This is the last day to put in a response to EDF’s Sizewell C Stage 1 Consultation. The consultation doesn’t allow for any debate on whether we should have a new Nuclear power station at Sizewell. It deals solely with the practicalities of Sizewell C’s construction and its impact on those of us who live in its path.
And there will be an impact, no two ways about it. Currently it looks like being an impact with very little benefit to us residents of Suffolk Coastal.
Particularly worrying for Woodbridge residents would be the impact of a works Park & Ride and Lorry Park at Woods Lane. I’ve therefore sent EDF this response on behalf of all those who have raised concerns with me:
Re: SIZEWELL C Stage 1 CONSULTATION
In responding to this consultation, I am writing as elected County Councillor for Woodbridge to raise concerns specific to my division. I am also responding more generally as Suffolk Lib Dem spokesman for Transport. I am restricting my comments to the period of construction as it is the impact of this that is specifically being consulted upon.
Overall These plans offer only the most cursory and non-holistic reference to the heritage nature of the Suffolk coastal landscape – and to the impact that the lengthy period of construction will have on both the landscape and the lifestyle that residents currently enjoy.
The benefits of Sizewell C will be to the country as a whole. It would seem inappropriate that the impact should be felt so disproportionately by the 0.2% of the population (124,000 people) who make up the population of Suffolk Coastal. The question that comes to mind (in the vernacular) is, “What’s in it for us?”
Transport At its peak the construction workforce is expected to be 5600 people, 34% of whom will commute. This will put nearly 2,000 more daily commuters on the overcrowded A12. Although much freight will be by rail/sea , EDF currently forecasts 100-300 more HGV deliveries (I read this as 200-600 HGV journeys) daily on the A12 in the years of peak construction. EDF would prefer to manage this via a lorry park at the Southern P&R.
Commuter traffic EDF claims that the construction of North and South Park & Rides could ‘significantly reduce the amount of commuter traffic on local roads’ during the peak years of construction. This is not strictly accurate: the best they are designed for is to ameliorate some of the excess that the construction of SizewellC will put upon our roads! There is no reference in the consultation to these P&Rs serving our local commuters.
And even within this limited definition of a ‘significant reduction’, the Park & Rides – wherever they are placed – will not ameliorate the increased levels of traffic arriving and departing from them.
In the case of Woodbridge, the proposed Southern P&R option C is at the already busy roundabout at the A1152/A12 junction, north of the town. It would therefore not ameliorate the increased levels of traffic that would need to pass Woodbridge. At the same time a P&R there would add considerably to the congestion, pollution and rat-running that are already a problem here as traffic seeks to avoid the bottle-neck at the A1152/A12 junction.
Although the Southern P&R option C would be on the A12, it would have a significant impact on Woodbridge residents in terms of increased noise, light and environmental pollution – particularly for those living in the Farlingaye ward .
It would also have an adverse impact on the 2000-odd students who attend Woodbridge’s Farlingaye High School. With a catchment area of 400sqm of Suffolk Coastal, and school bus access directly from the A12 and close to the A1152 junction, congestion at peak times is likely to conflict with school drop-off and delivery.
Lorry Park It is clear that EDF expects that most lorry traffic will be travelling northward to the site, past Woodbridge. A lorry park at Option C would exacerbate all the problems mentioned above, regarding commuter traffic. Woodbridge would suffer the double whammy of both the increase in HGV traffic and the lorry park while gaining no identified benefit from either.
Rail The A1152 crosses the East Suffolk line at an open crossing at Melton. A recent upgrade in the service to hourly passenger trains is already increasing congestion at this point (and rat-running through Woodbridge). Sizewell C development proposes to transport significant amounts of construction materials by train which is to be welcomed. However it will further exacerbate crossing delays and congestion and add to the potential problems of rat-running through Woodbridge.
Conclusion The proposals for building Sizewell C will have a great impact on the Suffolk Coastal region. This is because they are reliant on one single north/south axis in both road and rail provision. As yet it is far from clear that that EDF’s proposals fully recognize and allow for this impact: it seems instead as if the A12 is being seen as one giant corridor to Sizewell – with little concern for the communities that line it.
