I’ve registered, outlining the following concerns:
As elected county councillor for a division affected by this proposed development,
I wish to register concern about the development’s long-term – in some cases irreparable -effect upon and damage to the heritage coast, the AONBs and ancient landscape of Suffolk coastal.
I wish to register concerns about building this power plant on a shoreline threatened by both erosion and sea level rise at a time of increasing climate change
I wish to register additional concerns about the delivery of both building materials, and subsequently the energy generated by land rather than by sea.
I wish to register my concerns as to the environmental and societal impact of that overland delivery.
I wish to register my concerns as to the cost of the power produced, especially in light of the waste that remains.
I wish to register my concerns about the impact this construction will have on local people’s way of life.
I wish to register my concerns that the income brought in by both construction and operation will in no way ameliorate the damage of this project to the income to the tourist industry on which this Heritage Coast relies.
I wish to register my concern about the seeming paucity of truly local jobs gained and how many other local jobs lost through Sizewell C.
I wish to register my concerns as to the disproportionate loss caused to our community and environment by this project, and the correspondingly disproportionate benefits that are offered elsewhere.
Finally I want to register my concerns as to the potential danger that this plant can cause the inhabitants of the Suffolk Coast, including those in my division
As the County Councillor for Woodbridge I raised following significant concerns about East Suffolk’s final modifications to the wording -and in my opinion, the intentions – of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan. The two most concerning points are:
1 Weakening of conditions concerning Major Infrastructure Projects in Suffolk Coastal First and foremost, I am deeply concerned about the nature of several of these last-minute changes – which lead to the clear weakening of local powers in relation to Major Infrastructure Projects, and a consequent negative impact on local communities and the Suffolk coastal countryside.
Worryingly, in terms of the recent Sizewell C submission and the Scottish Power application, the community benefits which in the previous document the SCPL stated “will need to be delivered” from major energy development projects now only “may be required.” This is a very concerning reduction in emphasis and leaves many local communities at significant risk.
Previously the Local Plan called for packages “ to offset and compensate” “ the burden and disturbance” experienced by local communities. These words have now been watered down to merely express an ambition that these companies should “mitigate the impacts.” This is milquetoast wording and again is letting down local communities who will significantly disbenefit from major energy infrastructure projects.
Again,the rewording of this policy (SCLP3.5) now reduces the obligation of developers, so they only contribute to infrastructure “as necessary.” Who defines what is necessary? What if the developers choose to disagree? This change must not be made if this plan is to benefit the residents of Suffolk rather than the developers.
I am told that the explanation East Suffolk has given for these changes “ is to better align the policy with the National Planning Policy Framework, which the plan needs to be compatible with.” I am afraid I do not believe this is the case, especially as this lack of alignment seems only to have been discovered at the eleventh hour.
It is clear that the interests of the people of Suffolk Coastal would require that the original wording was retained.
2 In “Areas to be protected from development”: I notice with concern that an entire policy (Policy SLP11.9 Areas to be Protected from Development, and supporting text) has simply been deleted.
Within modifications doc, Modifications MM49, it simply says “Delete Policy SLP11.9 Areas to be Protected from Development, and supporting text.” To refresh failing memories:
Policy SCLP11.9 was : Areas to be Protected from Development Areas to be protected from development as identified on the Policies Map comprise local scale sites, gaps, gardens and spaces that make an important contribution to the character and setting of a settlement in their unaltered form. In some locations these areas maintain settlement separation. Accordingly, development within these areas will be severely restricted to maintain the character of the area and ensure settlement coalescence is not compromised.
My question is Why has Policy SCLP11.9 been deleted? My concern is, Why should it be deleted? It is concerning for residents thoughout Suffolk Coastal , and for me as Woodbridge County Councillor as of course a lot of Woodbridge consists of areas to be protected from development. When read in relation to point 1 above, it is particularly concerning
I am told that this deletion is is because the inspector wished to be given greater evidence of the need to have a specific designation on these areas of land. East Suffolk did not elect to provide this evidence – which is extremely worrying.
I have been assured the protection remains, covered by other documents. I wish I could be certain. By the time one says ‘Ooops’ – it is generally too late. This is particularly the case with the heritage coast.
I raised other significant issues -especially in relation to reduction in 1 and 2 person housing numbers, and the need for more teeth in asserting public transport needs which I am happy to share.
However these two points above are crucial in terms of the long-term survival, wellbeing – indeed the very existence of our heritage coast. That these major modifications to the wording and intention of this document should occur so late and in such an opaque fashion should concern everyone.
I hope my District Council colleagues will pick this one up and hold the council to account.
Suffolk County Council submitted a response to the deeply disappointing Sizewell Stage 4 consultation, as did Woodbridge’s Town Council. These are my concerns, written specifically as Woodbridge County Councillor – and as LibDem Green and Independent group county councillor representing a division affected by the development
First and foremost I deplore that the consultation does little to answer – or even ameliorate – concerns that were raised by the many respondents to the stage 3 consultation. It is as if the concerns and suggestions of the people of Suffolk did not exist.
Secondly, I would query why we are still even considering building Sizewell C? It is intended that Suffolk will be supplying about 30% of the UK’s electricity – but only about 7% of UK electricity will come from Sizewell C, the rest will be offshore. Suffolk contains 1.4% of the UK’s population. The impact of the building – let alone the running – of Sizewell C will have a 100% impact on the people of Suffolk coastal. This impact is largely negative.
We are told that the benefits of Sizewell C will bring £100m annually to Suffolk. But the tourist benefit of the Suffolk Coastal AONB and coastal heaths, and of the natural environment of countryside around is £240m annually– on all of which Sizewell C will have an adverse impact via a range of issues such as loss of coastal paths, unsympathetic design, the 10-12 year impact of building works, and all the additional traffic. This does not make economic sense.
Thirdly, the financial case for nuclear power no longer adds up. EDF will be overcharging UK consumers for electricity from Sizewell for the next 35 years: prices of offshore wind-generated power, per KWhr, without any subsidy, are less than half what EDF is being guaranteed. Continue reading Why I cannot support Sizewell C→
Caroline Page, LibDem County Councillor for Woodbridge
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.