- Screen Colours:
- Normal
- Black & Yellow
This page is dedicated to the ongoing consultation regarding the proposed Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station and Walberswick Parish Council's part in that process
Latest update: 24th May 2022
Response to Secretary of State BEIS Request for Information Related to Sizewell C 25 April 2022
The following submission was made by Cllr Josie Bassinette on behalf of the Walberswick Parish Council
Introduction
Walberswick is a coastal village, less than 10 miles north of the Sizewell C site, and has within its boundaries the Walberswick Marshes, SSSI, and AONB. Many of the questions posed by the SOS have long been raised by Walberswick Parish Council and by other local Councils and interested parties. These issues were also raised with the Planning Inspectorate and we are glad to have another opportunity to point out the very serious flaws in the proposed Sizewell C development. Because of these flaws, the Sizewell C development would not only have a devastating impact on the local environment and on our communities, but would also be a terrible mistake in public policy related to our current and future energy needs. In fact, the more Government wants nuclear power, the more it should be wary of Sizewell C. We therefore expect that the SoS will do the right thing and reject the Sizewell C DCO.
Water Supply, Desalination Plant and Drainage
The absence of a sustainable water supply during operation should conclusively argue that this project is grossly inappropriate for its proposed site. We reject EDF’s argument that the development can go forward without a guaranteed and sustainable water source and that it be left to be sorted out during the years of construction. It is clear from the statements of Northumbrian Water that there is no guarantee of piped water for the Sizewell development and for the other consumer and business-based needs of water scarce east Suffolk. EDF itself made very explicit at the Inspection Panel hearings that its proposed construction period water strategy based on tankers, diesel operated desalination and eventually electricity powered desalination was only appropriate as a temporary measure. Sizewell C, once constructed, could not even be tested if the “temporary desalination” was not first removed.
EDF’s reply to SoS that their solution in the long-term could be to fall back on somehow finding another site for a permanent desal if necessary – including ones that would further encroach on and endanger Minsmere and the SSSI -- cannot be accepted. In this regard, I would like to draw to the attention of SoS that EDF’s own argument in support of desalination during construction was precisely because the negative impacts would only be temporary and that permanent desalination would not be appropriate. For example, when the Applicant itself looked at the impact on air quality of its temporary desalination proposal, it conceded (see the document labelled Desalination Plant Air Impact, para 3.4.3 ) with regard to Ammonia, that the impact on Minsmere would go above the threshold of insignificance. It then went on to argue that this could be dismissed by rounding down their assessment (ie by lowering the standards required) and that even if the dangers were higher, they would not matter as impact would only be temporary! It would seem, therefore, illogical for SoS to consider approving Sizewell C development on the basis that desalination could become permanent.
Although the SoS did not query the ‘water strategy’ being proposed by EDF during construction, it should have done so as it highlights many of the absurdities and contradictions of this DCO. The Applicant’s proposal for some 40 daily tanker movements for at least the first year of construction on an already inappropriate transport network and then a desalination plant run on diesel, raises huge cost and environmental concerns which have not been properly addressed. With the sky-rocketing cost of diesel and the UK’s stated claim of decreasing its dependency on imported oil, this diesel-based desalination strategy is even more absurd. Sizewell C’s carbon intensive water strategy during construction (and possibly thereafter) undermines the argument of the Applicant of Sizewell C’s contribution to a lower carbon future. In fact, Sizewell C will be a large net contributor for many years even after it becomes operational because of the processes used during its decade(s) long construction.
We would also note that since the early days of the consultation, local communities have repeatedly pointed out the lack of water as a reason that these EPR reactors should not be built at Sizewell. We note too that there is no effort being made to provide an analysis of the cost impact of the water strategy or who will be expected to pick up the cost especially under the proposed RAB financing model.
Traffic and Transport
The question by SoS on the Applicant’s failure to put in mitigation prior to construction is one that has been asked repeatedly by local communities since the beginning of the consultations and has been routinely rebuffed by the Applicant without proper explanation or analysis. Planning processes require the developer to consider and assess alternative methods to ensure mitigation is provided in advance. This has not occurred. Rather, EDF has fallen back on arguments that their development is so special and so essential that they should be allowed to trample planning rules, trample local communities and trample the environment. We whole-heartedly reject such an approach and SoS must do the same.
