastline and the natural coastal processes. - The detrimental impact it would have on marine life. - increased flood risk from climate change already makes this a poor site for such a project. - huge influx of additional people putting pressure on local amenities and services. I also endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and the RSPB. I wish to state that i consider the Sizewell C application to be much too complex for a digital examination process to be suitable."

Joan Gernand
"1) Choice of this location - highly unsuitable since it is an ecologically vibrant area; is much visited as an area of natural interest and beauty; its context is a small scale community environment which would be disrupted and damaged by the project 2) Environment, landscape and ecology: a) this is an unspoilt marine coastal area supporting crucial natural habitats and is already vulnerable to the impact of climate on marine and coastal processes such as flooding and erosion b) Nearby Minsmere (RSPB )is a regional/national site and facility for conservation and observation of a wide diversity of birdlife and the related ecological diversity of species of flora and fauna c) This is a unique coastal landscape where this development would generate pollution from noise, traffic and light 3) Community: this area comprises rural village communities sustained partially by a tourist economy which could lose up to £40million a year and up to 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred The impact of new road infrastructures would impose 2-3 years od increased traffic as well as fracturing communities, damaging the rural footpath system and dividing farmland"

Joan Steel
"I am concerned about many aspects about the proposed Sizewell C build. Most importantly I feel the long construction schedule will have a huge impact on this rural area. The coastline, nature reserves , heaths, farmland , small towns and villages are just not compatible with the scale and duration of the build. People live and holiday in this area largely because it is scenic and quiet and rural. Our small roads are woefully unsuitable for large industrial movement. Rail links and delivery by sea are difficult to adapt. Minsmere and other nearby nature reserves are certainly going to be affected by, noise, light, dust and the close proximity of the build. Minsmere has spent decades developing the habitat required for special species and this could all be negated. I am also concerned about the site being affected by erosion and rising sea levels. Who knows what the coastal environment will be like in 300 years! This time scale was quoted recently over future use of land at the decommissioned Dunreay site. Job wise, I feel a lot of the jobs created will be transferred to skilled workers from the Hinckley site. The proposed campus location is also not suited to a quiet rural area and is unlikely to appeal to a young workforce. Overall I feel saddened by the proposals and feel this beautiful area could be blighted for years."

Joanna Barfield
"I am against the building of Sizewell C for a number of reasons. Cost: which will be huge - the money would be better spent on providing solar panels, insulation, ground source heat pumps or similar to replace gas boilers to all current properties and to insist on these for all future buildings. This would create thousands of “green” jobs to help the environment. It would also be better to use the billions that Sizewell C will cost to invest in renewable sources of energy such as more off shore wind farms. Environment: the project will seriously impact the local environment, in particular Minsmere nature reserve and this will not be mitigated by the proposals in the application. The building of the power station itself will have a huge impact on the local environment - concreting over land to build extra roads and accommodation for workers. Roads: I am particularly against the creation of the Sizewell Link Road (B1122 Bypass). It makes no sense to have lorries driving so far north up the A12 beyond the power station itself. We don’t want increased traffic on the A12 and a big roundabout near the beautiful Suffolk village of Yoxford. We especially don’t want concrete and traffic across the ancient fields and unspoiled landscape that will be lost to this link road.This area is extremely beautiful and atmospheric. It will be ruined by this link road and lost forever. This would be a criminal assault on such land which is becoming increasingly rare. Part of the plan proposes extending the Leiston railway. If the build is going to create that disruption anyway, it would make more sense to have a road alongside the railway by extending the B1119 although I object to that as well as I object to the power station in principle. This land between the A1094 and the B1122 is relatively untouched - a rarity these days - and we should be doing all we can to protect and respect it. These plans do not. There are far more environmentally friendly ways to generate power and jobs than building this nuclear power station."

Joanna Iles
"I would like to raise some concerns about Sizewell C. I believe that the wrong site has been chosen – this is the wrong project, in the wrong place. This project would place the local area at risk of a rise in sea level and flooding (this is already a concern on the Suffolk coast). There is also a risk that the project would have an impact upon coastal processes. This area includes sites that are important ecologically and culturally – the proposed project would likely have a negative impact on these areas; along with local amenities and landscape. Additionally, I oppose the suggested location for a worker campus. 6,000 workers are anticipated to move to work in the area (including 2,400 in a campus). Surely this would not have a positive impact on local communities. It would put added pressure on emergency, health and social services. The people living throughout the surrounding countryside and locally to Sizewell would be impacted by additional traffic and disruption. The works would cause light pollution, further traffic and significant noise increases. Tourism (already hard hit in 2020 by Covid-19 related disruption and closures) could lose up to £40m a year. Jobs are already at risk and it is suggested that this project could lead to the loss of 400 jobs in local tourist industries. EDF surveys have stated that 29% of visitors would be deterred from visiting the area. All of this will have a negative long-term impact on local businesses. There would be a massive impact on local transportation infrastructure. The road based transport plan is simply not sustainable. This would have an adverse impact on the visitor economy and local communities. The delay in new road infrastructure means that villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic. Furthermore, new roads would sever communities, divide farmland and cause damage to the existing rural footpath system. As I previously mentioned, I am concerned about the impact that this work would have on the local environment. It would almost certainly lead to flooding. It is unclear what impact this will have on Minsmere Sluice. It would surely cause irreparable damage to Minsmere – a flagship destination of international importance and significance. This is a Special Protection Area and the potential impact on Marsh Harriers threatens the integrity of this area for the conservation of wild birds. It is also important to consider the impact that the development would have on local wildlife and specially the birds protected within the SPA. The development would create light, noise and traffic pollution – it must be assumed that this would have only negative impacts on the locale and relevant wildlife. The dust management suggested for soil heaps and stockpiles is inadequate. In addition, there is uncertainty regarding how drainage and the supply of 3 million litres of potable water would be arranged for the construction period and beyond. Again, the abstraction of water compounds poses a very real risk to protected species and the environment. It would be impossible to compensate for the damage that would occur to the landscape and local ecology. This project would not offset the CO2 used in construction for at least 6 years! There would be a negative impact on marine and coastal processes. The Beach Landing Facility would have an impact on coastal processes and there would be a major impact on marine ecology. There is no complete design available for the hard coastal defence feature. It is very likely that the HDCF would have an impact upon coastal processes and cause ecological issues. It would create local flooding. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by TASC, RSPB and Stop Sizewell C. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Joanne Brooks-Nevin
"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 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."

Joe Cassels
"I am concerned about the huge amount of embedded carbon emissions created by this huge construction. The number of lorry movements and sheer quantity of concrete will have a significant impact on climate. This will also impact many local villages with many lorry movements throughout the day with associated noise and pollution not to mention potential damage to heritage buildings. The construction will damage the heritage coast and negatively impact the area of outstanding natural beauty and harm the nearby Minsmere nature reserve. I am concerned about the boom/bust effect that years of construction will have on the local economy. When Sizewell B finished construction there was a local recession. I am also concerned about constructing a nuclear reactor on an eroding coast and potential problems after sea level rise due to climate change."

Johanna Dale
"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 – 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 – 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. I regularly visit the area as a tourist and if this development goes ahead it is inevitably that I, and many regular visitors like me, will spend significantly less time in the area. The attraction of the area is its tranquility and outstanding natural environment, both of which will be hugely damaged. A reduction in tourism will, severely harm the thriving tourist and food and drink 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 HGV’s. 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. Sizewell C’s daily fresh water demands will require up to 3 million litres during construction and up to 2 million litres during operation, in an area which is the most water-scarce in the country Spoil 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 and drainage 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, further east of existing building lines, 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. Closures of local and national archives and libraries have also meant that people have not had access to information from other sources and have been totally reliant on the documents created by EdF. The application and examination process is totally unsuitable to being digitally examined."

John Cooke
"I wish to draw your attention to several issues relating to the proposed siting of Sizewell C. - The plans for delivery of construction materials to the site are woefully inadequate. The failure to implement a suitable landing by sea will result in catastrophic pressure on coastal Suffolk’s road networks and the displacement of people living in the area who will be forced to move as their homes lie on direct access routes with levels of traffic that exceed anything normally permissible in residential areas. - The spread of the site will encroach on an AONB and destroy decades of wildlife work by local conservation programmes and reserves. - There is not sufficient evidence of long term planning for the decommissioning of the reactor on a site that is increasingly vulnerable to coastal erosion. Yours sincerely, John Cooke"

John Fisher
"Dear Sir/Madam I write to urge you not to grant a Development Consent Order for Sizewell C. I recognise that you are required to judge this application against existing government policy even though this will obviously be updated in due course to reflect our better understanding of both nuclear power issues and coastal processes. However this policy merely says that in principle new nuclear power stations should be built and that Sizewell could provide a suitable site. As I understand it it says nothing about the suitability of this particular site for this particular proposal. The site at Sizewell is not big enough for what is being proposed. The developer recognises this and is asking to nibble into the surrounding special landscape in various directions to try to squidge it in but even with this encroachment it is proposed to use auxiliary areas separate from the site entailing extra movement of workers and materials which couldn’t be mitigated against. The proposal to build a new access across Sizewell Belts is unacceptable and the only suitable place for road or rail access is close to the existing route into the site. Also the hard sea defences would be likely to have a severe adverse impact on other places along the coast. With the claim to provide jobs we need to question why a business would do this when their purpose in life is to make money by increasing their sales or reducing their costs. One way they can reduce costs is by building a bigger and more automated factory or whatever and close down smaller units to eliminate jobs and this is what is happening here. It would of course bring some workers into the area especially on a temporary basis but if the project doesn’t go ahead other people would move into the same dwellings and very likely in this age of working from home bring their own jobs with them. This extra demand for housing is likely to increase rents and house prices for local people. I also question whether the project is as low carbon as is bing claimed. The sheer size of this proposal would have an adverse impact on the environment and tourism over a wide area and having too much of the country’s electricity coming from one location would make us vulnerable to storm damage, etc."

