Representation by Piers Ward
- Date submitted
- 30 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
EDF Energy – Sizewell C Development Consent Order Registration as an interested party - Mr P J Ward, [Redacted] Relevant Representation: I am an interested party as I have family connections in the area and am concerned about the impact this enormous infrastructure project will have on a lively local community, which so far has managed to avoid the excesses that blight many of the UK’s coastal areas. Below are some of the issues I 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 – the roads in the area are already too busy and unable to cope with existing traffic, leading to concern about all the extra HGV movements required to build Sizewell. 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 - concern over the change of use of high quality productive arable and vegetable land from production. c. Property values - this is a thriving community, based on local people, and it’s 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 We do not believe that the powers that SZC are granted to carry out this project should include powers to create new public rights of way (PRoW) including the creation of cycle tracks and bridleways. Under this proposed scheme new public rights of way are proposed.