Representation by Mary Corin
- Date submitted
- 30 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I wish to raise the following issues of concern about Sizewell C. Firstly there should be no requirement for antiquated nuclear technology on the island of Britain. Secondly, as a result of uncontrolled development, we are in a wildlife and environmental crisis that is unforgiveable. The following reports should be submitted as part of the evidence against the development of Sizewell C. 1. Site Selection [Redacted] together with the following influential report published on 26 September 2020 [Redacted] These are the most shocking and sad reports and Britain’s government should be ashamed. • I believe it is the wrong project in the wrong place. The technology is antiquated, extortionately expensive, with the taxpayer being expected to fund a private company, which is wholly unacceptable. Regarding the site selection: • 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: there is no safe way to store nuclear waste but there is new, small scale nuclear technology that uses the nuclear waste. This technology should be thoroughly reviewed exhaustively before Sizewell C is considered further. • Eight other uncoordinated energy projects planned for the locality 2. Community, Economic and social impacts • Unacceptable resource 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, along with massive increases in pollution. 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, with an increase in pollution and road damage suffered by the public and public purse. • 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: how insane can anyone be to even begin to consider a low coastal site given the absolute scientific truth that sea levels are rising and will continue to do so at an increasing rate? • Unclear effect on Minsmere Sluice: the precautionary principle should be use during the assessment • Development would result in a massive increase in particulate pollution, from the hundreds of thousands of fully loaded HGVs going to and from the site, over 4 plus years, when Britain has missed all pollution reduction targets. The development will also drastically increase light pollution which is known to adversely affect wildlife. Noise pollution will adversely affect both wildlife and the local community. • 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. The above reports must be taken into account. • Uncertainty re drainage and supply of 3 million litres of potable water for the construction period and beyond, with cheap disposal being the most likely outcome • 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. What is the point of AONB’s paid for by the taxpayer, if the are disposable when it suits commerce/government? • Impossible to compensate for landscape and ecological damage. There can be no mitigation that would undo the ecocide but the most likely outcome if the project goes ahead would a token gesture by investors to tick a box • The CO2 from construction will not be offset 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 which apparently have not even been considered 6. Application • Wording of Explanatory Memorandum and Planning Statement. I wish to endorse the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C. Feel free to endorse other organisations’ Relevant Representations such as RSPB, SWT etc. I wish to state that I consider the Sizewell C application to be totally unsuitable for a digital examination process.