John Heald
"I have grave doubts about the wisdom, need, practicality, short and long term consequences of desecrating our unique AONB and disrupting the lives of many people in East Suffolk. As yet there is no sign of a safe geological storage facility for the nuclear waste that this type of power station creates. I have lived here for almost 50 years and well remember the tragic effect that the construction of Sizewell B had on local towns and villages, particularly Leiston, despite promises that the workforce would have little impact on the area. The need to ask the Chinese/French consortium to build us a nuclear power station when the rest of Europe has, sensibly, decided to abandon the nuclear option, seems odd, to say the least. The promise of "local" employment seems the stretch the definition the "local" to a ridiculous extent. If the authorities are serious about long term employment, the local fabrication and servicing of structures for alternative energy supplies (for example, off-shore wind turbines) is a more rational option. I see nothing to persuade me that "without Sizewell C the lights will go off" to quote the manager-designate of Sizewell C."

John Pottinger
"I have the following issues concerning the planned construction of Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection and construction • It is not an appropriate to build such a construction in an AONB. There will be significant impact on world famous wildlife sites such as RSPB Minsmere. There are, additionally, other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality. • The reactor design is as yet unproven. Similar projects in France and Finland are in difficulties. Hinkley is over-budget and late. The unit cost of electricity forecast to be produced is higher than can be achieved through other forms of renewable energy. • The construction will take a long time to become carbon-neutral. 2. Social impacts • There will be unacceptable impacts on local communities. The level of traffic forecast to use local roads is at a ridiculous level. The roads are not designed for the traffic. No attempt appears to have been made to improve the East Suffolk railway line so that materials can move that way. • 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus which will put strains on the local area. • Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. Even 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”. However, they have also indicated that there will be a planned move of personnel from Hinkley, thus depriving local people of jobs. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C."

John Stumbles
"I would like to make representations concerning the value of the proposed project in * contributing to Britain's obligations to decarbonisation under the Paris Agreement, * helping the UK's energy security, * providing high quality employment and economic prosperity in the region, and to the UK as a whole * reducing or removing the need for alternative schemes with much higher ecological impacts elsewhere in the UK. I particularly wish to emphasise the value and urgency of the proposed project in a national and even international context."

Jonathan Bolton
"As a resident of the area around the proposed site, I object to the massive and ongoing disruption to local life - increased traffic from construction and use, environmental impact of works (including building of new roads), the small but significant risk of radiation and explosion at the site and other factors. More specifically, the proposed park and ride site at Wickham Market will vastly impact the village and nearby traffic levels, including on-street parking outside my house. While the construction phase will be temporary, it will last long enough to have a negative impact on house prices and our ability to move away from the area (should we choose to do so). After construction the direct impact will be lessened, but there will still be increased traffic flow on the A12 and the above environmental impact to consider."

Jonathan Josephs
"I live in London and for many years have visited my elderly mother in Walberswick, which is a few miles North of Sizewell. I am very familiar with the marshes which run from Walberswick to Minsmere and Sizewell. I am concerned that the construction of Sizewell C will result in traffic congestion that will make it impossible for my mother to get to hospital in an emergency. 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 near Ipswich. The nearest hospitals are in Ipswich and Great Yarmouth. Has the impact of the Sizewell project on emergency services been adequately considered? I am also concerned that the tourism industry which is essential to the local community will be decimated by traffic congestion. I am surprised that EDF considers that tourism in EastSuffolk will only be reduced by 24% Has there been any independent verification of that claim? I am familiar with Minsmere and am concerned about its future. The threats that Minsmere faces from the proposal to build Sizewell C are enormous. The RSPB speaks with a measured voice, but if they say that the construction of Sizewell C “could be catastrophic” for the wildlife at Minsmere then I urge you to listen to that voice. The success of Minsmere depends on the water levels and the quality of water in the Minsmere and Sizewell Marshes. Migrant waders feed on the mud flats, rare plants, birds and dragonflies thrive in the marshes and the Minsmere River is home to Otters.EDF will extract vast quantities of water from these marshes, in order to make concrete for one of the largest building projects in the country. More water must be pumped out to keep dry a trench that will be 30 metres deep, and will surround an area the size of a football pitch, in order to provide foundations for the reactors. The construction of a causeway between the Sizewell and Minsmere Marshes is likely to raise water levels in the former and lower it in the latter. EDF has given no information on the dimensions of the sea defences. I am concerned about the long term safety of the site and particularly the lack of plans to store nuclear waste there for 140 years. As sea levels rise the site is likely to become an island at some point in the next 140 years. Shockingly, there is no plan for the long term safety of the site. I support Stop Sizewell C’s submission opposing this project. I consider this proposal too complicated for a digital review."

Joseph Ward
"I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C I wish to state that I consider Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. The affect on the local countryside will cause damage that can never be repaired by building Sizewell C. The wildlife will never recover from the pollution caused by the lorries and also crops grown in the area will be affected. The health and welfare of local people will be a very major cause for concern as there will be 6,000 workers arriving in a very vunerable area."

Joyce Hale
"I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust (SWT). The above mentioned organisations have an in-depth understanding of the disadvantages and damaging effects that the construction of Sizewell C will have on East Anglia. We should be investing in renewable energy for our future. Nuclear energy is not what we should be depending on and I have grave concerns about nuclear waste left for future generations to deal with. The world is changing and now is the time to stop harmful and damaging ways of producing energy before it’s too late. Thank you Mrs Joy Hale"

Judith Sharp
"My concerns about the proposed new reactors at Sizewell are as follows: 1. Damage to the environment has not been thoroughly investigated, nor have detailed plans for adequate mitigation been put in place. 2. The increase in road traffic will have a significant negative effect on the quality of life for the people who live here and will potentially have damaging effects on the economy particularly the tourist trade. 3. Noise and light pollution from the site during the build will have a negative effect on local wildlife, especially at Minsmere Nature Reserve. This will also negatively impact on local residents and tourists. 4. The proposed residential blocks for workers at Eastbridge will negatively impact the surrounding village and Minsmere and is in an unsuitable location for so many people. 5. Parking for Darsham Station will be made difficult and unpredictable for locals needing to use the train as there will be large numbers using the station and car park in the park and ride scheme and there is insufficient evidence that the parking provided will be sufficient. 6. There is insufficient evidence that coastal erosion will not lead to the new reactors being left vulnerable to the sea. 7. There is still no proper plan to dispose of nuclear waste safely."

Julia Crockett
"I object strongly to the proposed construction of Sizewell C for the following reasons: (1) Irreplaceable destruction to the natural environment. (2) Huge impact on local infrastructure this construction would bring about. Our local roads and the A12 are totally unsuitable for proposed volume of traffic. (3)The proposed location of the Park and Ride just outside Wickham Market is totally unsuitable with no provision to mitigate the huge volume of traffic on local side roads. (4)Every effort should be made to focus on green energy provision NOT outdated, destructive nuclear energy."

Juliet Bullimore
"I feel that the proposal to build a new nuclear power station at Sizewell inappropriate. Here are some of the reasons: 1. Nuclear is an outdated and expensive method of power generation. 2. Rising sea levels are likely to inundate Sizewell. 3. Nuclear waste is a problem now, and for future generations. 4. The damage to the environment and the local economy caused by the construction and operation of Sizewell C & D would not be outweighed by the benefits to the locality."

June Holmes
"I am deeply concerned and ask ,as the planning inspectorate that You review 1.EDF s application is so complex that it is totally unsuitable for a digital examination please adjust your review procedures 2.the cost of the whole project is far from certain how it is to be funded please explore this further. Failure to finance a nuclear power station must bear on planning 3.the road transport plan is not sustainable for the villages on the A1122 ,nor does the plan consider alternative new road routes . 4.Please review the risk of flooding and also the borrow pits and the inadequate land fill proposals . The drainage system in particular and the supply of water for construction and post construction requires evidencing it can cope with all that is needed 5. The unacceptable effects and impacts on the local community bringing 6000 workers to site with a 2500 worker Campus at a site that I oppose for its complete unsuitability. 6 EDF expects that the main jobs that local folk will fill will be the lower paid jobs of site support not the types of jobs to give long term and developmental careers to our young folk. 7 please review the emergency service access to all the villages once the A1122 and A12 are loaded with all the worker and building traffic.What times will an ambulance take to deal with a heart attack because the A1122 is jammed with lorries and everyday traffic. 8 Please review the whole site as a viable option ,which I believe is a wrong project at the wrong site. Risk of sea level rise .impact on the coastal natural ways And the fact we have eight other energy projects planned is too too much for this small area. Please review climate change and future sea level rise As part of this planning application . We will still have to live here if you get it wrong. 9 please review to whom EDF is accountable. the history of the last power station build evidenced a company making many promises that it failed to keep . It promised the world at the outset please make sure there is accountability 10 Please review The local tourist economy that will suffer as a result of visitors staying away or finding difficulties in negotiating the narrow roads choked with lorries. 11.heights of spoil heaps and dust management need to be questioned. 12 please review EDF calculations for offsetting CO2 and the length of time this will take VERSUS what they produce in CO2 during construction. 13 Please review the irreparable harm to be done to Minsmere an area of world importance 14 please review the proposals for compulsory purchase they will split up working farms and land parcels I wish to support the representation by STOP SIZEWELL C and also the concerns raised by the RSPB and SWT I wish to state that I believe this SIZEWELL C application to be totally unsuitable for the digital examination that you propose , it is too complex and too too important."

