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 22 September 2020
From Christine Bryant

Representation

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