Representation by Philippa Lesley McLardy
- Date submitted
- 30 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am writing to you as a concerned Thorpeness resident to lay out my objections to the proposed construction of Sizewell C. While accepting that nuclear power is among greener options, I believe the EPR technology proposed will be out of date by the time these reactors come online, superseded by cheaper, smaller and less intrusive nuclear options and renewables such as wind, solar and water-generated power backed up by improved battery storage. SZC will saddle the area with long-lasting detrimental effects, notably nuclear waste remaining on site for centuries. Nuclear is also unsuitable to operate alongside wind and solar power owing to its inflexibility, creating serious energy wastage. All of this is aside from the fact that EDF have no money to undertake the works without crippling subsidies, and China General Nuclear are dubious partners in national infrastructure schemes. The building process will devastate an area renowned for its beauty and tranquillity, probably leading to irreversible damage to plants and wildlife, on land, in the sea, and to the general mental and physical health and well-being of the local population (many who are elderly, relocating here for peaceful retirement). I already have elderly friends who are moving away to avoid the threatened increase in traffic, noise, dust, light pollution and influx of temporary workers that will accompany this build, alongside the proposed windfarm landfall works north of Thorpeness Common. Tourism, the main occupation in Thorpeness, will be severely damaged through visitors being reluctant to battle with increased HGV movements predicted at 1,000 a day on top of workers’ traffic, especially as the sea route option has largely been discounted, and rail use will be restricted owing to limited two-way line availability. Even with the (inadequate) proposed relief schemes, the A12 is only dualled in small sections, and will become severely congested. Additionally, holiday property lets will be occupied by short-term workers, and unskilled labour will be attracted away from local businesses by higher wages at SZC. The promise of a 40% local workforce is unconvincing when ‘local’ encompasses 90 minutes travel time – to the outskirts of London by car, and skilled workers are planned to be imported from Hinkley. In Thorpeness itself, I am very concerned about the effects on the very unstable coastline. Interference with offshore banks to provide the safe haven against flooding risks for SZC could have an untold effect on land to the south, which is already suffering severe erosion. I also read that SZC will need 3 million litres of potable water daily during construction and operation for 60 years afterwards. In an area frequently affected by drought and useage restrictions, I would like to know where this is to be found. Finally, EDF plans announced recently to produce hydrogen and suck carbon emissions out of the atmosphere as a side-line seem a desperate bid to curry favour, and unrealistic under the present scheme.