Sizewell C

EDF is proposing to build a new nuclear power station at Sizewell. I am working hard to make sure that Suffolk Coastal reaps the benefits this opportunity will bring in terms of new high skilled jobs, education opportunities and infrastructure investment.

I sit on the Joint Local Authority Group (JLAG) and the Sizewell Stakeholders Group (SSG). These are designed to make sure that local people's voices are taken into account when considering the construction phase of the project and the legacy it will bring.

27 July 2022

Last week the Secretary of State decided to grant permission for Sizewell C to be built with a significant number of conditions. Since then, I've spent time looking through the long report. The main question people understandably are asking is why the Secretary of State went against the recommendation of the Planning Inspectorate, which surprised me too. I have written to the Secretary of State to seek a meeting to discuss this further and how he intends to ensure the conditions of the order will be fulfilled. This is critical after other significant projects, including windfarms, managed to change their conditions without any particular public involvement. While there is no formal appeal process against the decision made by the Secretary of State under the 2008 Act, I expect that applications will go to the High Court for a judicial review of the process.

24 September 2021

Thérèse's Written Submission to the Sizewell C DCO – Deadline 8

In my submission at Deadline 2, I outlined the case for a short extension to the examination period to give sufficient time to our environmental regulators such as the Marine Management Organisation, Natural England and, crucially, the Environment Agency to respond to the relatively late changes that EDF made to the Development Consent Order. As I set out at the time, conditioning these elements in the Inspectorate’s recommendation to the Secretary of State rather than scrutinising them as part of the examination process would not be acceptable.

Now EDF have submitted further changes, most notably on water supply and the requirement for a temporary desalination plant because the pipeline from Barsham cannot be guaranteed before December 2024, I feel my request for a short extension should again be considered. In fact, the issue has now been compounded by the assertion from Essex and Suffolk Water that the pipeline may not be able to be provided at all.

The Issue Specific Hearing last week heard that the Environment Agency expect further modelling from the water company by Friday the 24th of September, but it will take them two weeks minimum, perhaps more, to assess that modelling. Considering the examination process is due to end on the 14th October this will come very late in the day. Perhaps an indicative view might be available but nothing substantial.

I am concerned that we won’t have clarity on water supply by the end of the examination period and the Environmental Agency, therefore, won’t have time to assess that or indeed the environmental impact of the desalination plant. Bearing in mind they will have a much more robust threshold if it was to be made permanent.

Given there is a precedent for an extension. I previously referenced the Scottish Power Renewables’ EA1 & EA2 wind farm applications, which allowed all interested parties, including regulators, additional time to engage properly in the process, I believe a short extension here would be wise. Indeed, my representative made that point at the Issue Specific Hearing.

I firmly believe that this additional time now – to ensure all the evidence is considered as part of the examination process – will help the project in the longer term and avoid any unnecessary legal challenge.

18 August 2021

Thérèse's Consultation Response on the Proposed Temporary Desalination Plant

Please see below my response to the SZC Co consultation on proposals for a temporary desalination plant, prior to a formal change being submitted to the examination authority as part of the Development Consent Order (DCO) process.

I have previously discussed the projected demand for water for this development (which is particularly acute during construction) with the Environment Agency and Essex & Suffolk Water (part of Northumbrian Water), mindful of the delicate and limited water resource in this part of the country particularly with regard to abstraction. It is clear that water cannot be balanced between the Northern/Central Water Resource Zone (WRZ) and the Blyth WRZ at those critical points without a net increase in abstraction. That would not be feasible locally which is why I understand that the proposal to transfer water from Barsham was put forward. The water supplier has now indicated it cannot guarantee this supply will be available until December 2024 at the earliest, with a risk that will come much later. That being the case, there is understandably a need for an alternative solution. That is why I am supportive of EDF’s proposal for a desalination plant both in the initial and subsequent location (if needed).

Whilst it is concerning that during the first nine to twelve months of construction, as the Main Platform is being prepared and the temporary desalination plant is being built, that EDF will have to tanker in potable water amounting to 40 deliveries per day, I have been assured that the capped HGV limits for the project will remain unchanged.

Although it will be up to regulators such as the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation to judge these proposals from an environmental point of view, I note EDF’s assurance that the temporary desalination plant would not result in any new or materially different likely significant effects on the environment from those already presented in the Environmental Statement. It also gives me confidence that the pipe would be installed under the beach and seabed using a trenchless construction method – and that that same pipe would be used for both the initial and subsequent locations avoiding the need for any further disturbance.

Whilst overall I am content with EDF’s proposal, without prejudging the future, I do consider that it may be necessary for a permanent desalination plant to be considered in the future. That would need to be in a different location to what is proposed, however, I understand that due to their design, it is straightforward to deconstruct and reconstruct such plants. Also, the footprint is rather small and in itself could have secondary benefits for local water users. In any event, that should not stop the temporary plant from being approved at this stage for the facilitation of construction.

