Proposed G3 landing site in Walberswick
Many thanks to all of you who responded so strongly to the NGV’s most recent round of consultation about their proposed new landfall site in Walberswick (G3) and other project changes. We estimated that about 370 representations were submitted from Walberswick and WALL supporters, which does not include people from other communities who objected. National Grid Ventures (NGV) should have no doubt that we object equally strongly to the proposed landfall at G3, as we did to G2 and G1!
Formally, the next stage in the LionLink project is for NGV to submit their DCO (Development Consent Order) application to the Planning Inspectorate. NGV say that they plan to do this “in the first half of 2027” but we don’t know exactly when. WALL is therefore already gathering evidence that we can submit to the public hearings as we want to be ready! In addition, WALL and SEAS have been focusing on the immediate threat from the Sea Link project and challenging some of the economic assumptions that have been used to justify Government and regulatory support for Sea Link, LionLink and other projects.
Sea Link, further representations
The Planning Inspectorate submitted their recommendation on the Sea Link DCO application to Miatta Fahnbulleh (Secretary of State for DESNZ) at the end of July. Following her request for further information, WALL and SEAS asked their supporters to send emails to the SoS, pointing out that Ofgem (the Regulator for the energy sector) has now assessed the construction cost of Sea Link at approximately £3.2 billion – around three times the cost presented during the DCO examination - and urging the Government to conduct a proper independent assessment of the costs of Sea Link against far cheaper alternatives before any approval is given. Again, many thanks to all those WALL & SEAS supporters who sent in the emails to the Secretary of State. This all helps to keep up the pressure on the Government for proper scrutiny over these energy projects.
Ofgem Consultation 1 – Sea Link
Independently of the request from Miatta Fahnbulleh for more information on Sea Link, Ofgem launched its own consultation about the Sea Link project, asking for submissions by 29 September. A working group from WALL at short notice drafted an excellent, detailed, technical submission which challenged Ofgem’s provisional agreement to support NGET (National Grid Electricity Transmission) which is the developer behind Sea Link with £2.9billion of funding, referring to a number of outstanding risks with the project and demanding that Ofgem withhold approval of the proposed expenditure until full costs, delivery risks and consumer benefits have been properly addressed. The WPC also submitted an excellent response.
A full copy of the WALL submission can be seen here
And the Walberswick Parish Council submission click below
Ofgem Consultation 2 – LionLink and Nautilus
Ofgem has also initiated a separate consultation about two interconnector projects - LionLink and Nautilus. Both are commercial ventures being developed by NGV allowing it to profit from the import and export of electricity with the Netherlands (LionLink) and Belgium (Nautilus ). There is a developing international consensus on the negative impact on energy consumers of interconnector projects. WALL is currently drafting a response to this consultation. The deadline for submissions is 15 October. We will post a copy of the WALL submission on the website.
Labour Government and the ‘Great British Grid’
Many people will have seen the publicity about Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s speech at the recent Labour Party Conference and his call for greater accountability and public control of utility companies especially in the water and energy sectors. At the same time, he announced the establishment of a new state-owned body – Great British Grid (GBG).
Great British Grid to speed up connections and cut bills - GOV.UK
This body will have access to £4bn (from Great British Energy) primarily to speed up connections to the national grid, increase competition and reduce costs. It is not clear at this point what the implications of the establishment of GBG are for major energy infrastructure projects like Sea Link and LionLink on the Suffolk coast. However, we note the emphasis in the Prime Minister’s speech on greater accountability for utility companies and lower costs for consumers and will be lobbying the Government hard on these points in relation to LionLink and other energy projects in Suffolk.
In terms of lobbying the Government we’d also like to thank Tony Langham from Walberswick for quizzing Mattia Fahnbulleh at a fringe meeting at the Conference at about greater scrutiny of National Grid. Good job Tony! We aim to ramp up the pressure on the Government over the coming months.
If they believe in greater public accountability then they must listen to the communities being devastated by all these large energy projects.
There’s been a lot going on over the last three months and here’s an update
reasons why the LionLink proposal is wrong…
-
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, cafés and shops that will be severely impacted by these plans.
-
I strongly object to the revised landfall site G3 — 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 reservoirs and pipelines for Sizewell C.
Most of the analysis has been pushed to the Environmental Statement, leaving the public unable to understand the full picture.