The Applicant in its response to SoS makes little attempt to address this situation but rather falls back on its old argument that it has used for a decade --- that it has no time to build mitigation. This is simply ridiculous. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, Sizewell C is not some quick fix to the country’s energy emergency. The Sizewell construction will take some 12 years to construct even under best case assumptions. Given that EDF has never been able to build any reactor without running years (or a decade or more!) behind schedule, making such an argument is laughable and takes us all for fools. No one believes that Sizewell C, if allowed, will produce any power by 2035. This links in with the question above regarding the lack of a sustainable water strategy. In the ‘early years’, the Applicant proposes to add 40 tankers a day to the existing road network. One would think that this ‘strategy’ would need to depend on the road transport mitigation being in place, but the Applicant makes no attempt to link the two.
The Applicant’s response to the SoS even attempts to argue that early mitigation would have a negative impact on the amenity of those along the SLR. This is clearly a ridiculous argument. The communities that will suffer from the SLR will be suffering from the impact of traffic on the B1122, will then be suffering from the building of the SLR, then from the operation of the SLR itself. They will also suffer because of the Applicant’s refusal to remove the road after construction. Therefore, to say that keeping the awfulness on the B1122 longer will somehow lower the pain of the SLR cannot be taken seriously.
With regard to other specific details, we align ourselves with the well-argued response provided by the Therberton and Eastbridge Parish Council. This includes their points related to the two Scottish Power windfarms, the locating of the site won material, and the route of the SLR which remains the most sub-optimal route in the opinion of everyone involved with the exception of the Applicant. If this project is allowed to go forward, then more appropriate alternatives including full mitigation prior to construction, the choice of Route W instead of the proposed SLR and an evaluation of cumulative impacts are essential prerequisites.
Darsham Level Crossing Improvements Financing
We note the response of EDF that Sizewell C will pay for the improvements to the crossing should Network Rail lack sufficient financing. Given that the SoS is proposing a RAB financing model, it would appear that, if this project is approved, SoS is making the UK public responsible for this cost no matter what. Surely, it must be understood now by SoS that the inappropriateness of the site is going to drive time and cost overruns and it is us, the public, who will pay, not the Applicant. If Government is unwilling/unable to finance a safer level crossing through Network Rail, why would it possibly think it appropriate to finance the same through the tax-payer funded RAB via EDF?
We also note in the Applicant’s response that it confirms that it will ensure that the improvements are in place prior to using Network Rail as part of its transport strategy. SoS needs to ask why it is appropriate to ensure mitigation is in place for this part of the transport strategy whilst considering allowing the project to proceed when the Road transport mitigation is not. Clearly, if this project is to proceed, ALL transport mitigation must be in place before construction begins.
Coastal Considerations
The Walberswick Parish Council has no specific expertise in coastal processes but like all coastal communities we are acutely aware of how quickly our coast is deteriorating and therefore are alarmed at the proposals by the Applicant for sea defenses and for the safety of the spent fuel being left on site. Having read Nick Scarr’s most recent submission, we find that very serious questions remain about the uncertainty and risk associated with the EPR reactors on Suffolk’s eroding coast and whether the proposed SCDR and HCDF are appropriate. It is essential that this is determined to a much higher degree of certainty prior to any further consideration of this development.
Habitats Regulations Assessment, Biodiversity and Ecology
EDF’s proposals do not meet the requirements of the Environmental Act 2021. That, in itself, should stop further consideration of this development. We reject the arguments made by the Applicant in its answers to the SoS on the suitability of the wetland replacements and on the readiness of these replacements as suitable habitat including for the marsh harrier. As was made clear during the inspection process, the RSPB and the Suffolk Wildlife trust, supported by many other interested parties, dispute the claims made by the Applicant on the impact on biodiversity and the appropriateness and readiness of replacement sites chosen by them for the loss of AONB and SSSI. The answers by the Applicants make no meaningful improvements on their old claims. Walberswick Parish Council is particularly concerned about the impact on the Marsh Harriers which were saved from extinction in the UK by the work of the RSPB at Minsmere. These birds live in the Walberswick Marshes precisely because there is now protected habitat from the Sizewell to Walberswick Marshes. These arguments have not changed and the Applicant has provided no new evidence in its answers to the SoS but rather has repeated the same statements and actions that were conclusively challenged during the inspection process. There remains no new evidence of the Applicant’s unsubstantiated claims of biodiversity gains, and much evidence provided by Interested Parties of the opposite. We draw to the attention of the SoS the Applicant’s recent application to begin drilling test wells without the need for prior appropriate Environmental Impact Asssessment. In fact, pairs of nesting Marsh Harriers have been found where the test drilling would have occurred and would have been disturbed or destroyed should EDF have gotten approval to proceed. As it stands, there is no where appropriate for the displaced wildlife to go.
