Representation by Snape Parish Council (Snape Parish Council)
- Date submitted
- 28 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Parish councils
Dear Planning Inspectorate, DCO application Sizewell C Registration as an Interested Party - Snape Parish Council The issues below have been submitted at Stage 3 and 4. It is of concern that, despite our specific request for consultation directly relevant to the village and its particular issues, there has been no contact in relation to that request made in March 2019 and September 2019. 1. General 1.2 Our original concerns were outlined in a response in January 2017, March 2019 and September 2019. Those concerns remain. The PC favoured a four village bypass rather than the two village bypass to reduce the impact of traffic congestion on the A12. The two village bypass means the road through Snape from Woodbridge (B1069) becomes effectively a four village bypass and the only alternative route if there is a blockage or heavy traffic on the A12 north of Marlsford. This issue is outlined in more detail below. The PC would welcome a site visit. 1.2 The PC feels that the consultation exercises have been inadequate. The PC noted that in the Update Statement of Community Consultation (P5) November 2016, “that EDF will attempt to coordinate its pre application consultation to avoid confusion and consultation fatigue”. This parish and others raised with EDF (and SPR) the lack of meaningful assessment of the cumulative impact of this and an ever-increasing number of projects. Yet there remains no evidence of meaningful coordination to assess that cumulative impact and avoid the very real confusion and “consultation fatigue” this project and others are causing. If anything this issue has been compounded by the overlapping DCOs now active. 2. Environmental 2.1 The PC is concerned about the visual impact of the project’s construction within an AONB. This includes the site itself, and the significant change in policy to consider overhead power lines. 2.2 The PC approved the responses of the AONB, RSPB, Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk District Council that the overall impact on the environment by construction work and traffic in the area had not been fully addressed despite being raised at an early stage. 3. Transport 3.1 The PC noted with concern that there remains no detailed analysis of the potential impact of traffic over peak periods. Analysis and calculations have been based on average traffic which, given the seasonal nature of the area’s traffic, ignores the GEART guidance (calculations based on site specific information and circumstances). The mitigation offered of restricting Sizewell traffic to the A12 contractually is, in the view of the PC, unenforceable. 3.2 There has been no reflection on the potential for fly parking in and around the village of Snape by work force traffic during construction and operation. The PC is aware that this has been an issue with current work at Hinkley Point. 3.3 The PC noted that the rail-led strategy is not regarded as feasible within the necessary timescales. Given the length of ongoing consultation, this is surprising and must be addressed. 4. Economic Impact 4.1 The PC noted that recent research documented a value of £100 million per annum of tourism and farming to the immediate area. This would be at risk for many years. These values have not been included by EDF who therefore cannot be in a position to identify the potential economic impact. EDF states it is working with relevant partners but local authorities and statuary bodies consistently record their concerns regarding economic assessment remaining unaddressed. 4.2 There has been no direct reference to Snape village, and no recognition of the potential impact on tourism on the village; a major cultural destination for the County. The present accommodation strategy envisages significant numbers of the workforce in the construction phase renting local accommodation and this is bound to directly impact local tourism. 5. Public Services 5.1 Increased demand on all public services will come with a major influx of additional people. The demand on already overstretched health and police resources will be significant and has not been addressed. The development of Sizewell B brought with it additional policing and health demands which were only recognised at a late stage and this aspect of potential impact on the area needs focus. 5.2 The PC noted there has been reference to ongoing work in this area with partners but, again, detail is lacking as to what that means in real terms. Tim Beach Chair