There’s no joined up 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
Help Us Raise Funds
Running the WALL campaign costs money!
If you are worried about the threat that LionLink poses to Walberswick and are able to help by making a contribution to WALL please donate here
Our Mission
WALL wholeheartedly supports the UK’s commitment to achieve Net Zero by 2050 and recognises the importance of renewable energy to achieving that goal.
However, WALL believes that National Grid’s proposal to land their LionLink interconnector cable on the Suffolk coast is driven primarily by reducing costs and boosting their profits.
It will result in irreparable damage to the beautiful natural environment surrounding Walberswick, reduce biodiversity and harm local businesses and the economy.
WALL opposes LionLink and believes that the best solution is for National Grid to create an offshore grid and bring cables ashore at an existing brownfield site closer to London and the South East, where demand for electricity is highest.
Update on NGV’s Groundworks Investigation
An update on the NGV proposal to East Suffolk Council to conduct ‘Groundwork Investigations’ in relation to the LionLink project.
WALL Objection Letter (Feb 2025)
On behalf of Walberswick residents, Walberswick Against LionLink (WALL) has shared the following letter opposing Site G2 as the landfall site for the LionLink Multi-Purpose Interconnector (MPI).
People Survey
Updates from the People Counter survey conducted on and around proposed landfall sites.
Wildlife Survey
Updates from the Wild Survey conducted on and around proposed landfall sites.
Legislation/policy - why our surveys matter
What do our wildlife survey and the proximity to protected sites actually mean in relation to LionLink and their requirement to comply with environmental regulation?
Works have now started… but with restrictions
LionLink assumed that their application to begin digging trenches and boreholes around Manor Field and Track Field, on the beach and various access points would just be nodded through.
Object to LionLink survey planning application
National Grid/Lion Link need permission from our council to carry out test drillings for their devastating plans in Walberswick. We can all object and comment
Help with the Scoping document
National Grid are putting us under huge time pressure to respond to their scoping document. We need your help!
Big Walberswick Wildlife Watch
Please join the Big Walberswick Wildlife Watch and help us record the wildlife on Walberswick’s proposed landfall sites.
Art for WALL Fundraising Project
Local artists have created and donated a piece of art connected with Walberswick, a special place to them all, to help protect this precious habitat.
What Happens Next?
We had an amazing response to our call for everyone to send emails and letters to National Grid Ventures, MP’s, Councillors and others as part of the non-statutory consultation process.
Walberswick in the press
‘It’s like buying an iPhone and not having a cable’: UK’s bid for net zero in the balance due to grid ‘blind spot’
FAQs
What does Lion Link want to do?
LionLink proposes to bring ashore cables interconnecting the UK to Holland at one of two greenfield sites in Walberswick. These sites are at the beach hut car park or at Manor Field in the centre of the village. The huge earthworks to bury the cables will impact upon the beach, the dunes, the river, the marshes and the various protected lands that surround Walberswick.
How long will it take?
National Grid Ventures say the LionLink project could take 8 years to complete, beginning with the initial consultation in 2022 through to the interconnector cable coming into service in 2030. National Grid will probably decide on their preferred landfall site in 2024, start a statutory consultation in 2025, aim to get planning approval in 2026 and start construction in 2027. The process of constructing the landfall site (either G or G2) and then laying the cable to the proposed substation near Friston could take up to 4 years.
What does it look like?
This aerial photograph shows the same landfall process happening at Bawdsey 30 miles away. The image hasn’t been doctored… the cable route is as wide as a motorway.
What’s the alternative?
An offshore grid through the North Sea connected to brownfield sites closer to where the power is needed would create a sustainable, non-invasive solution that can be added to. Our North Sea neighbours in Belgium, Germany, Holland and Denmark are rolling these out… why can’t we?
Who is LionLink?
LionLink is a private company posing as a public one. They are accountable only to their shareholders so are not making decisions that are focused on the public good or the costs they impose on our communities.
Who is WALL?
Walberswick Against LionLink is a local campaigning organisation formed by a group of Walberswick residents opposed to National Grid’s LionLink proposal. It started as a WhatsApp group which grew to have over 230 members. WALL is run by volunteers who are organised through a Steering Group with sub-groups working on Communications, Fund-raising, Environment, Legal, Energy Strategy and other topics.
