Representation by Campsea Ashe PC (Campsea Ashe PC)
- Date submitted
- 29 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Parish councils
[Redacted] 29th September 2020 Campsea Ashe Parish Council’s Relevant Representation as Interested Party regarding Development Consent Order for EDF Energy/SZC Co. Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station Submission to Planning Inspectorate Richard Fernley Chairman Campsea Ashe Parish Council Klaus Fortmann Parish Clerk clerk@campsea-ashe-pc.org 1. Introduction Campsea Ashe Parish Council (CAPC) acknowledges some benefits to the East Suffolk community from Sizewell C (SZC), such as employment opportunities, opportunities for local businesses and the inflow of substantial business rates. However, CA PC feels, that these benefits do not outweigh the huge burden that this area will have to bear over the 12 years of construction on behalf of the rest of the country. The impact of SZC in the construction phase will be felt in East Suffolk on many fronts, including increases in traffic (particularly HGVs) using the A12 and smaller inappropriate country lanes, pressures on rented accommodation and adverse effects on tourism and the AONB. We believe that this part of Suffolk will pay a heavy price for its role in supporting energy supply to the rest of the country and CAPC also believes, that the likely compensation and mitigation, if the SZC project goes ahead, will be inadequate. Campsea Ashe will over the potentially 12-year build period be negatively affected by the current proposals and has seen no feasible mitigation measures to minimise the impact to a level acceptable to our and the neighbouring communities. Regrettably, we have not had relevant responses to our repeatedly expressed concerns about the potential impact of their proposal during any of the consultation stages. We will leave others to comment on other issues, amongst which we would expect to see concerns about EDF’s ability to deliver the whole project, the impact of SZC on the Suffolk Coasts and Heath AONB, its impact on coastal processes in the Sizewell area, concerns about wider environmental issues and impacts on tourism and the local economy. Campsea Ashe PC is concerned that the cumulative effect of the various other energy projects proposed for this region have not been addressed adequately and will further add traffic pressures and create irrevocable negative changes and impacts on the rural and coastal nature of the county. 2. Traffic issues; A12 & connecting rural lanes & Trains 2.1 Campsea Ashe is gravely concerned that traffic issues arising from the anticipated volume of cars, LGV’s & HGV’s will overwhelm the A12 in the Woodbridge area and again in the Hacheston/Marlesford area, resulting in increased rat-running on an inadequate and at times already dangerously stretched rural network of roads and lanes, especially the A1152 / Woods Lane towards Tunstall and the B1078 from Hacheston through Campsea Ashe to Tunstall/Snape. The capacity issue in Melton had already been subject to a negative appraisal by SCC Highways in 2017 2.2 The B1078 through Campsea Ashe and eastwards to Tunstall/Snape has several pinch points in and around Campsea Ashe, creating hazardous conditions even for cars passing. The anticipated increase of traffic, not just at times of A12 congestion, will make this road even more hazardous and subject Campsea Ashe residents not just to intolerable high levels of pollution. 2.3 There is no detail about potential supply chains and there is a significant threat of Debach and Bentwaters Industrial Parks becoming an active part in the works for the Energy Projects (Sizewell & Scottish Renewables). This will again put pressure on an already inadequate road infrastructure, affecting not only Campsea Ashe, Tunstall and Snape as vehicles leave/access the A12 using the B1078 and other minor roads. 2.4 The high level of agricultural traffic will add to traffic levels in peak agricultural periods, especially affecting the Debach/Bentwaters (B1078) areas. 2.5 Campsea Ashe has preferred a marine & rail led strategy in Stage 3&4 consultations as the Ipswich-Lowestoft line would have improvements allowing day time trains. The integrated approach with up to five night time freight trains presents additional concerns for Campsea Ashe as it is located along the railway line. Any night freight movement will affect over half of the population through noise and vibration. With no serious mitigation proposals offered, Campsea Ashe can not agree to such proposal. 3 Southern Park & Ride and Two Village By-Pass 3.1 CAPC maintains that a P&R facility south of Woodbridge would reduce a large proportion of the traffic impact in the Woodbridge, Wickham Market and surrounding villages area and hence it should be the preferred option, especially as mitigation measure to avoid rat-runs on unsuitable minor roads are not addressed. Insufficient detail was given by EDF during consultation. We are particularly concerned that for the SP&R there are very significant gaps in DCO details on ecology, landscape and visual impact, drainage, noise and air quality, particularly the problem of dust during construction. 3.2 The Southern Park and Ride (SP&R) is sited on high ground between the two Special Landscape Areas of the valleys of the Rivers Ore and Deben. The SP&R will have an intrusive visual impact in a sensitive landscape area affecting several villages. The measures proposed to mitigate the visual, noise and lighting impacts are wholly inadequate. 3.3 Line of sight towards Campsea Ashe, and with it inherent noise & light pollution will impact a major part of Campsea Ashe, something that again has not been addressed adequately by EDF. 3.4 Traffic impact of the SP&R in the Five Ways Roundabout area have not been addressed adequately. 3.5 No adequate cycling & pedestrian provisions have been considered. 3.6 The TVB creates additional problems for the parishes of Marlesford, Glenham and Campsea Ashe. EDF’s modelling shows that there will be 2,000 additional HGV and bus movements through the A12 at Marlesford on a daily basis (1 additional HGV/bus every 40 seconds!) creating hazardous condition for the villagers trying to cross / turn on-off the A12. 4 General Areas of Concern and Comment 4.1 We support the principle of a Community Impacts Fund. This is welcomed, but it is unclear what the size of the fund will be, how grants will be awarded and which communities will be able to benefit. It must be ensured, that the fund is properly applied to those communities most disadvantaged by EDF’s proposals. 4.2 We also want to register our concern that some of EDF Energy / SZC Co.’s statements about SZC’s contribution to achieving Net Zero by 2050 are misleading and it is our understanding that SZC cannot make a positive contribution towards achieving Net Zero until at least 2050 owing to the carbon usage during construction and in transport. We also believe that the carbon impacts of decommissioning have not been fully accounted for. 5 Conclusion CAPC is very concerned by the impacts on our village as a result of EDF Energy / SZC Co.’s proposals for SZC. We believe that quality of life will be majorly impaired over the likely 12-year build period to a level, that makes this project questionable for many residents. Impacts are not just immediate, but also include our wider recreational space, the AONB of Suffolk Coast & Heath. The cumulative effects of the SZC project running alongside the proposals from Scottish Power Renewables, as well as the future growth in housing and business along the A12 have not been adequately addressed. This underlines the very important need for full mitigation of the impacts that will be felt by local residents - without it, the quality of life of our residents as well as the attractiveness of Coastal Suffolk as a recreational AONB will be dealt a severe and irrevocable blow. We agree with other PC’s, that wherever possible the mitigation measures that are put in place should seek to provide legacy benefits for this and other communities and should endure well beyond the completion of the SZC construction phase. Richard Fernley Chair Campsea Ashe Parish Council