Finally, we draw attention to the recent statement made by the RSPB Operations Director on 19 May: “Minsmere has every protection under the sun, and if Minsmere can be put at risk, nowhere is safe and sooner or later a line in the sand has to be drawn. This is our line in the sand.” We could not agree more.
Approval of the development of Sizewell C would be an act of unforgiveable environmental degradation and sabotage and there is nothing in the Applicant’s response to the SoS that changes this.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it would be shocking and inexcusable for the SoS to approve a project (particularly one that the Government intends to be paid for by the public through direct Government financing and RAB financing) that:
(i) Lacks a fully sustainable, environmentally acceptable, costed and licensed water strategy. At the Planning Inspectorate hearings, EDF itself made it clear that it would be physically unable to even test the completed reactors if the desalination plant was still in place and that desalination did not provide an appropriate solution to the lack of water at the site.
(ii) Lacks a plan to obey planning laws with mitigation fully in place prior to the start of construction. Until and unless more appropriate alternatives including full mitigation prior to construction, the choice of Route W instead of the proposed SLR and an evaluation of cumulative impacts is completed, this project should not be approved.
(iii) Risks transferring to the UK public the limitless costs of a poorly planned transport strategy including those related to Rail transport. The Applicant’s assurance that it will pay for the improvement in the Darsham level crossing if Network Rail cannot is meaningless if the SoS is committing to passing the construction costs to all consumers through the RAB as that means that the public, not the Applicant, will be paying.
(iv) Causes unacceptable biodiversity loss and catastrophic risks to the AONB, SSSI and the precious RSPB Minsmere including the population of Marsh Harriers. The answers provided by the Applicant provide no new evidence but only repeat the same statements and actions that were conclusively challenged during the inspection process. There remains no new evidence of EDF’s unsubstantiated claims of biodiversity gains, and much evidence provided by Interested Parties of the opposite
19th May 2022.
As part of the ongoing work by Walberswick Parish Council regarding Sizewell C, we were recently joint signatories to a letter, along with 39 other parishes, to Kwasi Kwarteng MP in his role as Secretary of State, Department of Business, Energy and Industrial stategy.
Follow the link to see the Joint Letter to Kwasi Kwarteng
26th March 2022
The WPC has been unequivocal in our objection to the project on many grounds including the enormous negative impacts on the land and marine environment, on the destruction of unique AONB and SSSI habitat and the inappropriateness of building the world’s largest nuclear reactors in an area of the country with woefully inadequate transport and road infrastructure and without a water source needed for construction or operation. Despite these arguments made by thousands of individuals and organisations, it is possible that the Sizewell C project will be approved by Government and allowed to go forward. If that is the case, then we must change our focus to try to mitigate, to the limited extent possible, the negative impacts that the project will bring to Walberswick and all communities of coastal Suffolk.
It is for this reason that WPC agreed at our meeting in March to sign on to a “Deed of Covenent” to participate in a B1125 Working Group together with Suffolk County and East Suffolk Councils, Westleton and Blythburgh Parish Councils. The intention of this working group, which will be chaired by EDF, is to try to work through the very serious traffic and safety issues that will be associated with the use of the B1125 for Sizewell traffic. During the period of construction (10-15 years), this road will see thousands of worker and delivery vans going daily to Sizewell as well as A12 rat-running. It is hard to imagine how dangerous the water tower junction and the turning on to the A12 will be under these conditions!
