Representation by Amy Coulter
- Date submitted
- 1 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am a resident of East Suffolk writing to you to oppose the construction of a new nuclear power station at Sizewell. Transport I believe the associated congestion and noise and air pollution resulting from the additional traffic along the A12 and local roads would be a disaster for local people and tourists visiting the area. Already traffic congestion around Martlesham, Woodbridge and surrounding areas causes significant delays and economic losses, not to mention the negative affect on air quality. The road based transport plan not sustainable. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. Delays in the construction of the planned road infrastructure would also mean local villages would endure around 3 years of increased traffic. Where new roads are planned, these will split communities and damage the valuable rural footpath system. Additionally alternative relief road routes with legacy value have not been adequately assessed by EDF - those which are planned may not even be maintained after construction is complete. Natural environment and tourism I work in the environmental sector and also run a small hospitality business which caters for tourists visiting Suffolk to enjoy its wildlife, peace and tranquillity within an AONB. All of this will be jeopardised by the construction on Sizewell C. Wildlife in the local area (and at nearby Minsmere RSPB reserve which as a member I visit regularly) will be threatened by noise, air and light pollution during construction and running of the power station. This is a flagship destination of international importance and significance which should not be jeopardised. Flooding, water management and dust pollution I am concerned about the potential risk of flooding due to the increase in the run off from construction sites and the power station area. The effect this will have on the Minsmere Sluice is unclear and has not been fully examined. The huge demand for potable water also appears to have been disregarded - where is this going to come from? Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species. There is potential for a huge amount of dust pollution to occur from the spoil heaps and stockpiles and I feel that the planned dust management is totally inadequate. Climate I don’t believe that nuclear projects are fit for purpose in our current climate and ecological emergency. It is impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage and the power station won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years of operation. Offshore wind is much cheaper to install and will be quicker to come online. The generation of renewable energy will offset the embodied carbon involved in the construction of the wind turbines many years in advance of a nuclear facility. A new nuclear power station will not help us to meet our 2050 carbon neutral ambitions. Coastal erosion I am also horrified by the idea of the nuclear waste that will be generated by this so-called ‘clean’ energy which will stay on this eroding coastline for at least 2 centuries. An obscene legacy for future generations. Although ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature HCDF, no complete design of HCDF available. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process.