IT’S TIME TO RESPOND WITH OUR SIZEWELL CONCERNS
This page lays out the Sizewell concerns of TEAGS, B1122 Action Group and MLSG to help you set out your own concerns and/or opposition to EDF. We encourage you to respond by letter or email instead of EDF’s questionnaire, however, if you find the questionnaire easier this leaflet roughly corresponds to that format. To read or print a pdf in A4 format click the link above or request a copy from firstname.lastname@example.org. Read down to the end of the page for How to Respond.
If you want to suggest ‘improvements’ to proposals you oppose, we recommend using phrases such as “Though I oppose [X], the following changes would make it less bad” to ensure EDF does not misrepresent your ideas as support.
Overview: (Question 1 – Overall Views)
- Construction will damage the things that make this part of Suffolk so special; peace, tranquility and dark night skies. Visitors will be driven away by eyesores, closed footpaths and beaches, disruption, noise and pollution, so hurting tourism businesses.
- No jetty and a dubious rail strategy will put up to 1,500 HGVs a day on our roads.
- Construction will threaten some of the most biodiverse habitats in the UK and the Heritage Coast, including two Sites of Special Scientific Interest and the nationally treasured Minsmere Reserve. It will be impossible to recover from the loss of habitats that host rare birds, animals and plants.
- EDF has ignored opposition to a campus for 2,400 workers at Eastbridge from local people, Councils and our MP.
- The project is enormous – too big for the setting and land available. The government suggests that a single new nuclear power station should occupy 30 hectares (based on Sizewell B). Sizewell C & D are squeezed into only 32 hectares.
Environmental Impacts (Qs 2 – Main Site)
- EDF’s plans will cut the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in half for at least a decade, and threaten to compromise the purposes of the AONB designation itself.
- Preliminary environmental information is close to non-existent in places, with too much relying on work that EDF has not yet reported or even started. EDF should publish its full Environmental Impact Assessment before applying for planning consent, and taking into account the other Energy Projects proposed in the area, look at all projects together.
- Environmental best practice must be followed; EDF saying that it “will be taken into account” is not good enough.
- EDF must not build a town for 2,400 workers so close to protected areas.
- The construction laydown areas, accommodation site, spoil heaps, quarries and causeway crossing of the SSSI will damage the fragile hydrology of the Minsmere Levels, Sizewell Marsh and affect the Minsmere Sluice. Alterations in the management of water run-off could make sensitive ecosystems wetter or drier, while the causeway crossing will impede the drainage of Sizewell Marsh SSSI habitat.
- The proposed rock armour defence of the Sizewell C & D platform and Beach Landing Facility is inadequate, stopping above the low water line when it should go below it. Once the sacrificial dune erodes, the sea will be able to undermine the rock armour defence.
- When quarry pits are refilled with excavated materials, there is a risk that pollutants will leach into the water table and Minsmere Levels groundwater over decades. EDF recognise the potential for pollution but are not proposing anything to stop it.
- Spoil heaps, up to the height of a 10-storey building, could cause significant dust pollution to the AONB, Minsmere Levels and Sizewell Marsh, and could also affect human health.
- EDF has introduced 4 new pylons, the height of the reactors, which will negatively impact the AONB landscape, rather than installing this infrastructure underground.
People and Economy (Qs 3)
- We believe the £250m local tourism industry will be hit hard. Eyesores, noise, dust, and truck traffic will deter visitors to the coast between Southwold and Aldeburgh. EDF has not provided enough information about impacts on tourism. (See also Qs 1)
- EDF is slashing 20% from the cost of Sizewell, in part by using the Hinkley supply chain. EDF must state how this will affect the promised economic and employment benefits for the local area.
- At Stage 2 the joint Councils were “unconvinced” the benefits of Sizewell outweighed the impacts. Now the impacts have increased and the benefits seem to have decreased.
- Home rental costs will rise. At Hinkley they increased 18% in 2018 according to the BBC.
- The Link Road will split parishes, cut off homes and farmhouses from village centres, close well used country roads and footpaths and make farms unviable.
- EDF hasn’t yet conducted many vital studies including Health and Community. The project must not reduce locals’ access to emergency services and healthcare.
Accommodation (Qs 4 & 5):
- EDF is not moving from its plan for a new ‘town’ for 2,400 construction workers, of 3-4 storey blocks with car parks and leisure facilities, on a greenfield site close to Minsmere and next to Eastbridge, a hamlet of 50 people.
- Using the campus is not compulsory and is single occupancy; workers must go out to socialise with anyone other than immediate colleagues or to use sports facilities.
- EDF has consistently refused to consider splitting the site or to consider locating workers in urban areas with suitable social infrastructure and potential for legacy. It has failed to justify why it is not using its approach at Hinkley, where 500 workers are onsite and 1,000 in Bridgwater where the site has been laid out for new housing afterwards.
- The campus will bring noise, air and light pollution, a massive increase in traffic, and the potential for anti-social behaviour. This will affect our health and wellbeing and place an unfair burden on Leiston, Eastbridge, Theberton and Minsmere.
- EDF must make a cast-iron guarantee that all the development site land will be fully restored and not become ‘brownfield’.
Transport Issues (Qs 6)
- EDF took too long to decide that its ‘marine-led’ transport strategy was impossible. Calling its Stage 3 options ‘Rail-Led’ vs ‘Road-Led’ is misleading – both use mainly road.
