Representation by Peter John Richard Watson
- Date submitted
- 29 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I urge the National Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to recommend against the construction of Sizewell C and I list a series of objections to the proposal submitted by the DCO as follow: Despite the plans being submitted in 2020, the latest information on climate change, sea level rise and coastal evolution has not been taken into account, undermining the soundness of any assessments. The application uses the UK CCRA report 2018 estimates, not those of the IPPC in 2019: the developers must be aware that latest information showed that the impact of these factors would be far greater than previously thought. The application should not be recommended until the full consequences of the siting of the development throughout its life span on the Suffolk Heritage Coastline have been fully assessed. The siting will have a significantly detrimental impact on the landscape and wildlife of the Heritage Coastline and the Suffolk Coast and Heath's Area of Outstanding Beauty. Proposals for mitigation are just that-mitigation- much better that the plant is not built on this site removing the need for attempting to mitigate its detrimental impact. The area has evolved as a prime tourist destination and is especially attractive to those seeking a quiete, largely unspoilt, coastal environment in which to live. The scale of the Proposals if approved will create years of adverse disturbance (traffic, landscape, light and noise pollution) during both construction and operation, spoiling the peace and appeal of this fragile environment. The financial impact on the area from loss of tourism will not be offset by the contribution the construction of the plant will make to the local economy, a short term hit as against long term prosperity; EDF suggests that 29% of tourists will be deterred. A fragile, strongly protected (AONB, Heritage Coastline, Special Protected Area and RAMSAR etc.) environment is being expected to accommodate this and eight other major energy infrastructure proposals without any attempt being made to strategically co-ordinate this proposed industrial scale development and ensuing traffic movements. PINS must use its planning brief to co-ordinate assessment of these schemes in 'the round', particularly in regard to the unarguably detrimental impact which they will have on a sensitive, protected, coastal and rural environment if approved. Of many issues of concern relating to unmerited disturbance to the area and its population, one outstanding one is the totally inappropriate proposed siting of a temporary 2400 personnel Worker Campus. Accommodation for 2400 workers is comparable to the local populations of the surrounding towns of Saxmundham, Leiston and Aldeburgh; the proposal to build the equivalent of a new town accessed via a narrow rural lane is utterly incomprehensible. I consider that the Sizewell C application is totally unsuited to a digital examination process. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and the Alde and Ore Association. Peter Watson FRICS