Report from Leiston-cum-
Introduction
The purpose
of our visit was to find out more about the impact of constructing new nuclear
reactors on the local community.
We had a
number of expectations and preconceptions before the visit and were interested
to see how these compared with what we found, how issues were being dealt with
and anything that was different or unexpected. We expected the main impacts to
be on traffic, housing, local workforce and the local economy particularly
tourism. The scale of the development and the effect of the behaviour
of a large temporary workforce on local communities were other concerns.
Timetable
a) Presentation from EDF by Ross
Edwards, Community Relations HPC (in post since
2009) & Tom McGarry,
Head of Stakeholder Engagement SZC & Steve Henry, COMS Team. (EDF)
b)Site visit (SV) on Wednesday morning led by EDF
Tour Guide.
Meeting
from
Members and officers were
present including Robert Downes, Project Manage, Cllr Sue Goss, Vice Chairman
of Stogursey Parish Council the nearest village to
HPC. (The Parish of Stogursey includes the
hamlets of
8-9pm went to HPC to observe light pollution.
Meeting with Sedgemoor District Council 9.30am
– 1.30pm 12/3/20 (SDC)
Meeting chaired by Cllr Gill
Slocombe – Portfolio Holder for Inward Investment
& Growth including HPC. Around the table District & Parish Councillors
and Officers.
The following gave
presentations:
Charlotte Rushmere, Lead
Planner for HPC:-
Duncan Harvey, Housing
Development Officer
Dave Baxter, Strategic
Housing Manager
Caroline Derrick,
Employment, Skills & Training Manager
Andy Reading, Transport
Officer:-
Background
In many
ways
However,
there are some significant differences:
·
no rail connection to HPC site – this wasn’t
an option. They have a jetty and a wharf for deliveries.
·
four park & ride schemes – two in
·
two campuses for HPC – on site for 510
workers, off site (approx 9 miles away) for 1,000 –
one on site at SZC for 3500 workers and a nearby site for
400 caravans (calculated at 1.5 people per caravan)
·
freight management point on the M5 for Hinkley
(2 planned but changed to 1) One planned at Seven
Hills for SZC.
·
SZC site is smaller than HPC site
·
Different pattern of town and village sizes in
immediate area
·
Sizewell has Off Shore Wind
Farms and the associated large buildings and cable trench routes that Hinkley
does not have.
We visited
about two years before the peak workforce would be reached.
These were some
observations that were made that provide context but are not impacts as such:
·
Saw the tallest crane in the world ‘Carl’
which following its work at Hinkley would be transported in a large number of
containers to work at SZC. Saw ‘Carl’ in operation which usually only happens
towards the end of the working day. (SV)
·
HPC
site was efficient and flexible use of space. Impressive civil engineering
project.
·
A number of Tier one workers from HPC would
probably come across to SZC to make use of their expertise. (EDF)
·
·
At Hinkley there has been a focus on housing
provision. At SZC focus on tourism e.g. having Suffolk Larder. EDF felt
·
Route taken included through
·
Like SZ, Hinkley has an
operational B and de-commissioned A (twin reactors). “They look awful! SZ much more attractive.”
(SV)
·
Difficulties in early stages
between EDF and County Council in receiving and sharing information Somerset CC
had early engagement with local councils, not evident in
·
Be prepared for design
changes and site layout changes e.g. height of spoil heaps, fish deterrent
scheme, number of workers (SWTDC)
·
Suffolk County Council has
engagement with Somerset County Council but there is little information about
this in
·
‘Were gains in the local communities, but with
a lot of pain’ (SWTCC)
·
Lots of delays in everything
SDC
·
“Don’t forget EDF’s main objective is to build
a Power Station.” (SDC)
Impacts,
Evidence and Mitigation
|
Impact |
Evidence |
Mitigation |
|
Workforce |
|
|
|
Large number needed for
construction. 60% are local (within 90
min travel time) Maximum workforce agreed
at 5600 but could increase up to 10,000. A third of local population
are employed at Hinkley Point. |
SDC, EDF, SWTDC |
Local Labour
Agreements were set up with District Council and with Trade Union
representation to ensure as local a workforce as possible. |
|
Skills shortage for EDF
needs |
EDF SDC SWTDC |
EDF works in partnership
with local colleges to set up training for jobs they need, Engineering and
Construction skills taught at local college. Monitoring and Mitigation
- Long Term Plan. Strong partnership created. |
|
Need to backfill because
higher wages at HPC attracts local workers from their existing jobs in care,
tourism, retail etc. possibly into lower skilled jobs. Relatively
full-employment makes these hard to fill. Local skills shortage for
these jobs |
SV EDF SDC SWTDC
Impressive employment projects in place with both district councils. |
Working in partnerships.