June Hutchison
"I list below my areas of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Technology • I consider that the technology under consideration could be outdated by the time that Sizewell C is built, or nuclear output may no longer be required because of the recent rapid increase in renewable energy. • 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; 2. Partners • It is of concern that EDF is owned by the French state and is in significant debt so will be expected to recoup its losses from British consumers and tax-payers. • The recent controversy over the 5G contract highlights the security risks posed by the involvement of China General Nuclear in this critical, but lethal, infrastructure. 3. Site Selection • It seems extraordinary to build a highly sensitive nuclear plant on a site which is at risk from accelerating sea level rise and flooding. 4. Community impacts • The impact on Suffolk communities from traffic, noise and light pollution is immense. • An influx of 6000 workers from outside the area will be huge, with pressure on private-sector rental accommodation and health, social and emergency services.. 5. Tourism and Economy impact • The Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation says Sizewell C and Scottish Power Renewables plans could cost the visitor economy between £24-£40million a year and 400 jobs. EDF’s own surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. If the peace is disrupted for 12 years and traffic on the A12 is intolerable, it will quickly lose its attraction for tourists. • There are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for this area, and the cumulative impact of those has not been assessed. • Small businesses were struggling before Covid and are on a knife-edge currently – if they lose valuable tourism custom, they may well not survive. • Locally based employment insufficiently scoped. • Snape Maltings and other significant cultural sites will be adversely affected if ticket buyers are not prepared to travel on congested roads. 6. Transport • The road-based transport plan has an enormous and adverse impact on local communities with massive numbers of HGVs. • The sleep deprivation caused to track-side residents by 5 freight train movements per night – 1 every hour and 24 minutes between 11 pm to 6 am for 10 years plus overruns - has barely been considered. No detail has been provided about whether there will be other nuisance caused e.g. klaxons, idling of engines, damage to foundations from vibration. No mitigation measures have been outlined. 7. Environment and Landscape • At Minsmere and more generally it will be impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage • Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species 8. Marine and Coastal processes • Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature. • Impacts on marine ecology 9. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust. 10. I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Savills (UK) LTD (Savills (UK) LTD) on behalf of Justin and Emma Dowley
"Our client's concerns are outlined in the ‘Outline Representations’ detailed below prepared by NFU and LIG. Our client may decide it is necessary to appoint a barrister and experts to act on their behalf to expand on the below points as well as; • Clear facts as to why the ‘Road D2’ option was not taken forward. • What mitigation and enhancement measures are to be adopted to protect the ecological and historical environment along the route? These experts will include; Highways consultant Ecological consultant Heritage consultant IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SIZEWELL C PROJECT BY SZC AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION AND THE LAND INTEREST GROUP ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) and the agents (agents acting for NFU members and their clients on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by NNB Nuclear Generation (SZC) Limited identified as the Sizewell C Project. The agents representing the landowners/occupiers are Savills, Clarke & Simpson, and Strutt & Parker (henceforth known as the Land Interest Group (LIG)). 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar infrastructure schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 One to one meetings have been held with Dalcour Maclaren (DM) who are the acting agents for the Applicant but they have been limited and the detail required by landowners has not been available or forthcoming. It is only since the end of August 2020 that DM have taken on board that meetings need to be held with the relevant experts who have full knowledge of the project. Due to the lack of specific information and detailed plans of the proposed new road that will directly affect landowners it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.2 LIG has asked for a relevant project manager from SZC to be present at meetings but DM is informing clients and members that this is not necessary. 3. Compulsory Acquisition and Compelling Case Requirement 3.1 The DCO will contain powers to acquire compulsorily so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised development, or to facilitate, or is incidental to it. 3.2 Further, the guidance as to negotiations either before or parallel with formal processes may well give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that such will occur, and a failure to conduct such negotiations deprives landowners of the benefit that negotiations may have brought, especially in relation to where different locations and lesser rights might have been achieved. 3.3 Voluntary heads of terms were sent out in December 2019 and two meetings have been held with LIG and DM to discuss the heads of terms. The agents acting have raised issues over the lack of detail within the heads of terms and have requested further information. 3.3 LIG believes that no meaningful negotiations have taken place alongside the formal procedures for compulsory purchase. Therefore a compelling case cannot be made. 4. Funding 4.1 NFU and LIG do not understand how the project is to be funded and further information on this has been requested but as yet no clarification has been forthcoming from either DM or SZC. 5. The Link Road 5.1 LIG on behalf of their clients have requested further information on the necessity of the road and details on the road design which has not been forthcoming, in particular in regard to the following: • It is understood that the link road will not be completed and available to use until over two years in to the project. By this time the majority of the large machines to be used for the construction of the power station will already be in situ, whereby access will have been obtained through the existing road network. Further justification for the link road is required? • The suitability of the road junctions on/off the new SLR. • Concerns have been raised that ‘rat runs’ may be created where the new road links into local road network in particular to some of the local minor roads which are very narrow. It is believed that the link to the B1125 will encourage a rat run through Westleton and Middleton. • Potential impacts on road safety at peak times of shift change and HGV movements early/mid/late in the working day. • The suitability of the configuration of the junction onto Fordley Road. Further, on the current plans, Pretty Road and Moat Road are cut off. • What mitigation landscaping is to be carried out to mitigate the noise, and light pollution created by the new SLR? • What is the legacy for the link road post construction? 6. Access to Land 6.1 NFU and LIG would like further information on the access points which are to be provided to enable access to land which is severed by the new SLR. The plans submitted with the DCO do show access points (i.e. cattle gates) in to retained land but as yet no discussions have taken place with landowners in regard to the location of suitable access points. 7. Habitat Mitigation 7.1 LIG were surprised when clients received a letter on the 11th September 2020 informing them that they were the owners of land that had been identified at Westleton for additional habitat mitigation. It is understood that this land has been identified as land that might be needed to meet the requirement for the Marsh Harrier Habitat to mitigate against the loss of foraging habitat on the Sizewell Marshes SSSI. The loss is due to the temporary construction compound site that will be built on the main development site. 7.2 There are further sites which have been identified for habitat mitigation and the landowners were also not aware of these sites until the DCO was submitted at the end of May 2020. 7.3 The NFU and LIG believe that consultation should have been carried out with the landowners at a much earlier stage in regard to these additional habitat areas and would like to receive further information as to why these additional habitat areas now may needed. 8. Green Rail Route 8.1 LIG requires further information as to the land that is to be taken to build the ‘Green Rail Route’ and whether this land take will be permanent or temporary. Detailed information has not been forthcoming to the agents acting. 9. Construction Compound Sites 9.1 SZC on plans submitted under the DCO has identified some large areas of land to be taken for construction compound sites. The NFU and LIG would like to see the detail of use for each compound site being detailed in the DCO particularly within Schedule 17. At the present time it is stated that the areas will be used as a construction compound associated to work no. XX. We require further detail on exactly what works may take place and what type of storage. This should be explicitly detailed for each compound. 10. Balance Ponds 10.1 The NFU and LIG would like information to be provided to explain why the size and location of balance ponds are required and where these are to be located. Further relocation next to field boundaries would help minimise the impact on the farm land in question. 11. Creation of Public Rights of Way 11.1 The NFU and LIG believes strongly that the powers that SZC are granted to carry out this project should not include powers to create new public rights of way (PRoW) including the creation of cycle tracks and bridleways. Under this proposed scheme new public rights of way are proposed. 11.2. These proposed new public rights of way will take further land out of agricultural production. The Applicant should not be authorised to acquire more land than is needed for the highway scheme itself. 11.3 The Applicant must agree any temporary diversions of PRoW in conjunction with the landowner. 12.0 Waste and Spoil 12.1 The NFU and LIG would like information to be provided to explain how waste and spoil is to be treated. In particular on the field adjacent to Therberton House which is Grade 2 listed building with historic parkland which has been identified for borrow pits. No detail has been provided about the type of works, reinstatement or use post construction. 13. Private Water Supply 13.1 It is imperative that these farms are guaranteed a permanent water supply to replace their private borehole and well supplies if they are contaminated or supply is affected in anyway during the construction of the project or after construction. 13.2 No information has been found within the Code of Construction on how water supplies if contaminated or cut off on a temporary or permanent basis will be reinstated as part of the DCO application. SZC need to address this issue and agree to general terms of how water supplies should be treated. 14.0 Field Drainage 14.1 Land drainage is always one of the main issues which landowners are concerned about when land is taken for construction purposes of major infrastructure. To date no detail has been provided by SZC on how it will treat field drainage during construction and carry out reinstatement post construction. This is particularly important were land will be returned to agricultural use. 14.2 No information has been found within the Code of Construction on how field drainage will be reinstated as part of the DCO application. SZC need to address this issue and agree to general terms of how field drainage should be treated. 15. Soils 15.1 As above the treatment, reinstatement and aftercare of soil during and after construction is another main issue of concern. Limited detail on treatment during the works is provided in the Code of Construction in the Agriculture and Soils. The NFU and LIG would like wording to be included to cover soil reinstatement, aftercare and the existing soil structure. It is stated that there will be a Soil Resources Plan and it is the intention to create and maintain a register of land condition. The NFU would like to see a record of condition and soil statement with detailed wording as to what needs to be included within these agreed and set out in the CoCP. 15.2 Further information needs to be agreed with SZC as to what measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works took place. A soil statement will need to be set up of the soil condition pre construction for each farm. An aftercare plan should be included in the CoCP. 16. Flood Issues 16.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any increase in surface run off of water from the new road, the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 17. Dust/Irrigation 17.1 It is noted that within the CoCP that dust will be controlled during construction but clarification is needed on how dust will be controlled during construction to protect arable crops. The project will impact a vast quantity of high value vegetable and irrigatable crops that are grown in this area, quality of the crop is paramount. NFU and LIG require detail on the measurements to be put in place to ensure crops can continue to be irrigated. 18. Agricultural Liaison officer 18.1 There is no mention of how liaison will take place with landowners and their agents during construction within the CoCP. The NFU and LIG would like to see that the main works contractors will have to employ an agricultural liaison officer to carry out liaison with landowners. The role of the ALO should be stated in the CoCP. 19.0 Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 19.1 The NFU does intend to lodge a full Written Representation in due course and request to make oral representations at the issue specific, draft DCO and compulsory acquisition hearings which may be held. 19.2 The NFU and the agents represent 25 members and clients who own or lease land affected by the DCO. A full list of names and addresses are available if requested. The members and clients have not been listed on this representation due to data protection. Each landowner or occupier has submitted an outline representation highlighting specific issues to the individual business, if appropriate, and has made reference to this outline representation which highlights the main issues of all landowners concerned. [Redacted]"

Kaaren Whitney
"Because of potential flooding from the sea this is not a good site for the project and it will adversely affect an environmentally special area. The infra structure necessary will dominate and change the local community also making it uninviting to tourist who support and enliven the east coast. The roads and the building of them will be disruptive for 2 - 3 years if there are delays which is normal. Then dust, light and noise pollution would be the 'gift' given to people of Suffolk. There is also ground water level risks to the neighbouring areas."

