Suffolk is at the forefront of the transformation of Britain’s energy system. There has never been a greater focus on the county, about where our electricity comes from and how it reaches every home and business.
The UK ambition is to decarbonize electricity production by 2035 altogether. This means that electricity once generated by coal across the north of England is now generated by nuclear, solar and wind. But there needs to be a lot more of it – more than doubled by 2050.
Upwards of 30 percent of the nation’s energy will be generated in and around Suffolk or off Suffolk’s coast, much of it by nationally significant infrastructure projects, or NSIPs. They include being home to Sizewell C, hosting offshore wind and interconnectors with Europe, or as a sunny location for large new solar farms.
Suffolk County Council cannot approve or reject NSIPs, but it plays a critical role as a statutory consultee, scrutinising a project, reviewing the evidence, identifying impact and seeking to secure mitigation. If an NSIP is approved by government, the council then works to make sure that Suffolk is treated fairly and that our communities and environment are protected from the impact of construction, and that the project is developed in the way that has been agreed.
There are two NSIPs that have been in the spotlight recently: the huge Sunnica solar farm in West Suffolk and the LionLink interconnector with the Netherlands, which is proposed to make landfall at Southwold or Walberswick.
The Sunnica project is awaiting a decision from Secretary of State, which has been delayed again and is now expected on 11 April. As I have said previously, this application for one of the largest solar farms in the UK is the worst I have ever seen. It was incomplete, poorly presented, and did not properly engage with all the affected communities. The attitude of the project promoter showed a blatant disregard for the views and concerns of local residents, businesses and local authorities. It would permanently and detrimentally change a unique landscape shaped by agriculture and horse racing. If approved, Suffolk residents will quite rightly be asking what it takes for a project to be refused.
The LionLink project, in its latest proposals, has rejected the opportunity to fully coordinate its onshore infrastructure with another project, Sea Link. Sea Link had offered the opportunity for a shared landing point and ducting of cables at Aldeburgh. However, the promoters of LionLink have turned this down, instead increasing the impact of the scheme on the people of Suffolk by proposing landfall at Southwold or Walberswick. This will create a cable corridor to the converter station site at Saxmundham of over 10 miles.
LionLink say they have made this choice because of seabed issues and marine ecology, but with little evidence to support it. By excluding the fully coordinated option there will be no opportunity for communities, council, or government planners to really understand or question the validity of these offshore impacts, and how they should be balanced against the huge additional burden for Suffolk’s landscape and communities.
The reasons for not coordinating with Sea Link must, at the very least, be subject to detailed and effective scrutiny to ensure everyone can have their say and hear the arguments on both sides – especially communities who will live with the consequences.
As it stands, National Grid is putting concerns about offshore marine impacts over concerns for Suffolk’s residents, businesses, and landscape. This is arrogant in the extreme and shows huge disregard for our county.
Working on an NSIP application is a long and involved process. Although the council does have a small, dedicated team of specialists to do this work, it is still extremely challenging, particularly with multiple projects underway at the same time.
However, for local communities who are receiving a constant barrage of new proposals, the challenge and the personal impacts are so much worse.
For town and parish councils and their local residents, it is a huge challenge to deal with these projects and to engage with project promoters. We have worked with the Suffolk Association of Local Councils to provide them with guidance and support - and even gone further by advocating to government that financial support should be provided to help town and parish councils to engage effectively with these projects.
We will be bringing a motion to Full Council on 21 March to discuss these and more energy issues.
We fully support the ambition to improve the UK's energy security, but the lack of coordination, the poor communication, and in some cases blatant unfairness, is not acceptable. Suffolk deserves better.
