Representation by Therese Coffey MP
- Date submitted
- 30 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Relevant Representation of Dr Thérése Coffey MP for Suffolk Coastal concerning EDF’s proposals for the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station Tackling climate change and ensuring we have enough electricity as we phase out fossil fuels is vital to the success and sustainability of this country. Nuclear power as a zero carbon energy source is a key part of the energy mix and Sizewell is an important nuclear cluster, generating electricity before the area was designated an AONB in 1970. The economic gain from a project the size of this would be really positively felt - with the creation of thousands of jobs including well-paid, long term jobs - but changes need to be made even at this stage to get my full support. The construction of Sizewell C is extremely important for the UK's future energy supply. While I recognise and understand why many local residents are opposed, nuclear power has been a long-standing sector in our part of Suffolk – and the construction of a new nuclear reactor would have significant benefits for the local community and local economy, which is very important for local prosperity given the low average income in this part of Suffolk and the country. That said, I recognise that many people have moved or retired here to enjoy the very special nature and environment of the Suffolk coast and will not have experienced the construction of Sizewell B nor Sizewell A. I fully understand their concerns that a new nuclear power plant at Sizewell will create significant disruption to local communities and the transport network, especially during the construction phase. I also share people’s concerns about the environmental impact. Mitigation against all of these impacts is absolutely key. There is a further cohort of constituents who have always opposed nuclear power and think it unsafe. Our regulatory regime is best in class and I do have full confidence in the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR). I declare that as Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), the ONR is an arms’ length body sponsored by DWP. I met the ONR early on in my time as an MP and have facilitated conversations between the ONR and officials and councillors, particularly during the GDA stage of the type of reactor being proposed at Sizewell C. It is through those conversations that it quickly became clear that aesthetic design changes to the reactor would not be possible, unlike what had happened with the iconic Sizewell B. None of those meetings happened since I became a DWP minister. Ever since I became the MP in 2010, the consideration of Sizewell C has taken a significant part of my time. I have worked with our local councils, residents, businesses and other organisations to go through the details of this huge project. I want to pay tribute to our councillors and particularly our council officers for the amount of work they have done on much more of the detailed assessment and consideration they have undertaken. Over the summer, I have read through the documentation and held meetings with key organisations and regulators including Network Rail, the Environment Agency, Natural England and Essex & Suffolk Water. I rely considerably on the regulators’ examinations and submissions regarding environmental matters. I also will refer regularly to the submissions made by the district and county councils which understandably have asked for changes particularly regarding transport and the natural environment. I wish to bring the following matters to the Examining Authority’s attention: Transport I still think an increase in the proportion of freight arriving on site from rail and sea-borne transport methods should be provided during the construction phase. The documents confirm that over 60% of materials are proposed to be transported into the site by HGV. I understand that a jetty cannot be constructed because of environmental concerns and potential coastal erosion issues but EDF really do need to maximise the amount of materials that can come in by sea by increasing the use of the beach landing facility. Similarly, considering the constraints on sea freight, it is disappointing that EDF have not developed proposals to upgrade the East Suffolk line by commissioning the GRIP 3 process to ensure a greater percentage of construction material is delivered by rail. As the County Council’s response notes, the rail-led strategy previously proposed would have resulted in allowing a minimum of five rail deliveries per 24-hrs which would all have taken place during the day. This is compared to the now proposed three rail deliveries per 24-hrs, mostly taking place at night-time – as the capacity of the line won’t have been increased by building the passing loop. It is disappointing that a solution was not found for the passing loop. Currently, there are no night-time rail movements on the East Suffolk Line or the Leiston branch line and I’m concerned on behalf of constituents that rail movements during construction will adversely impact the residents of Woodbridge, Melton, Saxmundham and to a certain extent, Leiston, before the new branch line is built into the construction site. I would urge the examining authority to challenge this and that if the passing loop is not constructed then to put conditions to ensure the relevant mitigation is put in place to minimise both vibration and noise. I am not an engineer but I understand that there are a variety of mitigations that could be undertaken including requiring welding and lubrication to the track to reduce vibrations and train screech, sound barriers and also the use of quieter rolling stock (which are available in the UK). The green rail route is welcomed though as it removes the unloading activity from the centre of Leiston into the site itself. I should declare an interest as I live quite close to the East Suffolk railway line. In the event that the examiners consider EDF’s transport strategy