C engagement event

Riverside Centre

Stratford St Andrew

16 July 2015

In attendance

Officers from County Council and District Council: Sharon Bleese, Lisa Chandler, Katherine Potts, Michael Wilks

Cllr Tony Cooper, Town Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council, Cllr Geoff Holdcroft, Woodbridge Town Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council, Cllr Richard Smith, Suffolk County Council, Cllr Maureen Jones, -cum-Thorpe Parish Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council, 2 x Cllr Parish Council, 1 x Cllr Parish Council, 1 x Cllr Parish Council, 1 x Cllr Aldringham-cum-Thorpe Parish Council, 1 x Cllr Parish Council, Cllr John Fisher, Town Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council, 2 x Cllr Farnham with Parish Council, 1 x Cllr Leiston Town Council.

A general introduction and scene setting was provided by Katherine Potts followed by a specific brief about the session and its purposes – to have a discussion around the following questions. The attendees were split between two tables to enable manageable sized group discussions.

1. Review of stage 1 consultation responses 2. Sense check – has anything changed / developed since stage 1 3. What are the positive effects of Sizewell C for your community? 4. Moving towards stage 2: what are you going to say? 5. How do you think your community should benefit from Sizewell C?

(note that commentary/responses to participants comments are in bold below)

1. Review of stage 1 consultation responses

Katherine confirmed that the joint response submitted by Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council is available via Suffolk Coastal’s website http://www.suffolkcoastal.gov.uk/yourdistrict/sizewell/

The key areas covered in the response were that the development should create:

 Economic opportunities  Opportunities for local businesses  Jobs for local people  Educational opportunities  Community benefits

1

 An environmental exemplar  A facility that is of an exemplar design

And include plans which take into account:

 Landscape and ecology matters  Coastal processes  Where the spent fuel will go  Not having a single campus for the workforce  Location of visitors centre  Location of park and ride

A number of transport issues were also covered, including:

 4VBP  B1122  Seven Hills roundabout  Matters relating to Rights of Way  Traffic associated with other developments happening at the same time  Site access for traffic during construction  Rail provision (including legacy)  Rail and sea deliveries  A freight management facility

The Council’s also raised concerns around a lack of information available for stage 1 and a request for more information and a greater period of time to consider it at stage 2.

Katherine asked councillors to forward a copy of their town/parish response to stage 1 to the Sizewell c Project Office by email at [email protected] or by post: Sizewell C Project Office, Suffolk Coastal District Council, Melton Hill, Woodbridge, IP12 1AU.

Councillors raise the following points / questions

 Rendlesham Parish not directly affected by any big issues as on the periphery. However, if P & R is at Woodbridge and B1152 becomes route of choice – this would be an issue.  Bentwaters Park – keen to see jobs, training, manufacturing coming to Bentwaters Park provided deliveries etc. managed appropriately – hub.  Bentwaters Park is owned by the same person who owns Airfield which was previously used as a laydown area for SZB construction.  Comment that Rendlesham is not well connected by road especially to the north.  Freight would be told routes to be used and have ANPR on every route.  Comment that Stage 1 consultation asked leading questions, there was never a ‘none of the above’ option. Very limiting.  Previous comments made in response to Stage 1 appear to have been ignored by EDF.  Thorpeness referred to regarding coastal erosion – ongoing work. Site is within the AONB. Alternative laydown area could be Leiston Airfield – outside of the AONB – could include railhead, park and ride, campus. Suggest new link from A12 to that site.

2

 Noted that Bradwell Bay development using part of an old airfield.  Concern that all traffic is on the A12.  Major theme is related to transport / bypass.  Buses cause more disruption – potential impact on B1122 properties.  Unclear how delivery will be split by rail, sea and road.  Design must be exceptional and better than SZB.  Could build the landscape up.  Saxmundham Town Council used Boyer consultants to draft response at Stage 1 but response was sabotaged by one individaul on the Council – change of personnel – would have a different response now.  Consultation on the A12, 4VBP and P&R at – should have consulted Marlesford and – not good that they weren’t involved. Proximity of power stations to tourism ().  Concern about workers coming off campus.

