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 24 September 2020
From Ashtons Legal on behalf of The Brindley Representation

Representation

1. I, Eric Brindley, live at [Redacted] and own the property along with my brother [Redacted]. I wish to be registered as an interested party for the Sizewell C DCO on behalf of myself and my brother. 2. We are opposed to EDF’s proposal for a western alignment for the Two Villages Bypass. The Sizewell C project should not be considered in isolation and should take into account Scottish Power’s wind farm projects, which will add to the traffic burden. Serving wind farms in the North Sea will have a less environmentally damaging effect, compared to a new nuclear power station, and therefore likely to be approved. 3. I am part of the residential community in the Farnham Hall area. My property is half of an Arts and Crafts type building, obviously associated with the Farnham Manor estate. The manor went with the church to Butley Priory until the Dissolution and is of great antiquity. The community in buildings close to the listed building at Farnham Hall should be treated as part of the historic heritage fabric of the area and protected from serious harm, as evident from EDF’s own documents. 4. It has been clear for many years that Farnham and Stratford St Andrew should be bypassed. It is unfair on Marlesford and Little Glemham that they are not being relieved as well and their future should be better catered for. Any bypass to the east of the existing A12 will take farm land but it can hardly be said to be the least worst option to shift the increased traffic burden from the existing A12 to a route which affects 20 dwellings, rather than one further to the east, which affects directly only one, a more modern bungalow of low architectural quality, used for holiday lettings. 5. EDF’s arguments against a more easterly route are specious. It is a little longer but will still be faster than coming through the two villages. It does not go through ancient woodland. It will obviously be less expensive, without a deep cutting and bunding and with reduced compensation costs. It will pose less risk to the flora and fauna of the area, particularly the very fine Foxburrow Wood. It will give opportunities for further tree planting, as some recompense to the loss of the southern part of Foxburrow Wood to farming in past years. 6. When considering the weight which should be attached to an eastern alignment for the Two Villages scheme, there are significant planning benefits for a design which caters better for a later extension past Little Glemham and Marlesford, if they are not to be relieved now. 7. I reserve the right to amend, add to and expand on our objections during the DCO process.