EDF C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

HACHESTON PARISH COUNCIL

EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2

CONSULTATION

23 November 2016 – 3 February 2017

SUBMISSION

02 February 2017

Hacheston Parish Council Page 1 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

Contents

Table of Figures 4

1 Introduction 5 1.1 Hacheston 5 1.2 The Need for Energy 5 1.3 Hacheston Parish Council Consultation 5 1.4 Summary of Residents’ views 6 1.5 Concerns and Issues 6

2 Priorities for Mitigation Measures and Benefits to the Parish of Hacheston 7 Introduction to Hacheston Priorities 7 2.1 Traffic Mitigation 7 2.2 Design of the proposed Southern Park & Ride Site 8 2.3 Double Railway Track 9 2.4 Cycle Paths 9 2.5 Mobile Phone Coverage and 4G broadband 9 2.6 Improved Employment and Local Businesses 10 2.7 Improved Bus Services 10

3 Sizewell C Proposals Overall 10

4 Main Development Site: Environment 10

5 Main Development Site: New Access Road 12

6 Main Development Site: Managing Construction Materials 12

7 Accommodation: Overall Strategy 13

8 Accommodation: Campus layout 14

9 Transport: Overall Strategy 15 9.1 Hacheston Perspective on Transport Strategy 15 9.2 Key Elements of EDF Transport Strategy 15 9.3 Maximum Use of Rail and Sea 16 9.4 Two Villages Bypass 16 9.5 Four Villages Bypass 16 9.6 Heavy Goods Vehicle Movements 17 9.7 Transport Strategy 18

10 Transport: Rail 19 10.1 Options 19 10.2 Railway components necessary for a Sizewell C Build 20

Hacheston Parish Council Page 2 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

11 Transport: Sea 21

12 Transport: Southern Park & Ride 22 12.1 Introduction 22 12.2 Key Issues for a Southern Park & Ride in Hacheston 22 12.3 The Park & Ride Site – Design, Location and Mitigation 23 12.4 Proposed Access to Park & Ride Site and Traffic Flows 26 12.5 Mitigation of Concerns over Proposed Access 29 12.6 Specific Hacheston Traffic Issues 30 12.7 Local Heritage and Listed Buildings 34 12.8 EDF Consultation Southern Park & Ride Diagrams 36 12.9 Surveys of the Local Community 37 12.10 Southern Park & Ride Location 38 12.11 Benefits of the proposed Southern Park & Ride Site 38 12.12 Conclusion 39

13 Transport: A12 Road Improvements 40 13.1 Four Options 40 13.2 A12 South of 40 13.3 Four Villages Bypass 40 13.4 Further perspectives on the A12 40

14 Transport: Road Improvements – /B1122 41

15 People and Economy 41

16 Consultation Process 42 16.1 Christmas and New Year 42 16.2 Not Enough time 42 16.3 Consultation Documents Follow Different Structures 42 16.4 Cost of Consultation to the Parish Council 42 16.5 Consultation Detail 42 16.6 Consultation of Stage 1 and Stage 2 43 16.7 Communication with EDF during the consultation process 43 16.8 Consultation at Stage 3 43

17 HPC EDF Sizewell C Stage 2 Consultation Submission 44 Presented by Hacheston Parish Council 44

Appendix: Distances to Hacheston locations from Proposed Park & Ride Site 44

Hacheston Parish Council Page 3 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

Table of Figures Figure 1: Missing Bunds on Park & Ride Design 23 Figure 2: Fiveways and Slip Roads to the A12 26 Figure 3: Proposal for a new A12 Roundabout for Park & Ride Site Access 30 Figure 4: Traffic Flows through Hacheston B1116 31 Figure 5: Map of Route 1 B1078 through Wickham Market and Route 2 Tank Road Route 32 Figure 6: Map of Location of Tank Road (Easton Road) 32 Figure 7: Assessment of Visibility from Footpaths within the Special Landscape Area 35 Figure 8: Assessment of Visibility from Selected High Level Listed Buildings 36 Figure 9: Survey 2014 Proposals for a Park & Ride 37 Figure 10: Survey 2014 Seasonal Variation 37

All references to Sizewell C documents are to the main consultation document unless otherwise specified. All references to parts of this document use the form: HPC s.12.1 SP&R.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 4 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

1 Introduction

1.1 Hacheston The village of Hacheston is situated on the B1116 just over 1km north of the Southern Park & Ride proposed site and has a population of approximately 350 people. It has a tax base of 152 Band D houses. The Parish of Hacheston includes two settlements on the B1078 known as Lower Hacheston immediately to the southwest and west of the Park & Ride proposed site. Hacheston is a commuter village for work in and beyond and is approximately 6 miles from the Wickham Market railway station at . There is also a small amount of employment within Hacheston itself due to a number of local businesses and there is a considerable self‐ employed contingent. Everyone living in Hacheston needs to travel in order to work, shop, visit the doctor, pharmacy, supermarkets and other amenities. It does not have a pub, although the village hall has monthly bar nights. There is an extremely limited bus service running at different times on different days. Hacheston Parish Council (herein after referred to as HPC) represents the whole parish with seven councillors.

1.2 The Need for Energy HPC is generally not opposed to nuclear power and accepts that Sizewell has been chosen as a site for a nuclear power station. There is a critical need in the for a baseline level of power generation which is: • independent from the strategic and tactical interests of other counties and thus provides a level of energy security; • does not rely on unclean coal power generation; • does not rely on intermittent forms of energy generation such as wind farms; • as green as possible and as carbon neutral in its development as possible.

1.3 Hacheston Parish Council Consultation The statements, proposals, discussions and views presented in this document are based upon: • surveys of residents by Dr. Dan Poulter MP, November 2014, November 2016; • public meetings over the last 30 months (2014: 25/07; 2016: 11/01, 20/04; 2017: 07/01, 09/01); • meetings with other local councils, to whit and Wickham Market; • the EDF Sizewell C Stage 2 consultation exhibition 16 December, 2016; • discussion among councillors representing the community; • submissions from residents on various aspects of EDF’s proposals.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 5 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

1.4 Summary of Residents’ views Most residents are in favour of the following, and some are opposed: More base‐line energy generation; a Two Villages Bypass (Option 4, but a Four Villages Bypass is preferred); mitigation of the impacts on traffic from EDF’s proposals; Mitigations for the Park & Ride itself; creation of cycle paths. Most residents are opposed to the following, although a small minority are in favour: A Park & Ride in Hacheston and Options 1 ‐3 (No Change; Farnham Bend Road Widening; One Village Bypass).

1.5 Concerns and Issues HPC considers that it is necessary to make clear at the outset its concerns over a number of the proposals notwithstanding that there appear to be a number of benefits of varying degrees of importance and significance. HPC has five major areas of concern: • Southern Park & Ride site: It would appear that there are some small potential benefits for Hacheston but overall there seems to be a number of significant negative impacts on Hacheston, which is being asked to bear the brunt of the needs and cost of EDF to transport workers to Sizewell without a significant and substantial benefit. • Two Villages Bypass and lack of Four Villages Bypass (and other Highways options 1 ‐ 3): the concern is that the opportunity will have been missed to create a much better Four Villages Bypass that leads to better long term beneficial impacts and legacy for Hacheston and Marlesford. It is of concern that this bypass proposal, which has been discussed over many years, has been ‘deprecated’ and not considered or promoted by EDF. If EDF was to work with government to create a Four Villages Bypass then Suffolk could receive the economic benefits and EDF could reduce development transportation costs and operating travel costs, while at the same time not having to commit more money than it would currently under the Two Villages Bypass scheme. • Traffic and Local Road network issues: The B1116 and B1078 will experience an increase in volume of traffic and speeding which is a significant issue already and will be compounded by the building of a power station. Traffic flows on the A12, and to and from the A12, on the Fiveways roundabout and slip roads in order to access the Park & Ride remain grave concerns. • Health and Annoyance Issues: associated with light, noise, dust, asthma health and the potential impact of a concentration of predominantly male workers. • EDF Sizewell C Stage 2 Consultation: There are some aspects of this consultation for which not enough information has been provided to be able accurately to determine some impacts on Hacheston. Not enough time has been provided to allow Hacheston adequately to make representation without having to postpone dealing with other important issues. Beyond the existence of the Sizewell C power station itself and consequential employment, with the current plans there appears to be little long‐term beneficial legacy for Suffolk in general or Hacheston in particular.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 6 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

2 Priorities for Mitigation Measures and Benefits to the Parish of Hacheston

Introduction to Hacheston Priorities A variety of measures to mitigate potential impacts and concerns of residents have been proposed in this document along with some discussion of benefits. These are drawn together in this section in order for EDF representatives to see them at a glance and so that EDF can: • see how important these are to our community; • draw up full proposals based on these ideas for the next round of consultation; • be seen to have looked at Hacheston’s responses, proposals and views; • implement them to provide a long‐term legacy for residents. In Stage 3, HPC and the community wishes to see a full consideration of the priorities with options presented here based on analyses of positive and negative impacts, advantages and disadvantages and consequent possibilities, as well as full information and full sets of data to allow the community to be able to make informed perspectives. In particular it is essential in HPC’s view that the proposed power station results in tangible long‐ term legacies for Suffolk and Hacheston, just as the power station itself is a long‐term project. It is essential that residents are not expected to bear the cost of the impact of the construction of the power station. It is unacceptable that EDF creates a negative impact on Hacheston in order to reduce a negative financial impact on itself. The local community will be affected throughout the lengthy construction period and mitigation commensurate with the proposals would be well received. Our priorities are grouped here into major areas: • traffic mitigation; • design of the proposed Southern Park & Ride site; • double railway track; • cycle paths; • mobile phone coverage and 4G broadband; • improved employment and local businesses; • improved bus services.

2.1 Traffic Mitigation Hacheston on the B1116 and Lower Hacheston on the B1078 have speeding problems because both are fairly straight roads, and are being used as if they are A roads for traffic wanting to get to and from the A12. Hacheston has had traffic volume problems and thereby more speeding for a number of years with no significant traffic management measures being proposed by Suffolk County Council (SCC). However HPC has been working with SCC over the past 18 months and HPC now has a Speed Indicator Display. This has been successful in that HPC has better and on‐going data regarding the problem and there is a slight (but anecdotal) reduced effect on the speed of traffic going through parts of the village. Extra traffic travelling along the B1116 and B1078 in Hacheston is likely to increase speeding because drivers will be aiming to arrive at the Park & Ride to catch buses leaving at

Hacheston Parish Council Page 7 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

particular times. However, there is a need to create significant traffic mitigation and calming such as a village gateway, mini‐roundabout, and other ways to slow the traffic down.

