Firstly, its important to introduce yourself and state your interest in Walberswick e.g. a resident, frequent visitor or a vital local business. 

We strongly advise you NOT TO USE the paper feedback form or the online version which LionLink have already distributed, as the questions are skewed and limit the scope for objections. Instead, please respond directly by email using the link below

 info@lionlink.nationalgrid.com 

The subject line should say: “Response to LionLink Statutory Consultation’

It is OK to be emotional but please don’t be abusive!

Please remember that this consultation is about the whole LionLink project so please register your objections to all elements of the project including Saxmundham and Friston not just the landfall at Walberswick.

Below some notes and a link to a more detailed analysis.

Impact on Walberswick

Walberswick is a high value tourist village with protected habitats and one fragile access road, and I strongly object to it being used as a landfall site.

Walberswick has one of the oldest populations in England: 43% are 65+, 11% are 85+ yet NGV has not assessed impacts on older residents or complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty. 

Walberswick is an economically vibrant village that is totally dependent on tourism. It has a number of businesses, including pubs, café and pubs that will be severely impacted by these plans.  

The Landfall Site

I strongly object to Manor Field being chosen — it’s surrounded by homes and sensitive habitats and is completely unsuitable.

I reject the proposed working hours: 12hour days, 7 days a week, for up to 2 years, plus 24hour HDD drilling is unacceptable for any community.

There’s no proper assessment of noise, lighting, vibration or HDD “fracout” risks.

No seasonal protections for wildlife have been included.

Key details about the construction compound are missing, so I cannot judge the true impact.

Traffic / Transport

I object because the B1387 is the only road in and out of the village and cannot cope with HGVs — closures or significant restrictions would seriously affect residents, tourism and emergency access.

NGV has not produced any data on traffic levels, routing, vehicle types or congestion.

There’s no detail on haul roads or vibration impacts.

I reject the inclusion of village roads and key footpaths in the Draft Order Limits.

Noise, Vibration, Dust and Light

I object because the construction noise, 24hour drilling, vibration and dust will affect people’s welfare and mental health. 

No windtriggered dust controls have been proposed, despite this being an exposed coastal area.

There’s no detail on nighttime lighting or how it will affect dark skies or wildlife.

Footpaths and Public Rights of Way

I object to the major disruption and diversions to wellused footpaths that the PEIR itself admits will occur.

These are not minor recreational routes – they are heavily used public access corridors that form part of the daily life and identity of the village. 

Key routes to the Marshes, beach, Spong Bridge and Dunwich are all within the Draft Order Limits.

No diversion plans or safety measures have been provided, which is unacceptable.

Ecology

I object because the PEIR is missing basic wildlife surveys and NGV’s plans will cause significant harm to reptiles, marsh harriers, nightjars, redthroated divers, bats and key invertebrates.

Seasonal restrictions clash with each other, making proper ecological protection impossible.

The risks to SPA species and linked habitats haven’t been properly assessed.

I reject Walberswick as a landfall site as it will cause irreparable damage to protected habitats and SPA species. 

Archaeological and Historical Remains

The cable route could cut straight through an area of national archaeological importance.

There has been no proper assessment of the medieval harbour or ancient village remains and the routing and impact of HDD drilling.  

I reject any approach that treats significant historic remains as disposable — they should be protected.

The case against LionLink

I object to and reject these proposals because the whole Sea Link + LionLink plan just doesn’t make economic sense and goes against modern energysystem thinking.

I’m concerned that no proper assessment has been done of better options like offshore grids or brownfield sites such as the Isle of Grain or Bradwell.

Adding LionLink on top of Sea Link would only bring more traffic, disruption, stress and longterm damage to a coastline that depends heavily on tourism.

I reject the idea of putting huge converter stations and an expanded Kiln Lane substation in Friston and beside Saxmundham — it would industrialise the area completely.

Cumulative Impact

I object to the proposals because the PEIR doesn’t provide a meaningful cumulative assessment of all the energy projects affecting the Suffolk coast line including Sizewell C, EA1N, EA2, SeaLink and the proposed water reservoir.

Most of the analysis has been pushed to the Environmental Statement, leaving the public unable to understand the full picture.

There’s no joinedup mitigation plan, even though Suffolk is already overloaded with major energy projects.

If you want to help us in any way or have any questions, please contact us on:

info@wall-update.org