Local employment hubs and other employment schemes such as Gravity, schemes
to support women and those who need a lot of support to access labour market e.g. because of disabilities such as
autism. |
|
At end of construction
number of jobs falls dramatically |
SDC, EDF |
Long term planning with
local companies and councils. |
|
Housing/Accommodation |
|
|
|
Influx of workers
temporarily employed in construction. |
SV, SDC, SWTC Fewer workers chose to
live in campus than EDF expected. Having workers living further away
increases transport pressure. The campus on site looked big, but is
significantly smaller than that planned for Eastbridge
site. Buildings are attractively clad
and understood to provide university-student type accommodation. |
Campus for workers – at
HPC campus for 500 on site and for 1000 more at |
|
Pressure on private rented
accommodation. |
SDC SWTDC Some rents had doubled and
local people could not afford new rents. |
Housing Fund. SDC had £2.3
m grant to build 181 new houses including affordable homes and housing for
young people. |
|
Impact on owner occupiers. Owners in Stogursey could not sell their houses. |
Fewer workers bought
houses than expected. SWTDC |
Property Price Support
scheme. EDF bought up 11 houses in Sturton as villagers wished to leave but were unable to sell. |
|
Impact on Buy to Rent –
increase makes house purchase more difficult for local population. |
Increase in buy-to-rent
seen in local area contrary to national trend. SWTDC SDC |
HMRC scrutinising
financial side of this. |
|
Increase in HMOs Landlords can be less than
responsible. |
SWTDC SDC social effect of more
transient population on communities. Houses tend to be less well kept and more cars put pressure on parking. |
Landlord training. |
|
Transport |
|
|
|
Volume of due to freight. Timing of building
infrastructure. Implementing schemes to mitigate
could cause lengthy delays. |
SDC SWTDC SWTDC Although we did not
observe huge amounts of traffic except at about 5pm, it was reported to us
that volume of traffic was a big issue for some local people. Until jetty was completed,
EDF had to increase lorry movements. SDC Road improvements themselves cause
delays. Originally two freight
management facilities planned at both approach junctions from M5. Now only
one resulting in extra miles on M5 for HGVs and only one route through
Bridgewater. |
Bypass of Cannington. Other road improvements. Impact Assessment Stage
and Mitigation Strategy Transport monitored on a
GPS system by EDF so this makes sure routes are adhered to. HGVs set at 500 movements a day max.
Includes return journey. Limit set at planning stage. Transport Forum to monitor
impact with parish representation. Cannington bypass put in
early and some of the other road improvements. Road improvement such as
bypass for Cannington (population 4500). Road widening. Managing process is key. Freight management on M5 2-3 minute
delay between each HGV. |
|
Transport of large numbers
of workers ‘Rat runs’ – white vans
and other uncontrolled traffic use minor roads through villages to avoid
congestion on main roads. Fly Parking reported as
largest cause of complaint and unexpected issue. |
Car sharing not taken up
as much as expected. Therefore higher volume of travel in cars not always to
park and ride. Cannington Park and Ride neat but small. Big enough? Near empty workers buses
observed. Sedgemoor do not monitor
buses but rely on EDF data. EDF cannot register every
private vehicle and therefore cannot monitor. This leads to creation of rat
runs and fly-parking which is also affected by accommodation strategy (HMOs,
private renting) SDC |
Campus on site. 4 Park and Rides with
target of 87% workers using buses (90% achieved) Car sharing encouraged.