Karen Cartwright
"I am utterly appalled at even the possibility of a new nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast. It will Devastate local tourism and related economies and there will not be a comparable number of new jobs. It will devastate the beautiful countryside and wildlife that abounds here We do not have the infrastructure to support a build of this size - I live on the main road that would go through to the site - the amount of traffic would be totally unacceptable. Rising sea levels are already massively affecting the Suffolk coastline - building another nuclear power station on the coast is madness. There are so many alternative solutions out there nowadays - how about investing all these billions that it will take to build another station in all the really positive, environmentally friendly options that now exist. Taxpayers are already starting to pay for this build and I do not give my consent for my taxes to be spent in this frivolous and downright dangerous way. The build is economically unsound, environmentally and socially a disaster."

Karen Harris
"Dear Sir/Madam, I wish to register the following concerns about the proposed Sizewell C development: The environmental destruction will be harmful, not just for the wildlife, but for residents and visitors alike. The burden to our coastline and daily lives will be long-lasting, with 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– bringing 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. The impact on local communities, including severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light, air, dust pollution will degrade our quality of life and cause social unrest. Our stretched resources will suffer under the increased demand, with at least 6,000 workers in the area. The drain on simple services, including water, do not seem to have been considered. Sizewell C’s daily fresh water demands will require up to 3 million litres during construction and up to 2 million litres during operation, in an area which is the most water-scarce in the country. The visual intrusion of the completed works will be bleak and uninviting, and the natural habitats will be long lost. This proposal is not viable; with so many cleaner energy options available, it does not make sense to proceed with this project.   Regards, Karen Harris"

Kate Viscardi
"- I live in Dennington on the A1120. This is a "tourist route" between the A14 and A12 but already heavy lorries use it; a foretaste of what would come and there would also be many more cars as workers commute. - As a retired lecturer in Electrical Engineering I am aware the skills needed for the engineering and construction of Sizewell C would not come mainly from within the local economy but would be "imported" from Hinckley C. There will also be competition for skills with the renewable energy industry, which has great potential on the East Coast. - The Energy costs of the Sizewell site are front-loaded and their payback won't cut in until climate change will almost certainly have already tipped into runaway change, whereas the energy cost payback for real renewables is under a year. - The East Coast is an attractive holiday destination but surveys have shown tourists would be less willing to visit, or would visit less often, if Sizewell C is constructed. People do not want to holiday near a vast construction site. This would have an impact on local businesses and employment; businesses such as B&Bs and hotels are not mobile and their closure would cost local jobs, mainly in occupations where people are less able to be mobile. - As a member of the RSPB and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust I am deeply concerned about the impact on the wildlife environment offered by Minsmere. The noise and pollution from construction is likely to disrupt migrating birds and affect breeding, as well as putting at risk the habitat for otters, natterjack toads and many rare species. - Climate change is already leading to stronger storms and extreme weather events and sea level rise is likely as the icecaps melt further. The Sizewell site is on a coastline that is vulnerable to sea level changes and extreme weather events and hard defences could cause unpredictable changes to the coastline of East Anglia. We have recently seen Walcott almost submerged in sand which was placed on the beach as a sea defence but the wind picked it up and dropped it on the village. That's one example of the fact we simply do not know enough to be confident every risk can be mitigated."

Kathy Drake
"We are totally opposed to the building of Sizewell C because we believe there are alternative, more green and less damaging means of generating electricity and the negative effect on a beautiful stretch of coastline is irreparable in our countries long term future. We also endorse the information below. 1. Site Selection • We 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 Representations 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."

Katy Farenden
"Environment Roads Coastal The use if nuclear power Health concerns Transportation The economy of the local community"

Keith Dickerson
"I intend to object on the grounds of the consequent reduction in biodiversity, specifically in the Parishes of Yoxford and Kelsale-cum-Carlton. This is due to the loss of wildlife corridors arising from the construction of the proposed Sizewell C link road, the reduced air quality arising from increased traffic on the A12 and traffic using the proposed link road and the unsustainable impact on water supplies in these and surrounding parishes. The construction of the proposed Sizewell C link road running from the A12 near North Green, Kelsale to the designated development site will interrupt or block several wildlife corridors that are currently being used for the migration of wildlife including deer, bats, hedgehogs, great crested newts, turtle doves, otters, water voles, slowworms, sand martins and stag beetles, some of which are national and local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species as recorded by the Kelsale-cum-Carlton Biodiversity Action Plan group and the Suffolk Biodiversity Information Service (SBIS). These species roam over a wide area to find food and to find mates for breeding, and the proposed link road will reduce opportunities for these species, the populations of some of which may become unsustainable in this area. The reduction in air quality and water supplies will also have an impact on many of these species. This representation will identify the specific wildlife corridors that will be impacted, the specific wildlife that will be impacted and the mitigation measures that should be taken to minimise the impact of the proposed link road on these species."

Kelvin Smith
"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 for the proposed Sizewell C is too small for the size of the development and will likely lead to a wider devastation in the local countryside and designated sites of international and national ecological importance Climate change forecasts by the Environment Agency predict that Sizewell will be an island in a century, making this a very unsuitable site for the storage of lethal spent nuclear fuel and both operational and decommissioned nuclear reactors. There are no plans for sufficient protection afforded by hard sea defences and there is a high risk of flooding.   Increased traffic on local and trunk roads will fundamentally change the nature of the local community, creating dangerous traffic conditions and an increase in accidents, injuries and deaths. The vibrant local tourist business will suffer greatly, harming the thriving trade on which the area largely depends. An estimated £40m a year in lost revenues is predicted. Workers on the site will predominantly come from outside the area, bringing many changes not least of which will be a reduction in quality of life, more social unrest and 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. There will be a massive increase in HGV movements, light van deliveries and workers’ car journeys which will change the traffic profile in East Suffolk detrimentally for a decade at least. For more than a decade the construction of Sizewell C will entail an increase, not a reduction, of CO2 emissions. The site will require up to 3 million litres of water during construction and up to 2 million litres during operation, in an area which is the most water-scarce in the country. Water abstraction and drainage may affect groundwater levels and represent a risk to the wider environment. The local landscape will be damaged by enormous spoil heaps, creating dust and potentially toxic run offs. The adjoining internationally important wildlife site, RSPB Minsmere, will be put under intolerable pressure. This prized national asset for birds and wildlife will be compromised.   In this coastal location, there is a potentially devastating effect on fish stocks, and the unpredictable coastal erosion may create dangers for both the proposed plant and to the local community.      "

Kevin Allenby
"I would like to take the opportunity to raise the following concerns about the proposed development of Sizewell C. 1) The negative effects on the local community, including the difficulties that increased traffic on the A12 will cause. It will become difficult to enter the A12 from linking minor roads. The excess noise and pollution will be harmful and detrimental to many people. Local businesses that rely on tourism will be badly effected. The impact of 6000 workers in this rural area will inevitable cause many social issues such as increased prostitution as reported at Hinkley Point. 2) The area is one of the finest areas for wildlife in the east of England and Minsmere in particular will suffer badly as a result of these proposals. There are serious risks to groundwater levels and ecological changes as a result. Detailed assessments on the negative effects have not been fully carried out by EDF. Wildlife corridors for important BAP species will be destroyed by the new road systems proposed. 3) The location is clearly wrong - on a vulnerable shifting coastline where rates of erosion cannot be reliable predicted. Is this really the best place to for highly toxic radioactive waste will need to be stored for hundreds of years. Finally, I would like to add that I consider the complexities of the Sizewell C application make it unsuitable for a digital examination process."

Kirton & Falkenham Parish Council
"The parish council is interested in submitting views on transport link s and environmental issues."

Laura Fidment
"I Know that we are meant to create our own text to represent the reasons we object however I fully endorse all the points below and don’t want to edit the list. The time for this dated and misconceived nuclear white elephant is over. And therefore 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 Please reconsider for all our futures."

Laura Purkis
"I would like to register the strongest objection to the project on the following grounds: 1-unsuitable site, in an area of coastal erosion, and vulnerable to flooding 2- damage to the environment and properties 3-completely unacceptable scale of disruption to a large area of Suffolk and transport links for a period of many years. In particular, local roads CANNOT TAKE expected loads 4-strong hostility to the project by the community 5-the devastation of the visitor economy 6-lack of coordination with other large scale projects proposed for the area 7-wholly negative social impact of parachuting thousands of workers into a quiet area, generating huge anxiety and pressure on resources 8-uncertainty over adequacy of funding and resulting (totally unquantifiable) exposure for taxpayers Finally I want to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, and would add that the Sizewell C application is not suitable for a digital examination process in view of its complexity, scale and local hostility."

