Representation by Joan Girling
- Date submitted
- 25 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Relevant Response to PINs for EDFE DCO application for Sizewell C The NPS at EN6 states that the Sizewell C Site is a potential site, for the development. It does not state it is a certainty. As a local person I base my response and objection to the EDFE DCO proposals for Sizewell C on the many reasons why after 8 years of Consultation it is proven that the SZC site is totally unsuitable. The development would cause a substantial adverse environmental impact upon the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and have a serious detrimental effect on biodiversity and sustainability. During the long construction period of up to twelve years, and when operational. 1) AONB Policies The AONB at Sizewell has two nuclear power stations, the proposed SZC with two reactors and the many extraneous buildings will exacerbate the industrialisation of the area and the Heritage coast, intruding on the many designations which surround the site. The AONB landscape quality and tranquillity will be lost over a wide area also the impact of the nuclear frontage to the North sea which will cover 1000 metres damaging the long distance views of the Coast. 2) EN6. The size and scale of the proposed development is not in line with what is included in EN6. Without increasing the land take, the size of the proposed site in EN6 is 32hectares, (Hinkley is 52.4ha) this will not contain all required buildings 2 reactors and 4pylons. It exceeds all suggested boundaries and intrudes into the SSSI to the west and seaward to the east, damaging the SAC and approximately 100+ metres forward of the Green building line of SZA and B approved by SoS in SZB’s Planning Consent. SZC site is to be built up onto a platform raising it higher than SZB. The chimneys and pylons will add to the clutter in the AONB landscape. 3) Access Road and AONB Policies (Avoid Mitigate Compensate) The four lane permanent Access Road (to be reduced to 2 lanes after construction) is approximately two to three kilometres long This part of the AONB is remote and environmentally sensitive. It includes Fen meadow SSSI. A 4 lane road in this area would be extremely damaging dividing the AONB for its total width causing a barrier and loss of connectivity for the many creatures which BAP species which live breed and forage in the area, and the web of life will be inextricably damaged. It is recorded that Sir Frank Layfield Inspector for the Sizewell B Inquiry pronounced that development in this area was “a totally inappropriate intrusion into the Suffolk Countryside” The then Secretary of State upheld those views. Along side which is the proposed Lay-up area and concrete batching plant which will massively intrude into the AONB and will leave a permanent scar. All the above will create, light, noise and dust pollution in the AONB and affect RSPB Minsmere. EDFE have never recognised the major significance of this damaging proposal. It will change the ambiance of this precious area forever. Mitigations suggested by EDFE are in no way adequate in size or quality and do not reflect the loss of habitat and the damage it will cause to this unspoilt area. The Access Road and all accompanying ancillary works can and should be avoided as the mitigation or compensation can never replace that which will be lost. EDFE have never considered an alternative access route. 4) Culvert onto the Development site The Access Road leads to the Culvert onto the main site. It is obvious that this method of water management is not satisfactory and will not be successful in protecting Sizewell Belts or Minsmere Levels which rely solely on the quality and depth of the water Any changes will cause untold irreparable harm as all life in the area is dependant upon these factors. There should not be any impediment to the flow of water in this area. Yet it is quite clear from what is suggested that this will undoubtedly happen. Again these matters have been raised with EDFE at every consultation. I submit that Access Road and Culvert are inappropriate and PINS should recommend a refusal of both. 5) Sea defence On the seaward side, east of the proposed development EDFE plan to build a sea defence/ berm 14 metres high and much forward of the site line of SZB and fronting the North Sea. The aim being to defend the SZC site from climate change, storm surges and rising sea levels during the lifetime of the plant. This proposal not only insults the AONB but also the Heritage Coast and shows no understanding of how the coast north and south of the berm will react, this is particularly concerning for RSPB Minsmere and the villages of Thorpeness, Sizewell and Eastbridge. 6) Surrounding Area of SZC Proposed Site. Transport Strategy is inadequate. The proposed SZC is many miles from a major road (A12) and is a remote and very rural coastal site. It has become apparent that many changes will have to take place to facilitate the amount of traffic needed for the build programme. Changes to the existing B, C, and Unclassified roads, by the many round- abouts, crossings and junctions and the building of new roads/ bypasses, and many Rights of Way and designated Cycle routes are unacceptable The environmental impact on both wildlife and humans beings has not been properly addressed, All road and rail building prove the inaccessibility of the proposed SZC Site. Much of what is suggested worsens the problems and many more studies and explanations are needed before the Transport Strategy is acceptable. Other major concerns which have not been addressed by EDFE Potable water quantity and source Unknown. Sewage disposal during construction and operational. Unknown. Marine habitat Unclear. Inlets/ outlets for cooling water, raised sea temp. Not clear. Fish stocks entrainment and loss. Unresolved and not sustainable . Damage to Coastal Processes. Unresolved. CO2 Pollution during build programme. Unknown Impact on tourism income value. Emergency Plan next to working SZB Unknown. Quantities and source of bulk material. Unknown Joan Girling [Redacted]