Representation by Aldeburgh Town Council (Aldeburgh Town Council)
- Date submitted
- 30 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Local authorities
Aldeburgh’s setting is rural and coastal. In addition to a population of 3000+ it attracts numerous tourists and long-term visitors all-year-round, on whom its economy is now dependent. Famous for its beach and river, history (Newson-Garrett-Anderson) its diverse Arts/Music/Literary and Sport/recreation associations and events: many people retire to Aldeburgh. With a number of lively businesses and local services (such as; a Hospital, GP Surgery, Cinema, Churches & Community centres, Library and Primary school/nursery) the town and community of Aldeburgh has a significant role in this beautiful Heritage area, and is closely linked to Thorpeness and Leiston. Aldeburgh Town Council actively engaged in all previous consultation stages, has studied the DCO for Sizewell C, and have become convinced that approval would mean real and lasting harm for this area. Our concerns include specific impacts for residents, businesses and visitors from the construction of the station complex and the associated infrastructure across the area (as we travel in the course of life activities) as follows; Absence of front-loading evidence within all stages of the consultations - impossible to assess the efficacy of avoidance/mitigation/compensation strategies. Failure of applicant to ‘listen’ to our engagement, or act on relevant/practical suggestions to reduce impact. Lessons from Hinkley Point C (HPC) of significant problems: measuring benefits, missed targets, changes made to agreed conditions, and monitoring mitigation. Lack of evidence/clarity, and exaggerations in claims by the applicant such as; • Low carbon, reducing CO2, contributing to net zero targets. • ‘Local’ jobs when this is defined as 90mins travel and likely to be low-skilled, low-paid. Worker/contractor & supply chain migration from HPC, from other local companies, SZA/SZB and employment law (selection based on postcode not permitted). • Apprenticeships (can be nationally based individuals). • ‘Regional’ versus local benefits. Uncertainty of how Housing and Tourism funds will be delivered - previously problems with mitigation for Dry Fuel Store (S106 funds). Lack of detail in design, timing and delivery of key infrastructure. Site selection for EPR design twin reactors (33 hectares at SZC versus 46 at HPC and requirement to relocate SZB infrastructure). EN-6 weight on developments in AONBs being designed to fit in the landscape. The felling of Coronation wood to make room for this proposal which overturns previous development application for SZB DFS which used the woods as screening. Location of worker campus, and caravan site. Impact of increasing numbers of workers into our rural area. Environmental impacts (including but not limited to SSSI, AONB, flora/fauna, wildlife, RSPB, Sizewell Marsh, Marsh Harriers etc) Noise, light, vibration and dust pollution, air quality. Historic setting and impact on nearby located listed buildings. Landscape and visual amenity of main structure and of other temporary/permanent infrastructure. Late inclusion of new over-ground pylons and visual impact thereof. Impact on independent businesses from decline in tourism, and on Arts/Music events, walking/sailing, leisure/nature amenity and non-industrialised tranquillity. The wider Community and Socio-Economics, boom and bust. Housing problems (private rental & tourism accommodation including Airbnb, caravan parks) and potential blight. Transport and traffic – HGV, LGV, subcontractor and worker vehicles during construction and beyond. Impact from Operation, Outages and Decommissioning. Fly parking/rat runs. Impact of proposed new by-passes, link roads, junction ‘improvements’ and timing of delivery. Limited opportunity to reduce road traffic due to failed rail strategy. Effect of hard coastal defences, intake & outfall on marine life, local fishing industry, coastal processes and flood risk. Loss of footpaths, bridle/cycleways and beach access. Uncertainty re: drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction onwards. Abstraction of water - risks to the environment and protected species, groundwater levels, surrounding habitats and ecology. Access to Healthcare, Police/Fire services and emergency response/evacuation Anti-social behaviour, crime (actual and fear of), prostitution/drugs – based on experience of construction of SZB. Impact on physical/mental health and well-being. Storage of spent fuel and waste on site. Cumulative impact of other energy projects proposed. In conclusion: ATC regards that the massive disadvantages of a project of this size and duration (12years+ construction, 60 years generation and 120+ years of storing spent fuel, Intermediate-Level and Higher-Level Waste until any Geological Disposal Facility is available with EDF fuel being the last to be dealt with, so at least 2140) outweigh any local benefits and cannot be ever, adequately mitigated. We believe this application should not be approved.