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 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”