Targets set but not being met. Local people encouraged to
cycle, walk etc. Buses used off peak to
provide free bus service to local villages such as Stogursey. Wardens appointed by EDF.
Repeated offenders lose site pass (and therefore employment) |
|
Incidents |
SWTDC |
Incident management fund
part of S106 money |
|
Road surfaces – HGVs
damage the road surfaces of all routes in area, causing potholes. |
SWTDC |
Fund to give additional
money to Highways for repairs. Survey of damage every two years and EDF asked
to pay. |
|
Footpaths, cycle paths,
bridleways – closed or rendered unsafe by increased traffic. |
SDC SWTDC |
£3 million pounds for
walking and cycling to re-instate or create new paths. Need to encourage
people to use alternatives to cars as means of travel to work. Money for
campaign to achieve this |
|
Environment |
|
|
|
Light Pollution |
Reported by Cllr Goss from
Stogursey. She said no longer needed torches in
village without street lighting and Exmoor National
Park Dark Skies area was affected.
Observed at night visit. Most thought it not a big problem. May be
more of a problem for wild life than humans. |
Down shaders fitted. |
|
Dust pollution |
Reported by Cllr Goss and
at SDC meeting. |
Water sprinkled on site. Vehicles washed before
leaving site. Window cleaning in local
villages offered but then withdrawn. |
|
Noise pollution |
Reported by Cllr Goss who described
constant background hum and times when particular work schedules resulted in
noise above agreed levels. |
Limits set at planning
stage. Monitoring. Complaints sometimes
resulted in action. Double glazing fitted in
nearby villages. Ear plugs given to residents. Quiet hours between 11pm
and 7.30 am |
|
Damage and disruption to
wild life |
SV, SWTDC Wild life does not always
go where it is directed so further measure re badgers implemented. |
Badger tunnels/sets
created. Bat Bridge created. |
|
Visual impact – spoil
heaps, large construction site with cranes etc. |
SV SDC Saw spoil heaps currently
at agreed 35m but EDF applied to raise them to 45m. Concern expressed at
stability of heaps and visual impact. Cllr Goss says known locally as
Southern Alps. Observed tree and other
planting already in progress. |
Screening Limits on height of spoil
heaps Planting on soil heaps. |
|
Local nature reserves |
SWTDC |
Quantock Development and Landscape
improvement scheme set up. Wild Life Trust offered course to re-skill workers
e.g chain
saw certificates, hedge laying, coppicing. |
|
Economy |
|
|
|
Tourism Possible fall in visitor
numbers due to impact of massive construction |
SDC SWTDC Generally very small
negative impact reported but councils stressed this may be because of the
mitigating action they have taken. Kind of visitors may have changed. Cllr Goss reported very local negative
impact in holiday accommodation and camp-site being used by construction
workers. |
£2.2m fund from s106 money
to support tourism Set up Tourism Action
Partnership Advertising campaign
launched to attract tourists to area. Campsite issue dealt with
by EDF |
|
Supply Chain Small local companies may
be squeezed out of supply chain limiting economic benefits to local area. May be need for local
office and industrial premises particularly at technical stage of
construction. |
EDF SDC EDF start early with
Supplier Registration Scheme. They are encouraging long term sustainable
business models. Chamber of Commerce encouraging small businesses to apply
either solely or in consortia. Some need support in bidding |
Registration Scheme S106 money used to provide
grants up to £5000 to support local companies in bidding process. |
|
Social |
|
|
|
Worker Behaviour Concern about anti social behaviour expansion
of night time economy etc |
SDC SWTDC All reported that this was
not proving to be the problem expected. |
Code of Behaviour
enforced. Accommodation strategy and
provision of leisure facilities. |
|
Health Provision Pressure on local health services |
SV SWTDC SDC The on-site facility was
taking up most of the demand. Unexpected impact was on local hospitals as
workers requiring hospital care were not returning home as expected but using
local provision. |
Comprehensive health
centre on site with most services needed – GP, physio, mental health services
etc. Contingency money to
support local services if required for workers and their families. |
|
Emergency Services |
SWTDC SDC SV |
On site provision Designated routes for
emergency vehicles Contingency funding
available |
|
Possible increase in crime |
SDC SWTDC When asked about crime
levels we were advised that it was difficult to get information on instances
of crime. Police deal with this but no breakdowns as to whether local or HPC
workers. |
Monitoring required. |
|
Community Cohesion |
SWTC some reports of
communities badly affected as long term residents moved away. |
Community Funds available. |
Funding Available for Mitigation Schemes
£91 m Section 106 money to
County Council (£2.2m of which to Tourism)
£7.2m Community Impact
Mitigation Fund
£12.8m HPC Community Fund
Hostility Support Scheme and
Voluntary Mitigation – may have been extra money?