2. Sense check – has anything changed/developed since stage 1?

 EDF have refined some options.  Attendees asked the Local Authority’s view of the park and ride options? Referred to the joint local authority’s stage 1 response. Generally supportive of principle but wanted a freight management centre included.  Would EDF badge lorries? It is understood that some form of identification would be on HGV’s.  Currently a lot more traffic on the A12 with the economic upturn along with more traffic during outages. EDF won’t give out traffic information from their survey work to parishes.  Rat runs through local villages / roads (B1078///A1120/A12/Parham/Hacheston). Need traffic calming.  Potential cumulative impact with other projects / developments e.g. Adastral Park.  If encouraging more businesses to the area this involves more traffic.  Increases in NO2 and noise – particularly at Stratford St Andrew.

Request for recent figures – SCDC to request details from Env Health to send to Marlesford PC

3. What are the positive effects of Sizewell C for your community?

 Legacy – accommodation blocks on the airfield adjacent to Leiston could be housing legacy. Including sport and leisure facilities and a railway link.  After SZB finished a lot of construction workers stayed in the area leading to high unemployment – not a positive legacy.  EDF are already taking on more apprentices. More could be done for Sizewell C.

3

 People may buy property and sell it later on but this could cause problems – sustainability for the future.  Proposals for 4 – 500 new homes in Leiston – will be bought by speculators.  Taylor Woodrow built houses in the 1950’s as a legacy for SZA.  SZB fought with the Channel Tunnel construction and Canary Wharf construction for workers.  Skills legacy from engineering. Encourage skills e.g. at Otley College.  A legacy would be 3 power stations operational life: 30 years B, 60 years C&D – outage requirements – potential 3 months every 18 months for each – planned work. Continuous industry to sustain – a positive legacy. Possibility for 5/600 outage workers and their families to be permanently based here (out of 1000).  Need a decent community centre, doctor’s surgery, library and the D2 route for Leiston.  SPLG have spoken to EDF about getting into schools to encourage children to consider future careers.  More needs to be done to encourage year 10/ year 11 to take the right courses to get employment at SZC.  Training centres needed where more access to transport to encourage more students.  Condition of roads needs addressing. Lots of local businesses will benefit from increase in populations.  Negative effects on emergency services police / ambulance. Concerns around health and emergency services.  Raise concerns around water consumption / sewage.  Cooling water back from SZC – what are the effects of discharge on coastal processes?

4. Moving towards stage 2 – what do you want to say?

 P&R – sewage? Drainage? Currently no mains drainage in Marlesford.  Need more information on the actual construction.  Emergency planning needs to be addressed.  One big campus will need substantial sewage treatment plant. No plan B for campus other than ? Campus should be split between and .  Buses with P&R could be worse than cars – hope to see more detail of this at stage 2?  At stage 2 are we likely to see indication of community – education, colleges, surgeries, at a minimum – tangible proposals for S106 enhance infrastructure in areas.  Workers will look for where houses are at the time of building and buy/move there.  Needs to be more interaction with schools – educating/developing teenagers. Should sponsor students to go to university. JLAG consider EDF need to step up from where they are. EDF are piloting a new scheme at Alde Valley Academy,