1 A12 Bridge and Slip Roads Significant work will need to be done to the bridge and slip roads to and from the bridge in order to increase the safety with which vehicles can approach and leave the Southern Park & Ride site. Currently it is not regarded by residents to be very safe to cross the bridge as there are some visibility issues and difficult angles when entering the bridge from the slip roads.

2 Fiveways Roundabout There would be an increase of traffic on the Fiveways roundabout under the proposals as currently set out. As well as traffic, the roundabout is also used as a bus stop. However, it is important for EDF to recognise that there are a number of children who use the bus stop. Children walk across the roundabout from the Campsea Ashe direction. The route on the B1078 from the bridge at the boundary of Wickham Market and Lower Hacheston to the bus stop at the Fiveways roundabout present dangers to pedestrians walking up to the bus stop. There is often significant hedgerow growth, and as a result of the fact that there will be extra traffic using the B1078 from Coddenham to the Park & Ride site there would be greater dangers to these children as they go to and from school.

3 Proposal for Roundabout on A12 to Access the P&R Site The proposal is that a roundabout is placed on the A12 to allow direct access from the A12 to the Park & Ride site. This is an important proposal because it mitigates traffic congestion around Fiveways and local roads.

4 Small Lanes HPC is concerned about a possible increase in traffic and HGVs using tiny country lanes such as Marlesford Road, Tank Road, Easton Lane, the route past Valley Farm and the B1078 through Lower Hacheston.

2.2 Design of the proposed Southern Park & Ride Site EDF has proposed bunds in order to reduce noise and other impacts of the Park & Ride site. Although some are already on the aerial photo on p233 of the Consultation Document, there is a section on both the eastern and western edges of the Park & Ride which appear not to have a bund in the design. It would be essential to have these bunds as well as others currently proposed to eliminate the visual impact and to substantially reduce noise. (See: HPC 12.3) • Single storey buildings only will be essential for ensuring reduced visibility. • In addition, HPC believes a line of trees and hedging outside the bunds would provide both extra protection from noise and light as well as aesthetic appeal. Work should start early on the planting of trees as they would take time to grow and mature. Inasmuch as it is said that lighting will be considered at Stage 3, it is essential that that consultation puts forward proposals to ensure downcasts from any lighting proposed, notwithstanding that lighting provides a degree of security to people using the Park & Ride site.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 8 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

2.3 Double Railway Track A railway consisting of a double track from Woodbridge to would be a significant and powerful legacy provided by EDF. Of course, this railway would be used by EDF over the next 10 or so years to freight its aggregate and building materials. In addition, a twice a day (or more) passenger service could help transport people to the power station development site. The upgrading and strengthening of the branch line from Saxmundham to , and the construction of the green rail route into the construction site, would allow both the movement of materials and goods via the five freight trains a day, and possibly the movement of people. This would mitigate the impact of the Sizewell C build on road traffic. As a minimum, the passing loop at Campsea Ashe would need to be constructed to allow a full five freight trains a day to the site, taking 250 HGV deliveries (500 movements) a day off the road network.

2.4 Cycle Paths EDF is concerned with ways in which and routes by which workers can get to the Park & Ride site in order to be transported to the power station. EDF has stated that it has a keen interest in promoting clean and healthy cycling (SZC p36 Summary Document). HPC would very much like to help EDF in its ambitions by proposing cycle routes which come from the Park & Ride site and provide a lasting legacy for the communities of Hacheston and other nearby villages. People have moved to the country from cities in order to be able to avail themselves of cycling as methods of transportation and also a valuable and healthy pastime. In particular, EDF providing cycle paths to help employees and contracted workers would benefit their health and the environment, as well local suppliers of bicycles and parts. It is noted that cycle racks are suggested at the Park & Ride site. • The main routes for our cycle paths proposals would be to Hacheston (perhaps along the old railway track) and then to the Park & Ride site via Marlesford. • From the Park & Ride two routes would then be needed, to Wickham Market centre and to Campsea Ashe station. At the moment there is no unbroken pedestrian route from the Park & Ride to Wickham Market or Campsea Ashe and these paths could serve pedestrians as well. • There would need to be a defined pathway from Wickham Market up the Lower Hacheston B1078 to Fiveways. • On current plans it is unclear how cyclists can get to the Park & Ride safely in order to use the proposed cycle racks without these cycle paths.

2.5 Mobile Phone Coverage and 4G broadband Given that communication is needed in order to track and manage vehicles it will be essential that telephone services are good enough to allow this reliably. EDF could solve this problem by providing excellent mobile phone coverage, with enough coverage to extend into Hacheston and Marlesford. This would be a significant benefit to residents and provide the necessary signal to accomplish the means by which tracking and vehicle management could take place.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 9 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

2.6 Improved Employment and Local Businesses It is expected that EDF will seek to employ local people for a number of the personnel needed to work at the Southern Park & Ride site, such as coach drivers, security personnel, and garden and plot maintenance attendants. In addition where possible it is expected that EDF will choose to recommend or use local businesses in Hacheston, Marlesford, Wickham Market, Campsea Ashe and Framlingham, inter alia, for services such as car maintenance, snack and food supply.

2.7 Improved Bus Services As a result of the need for workers to get to the Park & Ride facility, local roads such as the B1116 through Hacheston and the B1078 through Campsea Ashe will be used. In order to reduce this usage EDF is encouraged to consider running or paying for other organisations to run some local bus services. A bus service from Framlingham to the Park & Ride, and on to Wickham Market town centre and then to the Campsea Ashe rail station and back to the Park & Ride would allow workers to arrive by train and then be transported to the Park & Ride for onwards travel to the power station. It would allow workers who live in Campsea Ashe, Wickham Market, Framlingham, Parham and Hacheston to work at Sizewell without having to own or use a car. It is hoped that were EDF to implement such a service that residents who are not EDF workers going to the Park & Ride would be able to use the same bus services – a way for EDF to contribute to the community. EDF could use modern electric buses with minimum environmental and noise impact.

3 Sizewell C Proposals Overall Questionnaire 1: “What are your overall views on EDF Energy’s proposals to build a new nuclear power station, Sizewell C, and associated development?“ The Government has decided the country needs a mixed portfolio of energy sources to generate the electricity that the country needs. HPC accepts that nuclear power forms part of this partnership with green energy sources such as solar, wind and waves. HPC has reservations over the twin reactor design as it is not tried and tested, but has faith in the UK Nuclear Inspectorate to ensure it complies with the rigorous UK nuclear safety standards. The Sizewell C build and operation will provide much needed employment and there will be a consequent benefit to the Suffolk economy.

4 Main Development Site: Environment Questionnaire 2: “What are your views on the potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation at the main development site?” The impact of the main development site on the local environment cannot be overstated. The whole area is an extremely environmentally sensitive area: • It is part of the Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). • Part of the power station will be built on the north‐eastern part of the Sizewell Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a protected site due to its rare flora and fauna and its many protected species which thrive in a mosaic of open water, reed bed, wet woodland and fen meadows.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 10 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

• The site would be directly adjacent in part to , a famous bird reserve and internationally designated Ramsar site. • Also adjacent is the Minsmere to Special Protection Area (SPA) of European importance. • Off shore is the Outer Thames Estuary SPA. • The shoreline itself in front of Sizewell B and C consists of vegetated shingle, a County Wildlife Site (CWS), which is important for nesting Little Terns, the rare Sea Pea and other unusual plants. Yet it would be totally taken up and filled with rock armouring. • Within a 10 mile radius there are 21 further protected sites with European and International designations and another 23 nationally designated SSSIs. Wild creatures do not respect artificial human boundaries. On the contrary they can only thrive where habitats are connected. The main development site will cut right across the AONB from east to west, so that species from Minsmere who use the Sizewell Marshes for feeding and breeding will no longer be able to do so. Drainage of the marshes will alter the ecology here pushing many species over the edge. • Rare bats, including the barbastelle would lose their foraging corridors. • Birds such as Hobby and Crossbill would lose their nesting sites. • Badgers in Goose Hill and Coronation Wood will see their setts destroyed for construction and car parking. • Otters and water voles in northern parts of Sizewell Marshes will lose their habitat. A new habitat at Aldhurst Farm is being offered by way of compensation. This is an artificially constructed habitat that will never compensate for what is lost, with no wet woodland or fen meadow. The habitat is too close to human habitation, being unsuitable for ground‐nesting birds which would be disturbed by walkers. There is no guarantee that it would ever receive an SSSI designation. EDF appear to be saying they will use arable land currently used for onions, develop it and then later return it to a more natural state such as heathlands rather than its former state. It has been demonstrated that developing a site and then trying to restore it back to its former state does not work from an ecological point of view. Areas do not actually fully return to their former state and wildlife regeneration does not really happen in practice. EDF’s plan to create a new ecologically sound area of heathland is a very good one. EDF could follow developments such as New Forest National Park near Ashurst where wetlands have been created. In addition, EDF should look at the creation of wetlands and salt marshes for the wildlife at the new port in Harwich. The council believes it is important that EDF presents proposals to mitigate the effects of development on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There are concerns about the lack of dark skies near the power station construction site. There are some concerns around the environmental impact of a deep storage facility where an underground geological site will be developed. However, it is a good idea to have a concrete section to reduce effects on the Earth’s crust if there is a problem, as at Chernobyl.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 11 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

5 Main Development Site: New Access Road Questionnaire 3: Please explain your views For a new access road into the site, it is HPC’s view that: • It is essential to have a minimum of two access points to the power station. Two access points need a new bridge across the Alde to the power station. The proposals identify options of a causeway over a culvert, a single span temporary bridge and span permanent bridge. There are four lanes during construction and two in the power station’s operation. • The issue here seems to be about how effectively EDF allows the area to drain or get flooded, with ramifications for wildlife and the flow of water. Options here might promote the development of wetland and wildlife, but it may also slow it down. • HPC views Option 3 Single ‘span permanent bridge’ as appearing to be the most effective and therefore the most appropriate in terms of the flow of water and the consequential impact on the wetland ‐ allowing the water to flow in and out unrestricted as currently.