Stogursey (nearest village) received
£500,000 used for leisure in the community. Minehead (21 miles away) received
money for refurbishing esplanade.
Legacy Benefits
·
Cannington
Abbey EDF Training centre – superb facilities in 11thC former nunnery. Renovated to very high standard. Local College also providing training
facilities in Cannington linked to EDF.SZC apprentices to be trained there.
·
New
local Housing
·
Cannington
Bypass
·
Enhancements
of Minehead Esplanade (Tourist support)
·
Village
Hall
Lessons and Action Points
The main
advice that came from all three sources was that it was important to engage
with EDF, county and district council to discuss expected impacts and ways to
mitigate them from the earliest stage. Furthermore, both councils advised us to
look at the Oxford Brookes Longitudinal Study of impacts of HPC so far and to
make sure that ways to monitor impacts, who would collect which data and clear
definitions and lines of responsibility were built in to the planning process
at the DCO stage.
A number of
negative impacts with the proposed development at the Sizewell site, were
identified by the Leiston Town Council during the consultation process and
included in the Council’s response, including the enormity and scale of the
project and this was confirmed by the visit. Coupled with the combined
effects of the proposed Wind Farms and Continental Interconnectors from
Belgium, this will put considerable strain on our communities
around Leiston-cum Sizewell should they all proceed. Therefore, the proposed
site for Sizewell C is unsuitable. Nevertheless, to protect our community as
much as possible if Sizewell C is built, we believe the following points are
crucial:
a.
Targets
and monitoring procedures and responsibilities MUST be included in DCO. These
must include clear definitions, details about data to be collected and who will
monitor. Data to be independent as far as possible. Data collected by local
people to be considered. Biophysical data to be collected as discussed in
Oxford Brookes Longitudinal Study. All
forums used for monitoring must include representation at parish and town
council level. Requirement for targets and associated monitoring (eg for traffic levels, noise etc) ESSENTIAL to be included
in DCO. Traffic monitoring by the Traffic Review Group particularly important.
If it is not included then no means of controlling. If not included by SCC or ESC, then there’s a
possible opportunity to include during Examination of DCO – Town Clerk to be
briefed.
b.
Infrastructure
– roads, park and ride, lorry management facilities, railway line and railhead
etc – MUST be completed before main
construction begins. Network Rail must
be required to complete their actions in time to enable EDF to undertake their
rail requirements. If possible, this
should be part of the DCO so that EDF cannot proceed otherwise.
c.
How
do we ensure no additional “land grab” to accommodate actual requirements?
d.
How
do we ensure allocation of funds to benefit local communities not projects for
distant less-affected communities?
e.
Early
identification of potential replacement workforces and means and facilities to
re-train. Suffolk College on the Coast
has an important role here and needs to be engaged early. Travel to Ipswich / Lowestoft is not relevant
to low-paid or additional needs people.
f.
All
changes made by EDF to their plans must be properly scrutinised by appropriate
authorities.
g.
If
Sizewell C goes ahead, Suffolk will need at least comparable mitigation funds
and schemes as Somerset.
h.
Leiston-cum-Sizewell
Town Council (and other local parishes) need dialogue as soon as possible with
district and county councils to ensure that local communities who face the
worst negative impacts are consulted and included in mitigation schemes and receive
a fair share of any funding.
i.
Communication
between councils and EDF should be transparent.
j.
An
on-going dialogue with Somerset should be maintained.
Also we should:
· find out what EDF
plans in the way of health provision and emergency provision on site.
· alert other local
parishes to need to talk to ES and SCC