Linda Pentz Gunter from Beyond Nuclear International wrote an article about Sizewell C for the BNI website on 31-03-19. A link to the article is here
Below is an extract:

"The Sizewell reactors sit on a windswept beach just yards from a sea that has already consumed ancient villages as the coastline changed and eroded over the centuries. Now the sea level rise that will come with climate change promises in time to drown a few more, most likely including the Sizewell nuclear site. Undeterred, the French government nuclear company, EDF, insists it will build a new reactor at Sizewell — one of its ill-fated EPR design that is already struggling at Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Hinkley. Just from a climate change point of view, it is an exercise in insanity. But there is so much more at stake.

The local activist group, Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) has been challenging the EDF plan for years, even as Sizewell sits permanently second in the queue behind the ever more delayed and ever more exorbitant sister site at Hinkley C in Somerset, where EDF is attempting to build two EPRs. Despite the technical problems, cost over-runs and the obscene strike price EDF scored off the UK government — which would almost triple current electricity rates — the company insists in can build Sizewell C more cheaply than Hinkley C and that construction could start within the next three years. It’s a pretty tall order and, arguably, total French farce."



TASC have submitted their response to the 3rd Stage of the Sizewell C consultation. A copy of it can be downloaded here

  • RSPB concerns

  • Petitions gather pace

  • Artists, actors and businesspeople express concern

  • Outrage at scale of environmental impact

  • TASC’s devastating response to EdF’s third stage consultation

Together Against Sizewell C  believes that plans for a new nuclear development at Sizewell have been exposed as entirely inadequate in the last few weeks.

TASC’s Chairman, Pete Wilkinson, said today, ‘Since the delivery of a 1500 petition to the Leader of Suffolk County Council earlier this month, we have seen a surge in support for our position of outright opposition to Sizewell, local artists and actors voicing their concerns and the RSPB warning that the most important bird reserve in the country, Minsmere, is potentially threatened by the Sizewell development. Our petitions are attracting more and more signatures and we are convinced that the hurdles to building such a complicated and dangerous plant in such a confined and remote area will be recognised as overwhelming and terminal. With recent increased media interest in the issue, people are waking up to the sheer scale of the environmental and infrastructure changes the plant will require and they are becoming more and more vocal in opposition. It is very encouraging.’

Joan Girling, TASC’s Secretary and life-long Suffolk resident, has finalised TASC’s response to EdF’s third stage consultation and has concluded that the environmental case against the Sizewell C development plans is overwhelming. It has been submitted to EdF and seeks answers which will reveal further detailed information on a range of issues and the scale of impact on which the consultation documentation has been woefully lacking, viz

  • Suitability of the site: Sizewell has always been referred to by government as a potential’ site. TASC submits that at 32 hectares it is too small for the proposed development.

  • It will require the loss of 5 hectares of the SSSI.

  • Visual intrusion created by the plant will negatively affect the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB as well as despoiling the Heritage Coast.

  • The quantities and the destination of the thousands of tonnes of peat and clay requiring removal from the development site.

  • The discharge arrangements resulting from the de-watering of the site and the means of dealing with millions of tonnes of acidic waste.

  • Overall water management in an area deeply affected by climate change.

  • Details of the quantities of aggregates, cement, and water required for the build.

  • Levels of resulting noise, light and particulate pollution

Joan Girling said, ‘Our detailed report clearly demonstrates three things:

  • we require much more information from EdF before we can fully appreciate the impact of their plans;

  • even on the information available, it is clear that the dis-benefits associated with Sizewell C far outweigh the putative benefits, and

  • EdF must plan for a fourth round of consultation.

But the overall message is that EdF should follow the lead of NuGen and others and pack their bags and leave us and this tranquil and invaluable part of Suffolk alone.’

For further information contact Pete Wilkinson, Chairperson, TASC on 07940 524 831 or Joan Girling, TASC Secretary 01728 830965  

Protestors and two Suffolk councils joined forces in calling for more information from EDF on its proposals to build a new multi-million pound nuclear power plant at Sizewell.

TASC members with placards and banners went to show their opposition to EDF’s current proposals at a council cabinet meeting during which Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council’s suggested that the Sizewell C plans are s lacking on detail and not considerate of local resident’s priorities.