02 June 2021

Thérèse's Written Submission to the Sizewell C DCO – Deadline 2

"Tackling climate change and ensuring we have enough electricity as we phase out fossil fuels is vital to the success and sustainability of this country as we head towards net zero by 2050. The increasing electrification of much of our infrastructure and resources will need to be catered for. Nuclear power as a zero-carbon energy source is a key part of the energy mix we need today and in the near future given there is not sufficient technology yet to establish a baseload of electricity supply for the country’s needs. Domestic energy provision is also important for our domestic security. Sizewell is an important nuclear cluster, generating electricity before the area was designated an AONB in 1970. Sizewell was included as a suitable site in the National Policy Statement EN-6 and which was supported by Parliament in a formal vote. Since then, there has been a consultation on updating the NPS (December 2017) and it was responded to by the Government in July 2018. While the new draft NPS has not yet been published, there was nothing in the consultation or response that indicated that Sizewell would be removed from the list of suitable sites though all mitigations would need to be included in the DCO. It will be for the Planning Inspectorate and ultimately the Secretary of State for BEIS to decide the merits of the DCO within this framework.

The construction of Sizewell C is extremely important for the UK's future energy supply. While I recognise and understand why many local residents are opposed to nuclear power generally or this particular application, nuclear power has been a long-standing sector in our part of Suffolk and the construction of a new nuclear reactor would have significant benefits for the local community and local economy, which is very important for local prosperity given the low average income in this part of Suffolk and the country. The economic gain from a project the size of this would be really positively felt locally - with the creation of thousands of jobs including well-paid, long term jobs.

I recognise that many people have moved or retired here to enjoy the very special nature and environment of the Suffolk coast and will not have experienced the construction of Sizewell B nor Sizewell A. I fully understand their concerns that a new nuclear power plant at Sizewell will create significant disruption to local communities and the transport network, especially during the construction phase. I also share people’s concerns about the environmental impact. Mitigation against all of these impacts is absolutely key.

There is a further cohort of constituents who have always opposed nuclear power and think it unsafe. Our regulatory regime is best in class and I do have full confidence in the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR). I declare that since September 2019, when I was appointed Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), that I am formally accountable for the ONR – which is an arms’ length body sponsored by DWP (and was previously part of the Health and Safety Executive). That said, the designated minister within DWP is Baroness Stedman-Scott and the relationship between the department and the ONR is set out on gov.uk. Furthermore, officials at the ONR and DWP are aware of my constituency interests regarding the sites at Sizewell. I met the ONR early on in my time as an MP and have facilitated conversations between the ONR and officials and councillors, particularly during the GDA stage of the type of reactor being proposed at Sizewell C. It is through those conversations that it quickly became clear that aesthetic design changes to the reactor would not be possible, unlike what had happened with the iconic Sizewell B. None of those meetings happened since I became the Secretary of State at DWP.

In my verbal submission to the examination hearing on the 19th May 2021, I recognised the fact that EDF has made some significant changes to its approach following the pre-application consultation. While late in the day, I broadly welcome those changes, particularly in relation to transport mitigation and the fact that they are now pursuing a predominantly marine & rail-led approach to bringing freight to site during the construction phase, rather than a road-led strategy. There are some major environmental impact changes in the DCO too and these substantial changes are largely welcome.

However, as I set out at the hearing, I am highly concerned, considering these changes have been made quite late on, that our environmental regulators (the Marine Management Organisation, the Environment Agency and Natural England) will not have sufficient time to consider all the impacts of the new proposals.

To provide more detail on this, I have been meeting the regulators. Most recently, I met the Environment Agency and heard first-hand the work they need to do to make assessments on flood risks, coastal processes changes and water supply. A key aspect of the new marine-led approach is the need for a second beach landing facility the impact of which needs to be properly assessed. They also indicated to me that the draft permit decisions are unlikely to emerge during the DCO process meaning any recommendation to the Secretary of State will potentially condition these aspects rather than having them properly scrutinised as part of the examination. That is not ideal and why I suggested there should be an extension to this process. I have made a similar recommendation to the Secretary of State. On reflection and after discussion, I would hope three months would suffice.

There is precedent here for an extension. The Scottish Power Renewables’ EA1 & EA2 wind farm applications were extended by the Secretary of State in a statement to Parliament on the 12th May, to allow all interested parties, including regulators, additional time to engage properly in the examination process. I believe a short extension here, if needed, will help the project in the longer term. And that is what I've heard from the regulators that they feel they do need more time. I firmly believe that this additional time now – to ensure all the evidence is considered as part of the examination process – will help the project in the longer term and avoid unnecessary legal challenge.

I also want to put on record at the beginning of the formal examination process comments that I have previously made in relation to the preliminary phase:

Transport

As well as supporting the new marine-led approach, I also back EDF’s proposal to increase the frequency of freight train movements to facilitate additional material imports by rail, as it will take further pressure off our highway network. Unfortunately, as EDF are still not proposing a passing loop a majority of these additional freight journeys will take place using overnight trains. In fact, the number of overnight trains increases from 5 to 7 movements. I previously raised my concerns about the impact this would have on the residents that live close to the East Suffolk line. I declare an interest as I live less than 250 metres from the line though I am making this point on behalf of residents rather than myself in this regard. Having held a meeting with Network Rail, I suggested that there was a range of mitigation measures EDF should put in place to reduce the impact of noisy trains and train screech. I am pleased that EDF have taken on board those suggestions and are now proposing an investment in continuous long-welded track to reduce vibrations as well as looking at quieter rolling stock which operate at slower speeds. These mitigations need to form part of the final DCO whether or not a passing loop is provided. There are further considerations that could be made for those residents near the crossings (of which there are multiple along this line) for consideration of local lighting issues or other aural notifications (eg use of the whistle or horn at certain places in Woodbridge) and the consideration of triple glazing and blackout blinds.