4

Leiston. Raising the Bar – SCC initiative, STEM education focus, FE Colleges in Suffolk County are joining forces and looking at potential opportunities.  It is not just nuclear potential for jobs at SZC, need to encourage girls.  4VBP no other benefits – lots of disadvantages during construction and operation.  Don’t want park and ride near Marlesford. Prefer further south.  If there was a 4VBP could have a centrally located park and ride alongside it.  Use Leiston airfield – can have dedicated route from A12.  Don’t consider it sensible to build structures and knock them down – no legacy.  Railway line could be a legacy for Leiston and a tourist attraction in itself. There used to be a link railway from the Leiston Long Shop to the existing railway.  Saxmundham will have extra traffic and no adequate emergency route. Can’t see route from A12 being cost-effective.  Coastal issues – will Stage 2 have proposals for the jetty? It is hoped so. Want to see details of the jetty and coastal processes – movement of sediment.  Information required on water consumption and sewage issues.  Detail of radioactive waste depository required.  Having regard to tourism there was no real impact during construction of SZB except on rented accommodation. Less impact on tourism. People won’t not come because of SZC. Table 1 considered impact on tourism to not be a huge issue, table 2 considered it would be.  A12 is bad in summer, could have an impact on the tourist. SZC very different to HPC – nothing to visit in Somerset, plenty to visit here. Concern about impact on holiday lets.  The issue is around promoting tourism in winter. Outages are in winter – need more accommodation. EDF are being asked to address the issue with outages  Mott McDonald report highlighted economic benefits.  Mott McDonald has done a report on coastal processes at Thorpeness.  Need more money into cycle tracks and the cycle network. Investment and improvement. Cakes and Ale has a lot of Dutch tourist who like to cycle the area. Need clear pathway and clear roads.  Public right of way on beach to be maintained.  When we know what roads will be used will EDF be responsible for maintaining them? Would help keep countryside nice.  It is a shame the economy has changed – EDF won’t build as much now.  Wasn’t any real opposition to SZB.  At stage 2 we need more information but will no doubt get exactly the same as before. We won’t be able to make informed decisions.  Will there be any consultant support for stage 2? JLAG have campaigned strongly for it. It won’t be the same format as stage 1 but there will be something. We hope to have a proposal on this from EDF soon.  SPLG has lost its way.  Wouldn’t necessarily want to comment on topics that are say 20 miles away but want to see responses from those people and vice versa – not happened at stage 1.  There is blight on local villages now because of SZC.

5

5. How do you think your community should benefit from Sizewell C?

Responses to these questions were incorporated in the previous responses.

The event concluded with short summaries on main points raised from both tables.

6

16 Jul 2015 Stratford St Andrew

Flip chart notes:

Table 1

Stage 1 recap:

(Rendlesham) Not directly impacted by the big issues. Concerned B1152 choice for cars or bus route. Use of Bentwaters for jobs / training – hub but road links not adequate? (Debach used SZB).

(Aldringham)- Concerned at options approach for Stage 1. Not much notice taken of other comments made. (SCDC/SCC check if we have response to stage 1 from Aldringham)

- Coastal erosion – Thorpeness. - * use airfield area for rail, laydown, P&R – outside AONB. Link road A12 to airfield and accomm. - Buses from P&R might cause disturbance than cars. - Design in AONB must be good – SZB good.

(Sax) Used Boyer Planning but one loud voice in town dominated response, now very different make up of Council.

(Marlesford) A12 + Hacheston P&R – high impact on Marlesford. Policing of freight management system needed.

 Economic upturn has traffic on A12. Cumulative impact of other development.  Air quality issue at Stratford St Andrew – heave readings increased? (find out figures)

Positives?

Legacy – not allowed – e.g accommodation blocks.

- Needed elsewhere than at site entrance e.g. airfield - Rail legacy - Sports facilities

Dip in employment post SZB – many construction workers stayed in area.

Inflation on house prices? – provision needs to be made. People ‘buy to let’. SZA – houses were built.

3 x outages – enough to sustain business etc, in addition to operational 900 – could bring more permanent people and families – requirements for infrastructure.

P&R – need to have further info. Re: drainage and sewerage (Marlesford not on main drainage).

Campus would require additional sewerage – impact of the heavy buses.

7

Headline S1067 list for Hinkley

- Are there warnings on reducing what was achieved at HPC.

Tangible proposals for S106.

Infrastructure for people – e.g. health, schools esp. Sax. Leiston.

Developing skills with school age children – encourage females too.

- Do more earlier - Promote the full range of employment.

