RSPB Response to Sizewell C Stage 2 Consultation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EDF Energy By email only 25th January 2017 Dear Sir/Madam SIZEWELL C STAGE 2 PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Thank you for consulting the RSPB regarding the Stage 2 pre-application consultation for Sizewell C. We have previously set out our concerns regarding the proposed development in our Stage 1 consultation response of 5th February 2013. At that stage, our overarching concern was the lack of detail and evidence provided to support the proposals within the scope of the consultation. Given this, it was difficult for us to comment fully, and we considered that a significant amount of additional information would be required to provide sufficient detail on which to base the necessary assessments of impacts and to draw robust conclusions. Unfortunately, we have the same concerns with many aspects of the current Stage 2 consultation. We are particularly concerned about the potential for coastal defences and other infrastructure to affect coastal processes operating on the RSPB Minsmere coastal frontage, and if increased erosion should result, potential effects on the reserve’s current or future habitats. Both as part of this consultation and as a neighbouring landowner, we would expect to see a much greater level of detail about the proposals and the evidence relied on to support the assertions of minimal impact within the consultation documents. Please note that all references below are to the main Stage 2 Consultation Document unless stated otherwise. 1. The RSPB’s Interest in the Sizewell C Proposals 1.1 The Importance of Minsmere and the Suffolk Coast Designated Sites RSPB Minsmere is located immediately to the north of the proposed Sizewell C development site. Over 5000 species have been recorded at Minsmere, including over 1000 moths and butterflies (more than 40% of the British total), and half of our native vascular plants. Its habitats include four national conservation priorities: reedbeds, lowland wet grassland, shingle vegetation and lowland heath. These habitats support a range of bird, plant and invertebrate populations of international conservation importance. Eastern England Tel 01603 660066 Regional Office Fax 01603 660088 Stalham House 65 Thorpe Road rspb.org.uk Norwich Norfolk NR1 1UD Patron: Her Majesty the Queen Chairman of Council: Professor Steve Ormerod, FIEEM Chief Executive: Dr Mike Clarke Regional Director: Dr James Robinson The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is a registered charity: England and Wales no. 207076, Scotland no. SC037654 RSPB Minsmere receives over 120,000 visitors each year, attracted to the area by the beautiful wide open spaces and wildlife experiences the landscape offers. It plays a vital role in the local community contributing around £3 million to the economy and supporting over 100 local jobs1. The reserve forms part of a wider area found within the Suffolk Coast, recognised for its value for wildlife, and protected by a range of national and international nature conservation designations including SSSI, SPA, SAC and Ramsar site. • The Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) contains a complex of habitats, notably mudflats, shingle beach, reedbeds, heathland and grazing marsh and populations of important birds, including breeding wetland and heathland species and wintering wildfowl and waders. It also supports scarce plants such as whorled water milfoil and a number of rare wetland moths. • The Minsmere to Walberswick Special Protection Area (SPA) is designated for its breeding and wintering bird populations, including bittern, marsh harrier, avocet, nightjar, woodlark and several wildfowl species. • The Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is designated for its coastal and heathland habitats. • The Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes Ramsar site is designated for its variety of marine, freshwater, marshland and associated habitats. It also supports a number of rare plants, such as red-tipped cudweed and invertebrates including the narrow-mouthed whorl snail. It holds important populations of breeding birds including marsh harrier and Mediterranean gull, passage waders and wintering wildlfowl and waders. 1.2 RSPB Position on the Principle of New Nuclear Build at Sizewell The RSPB does not see a role for new nuclear electricity generation. Whilst nuclear power potentially offers a low carbon source of generation, there are many others which offer better prospects. In our view, investment in nuclear power is a costly distraction from the investment urgently needed in technologies which we already know can deliver a sustainable energy system. The RSPB made substantial comment during the preparation of the new National Policy Statements (NPS) on Energy Infrastructure in 2010. It highlighted numerous deficiencies in the Government’s analysis and approach. The RSPB did not support the principle of new nuclear build and openly disagreed with the Government during their policy development. However, the new Nuclear NPS (EN-6) was published in 2011 with a Government decision supporting both the principle of expanding nuclear generation and identifying specific sites following a strategic site assessment process. Sizewell was one of eight sites that were identified by the Government as appropriate locations to construct new nuclear power stations. The RSPB’s key aim in engaging with this project is to ensure that the proposals for Sizewell C are suitably underpinned by environmental evidence and robustly assessed such that any new nuclear development does not adversely affect designated sites or important wildlife populations. 1 RSPB (2011) Natural Foundations, Conservation and local employment in the UK. https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/naturalfoundations_tcm9-291148.pdf 2 2. Policy Context and Project Vision Paragraph 1.3.3 of the main consultation document states that NPS EN-1 ‘makes it clear that in the event of any conflict between any other guidance and an NPS, the NPS prevails for the purposes of decision making, given the national significance of the infrastructure.’ It should be clear that this applies to guidance only, and that the NPS cannot override the requirements of legislation. Paragraphs 1.5.2 and 1.5.3 explain the benefits to the Applicant of pre-application consultation and environmental assessment in terms of resolving issues, reducing risk, obtaining information and identifying mitigation. For these benefits to be realised, we consider that consultations need to include a greater level of detail, evidence and environmental information, rather than leaving this until the DCO application. ‘The Vision for the Project’ (paragraph 2.2.1) states that any adverse effects will be mitigated as far as practical and appropriate. This does not go far enough; given the environmental importance of the surrounding area, adverse impacts must be avoided or mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated (if the necessary legal and/or policy requirements are met). These principles were set out in the Joint Local Authorities Group Suffolk Sizewell C Ecology Principles of January 2014. Paragraph 3.3.8 states that a case for IROPI (Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest) is made in C.8.57 of NPS EN-6 Annex C. Note, however, that Annex A. 6.7 states that; ‘The Government’s findings in respect of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive and this NPS do not automatically transfer directly to individual projects and the Nuclear NPS does not in any way reduce the duty on the IPC [now PINS] to fulfil the legal requirements of the Habitats Directive.’ In our response to the draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure in February 2010, we stated that; ‘Consequently, the RSPB considers that any development consent application coming forward on any of the ten listed sites will have to undergo full consideration under the Habitats Regulations, and that consideration of alternative solutions and IROPI will have to be undertaken for each application that cannot demonstrate that it will not have an adverse impact. This is the responsibility of the IPC [now PINS] as competent authority.’ This remains our position with regard to the Sizewell C proposals. Principle 8 ‘Environmental Legislation’ on Table 7.1 states that the development will be designed to ‘...have regard to best practice’ and ‘best environmental practice will be taken into account.’ We are disappointed to note that this stops short of a commitment to follow best environmental practice in the design of the project, which would be expected given the international importance of the surrounding environment. Paragraph 3.6.4 refers to the AONB as a local designation. This is incorrect. This is a national designation with its corresponding level of importance and relevance. In general, we feel there is not enough clarity in the document over the location of and impacts on sites with statutory designations. We expect to see a map clearly defining the designation boundaries and showing where potential impacts may occur. 3 3. Coastal Infrastructure As stated in the introduction, we are concerned at the lack of detail provided with regard the design of the proposed coastal infrastructure and the lack of evidence regarding potential environmental impacts. We raised similar concerns in our Stage 1 consultation response and are disappointed that limited additional information has been provided in the current consultation. Impacts of the development on coastal processes and on flooding remain some of our most serious concerns around