The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.
The Sizewell C Project
Received 17 September 2020
From 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.”