Dear Sir,


Readers of the article in last weeks journal “EDF urged to generate gains for wildlife and people” could almost be mistaken into believing that the the proposals for Sizewell C are a positive boon for the environment. Whatever people think about nuclear power, make no mistake that EDF intend to turn a huge area of outstanding natural beauty into one of the largest industrial construction sites in Europe. Covering the beautiful fragile habitat with 7 million tonnes of steel and concrete will not improve it. The AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and SSSI(Site of Special Scientific Interest) status are given to this habitat because it is precious, rare and divers, and it is insulting to suggest that the havoc and destruction that will be wrecked on this area will be in any way ecologically beneficial.

Sizewell C & D: A done deal?

The proposed siting of Sizewell C & D – let’s not forget that two nuclear reactors are planned – seems to achieved its first objective in that it has cowed too many of the local population into believing that it’s either necessary or inevitable. Neither is fact.

One thing that is true is that this Is nothing less than a monstrous invasion of large-scale industrialisation into this area. An area, lest we forget, that is of sensitive scientific interest and outstanding natural beauty.

The effect will ripple out from Sizewell Beach bringing massive disruption in terms of traffic, light pollution, population surge and general environmental degradation.

To the Editor EDP

Dear Sir,

In the EADT on the 15th Feb it was reported by John Grant that work is being undertaken by the “Sizewell C Environmental Stakeholder Group”. The group includes Suffolk County Council, Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Suffolk Preservation Society, Royal Society for Protection of Birds, Woodland Trust and the National Trust.

This grouping has been set up to ensure that IF the proposed Sizewell C goes ahead the best possible outcome is achieved for the species and habitats of  all of the  areas that may be affected by the development, building and operation of the proposed Sizewell C.

This may seem a very worthy approach.

However I submit that the best possible outcome for the conservation and ecology of Sizewell Belts SSSI, the AONB and all other designations within any of the sites to be disrupted, including RSPB Minsmere, would be to recognise that Sizewell C must never happen. The proposed Sizewell C is entirely the wrong development in unquestionably the wrong place.

Letter to the EADT

Sir,

John Grants article “Framework For The Future” confirms my suspicion that our MP Therese Coffey, Local Councils and it seems all of our environmental and wildlife groups have abbrogated their responsibilities to their constituents and group members. Unlike the period in the planning of Sizewell B nuclear power station when these groups put the case against it seems they are now willing to ignore the massively disrupting proposals for a Sizewell C&D.

Sir-

It seems that EDF are trying to rebrand Suffolk as ‘the home of the energy coast’ (Business East, 18/6/13). Although I prefer to think of our coastline as the ‘sunrise coast’, the proposed building of Sizewell C could force us to consider other options. For example, if job creation is the priority, why not call it the ‘coast of the rising sun’? After all, the clean-up operation in Japan has created a glut of jobs, and I’m sure that plenty more positions will become available as workers at Fukushima reach their maximum dose of radiation. Indeed, it appears that nothing creates jobs more rapidly than a nuclear disaster.