Representation by Eleanor Jenkin
- Date submitted
- 27 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
EDF Stage 4 Consultation for Sizewell C 27/09/20 I am a resident of East Suffolk and as such very familiar with the Suffolk Heritage Coast. I would like to register as an interested party to the proposed building of the Sizewell C nuclear reactor. This is a summary of my concerns: The natural environment I recently received an unsolicited ‘community newsletter’ from EDF through the post. Referring to the development at Aldhurst Farm, EDF state: ‘there will be a net gain in land for wildlife created from the project’. Given the recent report on loss of species and threat to diversity in the UK I do not believe the argument that Aldhurst Farm can possibly mitigate or compensates for the loss of species and habitat at the SSSI Sizewell Marshes or the impact on species and habitats found at Suffolk Coasts and Heaths. Sizewell C will border Minsmere Bird Reserve. Bird species do not recognise human borders. They respond to much wider features. I am very familiar with the unique natural qualities and sensitivities of the Suffolk Coastal area. For me the threat from Sizewell C is not academic or a matter of mitigation. Surely there should be no consideration given to siting a nuclear reactor here. Water Living in East Suffolk I am only too aware of the water problems of the region. These are drought in summer and flood in winter. I was interested to note that water was not featured in EDF’s ‘community newsletter’. I had to look for other sources for information. On reading the environment agency’s response to the Sizewell C Development Consent Order Stage 4 Consultation I gather that there is concern on several issues, one of which is the use of culvert watercourse crossings which increase flood risk and impact ecology. A response by Suffolk Wildlife Trust talks about water chemistry, and the impact to a fen site in changing the balance between ground and surface water. In addition there are concerns about the considerable abstraction of water necessary to the construction and operation of the reactor. This water use would significantly impact an area which is already at risk from drought. Added to this drought are problems of coastal flooding which can be severe along this coast. Apparently EDF have not provided a completed design for a hard coastal defence. This must leave the potential for a nuclear site to be at risk from storm flooding from the sea and the consequent dangers that this would entail. Given the constraints of word counts I will bullet point three more concerns: • Tourism: The Suffolk Heritage Coast rightly attracts very many visitors. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred by this development. Lack of revenue from this sector will impact the ability of the Council to function and provide their necessary services. • Transport: This will obviously have a local impact, not only because of the 60% of total transport of construction materials by road (EDF’s figures), but also travel to and from the site by the thousands of workers not housed on the campus. • Nuclear Waste: I can find no plan for how this problem will ever be addressed. It will be a constant threat during and after operation of the reactor. It is no legacy to leave to inhabitants of the area.