Representation by Denise Parry
- Date submitted
- 30 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sir/Madam, I am opposed to the proposed Sizewell C development on the following grounds: The damage to our fragile Suffolk coastline will be immeasurable: our areas of natural beauty will be destroyed or lost, and our wildlife will be severely impacted, including marine life. RSPB Minsmere, a prized national asset for birds and wildlife, will be put under strain and suffer as a result. Coronation Wood will be needlessly felled, natural habitats will be ruined and the resulting structure would be a grim replacement. The detriment to our coast will not only mean that the landscape from our valuable heritage, our childhood, will be lost, it will also mean that the appeal for future generations will not exist. The negative impact will mean many tourists no longer wish to visit, affecting the tourism trade and local livelihoods. There is also the risk of building such a project in a place so vulnerable to the whims of the sea. In recent years we have had increasingly dangerous storms and high tides; areas of cliff are already crumbling- it wasn’t that many years ago there was a tragic cliff fall in nearby Thorpeness. Coastal erosion/accretion processes are unpredictable, but siting the development on an eroding coastline, further east of existing building lines, would not only appear to be an irresponsible placement, but dangerous as well. In addition there will be the longstanding disruption to everyone’s daily lives for the next 10-12 years, with vast amounts of lorries and work vehicles rumbling along our already pot-holed roads, and extra strain on already stretched facilities, including NHS services, causing significant detriment to local communities. Not to mention the additional Nuclear Waste, lingering for years to come. Sizewell C would be the second largest Nuclear Waste site in England- this is what Suffolk would become known for, instead of its beautiful landscape. Climate change forecasts by the Environment Agency predict that Sizewell will be an island in a century: it will still, by then, be storing lethal spent nuclear fuel as well as operational and decommissioned nuclear reactors. It is important to think not just of current generational impact, but what it could mean for future generations also. The claimed carbon reduction benefits of Sizewell C are limited- considering there are so many more options for greener, cleaner energy, I would ask that you seriously consider these concerns regarding the proposed Sizewell C. Regards, Denise Parry