Two-Village Bypass

Sizewell Link Road

Whilst I welcome the minor amendments to ensure better visibility splays for the new Sizewell Link Road, I would still strongly suggest that this should be removed on completion of the project. A permanent road in this location would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and no legacy benefit.

Other Highways Matters

I strongly oppose reducing the speed limit on the A1094/B1069 junction to 40mph as I do not think it is necessary in any way.

There may also be unintended consequences of introducing quite so many roundabouts on the A12 and B1122 on traffic flows. I recognise that modelling will have been done but if that turns out to be incorrect then EDF should be expected to introduce traffic- and time-responsive traffic lights to keep traffic flows moving. Although I usually oppose traffic lights on roundabouts, there are ways to introduce them appropriately, either so they are speed sensitive or only work for certain times of the day, reflecting peak hours.

Environmental Impacts

I am keen to see EDF contribute to nature recovery as well as just mitigation which is why I welcome their commitment to establish an independent Environmental Trust to manage rewilding and the biodiversity of the growing Sizewell estate. They are also now proposing to use less of the AONB by utilising existing brownfield land for current buildings that have to be moved and creating more fen meadow.

It is now a question for the regulators whether EDF have done enough on this matter – including in relation to flood risk and coastal erosion as mentioned above.

For consultancy purposes, EDF have engaged CEFAS (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science) which is an executive agency of Defra. Executive agencies are able to seek external work, fees for which they can use towards their funding. While I was Environment Minister, I engaged considerably with CEFAS (which is based in Lowestoft and Weymouth) on the policy and practical work I undertook regarding improving the marine environment. Their global reputation is renowned which is why I would have great confidence in any evidence they provide. Normally, I would expect our regulators to turn to CEFAS for their expert views on such matters and while they cannot in this instance, I am sure they will recognise the standards at which CEFAS operates though I recognise that is still for the regulators to deliberate.

Accommodation Campus

I understand the concerns regarding the proposed site for the accommodation campus at Eastbridge. I had previously asked EDF and the local council to find different sites (including the Police HQ site and possible locations near Saxmundham and Leiston that could have been turned into beneficial legacy accommodation sites -with the possibility of Martlesham becoming a campus linked to Adastral Park or the University) but the local authority decided that they could not find viable alternatives. Whilst the location selected is not ideal, I recognise the work EDF have done throughout the various consultation stages to reduce the height, with the tallest buildings closest to the reactor site. I also recognise that an accommodation campus close to the site will also reduce traffic movements. Various funds have been proposed including a housing fund to help take the pressure off the local housing market, details of which need to be worked through with the council.

I recognise and welcome that off-site sports pitches will also be provided as part of the campus including a 3G pitch and two multi-use games areas at Alde Valley School and adjacent to Leiston Leisure Centre. As well as construction workers sharing these with the school and community during construction - the pitches will also be left as a legacy benefit. Sports will not be the only leisure or recreation available given the natural surroundings. I am concerned that the possibility of more recreational users of local nature sites for walking or cycling could be held against EDF by one of the regulators. EDF provides some much loved and well used nature sites for recreational use. If dedicated sites were needed, I would be concerned it could result in the closing off of these sites to general use by the public in response to the requested of a regulator for dedicated or designated workforce sites. I do not in any way want to suggest that EDF have indicated or proposed this option but I am flagging my concern.

Impact on other businesses

Tourism is an important part of the Suffolk economy and I am conscious of the concerns of some local employers and organisations on whether tourists will be put off by the large construction site and whether their employees will migrate to work on the construction. While it seems there was no loss of business during the construction of Sizewell B, I recognise that the tourism offer has continued to evolve in the time since. While it is for individuals to decide for whom to work, I think the tourism issues can be addressed through any mitigation funding and legacy benefits. While Pro Corda is not a tourist venue, I do recognise the special nature of this world-class programme at Leiston Abbey and would continue to promote suitable mitigations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while there is a significant amount of work that needs to take place during this process to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are put in place, I do think that the local and national economic gain plus the national and global environmental gain - including jobs, skills and legacy benefits, the UK’s future energy need and contribution to achieving zero carbon – means that I broadly support the construction of Sizewell C.

I would, however, urge the examining authority to ensure that our environmental regulators are satisfied – and ensure that all the issues in conjunction with this are heard and discussed within the examination process itself, requesting an extension from the Secretary of State if necessary, so as not to leave these matters to further conditions or conclusion outside this process."

19th May 2021

Therese's Verbal Submission to the Sizewell C Examination

"Thank you very much. And I do appreciate this opportunity as the Member of Parliament for Suffolk Coastal to be able to contribute today. Tackling climate change and ensuring we have enough electricity as we phase out fossil fuels is vital to the success and sustainability of this country - and nuclear power as a low carbon energy source is a key part of the energy mix. But whilst the construction of Sizewell C is extremely important for the UK's future energy supply – as well as jobs and economic gain locally - we have to get it right for the specific and special location in which it is proposed to build this nuclear power station, alongside the decommissioned Sizewell A and the operating Sizewell B.

It is my intention to put my full points in a written response but wanted the opportunity to draw out a couple of key issues, including ones that I suggest may affect the length of this process. As a consequence, my oral contribution today will be shorter than the allotted 15 minutes – but I do appreciate having been given that time in the first place.

