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 25 September 2020
From Great Glemham Parish Council

Representation

Great Glemham lies 10 miles west of the Sizewell site, about 1 ½ miles north of the A12 between Saxmundham and Framlingham. The council accepts the general principle of nuclear development on the site, but has concerns about some of the negative impacts of the proposals. Our main points are set out below: 1. It is particularly concerned that the prolonged construction will have a detrimental impact on tourism within the area, on which a number of annual events and businesses within the village depend for their livelihood. 2. We prefer the rail-led transport strategy. It foresees significant negative impacts on the A12 corridor and other routes to the site (particularly from the A14). 3. It is disappointed the facility to bring material to site by sea has been dropped without adequate supporting rationale. 4. We note Sizewell B was built pre-satnav era, yet EDF's transport strategy fails completely to note that traffic heading to Sizewell from the A14 is 'directed' along the A1120 or B1077/8 by such devices (see below e 'rat-running'). 5. The council believes the southern park and ride facility should be situated alongside the freight management facility at Sevenhills, reducing the intolerable pressure on Wickham Market. 6. The council has persistently voiced concerns regarding the main access point for the village at the A12 in Marlesford with villagers wanting to turn right to head south towards Woodbridge, Ipswich and beyond. Despite this, at no stage has EDF proposed any mitigation during periods when convoys leave the site from the southern park and ride or freight management facilities. It requests the Inspectors impose suitable conditions and, if necessary, junction mitigations e.g. traffic lights to ensure that villagers can continue to join this critical artery safely. 7. The council doesn’t believe EDF be capable of managing 'rat-running' effectively with the current proposals. There is no detail of proposed signage, directing Sizewell-bound traffic of all kinds) to agreed routes and no mention of either use of ANPR systems (to identify vehicles heading to the site or other designated areas) or how modern vehicle satnavs will react when the site's postcode is entered from afar. The council believes both should form an integral part of the proposed vehicle management strategy. 8. EDF defines local workers as those living within 90 minutes travel time to the site and, together with its deferred accommodation construction (also in the wrong location), it foresees substantial numbers of workers seeking to access the site from local minor roads. It requests the Inspectors handle this via conditional consents which are managed independently to ensure compliance by EDF. 9. The council requests the Inspectors address the location and sequence of construction for the accommodation unit(s) and ensure these include relevant services such as GPs and welfare support, rather than workers seeking these from the tightly-stretched local facilities. 10. It requests the Inspectors take full account of the cumulative impact of all energy-related projects planned for this small area of countryside, and their impact on the A12.