TASC delivered a 1,500-strong petition to SCC leader Matthew Hicks. The petition was sent to SCC to ensure that councillors are aware that opposition to the proposed development is on the increase and that the council has a responsibility to take into account the negative and widespread social and environmental impacts the construction will bring.

A recent joint statement by SCDC and SCC indicates that while they remain in favour of the development ‘in principle’ but that neither authority can support Sizewell C given the present lack of information presented by EdF regarding how the putative benefits of the development will outweigh the ‘impacts on people and the environment’.

Pete Wilkinson, TASC’s chairperson, said today, ‘The case against Sizewell C is overwhelming. The development will force ten to twelve years of crippling social and environmental disruption on the county, particularly in the east but its effects will be felt across the county. It will fundamentally change the way of life in this region, cause people to lose their homes, destroy an area of outstanding natural beauty and leave us with another legacy of lethal radioactive waste which future generations will be required to manage while having derived no benefit. The need for new nuclear plants to meet our climate change, cost and electricity demands has been repeatedly shown to be false. Are we really prepared to turn this heritage coast from one of beauty, tranquillity, tourism and sustainability into an urbanised de facto nuclear waste store for centuries to come for the sake of electricity which we will not need by the time it begins to be generated and which can in any case be met by conservation, efficiency and decentralised means of production? We do not want our rural communities to become an urban nightmare of transport, noise, dust and disruption and neither do a growing number of people in the region. We turn to our politicians to ensure that sense prevails.’

A copy of a letter handed to Mathew Hicks can be found here

The petition wording:

'We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the plan by EDFE to construct 2 new Nuclear reactors at Sizewell in Suffolk. The destruction of AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), SSSI sites (Site of Special Scientific Interest) and the proximity to Minsmere bird reserve, all on our crumbling Suffolk coastline, is totally unacceptable. A government-backed programme of energy saving and clean renewable energy would combat climate change and avoid the risks of a catastrophic accident, dangers to health and the storage of highly radioactive waste at Sizewell for many years to come. SAY NO TO SIZEWELL C.'

In a three-hour cabinet meeting, the councillors voiced their dissatisfaction over missing feasibility studies and plans for buildings set to permanently disturb Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The stage three consultation by EDF on the current plans concludes on March 29th.


Roy Pumfrey, Cannington resident and Stop Hinkley spokesman has a number of concerns about the new EDF Sedgemoor Campus off Bath Road.The opening of ‘Barcode City’, the Bath Road hostel for Hinkley C workers (‘Hinkley Campus open’, Mercury, February 26) serves yet again to highlight the multiple problems with this project.

Why is the ‘campus’ so small and so late on the scene? Rooms for 986 may sound a lot, but EDF have just announced that they want a 2,400 bed hostel at Sizewell in Suffolk.
Oh, and it is a hostel by the way, not a hotel as a recent BBC radio programme claimed. If it’s only for Hinkley workers and the public can’t get a room, it’s a hostel!

And why have we had to wait until the pressure on the local rental property market was so great before any EDF accommodation has appeared? One bedroom rents locally have risen from £380pcm 18 months ago to around £550 now. That’s a 45 per cent increase that people not working at Hinkley simply won’t have been able to afford.

EDF is forever banging on about 25,000 Hinkley C jobs. It would be more honest of them if they admitted that they mean 24,100 notices of termination, as there are just 900 permanent jobs at HPC, if and when it is ever working. The prospect of that happening gets less by the week.

The French Government is taking nuclear back under state control, which makes Hinkley an oddity, and EDF can’t get Flamanville to work, which puts the vital UK Government loan guarantees for Hinkley C in danger of disappearing.

The future fate of the Bath Road site was left hanging in your article. Let’s be in no doubt about what won’t be happening. The nature of the blunt instrument that is a Development Consent Order means the only permanent legacy Bridgewater will see is the power station and an enormous radioactive waste store, twice the size of what EDF originally proposed.

All the temporary structures – the jetty, two hostel sites, park and rides, office blocks, freight lay-downs etc etc – have to be removed. EDF has already said its fantasy is to spirit the Bath Road units away to its improbable development at Sizewell. As for the sites, acres of tumbleweed are all we have to look forward to.