The impact of this proposal affects constituents in many parts of the constituency of Suffolk Coastal, though particularly the areas close to Sizewell. The impact will also be felt by users of the A14, the A12, the B roads and other roads – current and proposed – that lead to Sizewell C and most importantly, the families, communities and businesses along this part of the coast. While many see this as an important boost to achieving net zero and getting great quality, well paid green jobs, I recognise that others see this as a challenge – particularly during construction – of the largely peaceful life that is enjoyed here and potential risks to other businesses, like the high value tourism industry and the special natural environment we have here.

I recognise that EDF has undertaken extensive pre-application consultation and certainly this project has been discussed for as long as I have been the MP, just over eleven years. On the formal consultation process with the various stages, while this may not be the view of all people affected, I do think EDF has listened though I appreciate have not made the changes that everyone wanted. But in particular, when I responded to EDF’s consultation last September, I made it clear that EDF had to make some significant changes to address these issues. I am glad they listened to that. Not just the contribution from me but from local councils and local residents too.

In particular, whilst most of their changes focussed on transport mitigation, there are some large environmental impact changes in the DCO too and that these substantial changes are largely welcome.

But I am highly concerned that our environmental regulators - the Marine Management Organisation, the Environment Agency and Natural England – have not had sufficient time to consider all the impacts of the changes and new proposals.

I would, therefore, like to put on record my concerns about this and ask the examining authority and the regulators if they feel they have had enough time to make these really rather complex assessments of the changes. And determine whether or not EDF have done enough to mitigate the environmental impacts, which is absolutely essential.

There is precedent here for an extension and I've made this suggestion already to the Secretary of State. The Scottish Power Renewables’ EA1 & EA2 wind farm applications were extended by the Secretary of State in a statement to Parliament on the 12th May, to allow all interested parties, including regulators, additional time to engage properly in the examination process. I believe a short extension here, if needed, will help the project in the longer term. And that is what I've heard from the regulators that they feel they do need more time. That would help the project in the longer term and avoid unnecessary legal challenge in the future.

As I say, I'll put a lot more of my views forward throughout the examination, representing aspects of what my constituents have said to me, but also putting forward what I think are the key points in this DCO process. I look forward to further engaging with the examining authority as the examination progresses. Thank you."

18 December 2020

Relevant Representation of Dr Thérèse Coffey, MP for Suffolk Coastal concerning EDF’s proposals for the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station

In my response to the preliminary stage of the planning application process that I submitted in September, I made clear that I was backing Sizewell C but encouraged EDF to make some significant changes to their planning application in order to get consent.

Having read the additional detail set out in the latest consultation (18th November – 18th December 2020), I’m pleased that EDF seem to have listened to the previous consultation responses, not just from me but from local councils and local residents and have come up with further changes to make their application more palatable. I am, therefore, restricting my remarks in this document purely to the changes that have been made since my last submission. The other comments I made in my September submission still stand.

I wish to bring the following matters to the Examining Authorities attention:

Transport

I’m pleased to see that EDF are now proposing to bring in a majority of freight (circa 60%) by both rail and seaborne methods and just 40% by HGV. As I set out in my previous submission, bringing in the majority of freight in by road would have had a significant impact on our highway network, especially during the construction phase. In order to achieve this, I back the construction of a second beach landing facility to transport additional bulky construction materials into the site.

I also back EDF’s proposal to increase the frequency of freight train movements to facilitate additional material imports by rail, as it will take further pressure off our highway network. Unfortunately, as EDF are still not proposing a passing loop a majority of these additional freight journeys will take place using overnight trains. In fact, the number of overnight trains increases from 5 to 7 movements. I previously raised my concerns about the impact this would have on the residents that live close to the East Suffolk line. Having held a meeting with Network Rail, I suggested that there was a range of mitigation measures EDF should put in place to reduce the impact of noisy trains and train screech. I’m pleased that EDF have taken on board those suggestions and are now proposing an investment in continuous long-welded track to reduce vibrations as well as looking at quieter rolling stock which operate at slower speeds.

Sizewell Link Road

Other Highways Matters

I strongly oppose reducing the speed limit on the A1094/B1069 junction to 40mph as I don’t think it’s necessary.

There may also be unintended consequences of introducing quite so many roundabouts on the A12 and B1122 on traffic flows. I recognise that modelling will have been done but if that turns out to be incorrect then EDF should be expected to introduce traffic lights to keep traffic flows moving. Although I usually oppose traffic lights on roundabouts, there are ways to introduce them appropriately, either so they are speed sensitive or only work for certain times of the day, reflecting peak hours.

Environmental Impacts

As I said in my submission, I’m keen to see EDF contributing to nature recovery as well as just mitigation which is why I welcome their commitment to establish an independent Environmental Trust to manage rewilding and the biodiversity of the growing Sizewell estate. They’re also now proposing to use less of the AONB by utilising existing brownfield land for current buildings that have to be moved and creating more fen meadow.

As I said in my previous submission, it is now a question for the regulators – the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation – whether EDF have done enough on this matter.

30 September 2020

Relevant Representation of Dr Thérése Coffey MP for Suffolk Coastal concerning EDF’s proposals for the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station

Tackling climate change and ensuring we have enough electricity as we phase out fossil fuels is vital to the success and sustainability of this country. Nuclear power as a zero carbon energy source is a key part of the energy mix and Sizewell is an important nuclear cluster, generating electricity before the area was designated an AONB in 1970. The economic gain from a project the size of this would be really positively felt - with the creation of thousands of jobs including well-paid, long term jobs - but changes need to be made even at this stage to get my full support.

