“SIZEWELL C PROPOSALS: BACKGROUND Martlesham and the surrounding parishes are experiencing economic and housing growth putting increasing pressure on the local highway network. With its expanding retail and business areas plus BT Adastral Park, congestion levels continue to rise. Martlesham Parish sits astride the A12 with several important junctions. Households are planned to double to nearly 5000 by c2027-28. The business and retail areas (including BT Adastral Park create about 5000 daily commuters and very large (unquantified) numbers of shoppers and other visitors. All this traffic loads the A12. Sizewell’s accessibility is wholly dependent on accessibility via the A12. At Martlesham, that accessibility is threatened. SIZEWELL C PROPOSALS: OVERVIEW We feel there is insufficient information to support Sizewell’s expansion. Therefore, we do not support the proposals for many reasons, including: • Failure to assess and mitigate the impact of construction traffic on congestion, quality of life and environmental parameters on the areas surrounding the A12 where it passes through Martlesham (and Woodbridge). • Insufficient evidence to consider a cost-v-benefit analysis. • Insufficient information to assess whether alternative emerging technologies will displace the need for Sizewell C in the timeframe for Sizewell to come on stream. • With progress in cost effective renewable energy storage, and recent investment in connector infrastructure to achieve more effective National Grid balance, we question the economic viability of Sizewell C. • These proposals should not be assessed in isolation but within the context of an overarching energy strategy for the East Suffolk coastline, incorporating all renewable and nuclear projects, assessing their cumulative impact on local communities. • Within the local East of England Energy Zone there are opportunities and proposals for the area to produce more renewable energy through low carbon technology, biomass and anaerobic digesters, wind farms, wave power and solar power which are more environmentally and climate emergency friendly than nuclear power. • The project fails to generate any desirable long-term legacy for the region – economic, transport, housing or otherwise. • The decommissioning proposals are untried and untested. • The long-term hazards in handling, transporting and storing nuclear waste are unknown and the plans do not offer adequate health and environmental safety assurance. • Contingencies for medical care for a temporary workforce, emergencies and evacuation are inadequate and overstretch existing local resources, presuming hospital access via the A12 is guaranteed. • The special qualities of the Suffolk Coasts and Heath as AONBs and SSSIs are being ignored. This is home to a unique mix of habitat and protected species (flora, fauna and wildlife), which demands protection, not relocation or mitigation. • Work on understanding the potential effects of a nuclear plant on marine ecology and fisheries is still being considered whereas mitigation measures are only promised “where appropriate”. What is appropriate has not been established. • The transport of nuclear waste cannot be secured against terrorism activity and accident, which poses a major threat as it travels through Martlesham. • Secondary damage to local archaeological sites is under- recognised, contrary to emerging national recognition for the local Anglo-Saxon history.”