This text has been copied from an East Anglian Daily Times article (01/03/19) which can be found here

Suffolk authorities have again rejected proposals for the county’s new multi billion pound nuclear power station - telling energy bosses their plans are still not good enough to support.

Councils said they were frustrated by the lack of detail in EDF Energy’s latest Sizewell C consultation and urged the company to work with them to show the project’s benefits can still outweigh its disadvantages.

Responding to the consultation on Friday, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council said that while they support the principle of a new power station they were disappointed EDF Energy’s plans did not contain as much information as hoped.

EDF launched stage three of its consultation on January 4 including details of a two villages A12 bypass to mitigate the effects of construction traffic, a Theberton bypass, and a link road between Yoxford and Sizewell.

It also featured further details on the revised accommodation campus for 2,400 workers at Eastbridge, two park and rides in Wickham Market and Darsham and a freight management facility at Seven Hills, near Ipswich.

The £14 billion project is expected to create thousands of jobs and bring around £100m to the economy during construction.

But Suffolk councils say they have been left with grave concerns about the potential impact on roads, tourism and the surrounding landscape, which includes RSPB Minsmere and the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, and claim much more information is needed to resolve their fears.

They were particularly concerned with the “in combination effects” of other projects proposed for the area, including ScottishPower Renewables’ plans for a large substation in Friston.

SCC councillor Richard Smith, vice-chairman of the Sizewell C Joint Local Authorities Group (JLAG), said: “This is a very special part of Suffolk and to compromise that in the way they are planning, with a 10-12 year construction, is filling many local people with grave concern, if not horror.

“We need to do everything we can to mitigate some of that and yet we have not had enough detail.”

JLAG’s response highlights more than a dozen key concerns, including:

• Transport plans

• Impact on the AONB

• Ecological effect on RSPB Mnsmere

• Increase from 6,100-8,500 workers and the impact on housing markets

• How to deliver employment opportunities for local people

• Mitigating adverse socio-economic impacts

• How to create a legacy of benefits

JLAG chairman and SCDC councillor Geoff Holdcroft said transport was the “big one”.

“Our clear preference from day one was that we wanted to see the majority of material come to the site by sea,” he added. “So we are really disappointed they’ve ruled out the marine-led strategy and we want to see all the evidence why.”

Mr Smith said highways officers had been given “nowhere near the information they require” to test EDF’s road transport plans.

The single track bridge near Wickham Market that EDF is proposing to improve as part of its park and ride plans Picture: GOOGLE
The single track bridge near Wickham Market that EDF is proposing to improve as part of its park and ride plans Picture: GOOGLE

The councils raised particular concerns over EDF’s park and ride proposals for Wickham Market, which included possible improvements to a stretch of rural roads, including the single track Glevering bridge. Mr Holdcroft labelled the suggestion “absolutely bonkers”.

While the councillors stressed they had no power to force EDF to provide the information, they called on the energy firm to work with them to find ways to “avoid, mitigate or compensate” for the problems so that the “advantages outweigh the disadvantages”.

Having already requested more information, when responding to stage two of the consultation in January 2017, the councillors said there was “still much work to be done”.

Mr Smith said the communities he represented felt there needed to be a further stage of consultation, due to the lack of information proposed so far, though he admitted the councils had no power to insist EDF did that.

Although the final decision on whether the power station goes ahead will be made by the Planning Inspectorate, the councillors claimed their influence still carried weight.

Mr Holdcroft suggested EDF would be “foolish” to apply for permission without greater support from the councils.

An EDF spokesman noted the councils’ response and said the company was pleased they continued to support Sizewell C in principle.

“As recognised in the local authorities East Suffolk Business Plan, Sizewell C provides a huge opportunity for growing the East Suffolk economy,” the spokesman added.

“At the peak of the construction, some 5,600 people will be employed at the site, with 900 people employed when the station is operating. The high skilled, well paid jobs offered by Sizewell will provide a boost in skills, education and the local economy for years to come.

“We will continue to work with the local authorities and a wide range of partners to maximise the economic benefit Sizewell C offers the region.”

EDF Energy’s stage three consultation closes on Friday, March 29 2019. Visit its website to take part.