The construction of Sizewell C is extremely important for the UK's future energy supply. While I recognise and understand why many local residents are opposed, nuclear power has been a long-standing sector in our part of Suffolk – and the construction of a new nuclear reactor would have significant benefits for the local community and local economy, which is very important for local prosperity given the low average income in this part of Suffolk and the country.

That said, I recognise that many people have moved or retired here to enjoy the very special nature and environment of the Suffolk coast and will not have experienced the construction of Sizewell B nor Sizewell A. I fully understand their concerns that a new nuclear power plant at Sizewell will create significant disruption to local communities and the transport network, especially during the construction phase. I also share people’s concerns about the environmental impact. Mitigation against all of these impacts is absolutely key.

There is a further cohort of constituents who have always opposed nuclear power and think it unsafe. Our regulatory regime is best in class and I do have full confidence in the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR). I declare that as Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), the ONR is an arms’ length body sponsored by DWP. I met the ONR early on in my time as an MP and have facilitated conversations between the ONR and officials and councillors, particularly during the GDA stage of the type of reactor being proposed at Sizewell C. It is through those conversations that it quickly became clear that aesthetic design changes to the reactor would not be possible, unlike what had happened with the iconic Sizewell B. None of those meetings happened since I became a DWP minister.

Ever since I became the MP in 2010, the consideration of Sizewell C has taken a significant part of my time. I have worked with our local councils, residents, businesses and other organisations to go through the details of this huge project. I want to pay tribute to our councillors and particularly our council officers for the amount of work they have done on much more of the detailed assessment and consideration they have undertaken. Over the summer, I have read through the documentation and held meetings with key organisations and regulators including Network Rail, the Environment Agency, Natural England and Essex & Suffolk Water. I rely considerably on the regulators’ examinations and submissions regarding environmental matters. I also will refer regularly to the submissions made by the district and county councils which understandably have asked for changes particularly regarding transport and the natural environment.

I wish to bring the following matters to the Examining Authority’s attention:

Transport

I still think an increase in the proportion of freight arriving on site from rail and sea-borne transport methods should be provided during the construction phase. The documents confirm that over 60% of materials are proposed to be transported into the site by HGV. I understand that a jetty cannot be constructed because of environmental concerns and potential coastal erosion issues but EDF really do need to maximise the amount of materials that can come in by sea by increasing the use of the beach landing facility. Similarly, considering the constraints on sea freight, it is disappointing that EDF have not developed proposals to upgrade the East Suffolk line by commissioning the GRIP 3 process to ensure a greater percentage of construction material is delivered by rail.

As the County Council’s response notes, the rail-led strategy previously proposed would have resulted in allowing a minimum of five rail deliveries per 24-hrs which would all have taken place during the day. This is compared to the now proposed three rail deliveries per 24-hrs, mostly taking place at night-time – as the capacity of the line won’t have been increased by building the passing loop. It is disappointing that a solution was not found for the passing loop. Currently, there are no night-time rail movements on the East Suffolk Line or the Leiston branch line and I’m concerned on behalf of constituents that rail movements during construction will adversely impact the residents of Woodbridge, Melton, Saxmundham and to a certain extent, Leiston, before the new branch line is built into the construction site. I would urge the examining authority to challenge this and that if the passing loop is not constructed then to put conditions to ensure the relevant mitigation is put in place to minimise both vibration and noise. I am not an engineer but I understand that there are a variety of mitigations that could be undertaken including requiring welding and lubrication to the track to reduce vibrations and train screech, sound barriers and also the use of quieter rolling stock (which are available in the UK). The green rail route is welcomed though as it removes the unloading activity from the centre of Leiston into the site itself. I should declare an interest as I live quite close to the East Suffolk railway line.

In the event that the examiners consider EDF’s transport strategy acceptable, then I back Suffolk County Council’s (as Highway Authority) list of additional assurances and mitigations required for the road network. Limiting the number of lorry movements to that used in Hinkley or capping at the number that would have been the case in the rail led strategy of earlier proposals would go a considerable way to reducing the impact on local communities and other businesses. I also consider the use of ANPR an effective way to ensure compliance on the modes of transport and routes used for the conveyance of materials and people to and from the site.

Sizewell Link Road

I support the construction of a new Sizewell Link Road to take the pressure off the B1122 and the communities of Theberton and Middleton Moor during the construction phase but would strongly suggest that this should be removed on the completion of the project rather than kept as proposed by the DCO application. A permanent road in that location would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and have no legacy benefit.

Two-Village Bypass

I strongly support this scheme by-passing the villages of Stratford St Andrew and Farnham and it is absolutely essential this is put in place prior to construction. It has been a longstanding ambition to upgrade the A12 in this location, albeit on a larger scale. I think it is right to bypass the two villages, rather than the solution of only bypassing Farnham proposed in earlier consultations. There is still an issue of contention on the precise routing, particularly regarding Foxburrow Wood. I would encourage Natural England to resolve with EDF the precise status of the woodlands (in regards to protection levels) and to modify the route as appropriate.

Environmental Impacts

It seems from the documentation that EDF have done a lot of work on this to ensure mitigation. The question for Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Marine Management Organisation though is whether it is enough. As the Defra Minister responsible for the 25-year Environment Plan when it was published, I’m keen to see this scheme stand out as an environmental exemplar with EDF contributing to nature recovery as well as just mitigation. The examining authority needs to look carefully at whether the regulators are satisfied that the measures submitted are enough to ensure the safe protection of Minsmere and Sizewell Marshes. I am aware of the issue regarding the SSSI and encourage EDF to proactively change their plan to be in line with the requirements of Natural England and the Environment Agency. There is also the need to adequately address the issues regarding light and noise pollution, principally on the site, though there are measures that can be taken along the transport routes to mitigate, e.g. window glazing and black out blinds.