Laurence Moss
"from Laurence Moss[Redacted] Submission regarding Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010012 Sizewell C I wish to register to submit a statement regarding the above case. The focus of my submission will be about Air Pollution – Particulate matter PM 2.5, PM 10, Nox, CO, VOC’s – which will result from the construction of the aforementioned development 1. I will outline the significance of these emissions and their detrimental effects on the health of construction workers and residents in the vicinity of Leiston / Sizewell. There would also be detrimental effects on the flora and fauna surrounding Sizewell. Should CV19 still be an issue in the spring, I shall cite evidence linking such emissions with the transfer/spread of the virus. I shall specify vulnerable groups who will suffer from these emissions. 2. I will describe the origins of these micro-particles, from vehicle and plant exhausts, and tyre wear, resulting from Lorries and Delivery vehicles and building workers cars. 3. I will describe the geographical extent of these particles, and the timescale that they will be present in our area, along Trunk roads and A roads through our villages. 4. I will argue that EDF have failed to take the emissions seriously – if at all – in their ‘modelling’ exercises, and have only considered such emissions once the plant is being tested or operated – ie after construction. 5. I will argue that the suggested mitigation of small particles is inadequate as they only consider larger particles that can be dealt with by washing/dust suppression. This is even seen in previous EDF practice; the Hinkley project only describes mitigation for particles larger than PM10. 6. I will outline existing legislation that sets standards for the maximum recommended, and therefore legal, exposure to the emissions of these micro-particles – from WHO, EU and UK. 7. I will refer to research on the increasing knowledge of the dangerous health effects of this pollution 8. There is little mitigation for such small particles, but I will outline some strategies which I believe EDF should make. I will point to the woeful lack of air quality monitoring points in the vicinity of the construction, and routes for vehicles to and from the site. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust in that SZC is an inappropriate development for Suffolk, 1. Site Selection  - inappropriate site for access and building on this scale 2. Community, Economic and social impacts – benefits to community outweighed by harmful development 3. Transport – poor links to main routes for traffic 4. Environment and Landscape – harmful to this heritage coastline, and RSPB 5. Marine and Coastal processes – posing a threat to the construction and rest of Suffolk’s coast"

Lawrence Stevens
"I object to this development on several levels : 1. The adverse effect on Minsmere RSPB nature reserve 2. The destruction of ancient woodland 3 The destruction os SSI designated land 4. Pollution risk to future generations 5 Expense of the energy created and government interference in the cost per unit 6. The dumping of radioactive waste on future generations 7 Risk of leaks and contamination to the local area and the wider part of Eastern England 8 Risk of leaks to the marine enviroment 9 Failure of EDF to present the facts to the wider comuninity 10 Failure to produce the jobs and increases to the local economics which were originally stated."

Lindsey Hines
"Hello, I am writing to express concerns about the sizewell C project. This project would have a significant and negative impact on local wildlife, and is not in line with moves towards renewable energy. Although I live in Bristol, I grew up in Suffolk and have many links to the area. Best wishes, Lindsey"

Lisa Sanders
"Nuclear power is outdated and unnecessary. Wind farms and solar power should be the option for Suffolk instead of causing an ecological disaster to the AONB. We should be working to protect our environment, not destroying it. The options for power should not just rest on nuclear. The traffic pollution and excess vehicles will have a devastating effect on This part of Suffolk from which it will never recover. This area can not cope with the measures needed to have this built. The argument for jobs cannot be supported because the same volume of jobs will be available if another source for power is built. Protect the environment. Do not destroy it."

Liz Pierce
"As a resident of Westleton, who loves our very special landscape and environment, and anowner of two holiday cottages in Eastbridge I have serious concerns about the building of Sizewell C, both general and specific. 1) I question whether the project should go ahead, in view of rapidly changing developments in alternative energy, Chinese involvement in a sensitive industry, and EDF's financial position (eg electricity users should pay for the likely higher unit cost). With new technologies emerging and changing attitudes towards this type of nuclear power , will Sizewell be the last nuclear dinosaur? 2) The siting of Sizewell C on an extremely unstable coastline, where the impact of future changing sea levels are not yet fully understood just seems foolhardy to me. 3) I believe that building Sizewell C in this fragile and uniquely beautiful area will cause permanent harm to the landscape, environment, ecosystems on land and sea, and damage Minsmere RSPB reserve and the whole AONB perhaps permanently. I worry that the effects of noise pollution, air pollution eg from traffic and dust from spoil heaps, the borrow pits and landfill, long term light pollution, possible pollution of water courses etc will cause irreversible damage to the environment, landscape,habitats and ecosystems, at a time when we humans are destroying our natural world at an ever increasing rate. 4) The impact on the area and on local people will I think be excessively high. Local businesses (including mine) will be adversely affected; tourism and farming are both hugely important in this area, and it is no coincidence that over 150 local businesses have signalled their objections to Sizewell C. Disruption to roads, footpaths, beaches etc will be widespread and long term, and affect local people's every day lives(not to mention house prices). Having read of EDF's plans to import many workers from Hinkley Point rather than employ local people, other than in unskilled low paid work, makes me wonder whether the benefits to local people and businesses will be largely outweighed by negatives. With tourism one of the key employers of people in this area, and a major source of income (over £40 million pa), there is a real risk that tourists will go elsewhere, and stay away permanently. 5) Many of the very reasonable concerns raised during the consultation stages have not been properly addressed by EDF. At every stage of the consultation process, concerns have been raised about A) Housing. The housing of 2400 workers in a purpose built accommodation block in Eastbridge (population 400) has been consistently opposed. This small peaceful village will be utterly swamped by the new housing, and EDF have been unable to satisfactorily explain why workers can't be housed in legacy, sustainable housing in a number of different areas to 'share the load', and in the long term help address the area's housing shortage. (Reports from Hinkley Point suggest that the accommodation block is unpopular with workers anyway, who prefer to stay in local houses.) B) The proposed route of the relief road is also far from satisfactory. Using the B1122, then dissecting the village of Theberton, and in the process destroying countryside, farmland, footpaths etc, seems an inferior solution compared to the alternative 'legacy' route favoured by many people, but dismissed by EDF. In conclusion I would like to endorse the Relevant Representations of Stop Sizewell C, RSPB, Suffolk Wildlife Trust."

Lobar Family
"We believe the site is totally unsuitable for erecting another nuclear power station due to rising sea levels which would flood the site. There would be loss of natural habitats as its next to Minsmere. There are cheaper alternatives to nuclear, for example renewables, wind and solar energy and greater opportunities in these industries for employment. The problem of nuclear waste has not been solved anywhere in the world. EDF have no track record in completing any of its existing nuclear projects."

Louise Wheatley
"1. Site suitability - unsuitable in an area at considerable at risk of flooding and coastal erosion 2. Site inaccessibility - site location difficult to access without considerable interventions to the surrounding area eg road building, lorry parks and associated infrastructure - causing a colossal level of environmental damage 3. Site status - an AONB which has significant value for wildlife and especially migrating birds. The threat to this from both a) the Sizewell structure and b) the infrastructure required form construction and ongoing works will be devastating to such a ecologically sensitive and important area. 4. Pollution - 37% of Suffolk's emissions come from transport (Suffolk Climate Emergency Plan Technical Report 7.5.20). The increase in heavy road traffic would come at a time when global emissions should be being reduced, associated health impacts will have a catastrophic effect on health of communities and especially children 5. Road building increases traffic - induced demand - meaning that long after the project is finished the area will be left with a legacy of increased traffic. Wildlife corridors, footpaths and communities will be severed by roads, road noise and the general degradation of the environment associated with infrastructure. The impact on communities and wildlife mean the area will never fully recover and this will have a knock on effect on the economy that relies on tourism to the area 6. Climate emergency and green economic recovery. On all levels this construction project explicitly contravenes Suffolk County Councils declaration of a climate emergency made on 21 March 2019 and the government's commitment to a national green economic recovery with an emphasis on carbon neutral renewable energy and which states that 'Encouraging greater take-up of public transport and active travel (walking and cycling) and a massive roll-out of zero emissions vehicles.'(Suffolk Climate Emergency Plan Technical Report 7.5.20). The report also makes considerable references to renewable energy going as far as to say businesses need to move to 100% renewable energy tariffs. The report emphasises that the focus needs to be on local walking and cycling which the increase in road infrastructure and road use and associated repercussions of the Sizewell C project will totally negatively impact for a considerable radius around the site 7 This project will degrade the environment, the wildlife and people's lives in every way possible, its a massive construction project in an ecologically sensitive area of intensely rural communities and is totally unsuitable in the global effort to respect our environment for the continued enjoyment of all. 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 to the digital application process."

