Representation by Alison Andrews
- Date submitted
- 29 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I live permanently in Aldeburgh. Sizewell C will be on the Suffolk Heritage Coast and in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. My personal concerns are: 1. Impact on the coast- it is hard to understand the assumption in the papers that the Greater Sizewell Bay is an entirely self-contained coastal unit, and not an integral part of the Suffolk coast geomorphological unit which had been changing over millennia. The proposed building will last well over 100 years and will dominate the receding coast and its processes adversely affecting all neighbouring parts of the coastline. 2. Application plans are incomplete in relation to the Hard Core Protection Front. It is not possible for experts to assess the potential impact on coastal erosion processes. This proposal is set in a fragile and dynamic coastline: it will not have the protection of resting on coralline crag unlike Sizewell A and B as will be on soft land vulnerable to flooding from sea surges. Further stopping monitoring and mitigation before the end of the working life of the plant, not its physical life, is not explained. 3. Assumptions: the plans appear not to have used the latest climate data. Has the precautionary principal been applied correctly? 4. Transport –a) HGVs: even with proposed by-passes, Suffolk country and coastal roads around here are simply not built to deal with proposed HGV 1000 daily traffic movements, which will be additional to normal usage. Suffolk roads here are very winding with a speciality of hidden dips which are very dangerous. b) Other vehicles: On top of the HGVs, the workforce at its peak will be some 6000 people, double the census population number for Aldeburgh: the individuals will, despite bus services, hugely impact on the normal work, school and care runs, at work and leisure times, so making daily life and road safety a problem. 5. Building and storage height: The proposed buildings and storage heaps would be higher than anything for many miles and will dominate the landscape. 6. Minsmere: a very special site, cannot but be adversely affected. 7. Light pollution: The tall features will need lights day and night and destroy one of the features of this AONB of clear skies and dark nights valuable to wild life and humans alike, and be visible for miles around, possibly for over 100 years. 8. Marine pollution: from the increasingly protruding construction into the shoreline weakened by coastal processes. This does not appear to be considered in the application (the incomplete HCDF plans witness that). 9. Local economy: Negative impact on the current economy for what is said to be 9-12 years, having increased from an estimate of 10 years in earlier consultations, will undermine existing local economy. 10. Other power projects: Considerations of managing/combining the 8 other energy projects are relevant. 11. SCAR: I fully support the comments made by SCAR 12. Planning not suitable for digital process: This is a huge project that it is totally unsuitable for a digital process