Sea Defences

I note the mitigation plans that have been submitted to prevent any additional coastal erosion from that which would naturally occur. It is important that regulators are satisfied with that mitigation and that the relevant monitoring programme is also put in place. There is a specific issue regarding a phase in the construction where there will be an increase to flooding risk upon removing the sea wall (albeit temporary) and back-up flood defences are clearly needed.

Water

There are significant points in the construction phase where significant amounts (circa 3 megalitres) of water per day are required for cooling tunnels. Having spoken to the Environment Agency and Essex and Suffolk Water (ESW), this is significantly higher than previously planned. I am confident that the proposals put forward by ESW – which does not rely on very local water sources – will be sufficient though they are dependent on EDF contracting prior to DCO outcome to ensure that the water can be piped in at the necessary moment in the timeline. More information is required on this as well as assurances there won’t be any risk to private water supplies as a result.

Accommodation Campus

I understand the concerns regarding the proposed site for the accommodation campus at Eastbridge. I had previously asked EDF and the local council to find different sites but I understand the local authority have been unable to find viable alternatives. Whilst the location selected is not ideal, I recognise the work EDF have done throughout the various consultation stages to reduce the height, with the tallest buildings closest to the reactor site. Although not ideal, an accommodation campus close to the site will also reduce traffic movements. Various funds have been proposed including a housing fund to help take the pressure off the local housing market, details of which need to be worked through with the council.

Impact on other businesses

Conclusion

In conclusion, while there is a significant amount of work that needs to take place during the DCO process including satisfying regulators that appropriate mitigation measures are put in place and further work with the county and district councils regarding transport, the environmental impact and legacy, I do think that the local and national economic gain plus the national and global environmental gain - including jobs, skills and legacy benefits, the UK’s future energy need and contribution to achieving zero carbon – means that I support the construction of Sizewell C.

02 APR 2019

Sizewell C - Therese's Response to the Third Stage of Consultation

This is my response to the Stage 3 consultation for Sizewell C as the Member of Parliament for Suffolk Coastal and local resident.

The construction of Sizewell C is extremely important for the UK's future energy supply and will benefit the local community here in Suffolk, with the creation of thousands of jobs including well-paid, long term jobs. That is very important for local prosperity given the very low average income in this part of Suffolk. That said, I recognise that many people have moved or retired here to enjoy the very special nature and environment of the Suffolk coast and will not have experienced the construction of Sizewell B. I fully understand their concerns that a new nuclear power plant at Sizewell will create significant disruption to local communities and the transport network, especially during the construction phase. Mitigation against these impacts is key. There have been some significant changes from Stage 2 consultation, though not all of my concerns that I expressed in the Stage 2 consultation have been addressed. I have attended the Sizewell C Community Forum. I continue to participate in the Joint Local Authority Group as an observer. The councils have submitted and published their responses separately.

Transport

The marine-led option from Stage 2 is discarded. Their environmental assessment excludes the jetty, though there will still need to be a beach landing facility. I think that is regrettable and we certainly need more information on why it has been discarded. This leaves a rail-led and road-led strategy. Both provide certain transport mitigations, namely a 2-village by-pass for Stratford St Andrew and Farnham, a by-pass south of Theberton, park and ride facilities at Darsham and Wickham Market and a new roundabout at Yoxford. If the road-led strategy is chosen, further traffic mitigations include a new Sizewell link road from the A12 between Saxmundham and Yoxford, bypassing Middleton Moor and Theberton and a link from the B1122 down to the new road. There will also be freight management centres on the A14 near Seven Hills or Innocence Farm. If the rail-led strategy is chosen, a new branch line from Leiston into the construction site would be built to carry the extra 5 freight trains a day needed along with a new level crossing on the B1122. 12 level crossings would be closed and rights of way diverted. I understand English Heritage are more comfortable with this option. The new branch line and level crossing to facilitate it would be removed after the construction phase is finished.

EDF need to justify why the marine-led option has been eliminated. Of what remains in the consultation, my preference is for the rail-led strategy. I understand it requires Network Rail to provide significant upgrades on the East Suffolk line and I beleive that possible. The lasting legacy is less impacting with rail-led provision. EDF has highlighted the risk of this strategy is that it would not be entirely in their control as it would depend on Network Rail. I have met the Rail Minister and Network Rail on this matter. The Traffic Works Order can take time to secure but it can also be included in the planning application. In any event, I want to see further improvements along the A12, particularly at the roundabout by Seckford Hall and possibly making that stretch of the A12 dual carriageway (with a reduced speed limit of perhaps 50mph). Seven Hills roundabout will also need enhancing.

I have had significant representation from residents about the road-led strategy being undesirable, especially regarding the link road and the increased number of lorry movements. I agree.

Accommodation

I understand concerns remain regarding the proposed site for the accommodation campus at Eastbridge. I have previously asked EDF to find different sites and I understand the local council have been unable to find viable alternatives. I do recognise that EDF have made improvements and the car park will be closest to the village. The accommodation itself will be reduced to a maximum height of 4 floors, with the tallest buildings closes to the reactor site. A housing and tourism impact fund is suggested. Details are to be worked through with the local council. An accommodation office for workers will help guide them to EDF provided site as well as longer-term housing options. I have spoken to residents and attended a Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell exhibition and appreciate that whilst other sites would be preferred, with none forthcoming, further mitigation could be done. I think several suggestions are well thought through, including measures to reduce light pollution.