6 Main Development Site: Managing Construction Materials Questionnaire 4: Please explain your views Stockpiles would be created from material taken from the ground to construct the power station, which is replaced with material from ‘borrow pits’. • There are some concerns that there could be considerable visual impact of a 20m – 35m high stockpile (perhaps 100 feet high) on walkers and others in the countryside, and there is concern that it could be seen from Minsmere. Mountains of material could reduce tourism and the use of the area by local Suffolk people. is very close to the borrow pits, and a priority is what is going to be visible from where, especially as there is a giant water management pond nearby. There must be no run‐off from the site otherwise birds in the bird reserve will be affected. • Any negative impact is likely to be relatively small in extent but significant for some people who live nearby. • Implementing mitigation methods to reduce the visual impact is recommended. • Construction dust could be a major problem for residents living nearby and in EDF accommodation particularly in terms of health. However, there could be a reduction of HGV lorry movements. HPC supports the use of on‐site stockpiles of material because without them there would be an increase in HGV movements, and this would have had an adverse impact.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 12 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

7 Accommodation: Overall Strategy Questionnaire 5: “What are your views on our overall accommodation strategy for home‐based workers and non‐home based workers? The benefits and impacts of providing high density, small area and maximum residential accommodation for construction workers could be as follows. • The benefit of the accommodation is that less transportation is needed for those living there, and in HPC’s view this outweighs the issue of people not going out into the locality as much as they would if they lived in houses nearby, or going through the local community to get to the site. • One concern expressed from some residents is the potential for disorder, drunkenness and rowdy behaviour of accommodation residents. EDF are proposing to address this though avenues such as “terms and conditions”, policies and contracts of employment. HPC would like to see major steps taken to educate workers to reduce this effect, and for EDF to pay for additional police officers, health workers, social workers and others as necessary. • The question raised here is the type of housing. This could be seen as a wasted opportunity given that houses are needed in Suffolk for economic growth and for local people to buy. The concern is that accommodation provided will be the cheapest possible build quality. The design of accommodation must be reviewed to help meet a serious long‐term housing need. • If there were no accommodation blocks then workers would have to buy or rent accommodation, and this would have an inflationary effect on local house prices, and might reduce the ability of non‐EDF workers to buy houses. EDF is not providing accommodation for everyone, so perhaps local young people and first time buyers could be given a subsidy to support them in their housing given the extra competition from EDF workers. The best outcome as far as Hacheston is concerned is for as much traffic to be taken off the roads as possible and hence as much on‐site accommodation as possible: there are 2,400 people not using the roads that otherwise might be. This might reduce an otherwise increased negative impact on Hacheston, so fewer parking spaces at a Park & Ride might be needed, while reducing traffic on local roads. In addition a rail link from the main line to a location close to the accommodation would be beneficial. Keeping this for the future would be a legacy for Suffolk and the people of Leiston. EDF should also explore alternative strategies for accommodation. Here are some examples. • Creating smaller accommodation sites further away which are built in mind of other people being able to live in them once development and build has been completed. These could be near railways stations on the East Suffolk line, or near locations such as the Park & Ride. These ‘mini‐sites’ would have housing legacy and potential transport benefits. o Workers living in them could use enhanced local public transport links, i.e. rail or bus. o Mini‐sites would have a beneficial economic impact on current settlements in those locations. o Concentrated negative impacts on Leiston would be reduced. Any accommodation built in Leiston would not be available for alternative use for 15 years. o Smaller Park & Ride sites could be developed adjacent to these dispersed accommodation sites and both residents and commuters could use rail or bus links to travel to the construction site. o While this strategy could also produce an increase of private vehicles on the roads, it would provide a legacy for numerous local towns and villages.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 13 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

• Another good example is Stratford and accommodation for the Olympic Games – some was temporary but a proportion was permanent (sold afterwards on the open market or used for affordable housing), thus leaving a legacy. Such accommodation could alternatively be adapted and reused for old people’s homes given the clear need to support a projected increase in this demographic segment of the population. • Another possibility is the use of new modular housing that is becoming available – and these could be moved to other sites in future. These and other similar strategies would ensure that more suitable sites could be used for local people and leave a legacy for Suffolk.

8 Accommodation: Campus layout Questionnaire 6: Please explain your views. Please provide any thoughts on your preferred location for the sports facilities if we pursue Option 2(ii). HPC supports Option 2(i) (SZC Consultation Summary Document Fig 5.2, p21). Sport facilities may provide a legacy for Leiston and people from the surrounding area who want to use them. The more people frequent such facilities, the more people will buy products from local shops, providing welcome additional business to Leiston and support for the economy. This could also have an adverse impact with greater use of “late night activities”, including illegal drug supply and purchase, among others. In the past there were some problems with rowdy behaviour of workers, and there is concern for the potential possibility of this to reoccur. (See: HPC s.7 Accommodation) HPC believes that the sports facilities could be closer to Leiston so that there is a proper legacy. Having facilities within the community brings us back to having strict policies of behaviour for workers using them.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 14 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

9 Transport: Overall Strategy Questionnaire 7: “What are your views on our overall transport strategy?”

9.1 Hacheston Perspective on Transport Strategy The overall transport strategy should take account of the sensitivities of the local highway network and local people. It must mitigate the traffic and amenity effect of transporting people and goods to the construction site through the maximum use of non‐road based transport.

• HPC supports the maximum use of sea and rail to reduce what will be a considerable increase of traffic on the roads. • From the options presented, a Two Villages Bypass would be our preferred option. The more vehicles that can be kept off roads through little villages on the A12, the better. • EDF are not suggesting a Four Villages Bypass but it is a more effective solution than any of the four options. • There is great concern at the projected increase in HGV movements along the A12 south of Wickham Market. (76% peak flow: SZC Figure 6.5, p91, Location Z.)

9.2 Key Elements of EDF Transport Strategy HPC agrees with the general thrust of the following aspects of EDF’s Transport Strategy in principle, with some caveats regarding the detail as outlined in relevant sections here:

• Move material on and off the development site by rail or sea where practical. This sentence on p22 of the Summary Document gives the impression that sea and rail are being proposed as alternatives to each other; however, both must be used as alternatives to road use, as is stated in other parts of EDF’s documentation. • Build an on‐site accommodation campus to reduce the number of workforce journeys. (See: HPC s.7 Accommodation.) • Provide Park & Ride facilities at key locations on the A12 for workers to travel by bus to the main site. The location of the Southern Park & Ride is not appropriate. (See: HPC s.12 SP&R) The Northern Park & Ride site appears to be in a good location, effectively intercepts workers travelling from the north, is close to a railway station, and could provide facilities for workers coming from . • Operate working patterns that minimise workers travelling at peak times. This would be of great benefit in reducing congestion as far as possible and could reduce the negative impact of accessing the southern Park & Ride site. • Provide direct bus services to and from the site such as from and Lowestoft, with pick up services for workers using the East Suffolk rail line. HPC would like EDF to consider a double rail track or passing loop at Wickham Market and better rail services. Pick up points along the route are essential. • Provide local bus services from and Saxmundham via Leiston. This will reduce the number of vehicles on local roads and provide a useful service allowing local workers without their own cars to work at the power station, thus providing economic benefit to the local economy.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 15 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

• Enhance and extend the existing network of local cycle paths. As a long‐term beneficial legacy for the people of Hacheston and surrounding settlements, we request safe cycle paths to the Southern Park & Ride facility from: o Framlingham to Hacheston to Marlesford to the site; o Wickham Market centre via Lower Hacheston to Fiveways to the site; o Campsea Ashe railway station (perhaps via the B1078) to the site. • Provide road improvements where necessary to mitigate the impact of development. The road improvement options presented in Stage 2 so far could be beneficial but do not go far enough. o Sufficient work needs to be done on improving the A12 from Wickham Market to the start of the Two (or Four Villages) Bypass. o Improvements need to be made to many portions of the A12 south of Wickham Market.

9.3 Maximum Use of Rail and Sea Maximum use by rail and sea for delivering goods and materials should be a priority. • A passing loop at Campsea Ashe station constructed to allow five freight trains a day to carry goods and materials to the site. • The infrastructure of the branch line from Saxmundham to Leiston should be upgraded and strengthened to support this traffic. • Delivery of goods and materials direct to the construction site would be preferable to avoid double handling and the associated HGV movements from an alternative railhead. HPC favours direct delivery of material to the construction site but acknowledge that some transport links could be close to conservation sites. • Full use of the maximum rail option, together with one of the proposed jetties for delivery of bulk goods by sea, would constitute significant mitigation of the effect of extra road traffic on local people living near the A12 and the B roads leading to the A12 and to the construction site.

9.4 Two Villages Bypass A Two Villages Bypass has a number of advantages over the other three options presented on pp29 – 32 of the Consultation Document. (See HPC s.13 Transport A12 Road Improvements)

9.5 Four Villages Bypass There is no doubt that there has long been a need for a full Four Villages Bypass and in reality it represents the best value for money option. It provides a clear solution with considerable local support, as long as environmental impacts can be reduced as far as possible. This bypass would give EDF the opportunity to build Sizewell C in a way that supports rather than disrupts many local communities. These communities would endure many fewer problems created by Sizewell C construction with a Four Villages Bypass than the four options. Once Sizewell C is built the bypass would be a great legacy for East Suffolk. As a result of increasing HGV and EDF commuter traffic as the Sizewell C project gets underway without a Four Villages bypass there will be an increasingly negative impact on numerous communities living on or near the A12. One of the consequences of the incremental increase in

Hacheston Parish Council Page 16 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

traffic flows is the disproportionate effect on delays and congestion at peak construction. Over a period of time, the proportion of HGV traffic not familiar with the A12 route and its risks will increase, with a consequent increase of congestion, fumes and noise. This will produce considerable local opposition, whereas a bypass is viewed favourably by local communities at the moment and would offset negative opinion about the construction of a new power station. The Four Villages bypass has already been studied but prioritisation of other schemes has been an issue for funding. While the bypass would need to be constructed before major work started on Sizewell C (a concern for EDF), under the auspices of the Planning Act 2008 it could be defined as an ‘associated development’ and included for consideration in the Development Consent Order Application. Studies and costing should start now. The huge amount of extra traffic connected to the Sizewell C build must now be enough to change the equation in favour of a bypass. The full Four Villages Bypass scheme for the A12 is the preferred option, with EDF Energy working in partnership with local and central government to develop a “Suffolk Energy Gateway” of National significance. The upgrading of the East Suffolk railway line and the provision of the passing loop at Campsea Ashe should also be seen as part of this “Gateway” concept. If the Two or Four Villages Bypass is built, the Southern Park & Ride site could be relocated to the northern end of it, as close as possible to the construction site. This should be considered as part of the proposals for the Stage 3 consultation.

