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 23 September 2020
From 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.”