The leisure facilities in Leiston, adjacent to the Leisure Centre and Alde Valley School, will be kept as a lasting legacy for the community, these will include 1-2 multi-use games areas and a synthetic 3G football pitch. Other aspects of community mitigation have yet to be discussed with the councils. There is ongoing work regarding skills and employment in partnership with the councils, LEP and business organisations. More detail is still needed on the environmental aspect, especially regarding new pylons on the site itself. These new pylons concern me. EDF should provide the analysis on why the alternative solution is not viable. I should state though that Sizewell A was created before the AONB was created and I accept the nuclear cluster approach which the government has taken.

What is not addressed in this consultation is the cumulative impact of a number of energy projects. I have recently submitted a response to the consultation on SPR infrastructure projects. These risk significant damage to the natural environment and need to be considered in the round.

15 JAN 2019.

Sizewell C - Third Stage of Consultation

The third stage of public consultation on Sizewell C is now open. There have been quite a few changes since the last round of consultation so I would encourage you to read and reply to the consultation document which closes on the 29th March.

EDF is also holding a series of public exhibitions across eastern Suffolk throughout January. Details of which can be found here.

I attended their public exhibition in Saxmundham last weekend and I'm currently formulating my early thoughts, which I will share shortly with residents before I reply formally to the consultation.

13 FEB 2017

Sizewell C - Therese's Response to the Second Stage of Consultation

EDF's stage 2 consultation for the construction of Sizewell C came to end on the 3rd February 2017 and I responded with my views.

My full response to the consultation is set out below:

Sizewell C Stage 2 Consultation Response

The construction of Sizewell C is extremely important for the UK's future energy supply and will benefit the local economy here in Suffolk, with the creation of thousands of jobs. That said, a new nuclear power plant at Sizewell will create significant disruption to local communities and the transport network, especially during the construction phase. It is essential that these impacts are mitigated as much as possible and it is in this context I respond to EDF's proposals at Stage 2 consultation.

Environment

I recognise that we have had a nuclear power plant on the AONB at Sizewell for 60 years and EDF have an admirable record of environmental management. More information is required and I would expect a draft Environmental Impact Assessment to be submitted at Stage 3.

Design

Recognising the GDA process limits changes to key nuclear components, the elements that can be adjusted should be made as aesthetically pleasing as possible to fit in the local environment. Unnecessary light pollution should be avoided.

Transport

Construction Material

I want to see as much construction material come in by sea and rail as possible rather than putting more pressure on our road network. The potential of both sea and rail methods of transport need to be maximised rather than one or the other.

Sea

I support the building of a jetty that can facilitate the maximum amount of construction material coming in by sea but that does the least amount of damage to the environment. I think there is a case for the wide jetty but it isn't clear what impact it will have on coastal defences and if it does, how EDF will mitigate that. More information is required on this element.

Rail

I support the temporary extension of the Sax-Leiston branch line – the green route – to bring material to the site.

Farnham Bend

EDF's options 1, 2 and 3 are unacceptable. Option 1 suggesting no change, isn't an option at all. Option 2 and Option 3, the road widening and a one village bypass just for Farnham isn't acceptable. Option 4, a two village bypass for Farnham and Stratford St Andrew is the minimum mitigation required. A business case is being worked up for a 4 village bypass, as part of the full Suffolk Energy Gateway, a proposal EDF should consider in conjunction with Suffolk County Council as part of the Stage 3 consultation.

B1122

None of the proposals are adequate to mitigate the huge increase in traffic that will take place along the B1122. If EDF is to proceed with B1122 options, by passes should be considered. EDF should set out in detail, whilst recognising the national planning policy statement, why options explored for Sizewell B, namely the D2 route, haven't been investigated for Sizewell C.

A12 turnoff at Yoxford

This particular issue needs considerably more work by EDF. It is not evidenced that either option, the signalised junction or roundabout, will solve the problem. It was previously suggested that a double roundabout would be feasible without demolition of houses there.

Further Highway Improvements

The construction of Sizewell C will have a much wider impact on the road network than just those set out in the consultation. The impact further down the A12 and the A14 needs to be assessed and potential mitigation measures worked up.

The A12 should be dualled both ways between the Seckford roundabout, the junction with the B1438 and the Wyevale roundabout, the junction with the B1079.

I am also concerned about the capacity of the Seven Hills roundabout at the A14 junction and the Woods Lane roundabout at the junction with the A1152, which need assessing.

Park & Ride

I support both the park & ride sites at Darsham and Wickham Market as set out in the consultation. I don't support the reserve site at Woodbridge and would not support that being taken forward if the Wickham Market site is dropped.

Accommodation Campus

I do not support either options 1 or 2, which both put forward a single accommodation campus site at Eastbridge in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. EDF have yet to provide a compelling reason why the accommodation campus for Sizewell should be different to Hinkley, which is not next to the construction site. There are opportunities within 15 minutes of Sizewell which have not been explored. I would therefore like EDF to conduct a full appraisal of alternative sites prior to Stage 3 consultation.

I agree with the proposal that sports facilities should be located in Leiston to provide a legacy benefit for the local community.