9.6 Heavy Goods Vehicle Movements HGVs, buses and potentially more cars will be using the A12 as a result of the Sizewell C build.

Very large Increase in HGVs south of Wickham Market There are currently 1090 HVGs movements moving along the A12 each day (Figure 6.5, p91, Location Z). There is projected to be a 76% increase in HGVs south of Wickham Market ‐ 1950 HGVs. This is a very large increase. A typical increase at non‐peak‐build times is projected to be 41% ‐ this is large. • The effect on local residents of extra HGVs on the A12 south of Wickham Market needs to be measured and mitigated. Road improvements will be necessary. • It will be necessary to measure the impact of HGVs along the whole A12.

Traffic Management System potential for long‐term legacy EDF says it will create a traffic management system for HGV delivery to the construction site. There is a potential weakness in the electronic traffic management scheme proposed for HGV deliveries to the construction site for ensuring that they adhere to the designated routes. Broadband and mobile phone coverage across East Suffolk is patchy and unreliable. Both (for example via 4G) would need to be strengthened significantly to allow the scheme to work: • with any degree of reliability; and • to ensure the traffic management scheme can be enforced so as to mitigate the effect of HGVs (whether full or returning empty) deviating from their designated routes and times. This could provide an important benefit and legacy for Hacheston residents.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 17 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

9.7 Transport Strategy It is appreciated that these transport strategy issues are difficult to design and implement and EDF has to tackle a considerable number of problems with each proposal, but HPC encourage and are looking to EDF to study them carefully and to invest into Suffolk in order to build its power station. HPC understands that the Two Villages Bypass option, the Four Villages Bypass option that EDF is not currently considering, and the options for rail improvements are not only a matter for EDF but also the government. It is expected that EDF will work with Suffolk County Council, District Council and central government closely to provide the maximum efficient effect with the minimum consequential impact on the people of Hacheston and Suffolk while also providing a strong and sustainable long term legacy. EDF is requested to work with the Secretary of State and Suffolk Members of Parliament to bring this about as it will be these people and Parliament that will have the final say. It is appreciated that some parts of our proposals for EDF to consider are beyond the options and proposals that EDF is putting forward at this Stage 2 Consultation.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 18 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

10 Transport: Rail Questionnaire 8: Please explain your views

10.1 Options From the two options presented, HPC favours Option 1 the “Green Route” because there would be extra vehicle movements in Option 2 from the temporary terminal to the site, with noise and dust. Option 2 goes through the town of Leiston. As much of the movement of goods, materials (and possibly people) to the construction site should be by non‐road means to reduce road traffic and its effects on local people and amenities. SZC s.8.1.2 states that the “overall transport strategy seeks to take account of the sensitivity of the local highway network, with opportunities sought to limit the traffic and amenity effect of transporting goods and people, through the use of non‐road based transport where feasible”. A single freight train removes 50 HGV deliveries to the site (100 HGV movements, SZC s.6.3.18, p73). Five freight trains a day would remove 250 HGV deliveries (500 movements). Currently there are two paths in the existing timetable and a railhead. The present timetable for the East Suffolk line has two paths (Q paths, to be used as required) for freight movements to the Sizewell railhead that were used for fuel rod delivery and removal from Sizewell A. EDF confirmed at the exhibition at Hacheston on 16 December 2016 that these two paths could be used for deliveries of goods to the existing railhead at Sizewell for construction purposes. These two paths could cope with two freight trains a day in the early stage of the construction. However, these could not cope with the demand for goods and materials during the peak construction stage, which would need to be five freight trains a day. Five freight trains a day would be possible if there is: • as a minimum, creation of a passing loop at Campsea Ashe which would allow five freight trains a day to the site; or • reinstatement of the double track between Woodbridge and Saxmundham; and • infrastructure improvement, upgrading and strengthening of the branch line from Saxmundham to Leiston. EDF state that they would consider leasing the rail line from Saxmundham to Leiston for the duration of the construction period and undertaking the required upgrade work themselves (SZC s.8.8.7), and • construction of the green rail route into the construction site. Use of the green option rail extension direct into the construction site would avoid the double‐handling of materials, that is, off rail and onto HGVs to deliver to the site. This would: • reduce road traffic and its impact on the environment and on local people; • avoid HGV or bus movements through Leiston needed by a railhead outside the construction site; • mitigate noise and disturbance for Leiston inhabitants by using the proposed green route that runs from the west of Leiston and then north; • potentially allow the movement of people and freight by train direct to the construction site.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 19 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

With such a major construction project in view, the East Suffolk line should have been included in the Secretary of State’s recent review of rail services, as recently highlighted by Peter Aldous, the MP for Lowestoft. There would need to be improvements in the rail network paths around Ipswich and services using them in order to accommodate this. The proposals above would require timetabling and thus the co‐ operation of Network Rail. EDF is already working with Network Rail on the Saxmundham to Leiston branch line. The key criterion for this is moving transportation off the road network and onto other means including rail. Hacheston is asking EDF to: • build and reinstate a double track railway from Woodbridge to Saxmundham; • improve the East Suffolk line from Lowestoft. The level of unemployment in Suffolk is low at about 2% but in Lowestoft in particular it is higher at 4%+. Therefore there will be more workers available in Lowestoft than elsewhere. The focus should be on using rail to allow these workers to get to the construction site. It is likely that the red and blue routes would have been less environmentally friendly than the green route. However there are some negative impacts of the Green route that need further mitigation. The proposed route would run close to houses and there would be a consequent impact on noise levels, dust and extra light. It is also close to ancient woodlands and archaeological sites. EDF should look again at the route to establish if it can be adjusted to accommodate concerns over these impacts.

10.2 Railway components necessary for a Sizewell C Build There is widespread support for these rail proposals. An article in the EADT on 20 January 2017 with the headline “Plant plan needed to start rail boost” reports Lowestoft MP Peter Aldous telling MPs that “using the railway to deliver supplies to the new Sizewell C project would help minimise disruption to people living locally. But he said improvements need to take place well in advance of construction – which is expected to be in the next three years. He also urged the government to upgrade the line between Lowestoft and Ipswich, telling the Westminster Hall debate that it would take longer to get to London when a through service is reintroduced…than it did in 1904…. He said work to upgrade the line needed to be started straight away as it would need consideration and consultation.” Mr Aldous is also reported as saying “I see a great future for the East Suffolk line, which can help to bring a better quality of life, jobs and prosperity to the whole of East Suffolk. However, that will not happen on its own; we need to kick start it…. Time is of the essence, particularly with Sizewell C and the need for better freight facilities serving the port of .” In response, Paul Maynard, described as “the rail minister”, is reported as saying “Sizewell C could be the ‘catalyst’ to improvements on the East Suffolk railway line … There is currently no immediate case for investment, but if the new nuclear power station is built the debate could change. He said the Department for Transport would consider how passenger services could be improved once EDF’s plans were clear and it is expected that costs ‘directly linked to construction’ to be paid by EDF.”

Hacheston Parish Council Page 20 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

The mention of the port of Felixstowe relates to the creation of a longish passing loop west of Trimley station on the Felixstowe branch and work to improve the cross‐country rail link from Peterborough and the East Coast main line via Ely and to Ipswich. This would allow increasing the present 33 number of freight trains a day serving the port to about 46. It is in conjunction with this cross‐country improvement from Peterborough to Ipswich that the extra paths needed to increase the freight trains to Sizewell from 2 to 5 a day could be created. The passing loop at Campsea Ashe would also be essential. It has been mentioned that the government is considering taking back the work from Network Rail if they don’t deliver on the cross‐ country rail link and removing the bottlenecks currently limiting the number of freight trains per day via Ely to Ipswich. (For example, the single track section approaching Ely from the east, the junctions at Ely, the single‐track junction at Haughley onto the Great Eastern main line). The curve on the site of the old Harris meat factory west of Ipswich (known by rail enthusiasts as ‘bacon curve’) is of course already in place allowing freight trains from the direction to go straight onto the East Suffolk line rather than having to run into Ipswich yard and the locos then run round the train in order to get onto the East Suffolk line as happened previously. EDF is encouraged to explore the rail options and proposals discussed above to reduce traffic on the roads and provide Suffolk with a long‐term legacy.

11 Transport: Sea Questionnaire 9: Please explain your views As previously stated, as much as possible of the bulk materials and goods should be transported to the construction site by non‐road means. To make the best use of delivery by sea, this requires the Option 1 jetty, which would be removed at the end of the project and so leave no lasting mark. No figures are given for how many HGV deliveries would be saved by use of a bulk delivery vessel by sea. It is important EDF share this information with us to enable a proper discussion to take place. It would affect the amenity aspect of the sea‐facing site during the construction period, but could substantially mitigate the effect of HGV movements on the local road network. EDF is encouraged to take advantage of both sea and rail options. To reduce the amount of site traffic, noise and dust, it is necessary to investigate the use of other means of transporting materials from the jetty to the storage areas such as conveyor belts or contractor’s rail line. The affect on the local amenity would be temporary but the mitigation on HGV movements could be significant over the construction period. It must be acknowledged that a debate exists and concerns have been raised that these structures and particularly dredging will have a significant impact on the sensitive coastline. Recently part of the cliff at collapsed. HPC favours Option 1 but it might be necessary to use Option 3 in addition.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 21 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

12 Transport: Southern Park & Ride Questionnaire 10: Please explain your views

12.1 Introduction EDF’s proposals for the Southern Park & Ride site are the most significant for the village and residents of Hacheston. HPC considers that the Sizewell C Southern Park & Ride site location is inappropriate. • The Park & Ride is too close to Hacheston: The nearest houses lie within 500 metres of the Park & Ride site and the distance to the church is approximately 1200 metres. (See Appendix.) • Extra traffic and congestion: The site will have a major impact on village transport links, particularly congestion around the A12 bridge and slip roads, the B1078 & B1116 Fiveways roundabout, extra traffic along the B1116 access route through Hacheston and the B1078 access route through Wickham Market and Lower Hacheston. • Pollution issues: There is concern about the exposure of the residents to noise, light, dust and exhaust pollution. Hacheston has relatively few amenities and in the absence of a viable bus service all residents must use cars to access employment, schools, services and shops. Travelling north or south along the B1116 is a way of life for Hacheston residents. The village is laid out along the B1116 as a linear village, and many residents can only get from one end of the village to the other by car. The village is characterised by a narrow road and footpath. Any development that impacts the effectiveness of this vital transport link is of great significance to Hacheston residents. Because of the proximity of the site to the village, the effect on transport links and pollution issues, the existence of the site is inappropriate. If any of the village bypass proposals are built there are good arguments that the Park & Ride site would need to be moved to another more appropriate location.