The B1125 Working Group is one of a large number of working groups created under the “Deed of Obligation” that has been signed with Suffolk County and ESC. This is because the project presents a seemingly limitless number of traffic, environmental, housing and safety issues that will remain unmitigated as Sizewell C advances. EDF’s answer is to create “working groups” that are meant to deal with the myriad problems. Unfortunately, our B1125 Working Group (like most of the others) is flawed in its governance structure and it is not clear what, if any, funding will be available to support the necessary schemes. Nevertheless, as it has been made clear that it is the only tool at our disposal to try to have some voice, the WPC has signed on and will do its very best to represent Walberswick and try to mitigate what will, admittedly, be a really difficult situation.
11th January 2022
Our small bit of Suffolk Coast is being deluged with proposed energy projects. None of the developers – nor decision-makers at the national level -- seem particularly interested in the impact that one project has on the other nor of the overwhelming cumulative impact that these would have on the local population, transport networks, economy, health and safety services, and the character of rural Suffolk. These proposed projects include not only the world’s largest nuclear power plant and accompanying desalination plant, but windfarms with on-land supporting stations, at least half a dozen sub-stations for the national grid, the landing site of power cables from mainland Europe and interconnector cables with Kent and solar panel farms. The biggest of these proposed projects are shown in the map below. This is clearly an absurd situation for coastal Suffolk not to mention the country as a whole which would need to depend on the narrow A12 and local B roads to carry all the equipment, workers, and materials to support this infrastructure. Environmentally, the construction and operation of these projects pose extraordinarily high risks for the AONB, the SSSIs, Minsmere and all the marine, bird and animal life that depend on our pristine coast including here in Walberswick.
Follow the link to see a higher resolution version of the above map (opens in a new window)
In terms of Sizewell C, the Planning Inspectorate (PI) completed its review in mid-October and had 3 months (until 12 January) to submit its recommendation to the BEIS Secretary of State (SoS), Kwasi Kwarteng, for decision. However, in late December the PI requested 6 additional weeks given the pressure to complete their work from the massive volume of papers and the 22 change applications made by EDF during the course of the 6-month DCO review. The SoS begrudgingly approved the extension in a letter that seemed to blame the Planning Inspectorate for being unable to complete its task in only 3 months. For those of us who engaged in the exceedingly complex inspection process which involved almost 5000 separate documents, we found the BEIS letter bizarre given how well the PI had performed even whilst key national agencies including the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Marine Monitoring Organisation, and Network Rail often failed to appear at the relevant hearings and found themselves unable to cope with the DCO and the major changes that EDF’s numerous QCs and consultants continued to present. This reached its pinnacle when EDF admitted at the 11th hour that they had no water source during construction nor operation and would have to build an energy intensive and environmentally damaging desalination plant to support the construction phase. Even MP Therese Coffey, who remains a supporter of Sizewell C, expressed concern that the Environment Agency and Natural England, which are responsible for assessing EDF’s plans on behalf of the nation, were unable to review and provide input on many of EDF’s proposal (including the desalination plant) because of lack of details and time. To this day, there is no identified source of potable water needed for the 60 years of operation. As a result of the postponement, the PI now has until 22 February to make its recommendation to Government.
There have been other developments over the past few months. First, the Government is proposing to include a tax on every energy bill in the country for years to come to pay EDF to build Sizewell C. This controversial RAB financing model has gone through 2 readings at Parliament. RAB financing of nuclear energy has not gone well in other places (notably the US) where it has been tried (and left consumers paying for $23.5 billion in cancelled construction costs and overruns) as it basically puts an unlimited construction cost liability on to all energy consumers. This is unrelated to actually paying for energy produced or, in fact, whether or not Sizewell C ever provides energy. Given that Hinkley Point and 2 other attempts to build EPR reactors in Europe are hugely delayed and overbudget, it would seem that this is a desperate attempt to finance something that no other investors will nor that the Government wants to show as part of national debt. There is every indication, however, that parliament will approve the RAB. Reportedly opposition parties are likely to try to introduce amendments to it through the House of Lords.