15 JAN 2013

EDF 1ST Round Proposals

This is the text of a letter that Therese sent to constituents that gives her initial thoughts on most of the EDF proposals.

This consultation does not refer specifically to the creation of a nuclear power station or its safety. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has given its approval to the design proposed by EDF and its supplier Areva. The ONR will grant a site licence and is responsible for assuring safety.

Design

Sizewell B design is iconic. Sizewell C should be of a similar appearance with cosmetic changes as appropriate rather than changing fundamental design of the reactor.

Accommodation site(s)

EDF wants to build something like halls of residence or a group of Travelodge-style accommodation with on-site catering and sports facilities. It wants just 1 campus of 2-3000 bed spaces.

I oppose sites 1 and 2. Site 3 could be changed to bring the accommodation blocks closer to the main road. This would provide the infrastructure (water, gas, broadband, etc.) for new housing on that site in the future. Perhaps this site should be capped at a certain number of bed spaces and an additional accommodation site should be considered elsewhere in the district. The site close to the A12 in Saxmundham has been suggested.

Park and Ride / Lorry Management

North: We need more information but the only realistic site of these is Option 2. This will leave a legacy option next to the rail station. Option 1 on the B1122 is completely out of the question, due to the already constrained junction with the A12. Option 3 (by Little Chef) is too close to A144 junction.

South: In any event, no freight consolidation should be done there but at a site by Option 3 is too close to dangerous junction. The Wickham Market Option 1 could work but still has a lot of traffic going up the A12 with single carriageway. Most likely is Option 2 by Woodbridge. This would leave no legacy benefit as it is not appropriate to have mass building west of the A12. However, the pull on/pull off needs to be modified to prevent backups at the roundabout. The Seckford Hall roundabout should be improved with a filter lane to allow free-flowing traffic.

Freight: I have concerns about all the sites. Congestion on the A14 and by Seven Hills is already a concern. With some modifications, Orwell East or West could work. I had thought the Orwell sites would be ruled out but they are the preference, so far, of the County and Emergency Services.

Rail

I think the blue route provides least technical issues and takes material straight into site.

Roads

None of the options for the A12 address the full issues. The 1 village bypass solves the Farnham bend at first sight but cuts right through local amenity land. Without any other option presented by EDF, the only credible alternative is a 4 villages bypass. EDF needs to present more data.

The impact on residents along the B1122 and at the turnoff of the A12 will be highly significant, compared to everyday traffic. I have long thought an alternative road is needed, though that sentiment is not universally shared. In any event, significant improvements to the road and pathways, perhaps combined with double glazing for all houses and speed limiters. The route from the Southern Park and Ride is not finalised and alternative routes could be considered rather than the B1122. On visiting the A12 turnoff, it was thought a double roundabout by Yoxford would be feasible without demolition of houses there. This particular issue needs considerably more work by EDF and the County Council.

03 JAN 2013

Sizewell C - Your MP wants to hear your view

Therese will be holding a series of community meetings in the New Year to hear your views on Sizewell C. Meetings will take place on Friday 18th January in Leiston, Yoxford, Middleton, Theberton, Eastbridge, Woodbridge and Stratford St Andrew. She will be setting out her thoughts on the issues but primarily she want to hear from you. The times for each meeting are as follows:

09:00 Woodbridge The National Hall, Sun Lane Woodbridge, IP12 1EG

13:30 Stratford St Andrew Riverside Centre, Mill Lane, Stratford St Andrew, IP17 1LN

15:00 Yoxford Yoxford Village Hall, Old High Rd, Yoxford, IP17 3HN

16:30 Middleton Middleton Village Hall, Mill Lane, Middleton, IP17 3NG

18:00 Leiston Sizewell Sports & Social Club, King George's Ave, Leiston, IP16 4JX

20:00 Theberton The Lion Inn, Main Road, Theberton, IP16 4RU

21:00 Eastbridge The Eel's Foot Inn, Eastbridge, IP16 4SN

Extra Meeting Added: Saturday 19th January - 09:00 Sizewell Beach View Holiday Park, IP16 4TU

If you intend to come along please e-mail, Patti Mulcahy, at [email protected] to register.

Therese said: "I fully understand local concerns on the significant impact and disruption that accompanies such a large project. This is the first stage of a marathon negotiation and it is important that public opinion is conveyed to EDF. It is essential local residents benefit as much as possible from the project including maximising improvements to infrastructure."

20 NOV 2012

Sizewell C Consultation

The first stage of consultation for Sizewell C has now opened and will run until 6th February 2013. I urge you to have a look at the document and respond with your views here.

I believe the construction of Sizewell C will create thousands of jobs and will provide a massive boost the local economy. I met the County Council's lead officers on skills and education to press the importance of how we must ensure young people and existing workforce are equipped to take advantage of these opportunities. Suffolk Chamber of Commerce is already coordinating business efforts through its supplier microsite. However, with construction comes significant disruption including traffic and housing. Leiston residents have a key choice to make concerning whether the temporary housing could actually be developed into future housing. We need the best engineeering on the jetty to avoid coastal erosion. The rail loop and track may have legacy benefits. On roads, I know residents in the 4 villages will be disappointed that only a Farnham bend by-pass was proposed but this is early days in the marathon negotiation. I have particular concerns on the A12/B1122 turnoff and impact on the villages of Middleton Moor and Theberton. It is important that Suffolk residents benefit as much as possible from Sizewell C, including maximising improvements to infrastructure. So have your say.

Click to download EDF Sizewell C consultation