12.2 Key Issues for a Southern Park & Ride in Hacheston HPC discusses here the key issues pertaining to the proposed Park & Ride site according to the aspects below: • The Park & Ride site – design, location and mitigation; • Proposed access to Park & Ride Site and traffic flows; • Mitigation of concerns over proposed access; • Specific Hacheston traffic issues; • Local heritage and listed buildings; • EDF Consultation Southern Park & Ride diagrams; • Surveys of the local community; • Southern Park & Ride location; • Benefits of the proposed Southern Park & Ride site; • Conclusion.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 22 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

12.3 The Park & Ride Site – Design, Location and Mitigation The amended site for the Southern Park & Ride at Wickham Market removes a major concern with the originally proposed site in that it covered an important Romano‐British archaeological site. The arrangements proposed for trial trenches in the amended site, and the proposals for dealing with any archaeological finds, seem satisfactory from an archaeological perspective.

Single Storey Buildings Only Single Storey: Any building on this site must be single storey because of the concerns of residents regarding visibility. See the visibility assessment conducted by HPC below. At the moment as currently proposed the site is not very visible during daylight. Concerns have been expressed that the proposal could morph into one in which buildings are too high thus being able to be seen much more than would be the case if buildings were single storey.

Noise Pollution and Missing Bunds Noise pollution is a significant concern and this often depends on wind direction. When the wind is south or south‐westerly, noise from the A12 can be heard clearly in Hacheston and particularly Marlesford. This will also be the case for the Park & Ride facility. The current design appears to have two bunds missing along some of the eastern and western edges. HPC requests that more developed designs include these bunds to eliminate noise as much as possible. Bunds need to be a minimum of 20 feet high to protect from noise and to reduce the visual impact of the site.

Figure 1: Missing Bunds on Park & Ride Design

Hacheston Parish Council Page 23 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

Proposal for a Line of Trees and Hedges around the Site A line of trees around the entire site similar to the Park & Ride at Martlesham would have great beneficial impacts: reduced visibility of the site from local settlements, reduced visibility when local walkers are using footpaths and bridleways, an environmentally friendly and sustainable carbon reduction solution as well as a beneficial aesthetic effect once within the car park. It is appreciated that trees will take time to grow but would provide some legacy improvement to this somewhat flat area.

Air Quality and Dust The Park & Ride will clearly add more dust and air pollution with an increase in particulate matter from current levels. There will need to be continuing air quality assessment.

Light Pollution Concerns Stage 3 must reflect the considerable concerns of residents regarding light pollution. In our own consultation about EDF’s proposals, the issue of light pollution has come up numerous times: • Any lighting from the site must have downcasts to eliminate light pollution. Previous planning applications are often refused where there are no downcasts for lighting. • A large number of residents have moved to Hacheston and surrounding villages in order to escape noise and light pollution, to enjoy the quietness of the countryside and darkness of the night sky. There is consternation that this aim is now to be thwarted. • Residents with interests such as astronomy will be affected due to the light pollution, and public rights of way often form ideal locations for star gazing. The proposed Park & Ride will be very close to at least two public rights of way. • Lighting levels could be varied according to conditions to reduce light pollution.

Further Issues • Footpath: The route of the footpath needs to be protected as this is important for local residents. • Whin Belt: Why does the entrance of the Park & Ride site need to remove a large section of the Whin Belt? The entrance could be effectively moved some way along the slip road to protect it. This area needs to be protected as it is an important wildlife site, in particular, bats. • Emergency Management Area: Why does this need to be so large? And in the event of a real emergency it is not clear that the route to this area via the road within the car park inside the Park & Ride site will really be satisfactory for managing a real emergency. Although EDF says that there is no need for a lorry park in its documents, the area seems to be rather large for just an emergency management area. There is great concern in Hacheston that this area is not used for HGVs. • Return to “Green Field”: The site must be returned to a Green field site as it was before the site is built, except where enhancements such as planting have been achieved. This is essential. • Site Aerial View, p233 of the Consultation Document, has been sent to us by EDF as an A3 print. In a letter on 24 January 2017 EDF stated that it does not have any further detailed plan. Hence the picture represents an initial preliminary design (in reality some ideas sketched to paper) and it cannot be the case given our concerns that this design has been thought through in detail.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 24 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

• Evaluations and Impact Assessments: Further, and given the point above, and looking at the A3 aerial view received, the Park & Ride site plan shown has not been designed with full conservation or environmental evaluations, LVIA or good landscape design in mind. (HPC conducted its own Visual Impact Assessment, see HPC s.12.7 Heritage) • Operating Times: the car park would operate from 5am until 1am and therefore noise and pollution would start and finish about 90 minutes before and after normal for the A12. This would include Sundays and would constitute an unacceptable intrusion into the lives of residents in Marlesford and Hacheston.

Summary of Mitigation Measures to Improve the Park & Ride Site • Ensure single storey buildings only; • Design in and build the missing bunds; • Line of trees around the entire site; • Ensure downcasts for lighting and variable light emission; • Continuing air quality assessment.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 25 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

12.4 Proposed Access to Park & Ride Site and Traffic Flows A detailed road layout is provided below to help illustrate HPC concerns regarding the Park & Ride site access and associated vehicle movements:

Fiveways Map Location Points: Location 1: A12 Slip road north to Fiveways Location 2: A12 Slip road north to Fiveways T junction Location 3: Fiveways Location 4: Fiveways Slip road north west to A12 Location 5: Entrance to proposed Park & Ride site Location 6: Slip road exit to A12 Location 7: A12 Slip road south to Fiveways Location 8: A12 Slip road south to Fiveways T Junction Location 9: A12 Slip road south to A12

Figure 2: Fiveways and Slip Roads to the A12

Hacheston Parish Council Page 26 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

Passenger Vehicle Movements into the Park & Ride Site What has been stated is that 900 car parking spaces will be available and that for any particular shift cars will arrive to take workers to the power station and simultaneously others from a previous shift will be on their way back. Hence from the time workers travel on buses to the power station until other buses arrive back with workers from a previous shift HPC estimates there could be 700 cars parked but once those returning have driven away there could be 500 cars parked there. This will cause a bunching effect, vehicles arriving and leaving in waves, which will add pressure to the Fiveways complex. Traffic monitoring cameras were placed in the area of the Fiveways roundabout (Location 3) but the figures from them are not included in the tables provided in the Consultation Document. If EDF has this information, it would have been helpful to share this with HPC so that informed discussion can take place. HPC requested this data on 11 January 2017 but EDF responded on 16 January 2017 that all collected data has been presented in Stage 2 documents and more assessment will be done and presented at Stage 3. No figures are given for passenger vehicle movements on and off the proposed Park & Ride site. Again, if EDF has these figures, it would have been helpful if they would share them with HPC. HPC requested this data on 11 January 2017 but EDF responded on 16 January 2017 that while three hourly modelling data has been done it will be made available only at Stage 3. This is disappointing. Information from the Hinkley Point Park & Ride site, which is now operational for the early phase of construction, has not been made available. This is of particular relevance to Hacheston and may indicate similar vehicle movement patterns that might compare to the proposed Southern Park & Ride. HPC requested this data on 24 January 2017 and EDF advised on 26 January 2017 that the relevant experience from Hinkley Point C will inform the process at Stage 3 but is unlikely to be helpful at this point. In the absence of firm data from EDF, HPC has made its own assessment of the traffic flows around the Fiveways roundabout, based on EDF’s information regarding shift patterns, numbers of home based construction and campus / Park & Ride workers and numbers of buses and light goods vehicles. At the peak, traffic movements on and off the Park & Ride site could be 2350 per day. Under the current design all these movements would use the Fiveways roundabout. Our ability to assess peak flows of traffic around the Fiveways roundabout, the bridge and the slip roads has been hampered by this lack of information. EDF states in SZC s.10.3.13 that “some local concerns have been raised about the potential for delays at the junction of the B1078 and B1116. However, EDF does not anticipate that the scale of additional traffic is likely to give rise to any highway safety or congestion problems at this location. This will be subject to any further assessment and discussion with relevant stakeholders”. 900 more cars per shift will undoubtedly cause congestion. In section 6 of this document, HPC discusses the traffic flows provided in EDF’s document at points O and P and challenges them on the basis of a lack of confirmation from SCC, data HPC has and verification of stated increases in traffic volumes (with and without Sizewell C). Based on HPC’s assessment of traffic flows generated by the Park & Ride site above, a different view can be formed of the impact of the additional traffic using the Fiveways roundabout. The increase in traffic volumes

Hacheston Parish Council Page 27 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

on the Fiveways roundabout ranges from 20% to 33% ‐ not an inconsiderable increase for an already busy roundabout.

• Why will EDF not release the 3 hour traffic modelling Park & Ride access data to allow us to assess the accuracy of this statement? • Given that the Fiveways data is not presented in the Stage 2 documents, then it can be assumed that EDF has not done this analysis, and therefore does not have the information to back up this statement in SZC s.10.3.13 with evidence. • As a ‘relevant stakeholder’ HPC requests these further assessments are done and presented, for EDF to be “up‐front” with HPC and to present the information needed for an informed discussion. Given its presentation at Stage 2, Stage 3 may not give consultees the opportunity to object to the Southern Park & Ride on the basis of traffic figures presented at the time.

Slip Roads and T‐Junctions Major concerns of local people are highway safety and congestion issues relating to the slip roads from the A12 (Locations 1 & 7), the T‐junctions (Locations 2 & 8) at the end of them which have poor visibility, and the poor design of the B1078/B1116 junction, Fiveways roundabout.