(Sax) bypass – 4 villages will.

Marlesford – will only see the dis-benefits.

*Consider other P&R sites. Could a P&R be accommodated alongside the 4VBP.*

Legacy – transport infrastructure.

- Leiston rail use for tourism – link Long Shop to existing line.

(Sax) Feels traffic will struggle, emergency route past Tesco.

Link road – opposed last time in Fromus valley.

(Aldringham) Work in conjunction with EDF on coastal issues. Want to share in their information. Research done post close down of SZA – at stage 2?

- Jetty details not there. - Don’t feel big impact on tourism in area during SZB or discourage people from visiting usual sites – Snape, .

Some support to tourism for off-season –

A12 Mot MacDonald report on economic benefits of.

Safety benefits – e.g. cycle tracks, retain existing and provide more. Recreational routes – clearing paths.

-EDF to help with road maintenance – e.g. verge clearing (stepping in where LA’s cannot maintain).

SZB time – local communities take across to their French sites – shown benefits – but different economic times.

Concerns at SPLG – needs to be more inclusive.

How are EDF going to weigh up responses?

Will Stage 2 be a pseudo-consultation?

*ensure registration with PINS.

8

Table 2

(Stratford St Andrew) Major theme was related to transport / bypass. Found limitations of Stage 1 consultation difficult.

Unclear how delivery will be split by rail, sea and road.

Proximity of power stations to tourism (Minsmere). Concern about works coming off campus.

This concern shared by Leiston TC. Rat runs through local villages / roads (B1078/Yoxford/Peasenhall/ A1120 / A12/ Parham/ Hacheston).

(Leiston) Water consumption / sewage issues / jetty (coastal processes – movement of sediment). Tourism / radioactive waste repository.

Campus – no understanding of what is a plan B other than Eastbridge?

General thought is that it should be (campus) split between Ipswich and Lowestoft.

(Stratford St Andrew) Blight on local villages now because of Sizewell C.

(Leiston) Two reactors – no information about build.

(Friston) Concern about rat run. People being able to get about, access to Leiston.

(Leiston) Emergency planning not mentioned at stage 1.

During outages traffic a real issue. Although do use local labour.

Mixed feelings about whether necessary or not to national energy needs.

(Stratford St Andrew) Initially villages looked at it as an opportunity to get benefits for their village.

Traffic effecting air quality (provides leverage).

(Leiston) Concerned about cost of consultation / engagement / studies etc already going on and not paid for EDF. All concerned about provision of healthcare/impacts on GP’s / hospitals.

(Friston) Recruiting GP’s a problem.

(Stratford St Andrew) SZC very different to Hinkley. Nothing to visit. Very different here.

(Leiston) Public Rights of Way on the beach – concerned about access.

(Friston) Concerned about impact on tourism. Holiday lets.

(Stratford St Andrew) Traffic will deter people from coming.

(Friston) recreational past times may be affected by traffic.

Some agreement between parishes about effects on tourism from traffic / construction.

9

(Leiston) Employment opportunities – haven’t materialised from AIM

(Stratford St Andrew) Have seen EDF doing positive thinks to encourage skills (at Otley College).

Positive effects

EDF are already taking on more apprentices. More could be done for Sizewell C.

SPLG: have spoken to EDF about getting into schools to encourage children to consider future careers.

More needs to be done to encourage year 10/year 11 to take the right courses to get employment at SZC.

Training centres needed where more access to transport to encourage more students.

(Stratford St Andrew) Condition of roads needs addressing. Lots of local businesses will benefit from increase in populations.

(Friston) Negative effects on emergency services police / ambulance.

Concerned collectively around health and emergency services.

(Stratford St Andrew) May now raise concerns around water consumption / sewage.

(Leiston and Friston) Cooling water back into SZC effects of discharge on coastal processes.

(Stratford St Andrew) Four villages bypass.

(Leiston) Decent community centre / doctor’s surgery / library / D2.

(Friston) Traffic calming.

10