Representation by Andrew McDonald
- Date submitted
- 22 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
1 Process: The current proposals do not address significant development impact issues that have been repeatedly raised in previous rounds of consultations by SCC, ESC and the great majority of East Suffolk Town and Parish Councils. 2 Transport (and integrity): The transport strategy has not developed since the first consultation stage, despite continuing objections from councils and road users. Its current form is unsustainable and would have a massive, economically undermining effect on the entire ‘Heritage’ coast, not only in terms of tourism but also in terms of quality of life and business efficiency. EDF have always stated their commitment to development of a rail-led strategy; but it is now clear that they deliberately failed to progress discussions with Network Rail over a period of years, and there has not therefore been a fair assessment of the rail-led option. The application should not proceed until this deliberate failure has been rectified. 3 Impact on biodiversity, and poor mitigation: The proposed construction works would engender permanent damage and destruction to a wide range of affected designated habitats, protected wildlife and open countryside, both within and outside the AONB; the damage would be so severe, and the mitigation and compensation so inadequate, that this project should not go ahead on the basis proposed. 4 Road impacts: the permanent negative effects of three new roads, including the proposed access road to the station platform, would fragment Suffolk’s protected landscape, dividing the AONB completely in two and forming a wildlife barrier between Minsmere – Walberswick Ramsar, SPA, SAC, SSSI and Sizewell Marshes SSSI. Friends of the Earth estimate that, in addition to direct mortality, there would be a loss of bird life of up to 30% extending to 1 km either side of each new road, due to noise, lights and fumes. Established commuting routes of bats and other animals would be cut off and dispersal of species prevented. Such losses are intolerable. 5 Coastal processes, safety and longterm impacts: Sizewell is not sustainable in the future as a safe and suitable site for nuclear power and long-term storage of nuclear waste. It is seriously worrying that the application makes no comment or forecast on coastal evolution south of the Great Sizewell Bay, ignoring the clear problems that its jutting out beyond the natural shoreline will undoubtedly cause to the Suffolk coast – a single geomorphological unit. Manmade damage to natural processes will disrupt a local economy worth over £100 million a year. The application should not be accepted until a scientific assessment of these risks has been submitted. 6 Carbon and cost benefits: the application fails to show that the costs of this project will be lower than a renewables solution, nor that the deferred carbon emissions gain will outweigh the immediate and until at least 2040 adverse carbon balance between construction and energy production. EDF must make public its ‘lifecycle CO2’ calculations and show why they differ from those used by IPCC and the UKCC.