• Location 1: The slip road from the A12 from the south is short, lacks a proper deceleration lane preceded by distance markers and ends in a T junction (Location 2) with the B road from Campsea Ashe that crosses the bridge over the A12. Many vehicles have misjudged the speed here which has resulted in accidents (at least one fatal) or vehicles failing to stop at the T‐junction and ending up in the triangular field opposite. • Location 2: The ability to see traffic on the road from Campsea Ashe (B1078) at the T Junction is affected by restricted visibility with its obtuse angle when turning left towards Fiveways and the need to crane one’s neck to see traffic from the right. This T‐junction is dangerous. If there is traffic from Campsea Ashe, it can take a few minutes to make the judgement that turning off the slip‐road (Location 1) is safe. At peak shift‐related times, there will be a tail‐back on the slip road, and this is also dangerous. • Location 1: The short length of the slip road from the A12 south, coupled with the 76% increase in predicted HGV and bus traffic on the A12 south of Wickham Market, could create a safety hazard if traffic tails back from the T‐junction (Location 2) at the top of the slip road from the A12. Hold‐ups at the T‐junctions (Locations 2 & 8) from both south and north A12 slip roads (Locations 1 & 7) could be caused by the difficulty in getting off the north direction slip road (Location 1, to turn left towards the roundabout, Location 3) where there could also be traffic queuing. • Location 8: At the T‐junction at the bridge from the north (Location 8) vehicles are required to edge forward into the road across the bridge to assess whether or not traffic is coming from the right. This is dangerous. • Location 4: Traffic queuing on the north‐bound slip road to the A12 (Location 4) from the roundabout (Location 3) in order to enter the Park & Ride site (Location 5) could obstruct local traffic seeking to join the A12 at Location 6 to head north; this could be compounded by traffic leaving the Park & Ride site (Location 5) using the slip road (Location 4) and roundabout to cross

Hacheston Parish Council Page 28 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

over the A12 bridge to join the A12 southbound (Location 9). This is assessed to be a problem by HPC because traffic will come and go in bunched waves as a result of Sizewell C construction shifts. Further assessment and discussion needs to take place to mitigate concerns, and HPC is most disappointed that EDF has either not done the measurements needed for assessing potential congestion or presented it, or having done Park & Ride access modelling have failed to present this data.

12.5 Mitigation of Concerns over Proposed Access

Examine Existing Road Layout to Identify Improvements To cope with the increase in traffic to the Park & Ride site, significant further mitigation could be provided by examining the existing road layout at this location and identifying improvements to make it safer, and less prone to congestion. This needs to include work on the slip roads to the bridge over the A12 and in particular to make the T‐junctions (Locations 2 & 8) much safer.

Proposal for Roundabout on A12 for Park & Ride Site Access HPC also have a further proposal to mitigate the safety and congestion impact on local people of traffic using the Park & Ride site. This is to provide access to the Park & Ride site from a purpose‐built new roundabout on the A12 to the Park & Ride site that avoids the slip roads and existing roundabout. Views have been expressed by a number of residents that they would prefer the Park & Ride to be connected directly to the A12 rather than the Fiveways complex, which would address the issue of traffic volumes, congestion and safety issues surrounding the slip roads (Locations 1, 4 & 7) and T‐junctions (Locations 2 & 8). A new roundabout should be built near the end of the present A12 dual carriageway where the entrance to the Park & Ride will be built. The new A12 roundabout (See Figure 3 below) would significantly reduce the impact of the Sizewell C project on the Fiveways roundabout by removing all buses, LGVs and some cars. However, vehicles using the B1078 and B1116 would still use the Fiveways roundabout. The impact on A12 traffic flow would be similar to other roundabouts such as those on the A12 at Woodbridge, and would break the traffic to reduce speeds through the village of Marlesford.

EDF Must Share More Information EDF could mitigate the safety and congestion concerns of local people at this site by sharing information with HPC about the existing traffic at this location and the predicted additional traffic entering and leaving the Park & Ride site by passenger vehicles. Considerable surveying, modelling and research still needs to be done despite four years having elapsed since Stage 1 regarding some elements of the main as well as associated developments of the project, particularly the Southern Park & Ride and traffic around Fiveways.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 29 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

Figure 3: Proposal for a new A12 Roundabout for Park & Ride Site Access

12.6 Specific Hacheston Traffic Issues There is a considerable amount of traffic along the B1116 and this is increasing all the time. • In particular there are housing developments in Framlingham of some 450 houses. This will cause a large amount of extra traffic along the B1116 with consequent speeding. • The Park & Ride site will add a minimum of 150 journeys per day, according to SZC Table 3, p89. HPC has tried measures to reduce speeding with some limited successes. However, the traffic just keeps on increasing and the speeding is much the same. It is important to note that the highest recorded speeds occur during the night.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 30 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

B1116 Hacheston 150 Extra Flows 150 “Estimated future daily weekday Sizewell C peak construction flows” through Hacheston adds to an already significant amount. • 7150 (EDF Data): Data from EDF in Table 3 p89 indicates that there could currently be 7150 vehicle movements through Hacheston each weekday. These figures have not been agreed with Suffolk County Council. • 5000 (Police SDR): Data from a Speed Data Recorder placed by police near the Easton Lane turning on the B1116 indicates that there were 25008 vehicle movements through Hacheston on weekdays between 12:52 on 08/09/2015 and 12:51 on 15/09/2015. • 5100 (HPC SID): Data from our Speed Indicator Display between 00:00 on 14/11/2016 and 23:59 on 18/11/2016 shows 12765 vehicles flowing towards the A12 (approx 25530 in total for both directions), approximately 5100 per day.

Figure 4: Traffic Flows through Hacheston B1116

Data Source Date From Date To 1 Weekday (av) SDR Police Unit 08/09/2015 12:52 15/09/2015 12:51 5002 SID HPC Unit 14/11/2016 00:00 18/11/2016 23:59 5100 EDF Data Not Provided Data Not Provided 7150

• It is interesting that EDF’s data seems rather high for a baseline weekday flow through Hacheston given that data from two independent non‐EDF sources pick up ~5000 movements per weekday. • The figure of 150 additional movements past point P (SZC p89) is a ‘best guess’ from a model and is subject to a series of dynamic assumptions all of which might vary on any given day. In reality, existing and Sizewell C related traffic using the B1078, B1116 and A12 will react to traffic conditions on the day and use whatever routes are available to get to their destinations. The increase in traffic volumes and in particular HGV volumes caused by Sizewell C will increase the likelihood of traffic disruption on any given day so that there will be an increase in the number of times that high volumes of traffic use minor roads to divert around holdups. When these incidents occur there will be increased volumes of traffic diverting along minor roads due to increased volumes from Sizewell C. Therefore, irrespective of where EDF’s traffic model predicts traffic will flow, the impact on non Sizewell C road users is likely to be highly disruptive. Additional traffic calming activities need to be considered for Hacheston (Location P) and Parham on the B1116 and the B1078 where speeding remains a considerable problem. As EDF will be causing a minimum of 150 movements through Hacheston, many of which will be at night and likely to speed, HPC asks EDF to implement speeding minimisation measures to help Hacheston deal with the impact.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 31 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

Use of Easton Road (Tank Road) when B1078 through Wickham Market likely to be congested

Figure 5: Map of Route 1 B1078 through Wickham Market and Route 2 Tank Road Route

It is very difficult to get through Wickham Market on the B1078 due to parked cars, and when the Park & Ride site is in operation it will be even more difficult. EDF will be creating a ‘rat run’ down very narrow country lanes on Route 2 (See Figure 5) which will be used by vehicles avoiding congestion on Route 1, the B1078 through Wickham Market between Border Cot lane and the Fiveways roundabout. People coming along the B1078 from the west will turn off to the north immediately before going through Wickham Market. This takes drivers on to little country lanes before coming to a tiny single lane bridge (weight limit 6 tonnes) and then on to the Tank road. There is a specific concern expressed by Hacheston residents about this regarding the volume of vehicles. Turning off the Tank road onto the B1116 is very tricky and is on a steep slope. Cars on the B1116 come in both directions very quickly presenting opportunities for an accident.

Figure 6: Map of Location of Tank Road (Easton Road)

Hacheston Parish Council Page 32 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

B1078 from Border Cot Lane to Wickham Market Parish Eastern Boundary This route (Route 1) through Wickham Market is in itself of great concern. The B1078 road between Border Cot Lane and the Wickham Market Parish eastern boundary at the bridge (by Rackhams) always has numerous parked cars on it for residents living there and it is difficult to get through in order to use the shops on the market hill even at non‐peak times. As a result of extra traffic using the B1078 to go to the Park & Ride this will make congestion at this location considerably worse. It is worrying that EDF’s table on p95 suggests a predicted increase from 4150 to 7250 (although EDF has provided no evidence to justify how this increase will occur) even before SZC effects come into play, with 1300 extra traffic flows when it does, rising possibly to a total of 8750. The potential for accidents at this location is high.

B1078 in Lower Hacheston from the bridge at Wickham Market to Fiveways There is concern at this location from residents about speeding as the road is straight and there are children who need to use bus services for school. With an increase in traffic as suggested for Location O the potential for accidents here is considerable.

Marlesford Road (B1116 to A12) There is an issue with Marlesford Road in that it is used as a “rat run” to the A12 at Marlesford, thus avoiding the Fiveways roundabout. This is already a significant problem because the mapping companies which provide cartography to satellite navigation products suggest Marlesford Road as a quicker route. However, it is wide enough for only one car at most points and is completely unsuitable for HGVs. This problem will get significantly worse once the Park & Ride site is built given the congestion around Fiveways that is likely at key times, and the need for drivers coming from Hacheston to go north up the A12.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 33 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

12.7 Local Heritage and Listed Buildings

Archaeology EDF comments that it is possible that there may be archaeological finds on the new proposed site in SZC Table 10.2 “Terrestrial Historic Environment”. Material discovered is conserved by recording and removing or by being preserved in situ. The Roman level is about 2’6’’ down, and if a car park is placed on the next field it should not encroach. If anything were to be found during site investigations, Hacheston residents would ask for and welcome an open day for archaeological finds to be displayed. Amended site proposals seem satisfactory for archaeological exploration. A Geophysical survey will be necessary.