In terms of safety, new questions have arisen. The only place that has an operating EPR reactor is Taishan, China and this has been shut down since August (after only 3 years of operation) because of fuel failure. Meanwhile in reaction to revelations from a French whistleblower who claims that the EPR reactors have a serious design flaw that is behind the Chinese reactor shutdown, France’s Nuclear Regulator has halted work on EDF’s EPR reactors at Flamanville which are already 10 years overdue. The same design (and potential flaws) is being built at Hinkley Point C in Somerset and would be used at Sizewell C.
On environmental issues, EDF has requested a change to its planning approval at Hinkley C to remove acoustic fish deterrents. From what we learnt at the hearings at Sizewell, these deterrents are essential to limit the impact on marine life and fish kill caused by the operation of the reactors as they are meant to keep fish away from the intake pipes. The fact that EDF are back-peddling already on key environmental protections bode ill for similar promises at Sizewell where the coastal and marine impact could be even more dire.
What’s Next
Kwasi Kwarteng was in Ipswich in December and reportedly received an ear-full from Suffolk businesses who are opposed to Sizewell C. He stated to those assembled that no decision on Sizewell C had been made. The top civil servant from BEIS for nuclear energy was meant to meet with about 60 delegates from local councils (including Walberswick) also in December but this was cancelled because of covid. However, this meeting is now planned for 4 February and Walberswick will be represented at the meeting in Snape by Cllr Bassinette.
East Suffolk Council (ESC) is supportive of Sizewell C and stands to benefit from many pots of mitigation funds that EDF is offering as compensation for the environmental, transport, housing and economic hardships that Sizewell C construction would cause in coastal Suffolk. It is of interest that neither EDF nor ESC has explained how this money could be used to mitigate these hardships and at the Planning Inspection hearings there were moments when the Planning Inspectors challenged ESC to explain what practical purpose the money would serve in terms of mitigation. Suffolk County Council has expressed opposition to Sizewell C but has now begun trying to plan for the disruption that it would create particularly on the roads if allowed to go forward. Cllrs Bassinette and Lewis met with Suffolk Highways to ask them to consider the impact at the water tower and A12 junctions with the B1387 and, should Sizewell C go forward, much more will be needed from Suffolk County to help mitigate the substantial traffic and safety problems we can expect.
Financing for Sizewell C remains uncertain even if the RAB goes through. To date, only EDF and Chinese Government-run China Nuclear, are investors. In contrast, Rolls-Royce’s Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are promising new nuclear technology that could potentially replace large scale nuclear at a fraction of the cost and environmental impact. They could potentially be online sooner than Sizewell C. Rolls-Royce has also announced that they have the financing they need at present. The danger for us is that Sizewell C is given permission to begin construction with all of its negative impacts and huge financial costs and then is obsolete before it ever begins operation.
For those who would like to know how to express their views on Sizewell C, the Stop Sizewell C website provides very useful information on who to contact and how. It also has links to reputable media articles and research that provide many more details. Stop Sizewell C also offer a 5-mile walk through the beautiful part of the AONB and SSSI on which Sizewell C will be built. Details and booking information are on their website. It is well worth it to take this walk to understand the absolutely mammoth scale of the proposed nuclear plant and what will be forever lost if it goes forward.
10th November 2021
Planning Inspectorate Completes its Work - despite the size and complexity of the Sizewell C proposal, by law the Planning Inspectorate is given only 6 months to complete its analysis of the planning application. In all, they held approximately a week's worth of Open Floor Hearings plus 15 Issue Specific Hearings on areas of concern with the last being related to the fact that there is no source of potable water during construction nor during the proposed 60 years of plant operation. A record breaking 4204 documents were submitted to the Inspectorate. This compares to 1,182 documents in total for Hinkley Point C. This is a reflection of both the level of public opposition to Sizewell C as well as the environmental, transport and housing difficulties of trying to build at the Sizewell site compared to at Hinkley Point. The Planning Inspectorate has up to 3 months to send its recommendation to the Business Secretary. Thereafter, the Secretary of State has 3 months to make a decision. Even if the Secretary of State were to support it, there is still a £20 billion plus financing hole that has to filled, so there is still lots of time and opportunity to stop this project. For those interested in more details and what can be done, please follow the link to the Stop Sizewell C website (note: this is externally hosted, so opens in a new window)
14th October 2021
Below is a link to the final submission by Councillor Josie Bassinette to the planning inspectorate on behalf of Walberswick Parish Council. This document is a summary of oral submissions and other issues of concern being provided in writing where the points could not be made during the hearing itself. Headings are aligned with relevant agenda items
28th September 2021
Below are links to two key documents that Councillor Josie Bassinette submitted to the planning inspectorate on behalf of Walberswick Parish Council. These documents are aligned with the various agendas that were followed by the Planning Inspectorate on different days of the issue specific hearings.