The strategic geographical position of Woodbridge, sandwiched between A12 and East Suffolk line, means that the impact might be felt most keenly by its 7500 inhabitants, particularly if the Southern P&R option C is decided upon. This would bring many disadvantages to our town without one single clear advantage. There is no incentive or reason for us to support it.
I would recommend that, before the next consultation, EDF look again – and more closely – at significant investment in Rail improvements. That is, not only at increasing enhancements to the East Suffolk line, but also at building bridges at rail crossings to allow more freight to be moved by rail while reducing the impact on road crossing users.
As regards siting the Lorry Parks and Park and Rides, EDF should be looking at areas where there would be minimal disruption to and impact on communities AND landscape. This clearly rules out the current proposals for Southern P&R option C at Woodbridge
Finally, I am deeply disappointed that it is proposed the residents of east Suffolk should bear such a high degree of inconvenience over so many years for the good of the nation at large without any substantive mention of a reasonable payback. We need bridges over the A12 where footpaths have been cut in two. We need bridges over the East Suffolk line, where commuters currently wait in traffic jams. We need decent public transport for huge swathes of the rural population. All these needs could be addressed with little extra cost if EDF considered them as part of a holistic plan for the development of Sizewell C.
I hope you will take these comments back and consider them seriously in your ongoing deliberations
Yours sincerely
Caroline Page
Absolutely agree that it seems unfair that we in Suffolk Coastal should take all of the hit for this development in the whole nation’s energy infrastructure but have so little consideration taken of the harm that it will cause.
Yes, let’s try to site the new P&R where it will not add to local rat-running and
Yes, let’s use some of the EDF budget for this project to minimize Suffolk Coastal’s disruption before it starts.
I live within a very small distance of the new proposed Lorry park and tbh it doesn’t bother me too much at all. Everyone always seems to be bleating on and it all boils down to “Not in my back yard” having thought about it myself, there are very few alternatives on the main route tha wold be suitable. There are a few fields alongside the A12 up from the seven hills junction, but without substantial junction building, a safe entry and exit for this traffic is not possible.
Lets just get on with it, get it built and reduce our reliability on foreign power sources, Jobs for Local workers is very important at this time, and this seems to be have been forgotten.
I very much agree with your stance on NIMBY-ism Mark – but would question your use of the term in this context. This consultation is part of stage 1 of the planning process and is in place specifically to look at the proposals, the options AND the positive/negative effects on the local community.
This being the case, lets leave aside issues such as the congestion already there at peak times; the roundabout linking with the southern artery of the Wilford division (the A1152); the issue of the Farlingaye HS school-bus transport of literally hundreds of students from a 400sqmile catchment on the same stretch of road; and the increasing rat-running of other HGV traffic through Woodbridge already (Chris Mapey at the Angel can tell you how many times his pub has been smashed by rogue HGVs last year alone…)
Lets go instead for practicalities. For a start there are plenty of fields between Felixstowe and Seven Hills. And that is why the three primary proposals for standalone Lorry sites are for here rather than further north! There are plenty of fields between Woodbridge and Potash Farm – and that is why the other two options for Park and Rides are sited there – nice and close to Sizewell so the P&R service will be cheaper for EDF to operate.
So why propose Woodbridge at all? the advantage of Woodbridge is that although the is not as convenient for lorries as the sites nearer Felixstowe, nor as convenient (read cheap to operate) a Park and Ride as the sites north of Woodbridge, it would clearly have economies of scale to build park and ride and lorry park in the same place, and Woodbridge just happens to be in the middle. Not a very compelling reason in anyone’s books.Particularly considering EDF are going to have to spend untold billions on dealing with all the spent radioactive fuel stacking up in’interim storage’ on the site because nobody has the faintest idea as to what to do with it.
And finally, if 66% of the construction workers are living on a temporary campus at the site, and 34% of workers are driving to the North and South Park & Rides to travel onwards by bus, it may be worth considering just how local to Suffolk Coastal these workers are projected to be.