Impact of the Park & Ride on the Special Landscape Area and Marlesford Conservation Area Special Landscape Areas (SLAs) are identified in Suffolk Coastal District Council’s Planning Policy AP13 and have been designated because of their landscape and scenic quality. They consist primarily of the valleys and tributaries of the Rivers Alde, Blyth, Deben, Fynn, Hundred, Mill, Minsmere, Ore and Yox. The SLA associated with the Rivers Deben and Ore are relevant to the proposed siting of the Southern Park & Ride facility. The identification and protection of the historic environment is an important function of the planning system and is done through the designation of Conservation Areas in accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Conservation Areas are defined as ‘areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’. Marlesford was first designated as a Conservation Area in 1986. In particular the Marlesford Conservation Area (MCA) appraisal makes note of the village’s dramatic edge‐of‐flood plain location, which appears as an attractive settlement in a rural landscape when viewed from the surrounding area (especially the A12). • The boundary of the SLA forks at Hacheston Church and divides along the Deben and Ore Valleys following the B1116 to the south and Marlesford Road to the southeast, both crossing the A12. Thus the proposed site of the Park & Ride is enclosed on three sides by the SLA. • A number of footpaths cross the SLA to the north, east and west on elevated ancient estate claylands (features of the SLA) which will have views of the Park & Ride site. • Footpaths to the south and southeast of the Park & Ride site look across it to the SLA beyond. • The MCA is situated to the north and northeast of the Park & Ride site, approximately 2 fields away. Views out of and into the MCA will be impacted by the location of the Park & Ride site. • If all buildings and structures are not kept to single storey height the visual intrusion of the Park & Ride site onto the SLA and MCA will be large. • HPC agrees with the Suffolk Preservation Society that the Southern Park & Ride “between the conservation areas of Wickham Market and Marlesford will have significant impacts upon the landscape of the Ore Valley. SPS is calling for an enhanced rail/sea strategy that reduces the movement of goods and people by road to safeguard the qualities of those affected communities.” (Press release 24/01/2017)

Hacheston Parish Council Page 34 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

Visibility Impact Assessments from Footpaths in and adjacent to the SLA HPC undertook a visibility assessment of the Park & Ride site from many of the footpaths at the southern / south eastern end of the SLA using EDF’s CGI model, as detailed below.

Figure 7: Assessment of Visibility from Footpaths within the Special Landscape Area

No Name Grid Ref Comment 1 Moat Hall Farm TM313600 No view TM314598 No view 2 East of Hacheston TM319593 See bunds and probably buildings

3 Adjacent to P&R TM314576 Clear view bunds and buildings TM320577 Clear view bunds and buildings 4 N and E of Lower TM317567 View of bunds and buildings Hacheston TM324568 View of bunds and buildings 5 SW of The Rookery TM304580 View of bunds and buildings

6 N of The Rookery TM305587 View of bunds and buildings

It is noted that in SZC s.10.3.1 “Rationale for Site Selection” visibility is not among the criteria used for site selection. SZC s.10.3.24 states: “The revised Wickham Market site was assessed against all of the site selection considerations. It was considered that, with the exception of clear differences in archaeological constraints, the conclusions of the assessment of the Option 1 (Wickham Market) site presented at the Stage 1 consultation generally apply to the revised site, given the similar locational and physical characteristics of the site.” However, the issue of visibility from settlements nearby does differ for the preferred site as compared with the Option 1 site. Although environmental considerations are identified in SZC s.10.3.1 as being criteria for site selection, it is not stated what these are.

Visibility Impact Assessment from Listed Buildings The villages of Hacheston, Parham and Marlesford are fortunate in that they have an abundance of listed buildings within their parish boundaries. Many of these heritage assets are situated at elevated levels on the valley uplands. In addition to architectural features of the buildings, an important part of their listing is the rural or agricultural setting in which they are situated. HPC conducted a visibility assessment from these elevated heritage sites using EDF’s CGI model. The results are given below and underline the sensitivity of these heritage sites to the Park & Ride site and the need for extreme care in its design.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 35 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

Figure 8: Assessment of Visibility from Selected High Level Listed Buildings

No Name Grid Ref Comment 1 Moat Hall Farm TM313598 No view 2 Hall Farm TM323593 No view 3 Marlesford Hall TM322586 See bund, probably buildings from 1st floor 4 Marlesford Village TM326584 Possibly see bund 5 Poplar Farm TM329582 Possibly see bund 6 Hill House TM336580 See bund and probably buildings 7 Public House TM328577 No view 8 Well Cottage TM327566 See buildings and bunds 9 Gelham Hall TM293560 No view, looks onto houses in WM 10 Glevering Hall TM298577 No view 11 The Rookery TM310581 See buildings and bunds 12 Hacheston Church TM312585 No view from ground level, view from Tower 13 Abbey Farm TM301589 No view 14 Parham Old Hall TM303597 Possibly see bunds from upper floor

• Assessment was made using EDF CGI model at Sizewell C Project Office Leiston 11 January 2017 • Grid references taken by eye from 1:50000 OS map

12.8 EDF Consultation Southern Park & Ride Diagrams The diagrams for the Park & Ride facility are not presented with sufficient detail. • The aerial ‘map’ on p233 (SZC Figure 10.4) is good for giving a general impression of the Park & Ride site but it is not big enough to see the detail. • There are no Ordnance Survey or GPS co‐ordinates. • A map should have been presented also identifying parish boundaries. • The legend uses such similar colours for identifying important features such that it is not clear. HPC asked EDF for greater detail on 18 January 2017. EDF’s response was to provide an A3 version of the same diagram on p233 allowing a clearer view at the same level of detail. In an email dated 24 January 2017 EDF stated that it does not have a design of the Park & Ride site which is better than this aerial photograph (SZC Figure 10.4, p233). A number of features are drawn onto a diagram of the Park & Ride site which is superimposed onto the aerial view and therefore it is considered by HPC to be an initial preliminary design. EDF confirmed this on 26 January stating that the A3 view is an “indicative provisional design”. The design of the site being provisional, HPC would expect at Stage 3 a considerable level of detail of any Park & Ride site allowing consultees to comment on specific features. The HPC asks EDF to include on its more developed designs additional features suggested here of eastern and western bunds and a line of trees around the perimeter.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 36 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

12.9 Surveys of the Local Community While it is true the proposal has matured and been refined and the site slightly repositioned, indications are that residents are by a large majority opposed to the existence of the Park & Ride within Hacheston. This is because the village fears that it has to experience significant negative impacts (albeit that there are some relatively minor benefits as outlined here) without satisfactory or significant mitigation provided by EDF. Hence Hacheston fears it will experience the cost of the impact of EDF’s proposals (and financial cost of responding to the consultation itself) so that EDF can reduce its own costs. Two surveys were conducted by Dr Dan Poulter MP, one in November 2014 and another in November 2016, for which results are not yet available. Respondents objected to the Park & Ride by a large majority in 2014.

Figure 9: Survey 2014 Proposals for a Park & Ride

A large majority noticed an increase in traffic on the A12 in summer. In SZC s.6.5.25 EDF notes a seasonal variation in traffic north of Woodbridge of 10% comparing May with August, and up to 35% more for peak flows. A comparison between summer and winter might be more beneficial.

Figure 10: Survey 2014 Seasonal Variation

Hacheston Parish Council Page 37 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

12.10 Southern Park & Ride Location The main considerations for identifying Hacheston as the priority site for a Park & Ride are 'cost efficiencies' due to its proximity to the main site and thus a reduced cost of running the bus service (SZC s.10.3.11). Once workers get on the bus, won’t they need to be paid for their travel time? Hence it is not the bus service itself that represents the greater proportion of the cost. The location of the Park & Ride represents a way of transferring costs. The costs EDF is proposing to reduce here will be transferred to local government due to the detrimental effects on the A12 and designated routes, as well as to local people in and around Hacheston in terms of greatly increased traffic, congestion, air quality reduction, noise and light, inter alia. The HPC does not consider this reduction in EDF’s costs to be a good enough reason for residents to be required to shoulder the burden with large detrimental impacts. The Hacheston Park & Ride is too near the Sizewell C site to achieve the traffic amelioration that EDF hopes for but it is close enough to reduce massively the costs for workers’ travelling time. There is clearly a conflict here, because full traffic mitigation in reality requires the Park & Ride site to be much further south on the A12 at other potential locations, such as south of Woodbridge or Martlesham. Increased Sizewell C traffic from the south will currently go through bottlenecks at Martlesham and Woodbridge. • EDF alludes to congestion problems at the Woods Lane roundabout. SZC Table 10.1, p228. • The A12 has a single lane just north of Woodbridge which is already congested. • Sizewell C traffic will add to traffic from a large number of houses to be built at Martlesham and Woodbridge. It would be far more rational to locate the Park & Ride site before these bottlenecks in order to intercept more Sizewell C related cars. The proposed Hacheston Park & Ride is double the size of the Martlesham site, but consideration should be given to some use of the Martlesham Park & Ride which is underused and not used at night. Brownfield sites should also be considered. Alternatively, the Park & Ride could be located much closer to the construction site, for example at the northern end of a new bypass (especially if EDF chooses a Two Villages Bypass or commits to a Four Villages Bypass). This would: • be close to the railway; • considerably reduce bus travelling time; and • reduce EDF’s costs significantly.

12.11 Benefits of the proposed Southern Park & Ride Site The Southern Park & Ride would be a facility with good transport links and access to local amenities in Marlesford, Hacheston, Wickham Market and Campsea Ashe. Any new developments such as the Park & Ride site might provide some new opportunities for employment, as well as more business and sales for local businesses both in Hacheston and in the wider community. • More coach drivers and operators to provide the service that will operate from this site. • There could be jobs at the mini postal distribution centre. • Security personnel as the site would need a degree of security, requiring people to be employed.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 38 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

• The site would need to be maintained, particularly any horticultural features. It would be expected that personnel with the relevant experience will be drawn from the local area. Horticultural supplies could be purchased from local businesses. • There would be a need to have fences that could be supplied by local businesses in Hacheston. • As the site exists to support vehicles, it is of note that Hacheston has no less than three providers of vehicle maintenance and it would be expected that people driving to and from the Park & Ride site could use these services. Some owners of car maintenance workshops in Hacheston are keen on the idea that local garages could offer breakdown, repairs, servicing and MOT facilities for workers whose cars are parked on the Southern Park & Ride site while they are on shift (this is similar to services provided to commuters on many railway car parks). There is also a vehicle repair shop in Wickham Market on the industrial estate near the telephone exchange. • Some people have a small business cleaning vehicles and could be invited to advertise their services to drivers using the site.