Written Representation to Change Request 19
27th August 2021
Many of you will have noticed a glossy pamphlet from EDF about their plans for Sizewell C in which they make many claims about how good the development will be for the environment. So many of the statements are misleading and are challenged by nearly all stakeholders. Putting a picture of Marsh Harriers on the cover when they themselves are destroying the Harriers' habitat in the Sizewell Marshes seems particularly cynical. The claims in their community newsletter also bear little resemblance to what one hears when listening to the statements made at the Issue Specific Hearings taking place this week with the Planning Inspectorate and EDF. WPC has been at the online Issue Specific Hearings that include much discussion of habitat loss and replacement. When challenged by the Environment Agency, Natural England, RSPB and others on the huge difficulty of replacing the rare and special habitat in the Sizewell Marshes with bits of land as far away as Pakenham, representatives of EDF argued that whether or not their proposals will actually compensate for the environmentally destructive impacts should not be a reason to refuse their planning application.There was also more information on the real possibility that the operation of the plant itself could collapse key fish stocks on our coast. One would have thought that this reality would stop Sizewell C in its tracks.
If this isn't enough, EDF are belatedly admitting that they have no means of having potable water at the site and are therefore proposing to build a water desalination plant in the AONB. This is shocking given that desalination is one of the most carbon intensive processes as it runs on diesel generators 24/7. Desalination would release tons of Co2 and other harmful greenhouse gases every single day. It also has substantial impact on marine life at risk of being sucked into the pipes and from the concentration of salt and other minerals in the waste water that are pumped back into the sea. EDF is also proposing to bring 40 tankers of water from around Barsham into the site every day for the first year of operation whilst building the desalination plant adding to the hundreds of HGVs that they will be running on our local roads each day.
WPC has provided written objection to this proposal which can be seen by following the link to WPC Water consultation response. In addition, WPC has joined a letter with 31 other Parish and Town Councils objecting to the short consultation period and lack of information so late in the day.
Update: 27th July 2021
Below are links to three key documents that Councillor Josie Bassinette submitted to the planning inspectorate on behalf of Walberswick Parish Council. These documents are aligned with the various agendas that were followed by the Planning Inspectorate on different days of the issue specific hearings (ISH). WPC participated in 3 of the main sets — ISH 2 and ISH3 on Traffic and Transport, ISH 4 on Socio-economic and Community Issues and the two days of ISH 7 on biodiversity and ecology. We were directed by the Planning inspectorate to provide documents separately for each ISH.
WPC spoke at each of these hearings and those comments are summarised within these documents. In addition are all the things that would have been added had the time permitted to each speaker allowed it, but naturally, the Inspector can only give limited time and we are meant to send in writing everything that we were unable to say. Also, the 'rules of engagement' at these hearings is always to give the applicant the last word, so many of their statements have to go unchallenged at the hearings themselves and these documents are a way to respond in the circumstances.
Issue Specific Hearing 2 (ISH 2) and Issue Specific Hearing 3 (ISH 3) Traffic and Transport
Issue Specific Hearing 4: Socio-Economic and community issues
Issue Specific Hearing 7: Biodiversity and Ecology
Update: 25th July 2021
The process for deciding on Sizewell C is in full swing with the Planning Inspectorate holding 10 days of hearings ending on 16 July with follow-up written submissions on 23 July. The Inspectorate is given only 6 months from start to finish to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State — a harrowing timeline for something with such overwhelming environmental, community and transport issues. For those who are registered as Interested Parties — including the Walberswick Parish Council — it can be a monumental task to take part. Luckily WPC is not alone, but is joined by many other local Parish Councils, organisations such as Stop Sizewell C, Together Against Sizewell, Suffolk County Council, RSPB, the National Trust, Natural England, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and literally hundreds of others in trying to counter the arguments put forward by EDF.