Lucia Daniels
"This project fails to meet the necessary benchmarks to make it viable in terms of: a) cost, b) security of supply, c) environmental impact a) COST o The enormous price of construction, including mitigating some of the impact on existing businesses and the community o Building adequate sea and flood defences and their ongoing maintenance will be a major additional cost, long term o A very long lead-time makes it a poor return on investment since by the late 2030s it will struggle to compete with alternative sources of energy at far lower prices o Investor confidence in this form of nuclear energy will diminish in the face of other, more competitive sources, leaving Sizewell an expensive white elephant o Negative impact on what is a thriving local economy with relatively low levels of unemployment o Less visible, yet significant, is the cost to the local community in terms of loss of amenity, quality of life and essential services people have the right to expect b) SECURITY OF SUPPLY o Inundation from flooding, which is very likely in this area, will undermine the security of supply. Maintaining sea defences will price the fuel out of the market, meaning it will be difficult to justify its continued maintenance long enough to make the power station begin paying for itself. o The size of the site would make it vulnerable to sabotage or terrorist threat, with disastrous consequences as well as threatening security of supply. To help spread the risk, smaller, more agile nuclear reactors and other sources of power would be a better way to minimise the risk of a major power outage. o Given EDFs track record at other continental sites, security of supply cannot be relied upon in the foreseeable future, meaning this will come too late to be fit for purpose. c) ENVIRONMENT o Adverse impact on an area of outstanding coastal beauty, with internationally recognised SSSI sites. These also enhance the area and its growing leisure and tourism businesses, coupled with other sites of amenity and cultural heritage nearby. o Renewable energy can help power our grid, but we cannot renew our environment once nuclear waste is stored in it, for thousands of years. We owe it to future generations to do all we can to reduce both our carbon footprint and our nuclear legacy. o Light pollution, waste pollution and traffic pollution will blight the area for well over a decade during the build stage of the project. Even once the site is up and running, it will not become carbon neutral for many years to come. In the meantime, traffic will clog the A12, driving more local traffic onto B roads and clogging these up. As well as unacceptable levels of HGV traffic on a daily basis, workers at Sizewell living on the East side of the A12 will not be required to use the bus service to get to the site, but will be allowed to drive there in their own vehicles, further adding to local noise and congestion. o Kettling thousands of workers on-site, living in close quarters, poses a serious risk to health of the workers themselves and to support staff commuting into the site who may spread the Covid virus (and possibly mutated versions to come) into the community. As well as being an environmental disaster, hold-ups during lockdowns will further add to the cost of the project, which brings me back to my first point. In addition to the above, I also support the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C Lucia Daniels [Redacted]"

Lynne Morton
"Dear Sir/Madam, I am a Suffolk resident, my address is:[Redacted]and I am writing to strongly object to the proposed Sizewell C nuclear power station being built. And I ask you please, withdraw your support for Sizewell C. I have read the recently delivered leaflets putting the arguments both for and against Sizewell C and I am certainly on the 'against' side! Nuclear is outdated and we are a nation with a fantastic coastline, very blessed indeed with the power of waves, it is this power we should be looking to harness as well as more wind power. There wouldn't be the terrible nuclear waste to leave (very irresponsibly) for generations to come to deal with. We have all heard the wise words of Sir David Attenborough recently warning that if we keep losing the natural world we too will be lost! Sizewell would severely damage Minsmere RSPB reserve, an absolute gem and home to many species. Rising sea levels due to global warming will make a bad situation even worse, making Sizewell C an even more hazardous proposition. What happens when it all gets flooded? We have had masses of new dwellings built during the last few years, why haven't they all got solar panels on their roofs?? That's what they do in Germany so why don't we? It should be mandatory. It would substantially decrease the need for electricity generated by other methods. If Sizewell C does go ahead, I understand that, despite boat or rail being a much better options, road would be the chosen option for transporting all the masses of materials needed. There is a rail line not far away from where I grew up which goes to sizewell, why isn't that upgraded and used? I guess the power giant edf would have to foot the bill for sea or rail transportation whereas the council would be responsible for new roads! For all our sakes, including generations yet to come, I just hope this new power station does NOT get built. Yours faithfully,"

M Hegarty
"Insufficiently complete planning seems to have gone in to the question of coastal erosion. Specifically: the assumed time frame for coastal erosion/remoulding of the coastline etc is far too short - and appears to stop at an arbitrary point in time, when it is clear that the impacts will continue indefinitely. it is assumed that sea levels do not change, which is not consistent with the expectation of experts - climate change is expected to change sea levels and the severiy to storms (adn thus tidal surges) over a timeframe that is relevant tp this application; as new evidence and data are collected and modelling is refined, the timescales over which we should expect material change to cliamte and sea levels are getting shorted rather than longer this leads to potential for significant risks, especially to the south of Sizewell, and legally binding arrangements would need to be place to allow for the very significant costs of protecting Thorpeness, Aldeburgh, and the (ecologicaly important but fragile) spit down to the mouth of the Alde/Ore"

