Representation by Meraylah Allwood
- Date submitted
- 29 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection I believe that the site is entirely the wrong place for such a development - it is at high risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding. This coast is prone to volatile change! There would be an 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. The storage of radioactive waste is a vitally important part of the project, and has not been considered anywhere near fully enough. This is something that our children, grandchildren and many more generations will have to deal with into the future - we cannot be irresponsible on their behalf. There are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality, surely there should be more consideration of these, and which ones would be more beneficial for the environment. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. The disruption for local people at Hinkley Point has been enormous. 6,000 workers will come and live in the area, 2,400 in a Worker campus in a location that I oppose. Visitor economy: Tourism, vital for the livelihoods of many of us, may lose up to £40m a year and 400 jobs. EDF surveys suggest 29% of visitors could be deterred. Pressure on local housing especially in private-rental sector. Pressure on health, social and emergency services, impacts on vulnerable people. 3. Transport Road based transport plan not sustainable; enormous and 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 Flooding. Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice Development would result in pollution from light, noise and traffic Dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles inadequate Impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill not fully addressed. Irreparable harm to Minsmere - a flagship destination of international importance and significance Impacts on Marsh Harriers threaten integrity of Special Protection Area Uncertainty re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond. Abstraction of water compounds risks to the environment and to protected species. Risks to groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and ecology Flood risk due to the loss of flood storage from the development site Catastrophic impact on landscape character because of locality, design and scale; construction severs the AONB Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage Won’t offset CO2 from construction for at least 6 years. 5. Marine and Coastal processes Ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes from hard coastal defence feature HCDF. No complete design of HCDF available Rates of erosion and recession episodic and unpredictable Impacts of Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes Impacts on marine ecology I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C., the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process. In the current pandemic situation the process should be extended until all interested parties are able to engage and discuss fully.