Tag Archives: roads

Sizewell C consultation – my response

NO “mitigation” or “compensation” could mitigate or compensate for the permanent impact of this road-led strategy on Suffolk landscape and way of life

Suffolk County Council submitted a response to this Stage 3 consultation, as did Woodbridge’s Town Council. This is mine, written specifically as Woodbridge County Councillor – and as LibDem Green and Independent group county councillor representing a Suffolk Coastal division

My concerns are both general and specific.Putting to one side the question of whether the development of Sizewell is still desirable or economic, I wish to raise concerns about the following overarching issues about this Stage 3 pre-Application:

  1. The inexplicable decision to favour a road-led strategy for development over both sea and rail. This change to the narrative of previous schemes is in no way explained or explicable. Indeed, the complete fatuity of plans which eschew a marine-led strategy because of “damage to the marine environment” yet which trample over an AONB takes some beating. Such a strategy is not green. It damages a vital resource for Suffolk Coastal – the age-old countryside it relies on for income. It is not convenient – for us, the residents of Suffolk Coastal. Using Suffolk roads is clearly the cheapest and most convenient option for the developers.  What is in this for the people living in Suffolk Coastal?
  2. The adverse impact of a road-led strategy is not only on the area around Sizewell, but on all the feeder roads in Suffolk Coastal, and the communities they serve. The impact of traffic displaced by significant HGV traffic on the A12 onto rural routes will affect all rural communities in the path. What is in this for the people living in Suffolk Coastal?
  3. Despite the damage to the surrounding area  – an area which brings Suffolk Coastal its most significant longterm income  (from tourism) because of this choice of a road-led strategy – we gather it will still be necessary for you to build a jetty to bring heavy machinery in by sea. So what price “protecting the marine environment”?
  4.  All this being so, what we appear to see is the wanton destruction of countryside, habitat, environment and way of life for the people of Suffolk Coastal for the benefit of urban areas that want electricity without risk to themselves.  Suffolk has 1.4% of the UK population. It will sustain 100% of the damage of this scheme. Words like ‘mitigation and compensation’ fall very short of addressing the destruction of an historic way of life for everything for the foreseeable future
  5. Development plans for significant housing near Leiston suggests that many or most of the workers, even at the building stage, will not be sourced locally, but will be incomers to Suffolk. What is in this for the people living in Suffolk Coastal?
  6. If rail is used it will involve apparently the destruction of many existing crossings and rights of way, at great detriment to residents and tourists, who come specifically to walk and enjoy the countryside. Trains, both for delivery of construction materials and for operational uses afterwards will be in excess of the current East Suffolk line usage and will have an impact in both noise and impact on other traffic for residents along the line. Again, what is in this for the people living in Suffolk Coastal?
  7. Where is the acknowledgement of the impact of climate change on the coast of Suffolk? Suffolk County Council declared a climate emergency last week. Rising seas are predicted to put Sizewell under water within a relatively short space of time. What plans have been mafe to guard against this?
  8. Why is there no marine strategy for the delivery of energy? The current scheme will have a massive impact on the people of Suffolk Coastal in order to benefit a large tranche of the UK population. If we in Britain can get our energy from France via undersea cables, surely London can get its energy from Suffolk by the same route?

Specifically to Woodbridge, I want to raise concerns about :

  1. the increase to the volume of traffic that a road-led strategy would displace along the A1438 – the first convenient turnoff from the A12, and travelling immediately through Woodbridge town. This would take non-HGV drivers to places along the coast up as far as Leiston. The impact is likely to be considerable, as many drivers decide to eschew the congested and dangerous A12 for a more scenic, more pleasant journey.
  2. The double whammy caused by a) the increase in HGVs on the A12, passing next to Farlingaye High School, where 2,000 young people from a 400sq mile catchment area will disbenefit from the increase in N02 and particulate matter; while the increase in ‘fugitive’ traffic along the B1438 in Woodbridge, which has a hugely significant number of sheltered, retiremenit and old people’s housing built along it, will affect these residents who will also disbenefit from the increase in N02 and particulate matter. N02 and particulate matter are known to have a particularly poor impact on the young and the old. The impact of air pollution will be added to the obvious issues caused by an increase in traffic on a small town with a particularly large number of elderly residents, and six schools.
  3. Should a rail-led option be included, I must point out that when a Sizewell train passes through Woodbridge it can be heard throughout the town. An increase in rail traffic through the town will result in added noise pollution for the people of the town, in addition to potential loss of crossings and rights of way.

