Representation by Jane Anderson Craig
- Date submitted
- 29 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I have grave concerns over the development of reactors that have never safely operated at Sizewell, an area rich in diverse and endangered wildlife, along with many other issues. I therefore wish to raise the following concerns about Sizewell C. Firstly, I believe it is in the wrong place. Climate change is a scientific fact, sea levels are rising and flooding is likely. The site could become an island containing 5 nuclear reactors and stored waste with a half-life of 700 million years. It is impossible to plan for containment and maintenance of this site for this period. This leaves a unforgivable legacy for the generations of humans who will live with this short to medium-term planning decision. Also, as highlighted by the RSPB, there will be an adverse effect on adjacent internationally designated sites of ecological importance and landscape. There are eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for this area and so the environmental impact surveys undertaken are inaccurate and irrelevant as presented in isolation. Secondly, there would be enormous impact on local communities and economies. Huge increases in traffic, noise, light pollution and disruption will affect the lives of local people and deter tourists. An estimated six thousand migrant workers will move to the area. I understand that two thousand four hundred people will be housed in a worker campus in a location that I oppose. There is already huge pressure on water treatment in the area. It has been estimated that the local tourist industry may lose up to forty million pounds a year and four hundred jobs could be lost. EDF itself has published a suggested figure of 29% of visitors could be deterred visiting. Local communities will be in direct competition for housing which will increase rents and house prices, further disadvantaging local people. The large increase in workers will also put extra pressure on already overstretched health, social and emergency services. Thirdly, the enormous increase in road transport cannot be supported by the local roads. The transport plan is not sustainable. HGV numbers as estimated are as high as those under “Road-Led” proposals rejected by all statutory consultees in consultations. This will have a huge, adverse impact on local communities and visitor numbers. I understand that the proposed delay in the construction of new roads would result in villages suffering from two to three years of increased traffic. But even if constructed these new roads would sever communities and damage the rural footpath system. The effects of rat-running and local disruption has also not been adequately considered. In addition, any proposed alternative relief road routes with legacy value have not been adequately assessed by EDF, leaving the local community with unhelpful roads that will harm the ecology of the area. Forthly, the environment and landscape will be severely negatively impacted. The project will affect flooding in the area, the effect on Minsmere Sluice and therefore wildlife is unknown and there would be a devastating effect on wildlife from light pollution, noise and traffic. Plans for dust management for spoil heaps and stockpiles are inadequate and the impact of the proposed borrow pits and landfill have not been fully addressed by EDF. Crucially there will be irreparable harm to Minsmere which is a flagship destination of international importance. Indeed, the impact on Marsh Harriers threatens the integrity of the Special Protection Area. The water table will be negatively impacted by the project. There is uncertainty about the drainage and supply of three million litres of potable water caused by the site and the abstraction of water compounds will cause risks for the environment and to protected species. This will inevitably risk groundwater levels and surrounding habitats and fragile ecologies. Excavation for the development will inevitably increase the risk of flooding due to the loss of flood storage. Indeed, there will be a catastrophic impact on the character of the landscape due to the location, design and huge scale of the project: a project so large it will sever the AONB. Furthermore, it is estimated that the project will not offset CO2 from construction alone for at least six years. But as decommissioning of nuclear power stations are never included in costs and environmental impact reports the long term environmental and financial cost of nuclear power are never fully revealed to the public. Finally, the effects on marine and costal processes has not been adequately addressed. As no complete design of the hard coastal defence feature has been produced, or made public, the public and decision makers have not been allowed to assess ecological and flood risk impacts on coastal processes. Rates of erosion and recession are episodic and unpredictable and make the site unsuitable for the construction of reactors and storage of depleted fuel rods. Planning needs to be for the 700 million year half-life of the depleted fuel and not just the foreseeable future. In addition, the impacts of the Beach Landing Facility on coastal processes cannot be adequately assessed but even so the impacts on marine ecology will inevitably be negative. I therefore wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C and the RSPB. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process.