Representation by Nathaniel Bacon
- Date submitted
- 30 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
We live [Redacted] Our major concerns surround the potentially catastrophic impact this construction project is going to have on the quality of life of people living and working in the area. Our level of concern is increased due to the rushed, high level consultation process which has failed to engage with any of our local issues raised. Below are some of the issues we feel have not been properly considered: 1. Transport strategy a. Alternative routes -the Aecom report commissioned by EDF does not provide an independent report into why the SLR route was chosen and is flawed in its analysis, rigour and level of detail. b. Temporary vs permanent road requirement c. HGV and traffic numbers – significant disruption will result from the enormous pressures this project will put on our existing road system d. Link from B1125 to SLR - a prime example as to the lack of engagement on the ground and with local communities as to what is actually required or beneficial to the area. This connection will only serve to create a rat-run from A12 at Blythburgh, through Westleton and Middleton e. Lack of detail made available around road design and poor proposed road layouts eg closing off of Pretty Road and Moat Road f. Timing of transport infrastructure construction g. Cumulative impacts of the other seven or eight energy projects - EDF have looked at their project in complete isolation, but this is not the reality of East Suffolk at the present time. h. New rights of way – why is SZC including creation of new public rights of way. This seems inappropriate and again no evidence of a suitable degree of engagement around the detail of these. 2. Socio-Economic Impacts We have major concerns that rather than provide jobs and opportunities for people living in the area, it will instead damage our existing thriving local economy and be a burden on the county’s infrastructure, particularly transport networks. a. Tourism – the impact of the level of disruption proposed will be significant and sustained on the local tourism industry. The timing of this in the aftermath of the pandemnic seems particularly unfortunate. The one industry that could be thriving during this time of the "staycation" is going to be seriously jeopardised. b. Agricultural businesses - removal of significant areas of high quality productive arable and vegetable land from production. c. Property values - important to learn from lessons of Hinkley and prevent the same pressures on properties for locals. d. Planting and bunding schemes – very scant, high level details only provided at present, but those going to have to live with the proposed development need to know more details. 3. Ecology and Environment a. Environmental and Ecological Impact – very real threat to the fragile and protected ecosystems on the Heritage coast, namely AONB and SSSI. b. Drainage and Hydrology – coastal impact, inland hydrology and water supply all require far more assessment and consideration c. General pollution levels increasing - noise, light and dust pollution 4. Accommodation – inappropriate siting and design of the 2,400 workers accommodation and the negative impacts that it will have on the local community 5. Funding – undesirable Chinese funding, high strike price compared to alternatives, government investment in unproven technology In summary, I have been very disappointed with the lack of meaningful engagement between EDF and the local communities that will be affected by their development.