Representation by Ian Marshall
- Date submitted
- 14 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
1.Site Selection The UK Government’s 2011/existing National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation EN-6 concludes that Sizewell is a potentially suitable site for new nuclear power stations before 2025. This conclusion is out of date as the EN-6 assessments predate government acceptance of the Paris agreement on climate change and legislation to make the UK Zero Carbon by 2050 We believe this is the wrong project in the wrong place because The development cannot be operating before 2025; The site is at risk from climate change, sea level rise and fluvial flooding; It will have an adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance; It will have an adverse impact on coastal processes; It will have an adverse impact on sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value; The carbon footprint of Sizewell C’s construction will have an adverse impact on carbon targets; it cannot positively contribute to UK’s carbon neutral timetable until 2040 at the earliest; The 32 ha twin reactor development (c.f. Hinkley Point C 45ha) requires unacceptable increased coastal exposure, relocation of existing Sizewell B facilities, other design compromises and is well below the EN-6 presumption of 30ha for a single reactor installation; There are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality; resulting in significant cumulative impacts to the East Suffolk environment and economy; There is no sustainable solution for the safe disposal of nuclear waste. Spent fuel and high-level waste from Sizewell B and C would stay on this eroding coastal site until at least 2135. Climate change and rising sea levels mean that the site is likely to become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors. There are major concerns over flooding and overtopping during storm surges, and ultimately the site will become an island if sea levels rise to predicted levels. 2.Local communities The development would have unacceptable impacts on local communities, in particular Leiston, Eastbridge and Theberton; and settlements along the B1122 and A12. . 3. Worker Campus The campus would have significant impacts on local communities during construction and thereafter because of noise, light, pollution, traffic and social pressures. 4.Transport EDF’s transport strategy has rejected a marine/jetty component due to environmental and geomorphological concerns but the extensive use of rail has also been rejected with insufficient justification. The projected road improvements are 'too little, too late..... 5. Landscape & Heritage The proposed development, by virtue of locality, design and scale, would have a catastrophic long term impact on landscape character. 6. Environment The impact on the local environment, the local flora and fauna, Minsmere and surrounding areas will be devastating. 7. Marine and Coastal processes The plan here would appear to be woefully inadequate and unclear. 8. Economic and social impacts EDF’s own surveys show that a significant percentage of visitors will be deterred from visiting the area during construction, thereby damaging the Suffolk coast visitor economy. Tourism could lose £40m a year, with job losses of up to 400. 9. Associated Development Impact of the Yoxford roundabout on local residents and traffic Location of the Park and Ride facilities The Two Villages ByPass Location of the Freight Management Centre