Representation by Peter MacIntosh
- Date submitted
- 28 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I have the following concerns about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection • It is the wrong project in the wrong place. • Site at risk from climate change, sea level rise, flooding, and impact on coastal processes. • Adverse impact on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and sites of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value. • Site could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste. • Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality. 2. Community, Economic and Social Impacts • Cost of the project, including its eventual decommissioning, is not viable. Alternative cheaper energy production methods will be discovered/developed/implemented well within the lifespan of Sizewell C. • Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. • 6000 workers will come and live in the area, 2400 in a campus in an unsuitable location that I oppose. • Visitor economy: Tourism may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. • Pressure on local housing, especially in private-rental sector. • EDF will suck workforce from local businesses to fill 90% of lower-skilled roles. • Negative impact – from traffic and losing staff – on local economy. • Pressure on health, social and emergency services; impacts on vulnerable people. 3. Transport • Road-based transport plan not sustainable; enormous adverse impact on local communities and the visitor economy. HGV numbers are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. • Delay in the construction of new road infrastructure means villages would endure 2-3 years of increased traffic. • New roads would sever communities, damage the rural footpath system and divide farmland. • Rat-running and disruption not adequately considered. • Alternative relief road routes with legacy value not adequately assessed by EDF. 4. Environment and Landscape • Flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site. • Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice. • Pollution from light, noise and traffic. • Inadequate dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles. • Impact of proposed borrow pits and landfill not fully addressed. • Irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance. Impact on Marsh Harriers threatens integrity of Special Protection Area. • Uncertainty regarding drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water daily during the construction period. • Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and protected species. • Risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology. • Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale. • Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage. • Won’t offset CO2 from construction for over 6 years. 5. Marine and Coastal Processes • Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from Hard Coastal Defence scheme. • No complete design of HCD made available. • Rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable. • Impacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes. • Impacts on marine ecology. 6. Application • Wording of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement. • The complexity of the Sizewell C application renders it totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. • I endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by “Stop Sizewell C”, the RSPB and SWT.