Representation by Mr C. Rochford
- Date submitted
- 30 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Sizewell C: I wish to register my following concerns and am opposed to the development on the following grounds: 1. Adverse impacts on the integrity of the following INTERNATIONALLY DESIGNATED SITES: • The Minsmere to Walberswick SPA • The Minsmere/Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SAC • The Minsmere/Walberswick Heaths and Marshes Ramsar site Likely significant damage to • The Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SSSI • Impact on water-level dependent flora and fauna caused by the development As acknowledged by the promoter, the construction phase, even with mitigation, would cause significant adverse impacts on RED DATA BOOK SPECIES such as Deptford Pink (plant), Marsh Harrier and barbastelle and Natterer’s bats which have been identified resulting from HABITAT FRAGMENTATION during construction. The Government’s view is that it would be preferable for sites to be located in an area unlikely to cause an adverse impact on nationally designated sites of ecological importance (Draft Siting Criteria, para.2.71). Moreover, EN-1 provides that proposals should avoid significant harm to biodiversity and that appropriate weight is afforded to designated sites (e.g. here) (para 5.3.8). 2. Acknowledged significant ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE AONB, as observed by the AONB Partnership Board, including effect on the Estate Sandlands & Coastal Levels LCA and a range of prominent viewing points, even after mitigation, see ES Volume 5, Chapter 13. The impact principally arises from new roadways, access connections to the rail head and potential new transmission lines, potential impact from new flood defences and loss of the historic landscape character, acknowledged in ES Volume 2, Chapter 16 at paragraph 16.6.122. The GOVERNMENT'S VIEW is that new nuclear power stations should be sited to AVOID “significant adverse impact” on designated sites of amenity and landscape value (Draft Siting Criteria, para.2.81). 3. Impact on flourishing tourism industry of East Suffolk, which offers long-term sustainable employment and £millions income, built on the “B” of the AONB, and its unspoilt tranquility, not on an industrialised landscape with new roads, lighting, noise.. 4. The POTABLE WATER CONSUMPTION by SZC is unsustainable: 3 million litres during construction and up to 2 million litres during 60-year operation. This is alone should rule out the siting of this plant in one of driest parts of country, with climate change already predicted to cause shortages of water in next few decades. 5. Insufficient justification for the proposal. Re. EN-6 etc, there is no NPS which establishes the “need” for a new nuclear power station post 2025, or the appropriateness of SZC for that purpose, when judged against the reasonable alternatives. I would also like to draw attention to the Government’s siting criteria in the December 2017 consultation (“Draft Siting Criteria”), as a material consideration pursuant to s.105(2)(c) Planning Act 2008. 6. The planning process so far has given the public INADEQUATE TIME AND ACCESS to information needed to make all of the relevant representations. There are many more material considerations that need to be addressed, and more time should be allowed. Covid-19 should not be used as an excuse to push through recklessly a project with so many shortfalls that will impact future generations. cc. Therese Coffey MP, Dr Dan Poulter MP, Matthew Hicks (SCC), Steve Gallant (ES)