- EDF admits its ‘Rail-led’ strategy is uncertain, but it still means up to 900 HGVs a day, plus Park & Ride buses, on the B1122 through Yoxford and Middleton Moor, with a bypass of Theberton.
- The Theberton bypass affects too many residents and still places unfair congestion, noise, pollution, vibration damage and accidents on residents and visitors. Our groups have never advocated bypasses around B1122 villages.
- ‘Road-Led’ means up to 1,500 HGVs a day on a Link Road from the A12, close to all three villages, potentially operating 24/7. The route is a bad choice, runs too close to many homes and listed buildings, with substantial embankments, cuttings and road closures, breaking up communities and making farms unviable. Parallel to the B1122, it will be of little use once the power station is built.
- In EDF’s ‘Early Years’, up to 600 HGVs/day, plus hundreds of vehicles for other Energy Projects would use the current B1122, before any new roads or Park & Rides are ready.
- Even with a new roundabout Yoxford will become a congestion and pollution blackspot.
- No figures are provided for the site entrance roundabout. We estimate up to 6,470 Sizewell vehicle movements (including 1,500 HGVs) will use it per day, as will a forecast 6,800 passing non-Sizewell vehicles at peak.
- Sizewell C & D need a proper, low-impact Relief Road, such as ‘D2’ or EDF’s route W, built before main construction starts. D2 is a more strategic route, serving multiple Energy Projects and providing a strong legacy for Leiston and Saxmundham.
- Around Hinkley, rat-running on country lanes and congestion in villages from flyparking by workers have become serious problems. EDF are doing nothing to prevent this here.
- [Qs 7-14] We recommend opposing all road and footpath closures, expressing concern about the impact of Darsham’s Park & Ride on dark skies designation, and highlighting any accident blackspots and traffic pinch-points on the A12 and elsewhere you know.
Comments on EDF’s Consultation Process (Qs 15).
- Sizewell C & D is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. EDF’s consultations have not been detailed enough for a project of this importance, with little evidence that they have listened to the concerns of local people, Councils or Groups.
- There is very little mention of cumulative environmental, traffic, social and other impacts, and no assessment of the combined impact of overlapping Energy Projects.
- EDF has presented new roads and massive traffic increases at the very last stage of public consultation, creating considerable shock and reducing the value of feedback. EDF admits its ‘Rail-Led’ strategy may not be feasible, which undermines the consultation process.
- In Stage 1 and 2, EDF failed to present adequate comparisons; e.g. between proposed accommodation sites or between relief road proposals. This denies the public the ability to respond in an informed manner, resulting in an inadequate consultation process.
- The model at EDF’s exhibitions does not show the construction phase, despite previous suggestions. EDF’s computer-generated videos are over-simplistic and misleading. The documents use outdated aerial maps from 2004/07, despite 2016 maps being available.
Other issues you might wish to raise:
- There must be greater central Government oversight and coordinated planning of all proposed ‘Energy Coast’ projects.
- China General Nuclear (a Chinese state company) is not a reliable partner. There are security concerns, and state investment is used by China to wield political influence.
- Spent fuel will be kept onsite – there is no long-term nuclear waste facility available.
- There are financing uncertainties, and any new finance model will require legislation.
HOW TO RESPOND
- The deadline for Stage 3 Consultations responses is 29 March. Write to EDF, Freepost SZC Consultation, or send emails to email@example.com. EDF’s Questionnaire can be found in the Summary Booklet and sent to the address above or filled in online at https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/sizewell-c/proposals/stage-3#getinvolved. You can respond as often and in as many ways as you like.
Copy your response or any other correspondence with EDF to:
- The Planning Inspectorate [PINS] , Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN (especially comments on the consultation process) NIEnquiries@pins.gsi.gov.uk
- Dr Therese Coffey MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA firstname.lastname@example.org
- Suffolk County Council: Leader Cllr Matthew Hicks, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich IP1 2BX. John.Pitchford@suffolk.gov.uk
- Suffolk Coastal District Council: Deputy Leader Cllr Geoff Holdcroft, SCDC, Station Road, Melton, Woodbridge IP12 1RT. email@example.com
- TEAGS, ℅ Old Store, Eastbridge, IP16 4SJ. firstname.lastname@example.org
- Watch and share our videos on Facebook www.facebook.com/teags.org
- Send and share a message of concern to EDF online www.teags.org/action
- Donate: Support all three Groups below by donating online via TEAGS www.teags.org/donate or by cheque ℅ Old Store, Eastbridge IP16 4SJ.
- Stay in Touch: sign up www.teags.org/join, or Contact Us as below.
- Put up a Poster or Board: All 3 Groups can supply these, or you can print TEAGS posters from https://www.dropbox.com/home/TEAGS/TEAGSNewPosters
- If you are involved in tourism, reply to the Suffolk Coast DMO’s survey by 3 March. https://alligator.focusvision.com/survey/selfserve/54a/190226?list=2
- Show solidarity: support the RSPB’s campaign at www.loveminsmere.org and respond to Scottish Power Renewables’ Phase 4 consultations by 26 March www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/ea_two_phase_4_consultation.aspx. For guidance see www.saveoursandlings.org.uk or www.sases.org.uk