Pinsent Masons LLP on behalf of Magnox Limited
"JOINT RELEVANT REPRESENTATION OF THE NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING AUTHORITY AND MAGNOX LIMITED 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority ("NDA") is a statutory corporation established by the Energy Act 2004. On 3 December 2004, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made Directions to the NDA in respect of the existing Sizewell A Nuclear Site (the "Sizewell A Directions"), the effect of which is to give the NDA statutory responsibility for the decommissioning and cleaning-up of the existing Sizewell A nuclear site (the "Sizewell A Nuclear Site") . 1.2 Decommissioning activities at the Sizewell A Nuclear Site are carried out on behalf of the NDA by the site tenant, Magnox Limited ("Magnox"), being a wholly owned subsidiary of the NDA, in accordance with detailed lease and contractual arrangements with the NDA. Magnox is also the holder of the nuclear site licence for the Sizewell A Nuclear Site, granted pursuant to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. 1.3 The Sizewell A Nuclear Site is situated adjacent to the existing Sizewell B nuclear site (the "Sizewell B Nuclear Site"), which is currently owned and operated by EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Limited ("EDF NGL"). The Sizewell B Nuclear Site is currently generating electricity and is situated between the Sizewell A Nuclear Site and the location of the proposed Sizewell C Nuclear Generating Station. 1.4 The NDA is a Category 1 person, and Magnox is a Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3 person in respect of a number of plots of land identified in NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited's (the "Applicant") Book of Reference, and in respect of which the Applicant is seeking the acquisition of all interests and rights and the extinguishment and discharge of all private rights. Both the NDA and Magnox are, therefore, "Affected Persons". 1.5 While the NDA and Magnox have registered individually as Interested Parties, it is their intention that they will act jointly where practicable, in order to assist the Examination. This relevant representation has been prepared on that basis. 1.6 The NDA and Magnox confirm the following: 1.6.1 Commercial discussions with the Applicant have commenced regarding plot MDS/05/07. In addition, prior to the application being submitted, the NDA and Magnox were made aware that the Applicant was interested in plot MDS/05/06, being a car park. However, having been informed that Magnox requires this land until at least 2026, discussions have not progressed. 1.6.2 Neither NDA nor Magnox has had discussions with the Applicant regarding other land plots where the Applicant is seeking compulsory acquisition and/or the extinguishment of the NDA and/or Magnox's interests. 1.6.3 The NDA and Magnox note Article 26(2)(a) of the draft Development Consent Order ("Draft DCO") which precludes the undertaker from acquiring compulsorily any interests in any of the land plots detailed in column (2) of Part 1 of Schedule 15 of the Draft DCO, namely MDS/04/09, MDS/04/10, MDS/05/02, MDS/05/03, MDS/05/04, MDS/05/06, MDS/05/07, MDS/05/08, MDS/05/09, MDS/05/13, MDS/06/01 and MDS/06/02. Whilst the NDA and Magnox welcome Article 26(2)(a), its meaning is open to interpretation and the Explanatory Memorandum offers no assistance in respect of this part of the Article. 1.6.4 The NDA and Magnox note that land plot MDS/02/28, in respect of which Magnox is a Category 1 person, is not detailed in column (2) of Part 1 of Schedule 15 to the Draft DCO. Whilst the interest held by the NDA and Magnox is in the process of being surrendered, this process has not been completed yet. Accordingly, we reserve our position in respect of this plot. 1.6.5 The NDA and Magnox similarly note Article 30 of the Draft DCO which, notwithstanding Article 26(2)(a), permits the undertaker to acquire compulsorily the existing rights, create and acquire new rights and impose such restrictive covenants as are described in the Book of Reference. This power applies to those plots referred to above in paragraph 1.6.3 as well as additional plots which the NDA and/or Magnox have an interest. As noted above, the NDA and Magnox have had no discussion with the Applicant about any rights that the Applicant may be seeking to acquire compulsorily. 1.6.6 In any event, the NDA and Magnox both emphasise their opposition to the acquisition of any land, or the extinguishment of any rights etc, in any land plots which are: (a) within the boundary of the nuclear site licence, held by Magnox, for the Sizewell A Nuclear Site. Regardless of Article 26, the NDA and Magnox are of the opinion that land plots MDS/05/06 and MDS/05/07 should be excluded from the Book of Reference altogether. Inclusion of these plots is wholly inconsistent with the purpose of the strict regulatory regime established by the nuclear site licence and the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, and that as such it would not be in the public interest. The NDA and Magnox also note in this context section 151(a) of the Planning Act 2008 which expressly prohibits a Development Consent Order from excluding or modifying the application of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. The NDA and Magnox are also concerned over the implications of these powers for those plots that abut the nuclear site licence area, being plots MDS/05/02 and MDS/05/13 and would welcome urgent clarification and understanding from the Applicant over how the powers in the Draft DCO could affect both the nuclear site licence and those plots that abut the nuclear site licence; and (b) land which the NDA has responsibility for decommissioning and cleaning-up in accordance with the Energy Act 2004 and the Sizewell A Directions, being land plots MDS/05/06 and MDS/05/07. 1.7 On the basis of the above, the NDA and Magnox are not yet satisfied that the Sizewell C Nuclear Generating Station can be constructed and operated in accordance with the Applicant's application proposals in a manner which adequately ensures the safe, secure and environmentally-sound decommissioning of the Sizewell A Nuclear Site. 1.8 The NDA and Magnox are of the view that, although they are not statutory undertakers they do have statutory functions and regulatory responsibilities in respect of the Sizewell A Nuclear Site, and therefore Protective Provisions should be included in the Draft DCO in order to preserve and protect their respective abilities to effectively carry out their statutory functions and regulatory responsibilities. In particular, the Protective Provisions will need to ensure that access is maintained at all times for all emergency, operational and user purposes and be in accordance with all safety and emergency response requirements in order to satisfy the demands placed upon the NDA and Magnox by the nuclear site licence and wider regulatory regime. 2. NDA AND MAGNOX – CONTEXT 2.1 The NDA is a statutory corporation established by the Energy Act 2004 . The NDA is responsible for ensuring that the UK's legacy nuclear sites are decommissioned and cleaned-up safely, securely, cost-effectively and in a manner that protects people and the environment. 2.2 The NDA's principal function, as established by Designating Directions made by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 3 of the Energy Act 2004, is to secure the decommissioning and cleaning-up of those nuclear sites and installations for which it has designated responsibility. 2.3 On 3 December 2004, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made the Sizewell A Directions. The Sizewell A Directions (a copy of which can be found on [Redacted] give the NDA statutory responsibility for the decommissioning and cleaning-up of the Sizewell A Nuclear Site, the geographical extent of which is more particularly defined in Schedule 1 and Annex A to the Sizewell A Directions. 2.4 Decommissioning activities at the Sizewell A Nuclear Site are carried out on behalf of the NDA by the site tenant, Magnox, being a wholly owned subsidiary of the NDA, in accordance with detailed lease and contractual arrangements with the NDA. Magnox is also the holder of the nuclear site licence for the Sizewell A Nuclear Site, granted pursuant to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. 3. NATURE OF NDA AND MAGNOX LAND AND INTERESTS AFFECTED 3.1 The NDA is a Category 1 person, and Magnox is a Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3 person in respect of a significant number of plots of land identified in the Applicant's Book of Reference. 3.2 Commercial discussions with the Applicant have commenced regarding plot MDS/05/07. In addition, prior to the application being submitted, the NDA and Magnox were made aware that the Applicant was interested in plot MDS/05/06, being a car park. However, having been informed that Magnox requires this land until at least 2026, discussions have not progressed. 3.3 Neither NDA nor Magnox has had discussions with the Applicant regarding other land plots where the Applicant is seeking compulsory acquisition and/or the extinguishment of the NDA and/or Magnox's interests. 3.4 The NDA and Magnox note that the Applicant is seeking the following powers over land in respect of which the NDA and Magnox is a Category 1 or Category 2 person: 3.4.1 Class 1 – acquisition of all freehold and leasehold interests; 3.4.2 Class 4 – override easements and other rights and extinguishment of all private rights. Class 1 3.5 The NDA and Magnox note Article 26(2)(a) of the Draft DCO which precludes the undertaker from acquiring compulsorily any interests in any of the land plots detailed in column (2) of Part 1 of Schedule 15 of the Draft DCO, namely MDS/04/09, MDS/04/10, MDS/05/02, MDS/05/03, MDS/05/04, MDS/05/06, MDS/05/07, MDS/05/08, MDS/05/09, MDS/05/13, MDS/06/01 and MDS/06/02. 3.6 Clarity is required as to why the Applicant may need to acquire the plots detailed in column (2) of Part 1 of Schedule 15 to the Draft DCO, given that Article 26(2) of the Draft DCO does not preclude acquisition of those plots by agreement and commercial discussions are only progressing regarding plot MDS/05/07. 3.7 The NDA and Magnox note that land plot MDS/02/28, in respect of which Magnox is a Category 1 person, is not detailed in column (2) of Part 1 of Schedule 15 to the Draft DCO. Whilst the interest held by the NDA and Magnox is in the process of being surrendered, this process has not been completed yet. Accordingly, we reserve our position in respect of this plot. 3.8 The NDA and Magnox are also of the view that the protection afforded to the Sizewell B Nuclear Site in Article 26(2)(b) of the Draft DCO should be extended also to the Sizewell A Nuclear Site (e.g. all operational land). We would also comment that Article 30 should be made subject to Article 26. 3.9 The NDA and Magnox are of the view, as noted in further detail in paragraph 4 below, that Protective Provisions are required in the Draft DCO in order to reflect and maintain principles of co-operation and co-existence. Class 4, and interaction with Nuclear Site Licence and Sizewell A Directions 3.10 The NDA and Magnox note Article 30 of the Draft DCO which, notwithstanding Article 26(2)(a), permits the undertaker to acquire compulsorily the existing rights, create and acquire new rights and impose such restrictive covenants as are described in the Book of Reference. This power applies to those plots referred to above in paragraph 3.4 (save if Article 26(2)(b) applies it would appear, but not clear) as well as additional plots which the NDA and/or Magnox have an interest. 3.11 The NDA and Magnox note, in particular that certain of the NDA and/or Magnox land plots over which the Applicant is seeking Class 4 powers are situated within: 3.11.1 the boundary of the nuclear site licence for the Sizewell A Nuclear Site, for which Magnox has regulatory responsibility as the nuclear site licensee; and 3.11.2 the designated boundary of the Sizewell A Nuclear Site (the principal nuclear site), for which the NDA has statutory responsibility for decommissioning and cleaning-up in accordance with the Energy Act 2004 and the Sizewell A Directions, being plots MDS/05/06 and MDS/05/07. 3.12 The NDA and Magnox do not agree with the Applicant's proposals to obtain Class 4 powers in respect of any land that is within the boundary of the nuclear site licence, held by Magnox, for the Sizewell A Nuclear Site. The NDA and Magnox are of the view that the compulsory acquisition of any rights etc in such land by the Applicant would be wholly inconsistent with the purpose of the strict regulatory regime established by the nuclear site licence and the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, and that as such it would not be in the public interest. The NDA and Magnox also note in this context section 151(a) of the Planning Act 2008 which expressly prohibits a Development Consent Order from excluding or modifying the application of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. 3.13 The NDA and Magnox do not agree with the Applicant's proposals to obtain Class 4 powers in respect of any land for which the NDA has statutory responsibility for decommissioning and cleaning-up in accordance with the Energy Act 2004 and the Sizewell A Directions. 3.14 The NDA and Magnox therefore are of the view that land plots MDS/05/06 and MDS/05/07 should be excluded from the Book of Reference altogether. The NDA and Magnox are also concerned over the implications of these powers for those plots that abut the nuclear site licence area, being plots MDS/05/02 and MDS/05/13 and would welcome urgent clarification and understanding from the Applicant. As plots MDS/05/02 and MDS/05/13 abut the nuclear site licence area, a Co-operation Agreement is required (or in absence of such a satisfactory agreement provisions) to ensure that neither party impacts on the other parties' obligations under its licence. This is discussed further below. 3.15 Neither the NDA nor Magnox has seen any reporting or evidence that the Applicant has undertaken diligent enquiry as to why the relevant Class 4 powers are required, or indeed how the compulsory acquisition of Class 4 powers may affect more widely the ability of the NDA and Magnox to carry out their respective statutory functions and regulatory responsibilities. As such, the NDA and Magnox are now carrying out that diligence themselves based on the published application. 4. PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS AND SITE CO-OPERATION 4.1 The NDA and Magnox note that neither is a "statutory undertaker" (as defined in Part XI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) for the purposes of the Planning Act 2008. 4.2 The NDA and Magnox are, however, Category 1 and Category 2 persons in respect of a significant number of land plots identified in the Applicant's Book of Reference, including land plots where the NDA has statutory functions and Magnox has regulatory responsibilities. As such, the NDA and Magnox are firmly of the view that Protective Provisions should be included in the Draft DCO for the purposes of preserving and protecting their respective abilities to carry out their statutory functions and regulatory responsibilities and to reflect agreement reached on the exercise of compulsory acquisition powers. 4.3 The NDA and Magnox acknowledge the potential complexities associated with three licensed nuclear installations being situated in close proximity, and indeed the potential for operations on one site to compromise the ability of the other sites to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements – notably in areas relating to site access, transport, construction activities, and environmental. In this context, the NDA and Magnox strongly emphasise the need to ensure that a Nuclear Site Licensees' Co-operation Agreement(s) is entered into between the NDA, Magnox, the Applicant and EDF NGL in order to ensure that there is in place a contractual framework which seeks to avoid conflict between the Sizewell A Nuclear Site, the Sizewell B Nuclear Site and the proposed Sizewell C Nuclear Generating Station, and to ensure that the relevant legal obligations of all parties are not compromised. The proposed compulsory acquisition of any NDA / Magnox land interests or rights must not override the provisions of this Co-operation Agreement, and indeed any future acquisition (including voluntarily) of land or interests by the Applicant must be conditional upon compliance with it, and such principles should be reflected in the Protective Provisions. 4.4 At this stage, and on the basis of the Applicant's current proposals, the NDA and Magnox are not yet satisfied that the Sizewell C Nuclear Generating Station can be constructed and operated in accordance with the Applicant's application proposals in a manner which adequately ensures the safe, secure and environmentally sound decommissioning of the Sizewell A Nuclear Site. 4.5 The NDA and Magnox have jointly engaged legal representation in this regard. 5. STATEMENT OF COMMON GROUND 5.1 In light of the above, the NDA and Magnox will enter into discussions regarding the terms of a Statement of Common Ground with the Applicant. Relevant Representation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Magnox Limited Submitted to the Examining Authority on 30 September 2020 Please see attached"

Marc Linton
"I am deeply concerned about the financial viability of EDF, the main partner for the project. I believe that it will leave the government in an indebted position for many decades, including during the eventual decommissioning of this nuclear facility, for which there is still no long-term safe method of storing nuclear waste. I also believe that the decision to proceed with additional nuclear capacity dos not accord with the UK government acceptance of the Paris agreement on climate change and legislation to make the UK Zero Carbon by 2050. Finally, I am very concerned about its negative effect on the region's amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value. I fully support the Relevant Representations of Stop Sizewell C (the Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell Ltd), which are more comprehensive than my list."

