Polly and the Labour MP for Suffolk Coastal, Jenny Riddell-Carpenter MP, have both written to National Grid to express their concerns about the Sea Link project making land in both their constituencies.
In Polly’s letter, she said:
We both support the urgent national mission to transition to a low-carbon economy and deliver the clean energy infrastructure needed to meet the UK’s net zero commitments. However, we have serious concerns over the way the Sea Link project is being planned by National Grid Energy Transmission (NGET), a subsidiary of National Grid plc.
Firstly, we are concerned that Sea Link is being developed in a silo with insufficient strategic thinking – evident by the lack of coordination with other major energy NSIPs in the east or southeast of England. This fragmented approach means NGET is failing to account for the cumulative impact of many local Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) on the environment, infrastructure, and communities.
The National Energy System Operator’s (NESO) Beyond 2030 Strategy, states that more work will be required to build cabling infrastructure that would connect Scotland to Pegwell Bay. This means that we will be back in this exact situation in several years’ time, with National Grid once again digging up this valuable saltmarsh habitat to build more infrastructure. Will you commit to publishing a cumulative impact assessment? It is only right that we have the full picture of the impact these projects will have on this area and my constituents.
In NESO’s Clean Power 2030 report, they have said that this project is currently due to finish after 2030, but that they want its delivery to be brought forward before 2030. Is it realistic for you to finish this project by 2030, and have you carried out an impact assessment on the ramifications of speeding up development?
The speed proposed is particularly concerning given you have previously caused irreversible damage to the saltmarsh and mudflat habitats in Pegwell Bay from the work on building the Nemo Link interconnector. The damage from the open cut trenching resulted in a direct loss of approximately 0.3ha of saltmarsh. How can my constituents trust you to not cause more damage to this precious natural habitat after your previous failures?
Lastly, in your original consideration of sites for this project, did you examine the viability of the Isle of Grain as a potential site for this project? Why was this potential site rejected? And if it wasn’t considered, why not?
We call on NGET to revisit site selection criteria, prioritise brownfield development, and ensure that nature-rich, climate valuable, and culturally significant areas are not sacrificed unnecessarily. We, along with our constituents, are losing faith in National Grid to act in the best interest of the natural environment on the Kent and Suffolk coasts, and of the people living there.