how to respond

With this consultation there is no formal feedback form so you should just respond directly by email to:

info@lionlink.nationalgrid.com

In the subject line write: ‘Response to LionLink Targeted Consultation’

Can you also please copy WALL in on:

info@wall-update.org

Please use as many of the points listed here as you wish but do use your own words wherever possible and express your own reasons for opposing the proposals. We want to ensure a strong and diverse set of responses. It is OK to be emotional but please do not be abusive!

what to say in your response….

Why G3 Fails and Walberswick Cannot Be a Landfall Site

LionLink’s latest proposal (G3) confirms what hundreds of residents, visitors, and businesses of Walberswick have already made clear: there is no viable landfall location in Walberswick. LL has now rejected G1 and G2 as inappropriate. The only logical conclusion is that Walberswick itself is inappropriate. G3 does nothing to resolve the fundamental issues repeatedly raised by the community. 

LL has already proved the point: Walberswick cannot host a landfall

LL has now acknowledged the unsuitability of two landfall sites in Walberswick—first G1 near Cliff Field car park, then G2 in Manor Field. The reasons LL gave for rejecting other Suffolk Coastal locations i.e. proximity to homes, ecological sensitivity, access constraints, tourism reliance, protected landscapes all exist together in Walberswick.

The only reasonable conclusion is that LL cannot make landfall anywhere in Walberswick.

G3 means landfall is still in the village, still harmful, and still unworkable

Despite recognising the failures of G1 and G2, LL continues its misguided attempt to force a landfall into Walberswick. G3 is not a solution. It is simply a third attempt to place industrial infrastructure in a location where it cannot safely or responsibly go.

G3 is adjacent to homes and vulnerable residents

Homes sit directly adjacent on two sides of the landfall site, with nearly half of all village homes within 500 metres with dozens much closer. This means:

• 24/7 drilling noise, vibration and light pollution remain unacceptable.

• Impacts on elderly residents, children and vulnerable people remain severe.

• Emergency evacuation risks remain unresolved.

The revised construction schedule remains wholly unacceptable.

Even with NGV stepping back from its original 12‑hour, 7‑day, year‑round plan, the proposed 12‑hour days, 6 days a week will still cause major disruption to residents with works starting as early as 7am, and to a village economy built on tranquillity and natural beauty.

Crucially, these limits do not apply at the landfall site: NGV still proposes four separate 10‑day blocks of 24/7 HDD drilling, meaning at least 40 days of continuous noise, vibration and intense lighting beside homes and protected habitats. This level of industrial disturbance is fundamentally incompatible with a small rural village and makes it clear that a landfall within the village is not viable.

HDD frack‑out risks remain

The risk of drilling slurry escaping into protected European habitat sites is unchanged. G3 does not reduce or mitigate this risk.

Ecological harm remains

Noise, vibration and light pollution continue to threaten species dependent on the highest‑level protected ecological sites in the UK and Europe.

The G3 landfall would still cause significant ecological harm due to its very close proximity to internationally protected habitats within the Minsmere–Walberswick SPA, SSSI, Ramsar site and SAC. The location sits inside disturbance‑sensitive zones for species such as breeding nightjars, and lies only around 80 metres from Hoist Covert, a highly suitable but largely unsurveyed bat habitat. Key reptile populations using surrounding grassland and field margins are also at clear risk from construction disturbance, lighting and vibration. Until full ecological surveys are completed, the true scale of impact cannot be understood but the sensitivity of these habitats makes significant harm unavoidable, forming a central basis for opposing the G3 landfall on ecological grounds.

Footpaths and access remain disrupted

A key footpath linking Walberswick and Dunwich runs directly along one side of the G3 site. The cable route still cuts off access to Blythburgh. These are major recreational, cultural and economic routes.

Access to G3 is impossible without compromising the village’s only road

LL cannot reach G3 via a haul road from the A12 or B1125. The B1387 is the sole access road for residents and tens of thousands of visitors. It cannot safely carry LL construction traffic alongside normal use. This means:

• Human health and safety risks remain wholly unjustifiable.

• Emergency access remains severely compromised.

• The village’s economic viability that is entirely dependent on safe, reliable access remains threatened for years.

The 19.4km cable route is irrational and damaging

Any Walberswick landfall forces an extraordinary 19.4km cable route to Saxmundham and Friston, causing ecological damage, transport disruption and community impacts across multiple villages. This makes no sense when brownfield alternatives exist.

The Benhall Bridge proposals remain unacceptable.

Expanding the Order Limits to strengthen the railway bridge for very heavy construction vehicles is opposed by Suffolk County Council and local communities because the bridge’s structural capacity is unknown, the mitigation options are speculative, and the associated permanent access road across the sensitive Fromus Valley would cause lasting environmental and heritage harm. The Northern Route is the only credible and proportionate alternative. NGV’s claim that a 2.5km haul road across the airfield is not viable rests on cost and commercial considerations, not on environmental or human impacts — reinforcing why the Benhall proposals cannot be supported 

Cumulative impact is worsened, not improved

G3 does nothing to reduce the cumulative burden on a region already overwhelmed by Sizewell C, Scottish Power projects, solar farms and Sea Link. 

NGV has deferred almost all cumulative analysis to the later Environmental Statement, provided methodology rather than actual assessment, used an out‑of‑date baseline and offered no enforceable mitigation strategy.

LL has even chosen to increase cumulative impact by aligning its access strategy with Sea Link’s discredited Benhall bridge route, doubling down on harm rather than reducing it.

This approach is inadequate and prevents informed consultation.

The only credible solution: use an existing brownfield site

LionLink is a private‑sector investment. It should follow the established, lower‑impact model used by Nautilus (Belgium–UK) and connect through an existing brownfield site such as Isle of Grain or another appropriate location.

This avoids ecological damage, community disruption, unsafe access constraints, unnecessary cable lengths, cumulative harm to an already saturated region

It is the only solution that aligns with modern energy planning, environmental protection, and responsible infrastructure delivery.

Conclusion

G3 is not viable. Walberswick is not viable. LL has already demonstrated this through its own rejections of G1 and G2. G3 repeats the same failures and introduces new harms. The project must move to a brownfield site where impacts can be responsibly managed.