acceptable, then I back Suffolk County Council’s (as Highway Authority) list of additional assurances and mitigations required for the road network. Limiting the number of lorry movements to that used in Hinkley or capping at the number that would have been the case in the rail led strategy of earlier proposals would go a considerable way to reducing the impact on local communities and other businesses. I also consider the use of APNR an effective way to ensure compliance on the modes of transport and routes used for the conveyance of materials and people to and from the site. Sizewell Link Road I support the construction of a new Sizewell Link Road to take the pressure of the B1122 and the communities of Theberton and Middleton Moor during the construction phase but would strongly suggest that this should be removed on the completion of the project rather than kept as proposed by the DCO application. A permanent road in that location would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and have no legacy benefit. Two-Village Bypass I strongly support this scheme by-passing the villages of Stratford St Andrew and Farnham and it is absolutely essential this is put in place prior to construction. It has been a longstanding ambition to upgrade the A12 in this location, albeit on a larger scale. I think it is right to bypass the two villages, rather than the solution of only bypassing Farnham proposed in earlier consultations. There is still an issue of contention on the precise routing, particularly regarding Foxburrow Wood. I would encourage Natural England to resolve with EDF the precise status of the woodlands (in regards to protection levels) and to modify the route as appropriate. Environmental Impacts It seems from the documentation that EDF have done a lot of work on this to ensure mitigation. The question for Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Marine Management Organisation though is whether it is enough. As the Defra Minister responsible for the 25-year Environment Plan when it was published, I’m keen to see this scheme stand out as an environmental exemplar with EDF contributing to nature recovery as well as just mitigation. The examining authority needs to look carefully at whether the regulators are satisfied that the measures submitted are enough to ensure the safe protection of Minsmere and Sizewell Marshes. I am aware of the issue regarding the SSSI and encourage EDF to proactively change their plan to be in line with the requirements of Natural England and the Environment Agency. There is also the need to adequately address the issues regarding light and noise pollution, principally on the site, though there are measures that can be taken along the transport routes to mitigate, e.g. window glazing and black out blinds. Sea Defences I note the mitigation plans that have been submitted to prevent any additional coastal erosion from that which would naturally occur. It is important that regulators are satisfied with that mitigation and that the relevant monitoring programme is also put in place. There is a specific issue regarding a phase in the construction where there will be an increase to flooding risk upon removing the sea wall (albeit temporary) and back-up flood defences are clearly needed. Water There are significant points in the construction phase where significant amounts (circa 3 megalitres) of water per day are required for cooling tunnels. Having spoken to the Environment Agency and Essex and Suffolk Water (ESW), this is significantly higher than previously planned. I am confident that the proposals put forward by ESW – which does not rely on very local water sources – will be sufficient though they are dependent on EDF contracting prior to DCO outcome to ensure that the water can be piped in at the necessary moment in the timeline. More information is required on this as well as assurances there won’t be any risk to private water supplies as a result. Accommodation Campus I understand the concerns regarding the proposed site for the accommodation campus at Eastbridge. I had previously asked EDF and the local council to find different sites but I understand the local authority have been unable to find viable alternatives. Whilst the location selected is not ideal, I recognise the work EDF have done throughout the various consultation stages to reduce the height, with the tallest buildings closest to the reactor site. Although not ideal, an accommodation campus close to the site will also reduce traffic movements. Various funds have been proposed including a housing fund to help take the pressure off the local housing market, details of which need to be worked through with the council. I recognise and welcome that off-site sports pitches will also be provided as part of the campus including a a 3G pitch and two multi-use games areas at Alde Valley School and adjacent to Leiston Leisure Centre. As well as construction workers sharing these with the school and community during construction - the pitches will also be left as a legacy benefit. Impact on other businesses Tourism is an important part of the Suffolk economy and I am conscious of the concerns of some local employers and organisations on whether tourists will be put off by the large construction site and whether their employees will migrate to work on the construction. While it is for individuals to decide for whom to work, I think issues can be addressed through any mitigation funding and legacy benefits. Conclusion In conclusion, while there is a significant amount of work that needs to take place during the DCO process including satisfying regulators that appropriate mitigation measures are put in place and further work with the county and district councils regarding transport, the environmental impact and legacy, I do think that the local and national economic gain plus the national and global environmental gain - including jobs, skills and legacy benefits, the UK’s future energy need and contribution to achieving zero carbon – means that I support the construction of Sizewell C.