You write :- ” There are plenty of fields between Woodbridge and Potash Farm – and that is why the other two options for Park and Rides are sited there – nice and close to Sizewell so the P&R service will be cheaper for EDF to operate. ”
Sorry ~ the suggested Potash corner site ( option 3) is less than 2 minutes nearer to Sizewell than the Woods Lane option. To suggest it’s “nice and close to Sizewell so the P&R service will be cheaper for EDF to operate” is hardly a substantive reason for suggesting Potash Corner is a cheaper alternative. The diffence in transport costs between the two options will be minimal.
I believe we should be be looking for a different long term solution ~ we should be seeking some benefit for the local communities to compensate for the disruption this development will cause.
I believe we should push for the Four village bypass ( something that many will argue is long overdue). If we championed this suggestion the temporary Southern parking options could be better sited as part of that development.
I thought as you are our Lib Dem spokesman on Transport matters you might be interested in the following points I made in my own response to the consultation. I declare a NIMBY interest ~ I live on the C309 and overlook the proposed Potash Corner site !
Transport
I agree the Park and Ride facilities are best located on the A12 as access to the site along the rural roads which approach Leiston have insufficient capacity for the expected traffic flow numbers.
I am disappointed however that land for the southern options cannot be found further to the north in the vicinity of Saxmundham. That would cut down on transfer Shuttle bus time.
I do not agree however that the southern sites should also contain the provisions for HGV parking. Such provision is inappropriate for a rural area especially if it is deemed necessary to provide security lighting 24/7.
The lorry park should in my opinion be placed on the A14 ~ two of the suggested options are located adjacent to current light industrial /retail development.
Transport: Southern Park and Ride
I note you suggest Potash Corner as a possible location ~ I cannot think of a more unsuitable location.
With the preferred option {at Wickham Market) or the other off the Wood Lane roundabout near Woodbridge some recognition has been taken as to the need to maintain existing traffic movements. With your Potash Corner solution you are suggesting merely a conventional T junction entrance to the facility on to a bend of a single carriageway main road ( the A12). A right hand turn across fast moving traffic at such a location will create a death trap.
This section of the A12 has never been duelled even though sections on either side are duelled. This means traffic speed. and the build-up of traffic. fluctuates considerably. There are times, during morning rush hours, where southbound traffic is at a standstill. At other times of the day the road becomes a two way race track.
As a resident of Bredfield I am well accustomed at having accelerate hard to make the right hand turn across the traffic at the A12/C309 junction. Various schemes to alleviate the problems have been proposed by Parish and County/District Councillors over the last 10/15 years. No solution has ever been implemented. And now the Sizewell proposal (if implemented) is going to compound the right turn problem just along the road from the A12/C309 junction. You cannot be serious !
A stated in other paragraphs I do not want to see provisions for HGV parking being made within the park and ride area. The Potash Corner option utilises farm land which forms the southerly approach to the rural village of Bredfield. The visual impact, and overall size of the temporary parking site should be kept to a minimum.
I also question the need for 24/7 lighting especially if the HGV provisions are removed from the site.
Transport: Road freight
I do not support the preferred option to combine the lorry park with the southern park and ride on the A12.
With the growth of Felixstowe as a container port there is a growing need to provide HGV park up facilities along the A14. HGV drivers already utilise lay-bys along the A14 for overnight parking. When Operation Stack is in force there is even more roadside parking on the approaches to Felixstowe.
It seems therefore beneficial, if Lorry parking is to be provided for the duration of the Sizewell development, that these parking areas could be used as a longer term solution for the Felixstowe HGV parking requirement.
I favour therefore a separate facility for HGV’s along the A14 at one of the suggested locations.
Transport: Junction and Road Improvements
There is a real danger that we duck out of addressing the real issue ~ the provision of a new route for the A12 around the “four villages”.
A Farnham bypass is probably more beneficial that just a widening of the Farnham bend but it does need to dovetail in with a long term strategy for improving the A12.
It is time therefore for the Sizewell Development team to sit down for serious talks with the County Council and Highways Agency so as to arrive at a long term solution.