The Sizewell C Project

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 19 September 2020
From John Parsons

Representation

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