Representation by Kathy Drake
- Date submitted
- 30 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
We are totally opposed to the building of Sizewell C because we believe there are alternative, more green and less damaging means of generating electricity and the negative effect on a beautiful stretch of coastline is irreparable in our countries long term future. We also endorse the information below. 1. Site Selection • We believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place • Site at risk from climate change, sea level rise and flooding • Potential impact on coastal processes • 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. • Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality 2. Community, Economic and social impacts • Unacceptable impacts on local communities - severance, traffic, significant increases in noise, light pollution and disruption. • 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 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. • EDF expects local people to fill 90% of lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in “Site Support” • Negative impacts - from traffic and losing staff - on local businesses • 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 6. Application • Wording of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representations submitted by Stop Sizewell C, RSPB, and SWT I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process.