As I said before, I dislike the words “mitigation” & “compensation” when addressing the destruction of the countryside and people’s way of life. If Sizewell C is to go ahead, I hope that EDF energy investigate a marine-led solution for both construction of the site and delivering energy, because no “mitigation” or “compensation” could mitigate or compensate for the impact of this road-led strategy on either Suffolk Coastal as a whole or Woodbridge in particular.

Caroline Page

County Councillor for Woodbridge

Deputy Leader Suffolk County Council LibDem Green and Independent Group; Leader Suffolk County Council LibDems; LDGI Spokesperson for Women, Highways and Adult Care

Woodbridge Thoroughfare: have your say!

Members of Thoroughfare Working Group by the current impossibly complicated sign:
L to R: Jill Barratt (Choose Woodbridge, retailer); Rick Chapman (Choose Woodbridge, retailer, resident); Graeme Hawkes (SNT); Maggie Chapman (Choose Woodbridge, retailer, resident); Emma Greenhouse (disabled resident); Caroline Page (County Councillor); Julian Royle (resident); Geoff Holdcroft (Town & District Councillor). Absent: Eamonn O’Nolan (Town Councillor), Tony Buckingham (SCC Highways).

Join the Community Consultation to make Woodbridge Thoroughfare better!

Interested in helping decide how best to improve the Thoroughfare? Come to Woodbridge Library, 25th September to 1 October, and help define the best way forward.

We all know that the Thoroughfare – Woodbridge’s vibrant retail heart – has had increasing problems with traffic and parking in recent years. Residents, visitors, shoppers and traders have all expressed concern.

We also know why.

The underlying problem is that both access and parking is governed by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) that’s decades out of date and no longer fit for purpose.  It no longer reflects the needs and usage of people in the Thoroughfare.

So that’s the problem. But how to solve it? Everyone has different needs, concerns and priorities. As a result, the issue has been going round in circles for years. To break this deadlock I brought together a group that represented all major players – clearly the only way to find a workable solution to these problems was by working together. We don’t want to disadvantage anybody.

And after ten months discussion, research  and evidence-taking, we have managed to come up with three workable options.

All the ideas are based around a simple, easy-to-understand sign which is what the current TRO doesn’t allow for – but there are three different versions. We’ll be showing these options, explaining the benefits and drawbacks of each – and asking for you to help us decide.”

The Woodbridge Thoroughfare Working group is  cross-party, and involves Woodbridge councillors at county, district and town level, as well as local police, traders, residents and representatives from Suffolk County Council’s Highway team.

If you are not able to attend at the library you will be able to see and comment on the consultation documents online , in this blog from 25 September.

Woodbridge Thoroughfare Community Consultation:  Woodbridge Library, 25th September to 1 October 2017 (and online at this blog)

You don’t own the road – we share it

The other day I was cycling  along a quiet,  midmorning Kesgrave Road when I was hailed by a driver. She had stopped me specifically to tell me that I shouldn’t cycle on the road!

Why? Simply, because she didn’t like it.

I was incandescent. I reminded her that cyclists are perfectly entitled to use the road, and she grew angry that I was too busy to listen to ‘her side’.  Lady, you HAVE no ‘side’. Stopping a cyclist because you are in a larger and heavier vehicle to tell them not to cycle where you are driving for no better reason than you are ignorant of the law is  not a matter for discussion. It is harassment.

And that IS against the law.

Bad DriverImagine how this driver would have felt if her car were cornered by an articulated lorry whose driver wanted her to stop driving on the road?  If only I had a magic wand I would have conjured one up just so she got a taste of what it feels like.

Most people on the roads are – largely – considerate.  Most are aware that a bit of give and take is necessary. And most are – largely – law abiding. But for the very few drivers who are unaware of the law and uncaring of other road users, here is a brief reminder:

1)      Bicycles are allowed on British roads unless there is a sign saying otherwise;

2)      Just because a cyclist is on a bicycle and not in a car doesn’t mean they don’t have somewhere quite as important to go as you do. You are not entitled to prevent them from getting there;

3)      Yes, sometimes a cyclist will go faster than you do in your car. This is generally because you are in a traffic jam. As they are not contributing to this jam you have no reason to feel miffed;

4)      And it is NOT appropriate for a car driver to feel entitled to bully a cyclist because they are in a bigger, heavier vehicle

5)      O, and that ‘Road Tax’ you say you pay and which entitles you to take a high hand with cyclists? It was abolished in 1937. Most cyclists also drive, so they pay Vehicle Excise Duty too, which is what you are talking about. Personally, I don’t drive, but I pay half of the munificent annual £140 it costs to licence the family 2CV.

Which has never once made me feel entitled to say ” Get off my road!” to other road- users.