Marguerite Daw
"I endorse the Relevant Representation made by Stop Sizewell C, raising my deep concerns over the development of third generation nuclear power plants on the site of our unique Suffolk Heritage Coastline. They comprehensively cover all issues under the 10 headings of Project Financing, Site Selection, Local Communities, Worker Campus, Transport and related associated development, Landscape & Heritage, Environment, Marine and Coastal processes, Economic and Social Impacts, Concerns about the Planning Statement. My huge concerns arise out of these, specifically: • The Suffolk Heritage Coast draws visitors because of its tranquil and peaceful setting and unspoilt beauty. The development of two EPR reactors will take 12 years from start of building to completion, taking up sizeable areas of the countryside, unique areas SSI and will greatly impact on some rare and protected species of wildlife that EDF cannot recreate, nor will the RSPB or other conservation organisations be able to recover. The disruption to local residents will be immense and none of EDF’s plans will decrease this whilst the plant is in construction. • Hinkley C is under construction at huge cost now, and yet I understand it is only likely to be able to provide 7% of our energy needs. Currently nuclear power from 15 plants in the UK only provide approx. 10% of our needs. The cost is too great to keep building more of these whilst we could better invest in safe, green renewable technologies. More wind, solar and other safer forms of renewable energy production are coming online with lower costs and they can be maintained/replaced on the same sites, and these could revert to their natural state should other sites need to be found. By its dangerous nature, existing sites of nuclear power plants have to stay put after decommissioning so that toxic waste and contamination is dealt with, also at great expense over huge periods of time. New plants need to be constructed on new, and in this case, very much green belt land – destroying beautiful areas of marshes, woodlands, etc. • The area relies on tourism and many visitors. I for one will be greatly deterred from wishing to visit what has always been a favourite destination for days and short breaks in Southwold and Aldeburgh. Visiting Minsmere will be questionable too. • Digital only examinations of EDF’s plans is not adequate to ensure their application is totally sound from an environmental, health and safety and welfare of the local area on all fronts, economic, environmental. Much more thorough scrutiny must take place to safeguard everyone living locally. • Historic catastrophic incidences (Chernobyl, Fukushima) clearly show the huge dangers that cannot be disregarded where radioactive materials are used in nuclear power. In the case of Chernobyl – today’s plants may be far safer on that front but the Japanese plant was well-designed and expected to handle all scenarios. EDF’s scenario planning seems wanting. Documentary programmes have also highlight near misses in Sellafield in the past. New plants will not be infallible! • All nuclear waste produced from this plant will be held on-site until at least 2140 with no long-term facilities being catered for. Sea levels, unforeseen land tremors, etc could put the whole of East Anglia in danger of a Fukushima type accident. I hope our Government will realise that with the Paris Agreement on climate change this technology is no longer the answer to our energy supply needs in the future. We cannot afford to finance this project post-Covid-19 nor want to rely on the French/Chinese sponsors either."

Marie Szpak
"I wish to register the following concerns about the proposed Sizewell C development. There are currently too many energy related projects currently seeking permission to progress with little, if any, real concern for the residents of East Suffolk whose lives are going to be most affected by the cumulative impact of these projects for many years. Thinking initially of the Sizewell C project, the site is surrounded by designated sites of ecological importance, including sites of landscape, cultural heritage and tourist spaces. If allowed to progress it will mean the destruction of areas inside the AONB which is supposed to be protected! Local woods will be felled, footpaths will be closed and life for local residents will be devastated by increased traffic, noise and pollution. Then there is the matter of nuclear waste and a nuclear accident - key concerns for those living within a 15 kilometre radius. I return to my initial point about the cumulative effect of the proposed energy projects including SPRs wind farm, cable route and proposed substations at Friston. The further development of the Galloper and Greater Gabbard projects - recently which have undergone a name change! East Suffolk relies on tourism, night skies, quiet roads and wildlife and heritage the cumulative effect of these projects mean all these will be lost. Roads will be gridlocked with HGVs and works related traffic - roads, many of which are just lanes, and cannot cope with the weight and size of such vehicles! Communities and farms will be divided by relief roads! East Suffolk will no longer be a Heritage Coast - it’s new name is the Sunrise Coast - all linked to the energy projects which are really rewarding investors who back the projects with their money - most not even English! They promise cheap plentiful power and the creation of jobs - but these jobs are not for the local population!"

Marion Wells
"I think that the construction and operation of Sizewell C is an irresponsible act as it would produce large amounts of radioactive waste that will be hazardous for hundreds of years. This is not a good legacy to leave on our planet. I also believe that the construction process will be extremely damaging to the local environment: natural habitats, people's livelihoods, disturbed flora and fauna and rights of way."

Marjorie Johnson
"The level of dependence on road transport will create significant disruption to everyday life in the area. It should be reduced and its impact mitigated as much as possible. I am particularly concerned about the proposed entry point of the A12 link road to the site, as opposed to the entry point to the south considered previously. The more southerly entry point would keep most Sizewell related traffic away from the two Saxmundham junctions, crucial to everyday life in the area. EDF has recognised that these junctions will need some improvement, but the suggested measures will be inadequate. There will be jams on either side of the A12 at these junctions and most likely be a flashpoint for accidents, given the Sizewell related volume of A12 traffic, the size of construction vehicles local traffic will have to contend with and the high speed limit. The original more southerly proposal for the entry to the link road would create a real benefit once construction is completed. The currrent proposal will bring no long term legacy. Decisions on planning should wait until public meetings can be held."

Mark Beaumont
"I raise the following areas of significant concern over the Sizewell C Application specific to Theberton and the proposed Sizewell Link Road (Work No. 12B). 1. Community Consultation Inadequate and Unlawful – 2008 Planning Act • Communities would be cut in half by the proposed Theberton bypass, which would sever access and lead to immediate and lasting physical and mental health issues for local residents. • Refer to DCO Work No.12B (Theberton bypass). • Promoter has not considered merits of any amendments or concerns put forward by local stakeholders nor engaged adequately with local communities at any stage. • No response or acknowledgement to relevant pre-application consultation objections despite lawful obligation for promoter to have regard to relevant responses under S49 of the Planning Act 2008. • Promoter’s consultation process is a textbook beacon example of how not to engage with communities and ride roughshod over people’s lives and livelihoods in the name of economy. 2. Sizewell Link Road – Irreparable Impact on Listed Building Not Considered • The proposed Theberton Bypass route would pass within 200m directly west of Grade II listed Theberton Hall (1792) – described as having “high heritage significance” in Environmental Statement 9.4.109. • Refer to DCO Work No.12B (Theberton Bypass) and Bk6 Environmental Statement Chapter 1 Figure 1.4 and Chapter 2 Figure 2.1. • The Sizewell link road is planned to be raised on a prominent 4 metre embankment west of Theberton Hall, causing significant light, noise, air pollution and impact on privacy, admitted by the promoter. • The SW prevailing wind and increased air pollution would cause material physical impact to a delicate Listed Building. • The Sizewell link road is far too disruptive and should be replaced with the D2, recommended by the Highways Authority. 3. Sizewell Link Road – Pretty Road Stopping Up – Junction Not Fit for Purpose • Pretty Road is a busy community link route from Theberton to Saxmundham, the most important local hub with rail station, Tesco and Waitrose. The proposed Sizewell link road would sever it with Pretty Road being stopped up for motor traffic. The link road would instead be spanned with a new 44m long, 5m wide bridge for non-motorised users only. • Refer to DCO Work No. 12C and Plan Bk2 2.10 SLR Pt 2/3 - SZC-SZ0204-XX-000-DRW-100139. • There is no logic to limiting any bridge to non-motorised traffic bridge. The critical, overriding demand on Pretty Road is for motor vehicles to access Saxmundham. This point has been made repeatedly to the promoter, which has ignored all concerns (see Environmental Statement 3.3.9-3.3.12). • The stopping up would also make the historic, principal access route to Theberton Hall unusable, becoming a dead end. It is used by 95% of all visits – including oil tankers, which are unable to use the alternative access route to the east. • The Sizewell Link Road should be replaced with the D2 access road. Any Pretty Road bridge over any proposed Theberton bypass must serve motor traffic in order to retain connectivity to Saxmundham and to maintain the relevance of Theberton Hall’s principal access route."

Mark Hoare RIBA
"No one disputes that the UK needs long term energy security but additional nuclear capacity is not a sustainable or safe choice, and is certainly not appropriate in Suffolk. The east coast is increasingly serving as a gateway to offshore wind generation - renewable energy is the future, while nuclear is technology of the past. Nuclear is expensive to build, expensive to run and the costs of the waste legacy are at best guestimates. Our future must be in developing renewable energy and storage potential while managing and siting the associated infrastructure sensitively to take account of neighbours, landscape character, heritage and ecology. Storage technology is progressing rapidly year on year, and by the time Sizewell C might become operational we can reasonably expect significant advances to have been made in storage capacity and renewable generation. Increased investment in renewable energy would be much more compatible with Suffolk's aspiration to be the Greenest County and the drive towards more renewable energy. To allow such a large nuclear power station to go ahead in the county would undermine this Greenest County initiative which has been led by the county council for over a decade, and which has considerable grass roots support. There are legitimate local concerns about impacts on tourism and the rural economy, heritage and ecology, and transport, as well as the impact on those who live close to Sizewell and are therefore more vociferous in their objections. The regional economic benefits of a large incoming construction workforce will not outweigh the harm to tourism or the negative impact on regional spending from loss of tourism. It is self evident that a family staying in a holiday cottage whilst on holiday for a week in Suffolk will visit more local businesses than two or three workers using the same holiday cottage as a dormitory for work, and probably leaving the county for the weekend to drive home to their families elsewhere. And it is self evident that increased traffic and congestion is off-putting to tourism as well as impacting on local residents and businesses. These and many more concerns are well expressed by community groups and key stakeholders, along with the environmental and ecological impacts. The Sizewell expansion is also being promoted without co-ordination with other local potential major projects which will only further exacerbate local and regional negative impacts if more than one major infrastructure project goes ahead concurrently. Suffolk is creative and open-minded, an outward-looking county which attracts tourism and the arts of international significance - it is forward looking while being respectful of its own heritage. It is not a hotbed of NIMBYism. Suffolk aspires to be the Greenest County and wants to play its part. It recognises that it can contribute to the wider energy needs of the UK beyond its county boundaries, and that there may be a local price to pay for this, but Sizewell C is not a price worth paying."