Representation by Arthur Stansfield
- Date submitted
- 28 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Like much of EdF’s consultation the proposed mitigation is superficial. They have failed to consult sincerely and taken responses into account. The offered mitigation seldom makes amends for the damage that will occur. The damage to East Suffolk caused by constructing Sizewell C far outweighs any benefits. At one point EdF claim that Sizewell C is required for base load electricity and at another point for producing hydrogen. If it is required for base load then there will not be capacity for hydrogen production. There are several other energy projects that will occur along the Suffolk coastal area. There is not the capacity for all the projects to take place. Suffolk may cope with the other energy projects , however Sizewell C is the step too far. It’s impact is so great that it should not go ahead alongside the other energy projects. I live in Wickham Market and am involved with mitigation for Wickham Market due to the poor siting of the Southern Park and Ride. In consultation 4, EdF stated that they were assisting Wickham Market with the Neighbourhood Plan. This was not the case; no contact with the NP committee had taken place. Meetings with representatives of Wickham Market started in December 2019. So far EdF have not brought forward much, if anything in the way of mitigation for the extra traffic that will affect Wickham Market. They could explore new tracking and smart camera with number plate recognition technologies to reduce the EdF traffic in Wickham Market, but have not done so. The way they have dealt with Wickham Market appears to typify their approach to mitigation in other areas. Because of likely congestion on the A12 it is very likely that rat-runs will form along country lanes. EdF, Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk Council need a strategy to deal with this situation. The approach to the SSSI means that the site is unlikely to recover and will be lost. Edf confuse area with quality of habitat. Aldhurst farm in no way will recompense for the loss of the SSSI. Research into habitat translocation shows that it seldom succeeds in mitigating the impact of development. The site is in an AONB and 12 years of devastation cannot be restored as easily as EdF imply. I often walk in the area of Sizewell, Eastbridge and Dunwich and dread the impact of the construction site. The Norfolk and Suffolk coast is constantly changing. In the last 45 years I have seen the beach level at Lowestoft increase by over a metre. The beach at Southwold has also changed significantly. There is coastal erosion at Thorpeness and the shingle beach at Dunwich marshes has been breached in recent years. It may be possible to build sea defences at Sizewell, but it’s impossible to predict what impact that may have on surrounding areas. In protecting Sizewell, Minsmere may become more vulnerable and be irreparably damaged. We also have sea level rise due to global warming. This could be over 2 metres before Sizewell is decommissioned. This makes the siting too great a risk.