Representation by Marilyn Hands
- Date submitted
- 27 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am writing to object to the construction of Sizewell C. I endorse the representations made by Stop Sizewell C. There is no doubt that the negative impacts of the proposed development of SZC are catastrophic for this beautiful rural and coastal region. There are no adequate mitigation measures which EDF might take to make the scheme less unacceptable. The publication recently circulated by EDF, has reinforced my view that EDF makes misleading statements which bear very little resemblance to reality. For instance, EDF’s claims about carbon payback period are misleading – it assumes all electricity will be generated from fossil fuels – discounting substantial and increasing renewable sources. Comments about Hinkley being on schedule fly in the face of informed reports. In all the whole of this consultation process has been a farce with very little thought for the long-term consequences for this area. EDF tells us, the site is potentially suitable. I believe that there can be few less suitable sites in the country. The only reason government picked Sizewell is because the local population is inured to living near a nuclear power station. Should the scheme go ahead, I have grave reservations about the construction process, its impact on the local community and environment and the mitigation measures currently proposed. EDF makes out it is doing as much as it can to mitigate the impact of the scheme; I believe it is being economical with the truth. As I see things, it has put forward the absolute minimum it thinks it can get away with. Expenditure on mitigation is derisory compared with the total cost of c. £20bn. Looking at the impact study the benefits are questionable at worse and short term at best. The local area has seen very little long-term benefits from Sizewell’s earlier development. It is tourism and food production that has sustained the local economy over the years. It would appear to me that the benefits to this scheme are either national or regional – not local. All the disbenefits fall on the local community. Specifically, I have concerns about the following issues: • The irreparable damage the development will inflict on the wildlife and amenity value of Minsmere nature reserve and the Sizewell Marshes SSSI – impacts need to be considered cumulatively. • The impact on the landscape of the AONB. • Inadequate assurances on mitigation of light pollution. • Local employment opportunities over-stated – the vast majority of the temporary and permanent workforce will be imported - local opportunities will be largely limited to on-site support (catering and cleaning). The construction of the previous two nuclear power stations has left Leiston one of the poorest towns in Suffolk. • Impact on tourism. • Water supply. • Hydrology. • Community impacts – security and crime. • Rejection of marine-led strategy – EDF has not tested any alternatives to the close pile pier it has rejected (described by one engineer as a sixteenth century solution). • Minimal use of rail. • The proposed relief road will sever the little lanes and communities on either side putting the viability of our village school at risk. • Lack of sustainability/legacy - the relief road and the worker campus will be removed on completion of construction – a better choice of route and site would offer lasting benefits at little extra cost. • EDF has understated potential traffic congestion – the construction of Sizewell B brought massive disruption even though, unlike SZC, all aggregates were brought in from the sea. I believe that EDF’s insistence in going ahead with this application at a time of crisis, when local consultation is particularly difficult, just reflects EDF’s attitude to this whole process – lip service to local consultation and local needs. It is totally inappropriate and unfair that the examination of this application should be conducted digitally. Marilyn Hands