Representation by David Adelson
- Date submitted
- 8 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I have been a resident of East Suffolk for 36 years. I object to the building of a new Nuclear power station at Sizewell on the following grounds. Dangerous site - I have witnessed the unstable and changing coastline. It is not suitable for such a large scale development with extremely hazardous nuclear fuel and waste. Even if stable at the moment, it may change in a few years. The building itself may impact erosion patterns. Land key to the local economy on either side of the station may be flooded or lost. Climate change - changing weather patterns will lead to more extreme events and sea level rise, making the site liable to flooding despite artificial defences, and/or on an island where it can't be maintained and decommissioned safely or at reasonable cost. CO2 savings are not enough and will come too late to meet the planet's needs. EDFE's calculations have not included the cost of the geological waste facility and so they are over-optimistic. And savings are based on out-of-date policy documents that have been overtaken by fall in price of renewables. Water for construction- in this very dry area, agriculture and tourism as well as residential uses are already stressing the local supplies. The Environment Agency is not allowing any new water abstraction licences. So the amount of water needed for SZC will take away from local people, their businesses, and national food security. Transport - The extra traffic will cause severe congestion for years, crippling the local economy. The use of the railway during the night will affect the sleep of residents of all the towns from Felixstowe to Darsham. Local Tourism Economy - The area is currently a major attraction for a large section of Eastern and Southern England, and brings in visitors from further afield too. This is because of the hard work of organisations who have been able to preserve some element of its natural beauty. The major development will impact not only the visual amenity in the immediate vicinity, but the attractiveness of a much wider area because of transport links, hydrological impact, and even well out to sea through the cooling water tunnels. A national asset (in the form of this facility for natural recreation) will be badly damaged.