LionLink - Next steps
As promised we have put together some information on what happens next; this is in two parts:
First, we know that many people are keen to write their response to Lionlink and this is the key next step in this long process. We will want letters in the hundreds related to Walberswick. Towards that end, we are providing below some guidance on what to write, when to do so, and who to write to.
Second, we have produced a separate article on “What we know so far” based on a compilation of information gleaned by Council members and discussions with others at the consultation event. This second article is not meant to be definitive but rather just a reflection of our current understanding of Lionlink’s plans. It has been compiled for the benefit of residents who may not have attended the consultation or were unable to make sense of much of what was said, or who, like all of us, heard partial answers or conflicting information. The second article can be seen here: http://walberswick.onesuffolk.net/news-posts/news/view/776
Writing in Response to the Consultation:
1. Sending your own written response is better than using the survey form. The survey questions maybe biased and do not give you the opportunity to express your specific objections to the project in Walberswick. We believe it is best to write an individual email.
2. Consider waiting a little before writing. The consultation does not end until 3rd November and there is no advantage writing early. It is also possible that new facts may emerge between now and the end of October which you may wish to use. The Parish Council’s own draft response (from which you may draw ideas for your own submission) will be published on this website on 10th October ahead of being considered at the next full Council meeting on 16th October.
3. It is fine to make use of facts and ideas from other documents and responses, but please try to use your own words in your consultation response. Explaining WHAT the impact would be, rather than just stating that it will have a negative impact, is the best approach. Please avoid “copying and pasting” other peoples’ submissions, or using pre-supplied templates which you just sign. Such submissions have little additional impact once the developers or politicians have read the first one they receive.
4. Although this latest consultation is focused on the newly proposed “G2” landfall site in Manor Field, the original proposal (“G”) in the Cliff Field car park is still on the long list. Therefore, you should consider responding on that topic too – the original Parish Council response to this proposal can be seen here: http://walberswick.onesuffolk.net/assets/Parish-Council/Agendas/Agendas-2022/December-2022/DRAFT-consultation-response-eurolink.pdf
Many of these arguments pertain equally to G2.
5. There are clearly better options for Lionlink than despoiling Walberswick and brownfield sites are the proven alternative to industrialising the green field heritage coast. Our advice remains to avoid suggesting a specific alternative landfall site on Lionlink’s list of heritage coast sites as it is divisive for the campaigns of neighbouring communities that face similar issues. While brownfield landing sites are clearly the better and proven alternative, identifying a specific ”acceptable” alternative can potentially undermine arguments about avoiding Walberswick if the alternative is rejected by National Grid/Lionlink for legitimate technical reasons.
6. Without prejudging our response, the Parish Council’s own approach is likely to have the following logic:
- Explaining specific reasons why Walberswick is an unacceptable site.
- Dissuading Lionlink/National Grid from using any of the Heritage Coast given the cumulative impact of so much energy infrastructure (Sizewell C plus potentially 5-6 cable landfalls) on our very small and protected coast and on our wholly inadequate transport infrastructure.
- Reiterating that there are better ways to get the energy to where it is needed such as using an off-shore cable corridor and/or existing brownfield sites many of which have been identified or are in use now (Isle of Grain, Bradwell, Sizewell, others). It is National Grid’s and Lionlink’s responsibility to consider these options rather than damaging greenfield sites.
- Ask them to take Walberswick (G and G2) out of consideration.
Who to send your response to:
Most important for all the following is to put only one name in the "To" box of your email to ensure that it is read. Please do each as a separate email – the same content can be sent to each.
NGV - this is by far the most important place to send it; email address: info@lionlink.nationalgrid.com
You can also send a hard copy in the post if you wish, addressed to: Freepost NGV LionLink Consultation, Holborn Gate, Floor 8, 26 Southampton Buildings, LONDON WC2A 1AN (no stamp needed)
Our elected officials and Government decision-makers:
- Therese Coffey (our MP): therese.coffey.mp@parliament.uk
- Claire Coutinho, MP (Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero): Secretary.State@energysecurity.gov.uk
- Richard Smith (our county Councillor): richard.smith@suffolk.gov.uk
- Richard Rout - Cabinet responsibility at Suffolk County Council for NSIPs: richard.rout@suffolk.gov.uk
- David Beavan (our district Councillor): david.beavan@eastsuffolk.gov.uk
- Caroline Topping - Leader of ESDC: caroline.topping@eastsuffolk.gov.uk
- Tom Daly – ESDC Cabinet member for Energy: tom.daly@eastsuffolk.gov.uk
- Kay Yule – ESDC Cabinet member for Planning and Coastal Management: kay.yule@eastsuffolk.gov.uk
Please feel free to also copy the Parish Clerk into any of your responses: walberswick clerk@gmail.com
Councillors Bassinette and Lewis, WPC