TASC's response to the sizewell B consultation.  A pdf copy can be downloaded here

1) We are aware that this consultation is being undertaken to enable EDFE in the fullness of time to submit a Planning Application to Suffolk Coastal District Council for the relocation of buildings etc on and off the SZC site to other locations. It is quite obvious that without the relocation of the buildings the site allocated for SZC is not of adequate size.
Until as such time as EDFE have Planning Consent from the Secretary of State for SZC any relocation of Buildings further west of the existing complex of SZA and B is premature.

2) If SZC does not receive Planning Consent, further areas of Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB will have been sacrificed unnecessarily. We therefore submit that any application for relocation should not be considered by the Local Planning Authority but should form part of the application for DCO for SZC and considered by the Planning Inspectorate.


3) The consultation suggests that Coronation Wood is in a poor state, and of little value, yet the wood is an historic asset being planted to commemorate George 5th Coronation and as such the owners of the wood should have applied a much better Woodland management scheme to ensure its viability. The wood does not just contain pine but many hardwood deciduous trees, it also forms a green buffer to the Sizewell complex. We have it on good authority that the wood could be restored. Thus ensuring its capability to carry out its function of obscuring the Sizewell industrial complex. Leiston cum Sizewell Town Council are opposed to the loss of Coronation Wood, it is just one of the woods which is named on the Oglivie Estate and as such is part of Leiston’s heritage, it is incumbent on the owners, EDFE, to respect and manage it for the benefit of future generations.

4) The Visitor Centre and Training Centre suggested for the Coronation Wood area are outside the Sizewell B complex as are many other relocated buildings causing further intrusion into open countryside west of the existing industrial building site, encroaching further into the AONB and other designations. We are also concerned about the possibility of flooding in this area. We are not told how potable water is to be fed to the site and how sewage is to be disposed of.

5) Not withstanding our remarks at 1and 2 of this paper we believe that alternatives sites must be considered, at present it appears a fait accompli. Without a full EIA we do not know the total extent of any environmental damage to these sensitive areas.

6) On considering the Outage Car Park on Pill Box Field. Travel to and from the car park adjacent to the public Bridleway 19 will put horses, riders and persons on foot in direct conflict. This should not be accepted. This site is again in open countryside and directly viewed from many sides. We also question the assumption that it is for the outage for SZB once every 18 months but if SZC goes ahead with 2 reactors this car park could be for the use of SZB and C outage once every 6 months. Even without this being the case there are many other questions as to the management of pollution both of air and water. The petro- chemical run off has not been properly considered and may contaminate Sizewell Belts and all other water courses in the area. This type of activity with many car movements is not suitable for an area which is on rising ground and will be highly visible from many view points.

7) The introduction of noise and light pollution into the suggested area within an AONB is unacceptable for the Car park, the Training Centre and the Visitors Centre. This needs to be reconsidered by EDFE.

8) As an aside it would appear that EDFE believe that owning so much land in the Leiston- cum- Sizewell area that they can spread buildings cars lorries and anything they wish anywhere and everywhere in their land ownership to suit themselves, this does not constitute being a good neighbour, this consultation has proved that this is their attitude.

9) We submit that this SZB consultation and following Planning Application is premature. The SZB planning application should be determined as part of the SZC DCO and should be determined by the Planning Inspectorate as the two matters are inextricably linked.

Further remarks to TASC Initial Document 25-1- 2019

We wish to point out that any work undertaken to relocate Sizewell B facilities into Coronation Wood and the adjoining area in the AONB including Pill Box Field at Planning Application stage should, if Planning Consent is given for the relocation of the SZB facilities, be subject to a legal requirement for the reinstatement of any work undertaken, if Sizewell C is not granted permission by the Planning Inspectorate.


Joan Girling Secretary to TASC