SIZEWELL C would be built immediately to the north of the existing power stations if EDF Energy has its way.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

The permanent site of the power station would be similar in size to the sites of Sizewell A and B combined – but a much larger site would be needed for the construction phase of the project.

A new road to the station would be built from the junction of the B1122 and the Eastbridge road and land beside this would be used during the construction process.

EDF plans to develop a permanent visitor centre outlining its role at Sizewell.

There are three potential sites for this – at Sizewell Beach, on Lover’s Lane near the recycling centre or at Goose Hill near Sizewell C.

Once the power station was completed this land would be restored to its natural state – it is only a relatively short distance from the internationally-renowned Minsmere nature reserve as the crow (or marsh harrier) flies.

Part of the Sizewell C site lies within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and EDF is looking at the possibility of creating replacement habitats nearby.

It would also look at ensuring historic assets like Leiston Abbey and the old Abbey near the sea are not damaged by the developments.

EDF is studying the risks of flooding at the site – and is also looking at the potential danger of sea level rise as a result of global warming.

The company has been monitoring the coastal processes along the North Sea for several years, and says it will factor in this as well as the effect on the Minsmere sluice before its detailed plans for the site are confirmed.

Footpaths along the coast would need to be closed during construction work – especially when the jetty is operating – but EDF says any changes would be agreed with local authorities and there would be notice of the changes.

Once construction is complete, the area would be fully restored.

3 comments

  • Rightly so. The location is right at the waterfront, on one of the fastest eroding coasts of England, with Dunwich nearly in sight. The North Sea has a history of severe storm surges that sometimes submerged vast areas for good and killed many tens of thousands of people: 17 Feb. 1164: Julian Flood, 20,000 dead. 16 Jan. 1219: 1st Marcellus Flood Reportedly 36,000 dead 14 Dec. 1287: St. Lucia’s Flood 50,000 dead 16 Jan. 1362: 2nd Marcellus Flood 100,000 dead. 1 Nov. 1570: All Saint’s Flood over 20,000 dead 11 Oct. 1634: Burchardi Flood, at least 8,000 dead 24 Dec. 1717: Christmas Flood; 14,000 dead With better weather forecast today, the direct human losse could possibly be prevented. But how will we prevent a nuclear catastrophe to happen if the land would just vanish under a flood?

    Report this comment

    Irene

    Friday, November 23, 2012

  • I hope that E.D.F. and the government looks closely at what happened in Japan, at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station... The sea is an unpredictable power, and likely to be even more so, in the future.

    Report this comment

    Andrew Shields

    Thursday, November 22, 2012

  • I hope E.D.F. and the government take a very close look at what happened in Japan at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station... The sea is unpredictable, at the best of times and likely to become even more so, in the future.

    Report this comment

    Andrew Shields

    Thursday, November 22, 2012

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

loading...
iwitness24 Your news is our news Facebook Like your local paper Twitter Join the conversation Ipswich Borough Council

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT