Representation by David McLean
- Date submitted
- 30 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
My comments relate to Pledge 4 of the Sizewell C documentation. As a general observation, the reference to “40% of construction materials by rail and sea” is completely unsatisfactory because it conceals the respective quantities for these two modes of transport. Without a specific proportion of traffic committed to carriage by sea, this undertaking is pointless, as it could be met by a token 1% of materials by sea and it fails to ignore the obvious benefits of sea-bound traffic. Technology has come a long way since World War II and the invasion of France via the Normandy beaches. With the inevitable resistance to increased road traffic, the transport cries out for an alternative solution, so why has no-one raised the option of sea-borne movements with a floating harbour? Surely there is a case to be made for a temporary, floating structure to provide roll-on/roll-off facilities, bringing materials in and allowing empties to be taken away? As a temporary structure, there would be less interference with the interface between sea and land, which could therefore be more easily reinstated. Furthermore, as a by-product of a sea/land interface, and given the appropriate joined-up thinking, it should be possible to co-ordinate the design and planning for the coast protection requirements in this area of the Suffolk coast (which do not yet appear to have been addressed). Logically, the foundations for Suffolk C’s floating harbour should then be designed and built as part of the overall coast protection system. Cost savings should benefit both projects.