12.12 Conclusion While there may be some benefits to a Park & Ride facility in Hacheston, these are heavily outweighed by the problems it produces in terms of noise and light pollution, traffic congestion around its access, extra traffic on routes through Hacheston (B1116) and Lower Hacheston (B1078). • There is approval from some residents of the idea of a Park & Ride site for workers to go to Sizewell, but residents’ concerns relate to its location and whether the mitigation that will eventually have been put in place will be sufficient. • While some useful mitigation measures have been suggested by EDF, HPC believes that EDF has not gone anywhere near far enough to mitigate the issues raised by the proposed Southern Park & Ride or the concerns that residents have. • It is clear that the design of the Park & Ride is in its very early stages and clearly little more than a set of ideas, where no careful evaluations or visual impact assessments have yet been made. Hence it will be essential for Hacheston to be given the opportunity to look closely at the full designs which take into account the points raised here. • Little is proposed by EDF as a legacy for Hacheston, for example cycle paths. See HPC s.2.7 for details of cycle routes that could be established from the Park & Ride and which would produce a lasting legacy for people living in the parish of Hacheston. The Park & Ride site as proposed is too close to Hacheston, but it is also considered that there are considerable knock‐on consequences which will have the biggest impact. HPC understands the concept of Park & Ride to reduce traffic on the roads but consider that EDF could have found a better and more appropriate location. It could be either much further south on the A12 improving interception of traffic travelling further from the south and before the bottleneck at Woodbridge, or at the northern end of a Two or Four Villages Bypass. The Southern Park & Ride should be relocated. The current proposed location for a Southern Park & Ride at Hacheston is inappropriate. The site itself irrespective of its location requires further design elements to mitigate the effects of its existence, particularly entire perimeter bunds as well as other considerations outlined above.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 39 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

13 Transport: A12 Road Improvements Questionnaire 11: Please explain your views

13.1 Four Options Hacheston would prefer Option 4, a Two Villages Bypass, from the options presented as part of A12 road improvements to protect Farnham and from the considerable effects of extra volumes of traffic. Option 1: Not appropriate. A12 traffic will grind to a halt. Option 2: Not appropriate. The Farnham bend is crucial for a variety of reasons identified by EDF and local communities. HPC does not agree with this option as knocking down Grade II listed buildings and widening the road will spoil the character of Farnham. This option will not solve the problems produced by extra traffic due to the Sizewell C build. The major issue for small villages like these is that HGV vehicles produce a huge rumble when moving along even at low speeds and this affects the foundation of very old buildings. People can feel the lorries go past as their houses shake. Option 3: Not appropriate: There is an accident black spot on the way to Sweffling. If EDF chooses Option 3 then 3B with its island might be helpful from the point of view of the garage. Option 4: The most appropriate given only the four options presented. This moves traffic away from more built up areas along the A12 than the other options and protects Farnham and Stratford St Andrew. On the part of the A12 bypassed there would be fewer holdups, less pollution, less noise and an improvement in the quality of life of Farnham and Stratford residents.

13.2 A12 South of Wickham Market A 76% increase in HGV and bus traffic is predicted for the A12 south of Wickham Market (SZC Figure 6.5, p91) during the peak construction phase. This will have enormous effects on local residents, particularly in terms of pollution but also delays and noise. These effects on local residents and local amenities need to be mitigated and A12 road improvement south of Wickham Market will be required. Other A12 road improvements may be needed.

13.3 Four Villages Bypass The full “Suffolk Energy Gateway” Four Villages Bypass would be the most effective way to achieve the mitigation needed to offset the effects of increased traffic volumes. The other alternatives offer a lesser mitigation on a scale from Option 4 down to no mitigation for Option 1. The full “Energy Gateway” and all options apart from Option 1 also offer a legacy benefit to the people of East Suffolk in improving the A12 north of Wickham Market. (See HPC s.9.5) Hacheston would like to see a full option for a Four Villages Bypass to be considered and would like EDF to work with Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council and the Department of Transport in central government to develop plans for this. EDF should contribute what it would have contributed for a Two Villages Bypass with the remaining cost being borne by central government.

13.4 Further perspectives on the A12 • What will happen at Harvest with agricultural vehicles on the A12, and holiday traffic?

Hacheston Parish Council Page 40 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

14 Transport: Road Improvements – Yoxford/B1122 Questionnaire 12: Please provide comments on all our proposed B1122 road improvements, including explanation of your views on the options provided.

It is of great concern that HGV traffic could increase at Location Y by 114%. (SZC p91) The mitigation suggested is very small in comparison to the size of the new problem EDF is producing. The B1122: • is a small winding country lane going through three villages (as well as Leiston Abbey) and is completely unsuitable for nearly 1000 extra HGVs and buses; • could become more dangerous with extra construction traffic; • could be subjected to accidents, added congestion, vibration damage, noise and pollution. Hence, reliance on the B1122 will put an unfair burden on local residents. Traffic is the primary concern of residents (from a SCC survey in July 2016.) It may not be the wisest option as a primary route for emergencies and even an evacuation route in case of a Sizewell C nuclear meltdown. Given that EDF has ruled out a purpose‐built direct route from the A12 to the power station site, the alternative is to bring in more materials via rail and sea to reduce the burden on the road network.

15 People and Economy Questionnaire 13: “Do you have any comments on our people and economy proposals, including our approach to education, training and local supply chain opportunities? “ HPC is aware of the benefits that Sizewell A and B power stations have brought to the local economy and the much‐needed employment opportunities for a formerly deprived area in a recession following the closure of the local engineering industry. Sizewell C will also benefit East Suffolk in the same way. Many young people have served apprenticeships at Sizewell and have been given good jobs as a result of their excellent training. It is positive that EDF has chosen to go to schools to promote opportunities to young people and offer apprenticeships. Which schools are EDF assisting and how many apprenticeships are being offered? Many local businesses have already registered to tender as local suppliers during the construction period. As many local businesses as possible should be awarded contracts in connection with the construction work and associated services. As many local people as possible should be offered training or re‐training to help boost their skills to enable them to apply for jobs at the site. Sizewell C will be a boon to the local economy and will support jobs and employment for years to come.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 41 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

16 Consultation Process Questionnaire 14: “Please let us know if you have any comments or suggestions about the consultation process.”

16.1 Christmas and New Year HPC is unhappy that the consultation for Stage 2 has taken place over the Christmas and New Year period, when residents and councillors want to spend time with their families. In fact, the Stage 1 consultation (2012 ‐ 2013) ran for 5 days longer, from 21 November to 6 February (SZC s.1.5.9) which is almost identical to Stage 2, 23 November 2016 – 3 February 2017. It is surely unlikely that this is co‐incidental. Much as it is understood that following the Hinkley Point Final Investment Decision EDF desired to move forward as soon as possible, the whole process could easily have waited for a few weeks to begin in the New Year, to give time for small councils such as HPC the ability properly to respond without added stresses.

16.2 Not Enough time In addition, launching on 23 November and with a deadline of 3 February is not a time long enough to present a full response without being forced to gather significant resources very quickly. This is a little over 10 weeks, and for a small parish council is not enough time. The documents are long and time consuming to study in order to be able effectively to represent the views of the community.

16.3 Consultation Documents Follow Different Structures The chapters in the main document are different from the summary document. This makes it harder to follow and reference back to the main documents.

16.4 Cost of Consultation to the Parish Council EDF has made contributions to the consultation on some levels which are appreciated by HPC, including their engagement of RTPI Planning Aid . The Parish Council has a precept income of less than £5,000 per year, and this consultation has cost the council a minimum of £660. This cost should not have to be borne by the residents, and HPC requests that EDF helps it to defray these administrative costs to pay the Clerk to write the consultation response. Therefore HPC presents an opportunity for EDF to mitigate this cost and provide a direct benefit into a community that would be directly affected by its proposals.

16.5 Consultation Detail The information presented by EDF at the start of the consultation was not detailed enough for some aspects of its proposals. There are many examples of this: • How many HGV vehicle journeys would be saved by the sea route being used for materials? • Data for traffic using the Fiveways roundabout. • Modelling data for three hour periods for vehicles entering and leaving the Southern Park & Ride. • Current data and future modelling data for traffic using the B1116. • The aerial photograph of the site on SZC p233 is not detailed enough.

Hacheston Parish Council Page 42 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

• That the design of the Southern Park and Ride is an initial provisional design is positive in that the plans for precise features and facilities have yet to be developed and EDF could work with HPC to create a satisfactory design that takes concerns into account and fully mitigates against the negative impacts of the site. More could be done to mitigate the effects of the construction work on local people and amenities if EDF fully shared the information it holds with local people and local town and parish councils. This would enable EDF to work with them to address and lessen their concerns. In view of the large amount of effort this involves for volunteer councillors and the substantial costs incurred by town and parish clerks to prepare the submission in such a tight timescale, EDF would be well advised to offer financial compensation for the work caused to mitigate the effect on local ratepayers having to face higher precepts in future years to cover the administrative cost now and over the construction period.

16.6 Consultation of Stage 1 and Stage 2 The consultation for Stage 2 appears to be better handled than that for Stage 1; however this also depends on the outcome. The Stage 1 consultation left a lot to be desired. The Stage 2 consultation was better, with the travelling exhibition and provision of experts to answer questions being appreciated.

16.7 Communication with EDF during the consultation process HPC believes in a working partnership between it and EDF in analysing proposals, and is thankful to EDF for agreeing to meet councillors prior to its exhibition in Hacheston on 16 December, 2016. This allowed councillors as a group to question EDF representatives and watch the CGI system, such that EDF had their full attention with members of HPC only. This is much appreciated. Emails were generally answered quickly. HPC thanks EDF for joining our meeting on 7 January 2016 to discuss the then forthcoming Stage 2 consultation. EDF has engaged the services of the RTPI’s PAE group in order to provide parish councils with the opportunity to present its consultation submission in the most useful way. HPC is grateful to EDF for presenting this opportunity. Many residents were happy with the exhibition and pleased to see a number of key EDF personnel attend the exhibition in Hacheston. The displays were very good in general and the CGI system was impressive. One display could have had the Park & Ride site and the nearest village Marlesford on the same view, which would have given viewers a better idea of how close they are. The videos on the Sizewell C web site are regarded as very informative.

16.8 Consultation at Stage 3 Please could EDF give us full information and more detail for the Stage 3 consultation?

Hacheston Parish Council Page 43 EDF SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 CONSULTATION HPC SUBMISSION

17 HPC EDF Sizewell C Stage 2 Consultation Submission

Presented by Hacheston Parish Council This consultation submission is presented by Hacheston Parish Council: Cllr. Malcolm Robinson, Chairman Cllr. Kaye Dawe, Vice Chairman Cllr. Graeme Hall Cllr. Chris Hurlock Cllr. David Clough Cllr. Oliver Hurlock Cllr. Niki Acott

HPC would like to thank residents and councillors for their many contributions.

Written by: Bartholomew Hall Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer Hacheston Parish Council

www.hacheston.suffolk.gov.uk [email protected]

02 February 2017

Appendix: Distances to Hacheston locations from Proposed Park & Ride Site 1176m From access road to first house at the south of Hacheston on B1116 0763m From closest boundary to Rookery Farm 0500m From closest boundary to first house “The Lodge” on the Tank road. 1200m Nearest boundary of Park & Ride to the Church 0382m From south boundary of Park & Ride site to the “Bottle & Glass” south of A12

Version 6.0

Hacheston Parish Council Page 44