One of the things that became clear in attending these hearings was how much devastation this development will cause to the Sizewell, Minsmere and Walberswick marshes, to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the SSSI and the risks it poses to the survival of the area's biodiversity and fish stocks off our coast. The bottom line is that Sizewell C is nothing like Sizewell A or B. It is massively bigger and will cause far more damage than these earlier power plants. EDF does not have sufficient land on which to build these two new gigantic reactors and therefore will require the taking of portions of the Sizewell marshes, the protected SSSI and AONB and, for its 'associated developments', woodland and agricultural land all the way to the other side of A12 as far as Wickham Market, Westleton and Darsham. One of the many casualties will be the Marsh Harriers. EDF argues that it is acceptable that these birds, saved from extinction in the UK in RSPB Minsmere, should now be displaced from their marshes by the building of Sizewell C.
Update: 26th June 2021
The Council is continuing to engage with the Planning Inspectorate on EDF's Development Consent Order (DCO) for Sizewell C.
The process for Councils and concerned individuals can be challenging with rapid deadlines for participating at hearings and providing written submissions. In addition, EDF has continued to put in changes to the plans at the same time as the Planning Inspectorate moves forward with its processes, putting Councils and individuals at a disadvantage in being able to read, digest and provide meaningful input. Nevertheless, it is essential for the community to engage given the massive impact Sizewell will have on us all if it goes forward.
In addition to the input of the Council, anyone concerned about the impact that the 12-15 year construction of two nuclear reactors within the AONB will have on the roads, railway, coast and sea, the natural environment and the life and economy of Walberswick should make their views known.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Update: 2nd June 2021
Follow the link to see the Walberswick Parish Council formal response to written questions on Design Approach and AONB Adverse Effects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Update: 19th may 2021
Walberswick Parish Council presented at the Open Floor Hearings that the Planning Inspectorate held w/c 17th May 2021. You can follow the link to read the oral statement made on behalf of the WPC on 19 May 2021.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Background:
Walberswick Parish Council has been engaging in the Sizewell C process for several years. We have submitted responses to EDF's consultations at Stage 3, 4 and 5. Follow this link to see the Stage 3 Submission by WPC. We have also worked together with more than 60 other local Councils in writing to Government officials nationally, as well as at County and District level, to seek support. It is also a part of the routine monthly agenda of Parish Council meetings so that residents of Walberswick are kept aware of developments.
Walberswick Parish Council has registered with the Planning Inspectorate as an "Interested Party" and this has provided us with the opportunity to address the planning process in a more official capacity and give voice to the concerns of Walberswick. We have submitted written and oral representations each step of the process.
Councillor Bassinette, Vice-Chair of Walberswick Parish Council has been delegated by the Parish Council to speak on their behalf during the consultation and Planning Inspectorate phases of the EDF planning application process and this page will be used to make public those representations. The Planning Inspectorate webpage for Sizewell C can be found by folllowing this link: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/eastern/the-sizewell-c-project/ (note: opens in a new window)
Planning Inspectorate meetings are also recorded and live streamed and concerned residents should tune in here: https://www.liveeventstream.online/planning-inspectorate-sizewellc (note: opens in a new window)
Individual residents and visitors to Walberswick, and in fact everyone who is concerned about this project, should also engage directly in the process in order to help ensure that their views are heard. The process is moving extremely quickly as a result of Government legislation that sets extremely tight time limits and constraints on the ability of concerned people and effected communities to object to developers' requests. Your involvement can include engaging with the Planning Inspectorate, writing to your ESC and Suffolk County representatives and Chairs and to the MP, Prime Minister and relevant Secretaries of State. EDF has its own website for the project: https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/sizewell-c (note: opens in a new window) . Stop Sizewell C also provides a great deal of information on its website which can be found by folllowing this link: https://stopsizewellc.org/.
This website will be updated on a regular basis to keep you informed on what the WPC is doing in terms of Sizewell C. Your input is also very welcome and should be addressed to the Walberswick Parish Council clerk at: walberswickclerk@gmail.com