Jenny Riddell-Carpenter MP (Suffolk Coastal) led a Westminster Hall debate on the coordination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) along the Suffolk coast. She was answered by Michael Shanks, Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero.
WATCH her full speech and Minister Shanks’ response HERE
READ the New Civil Engineer article HERE
Jenny gave a thought-provoking speech, closely aligned with SEAS’ position, with practical suggestions on how developers should be instructed to work together to minimise adverse and cumulative impacts. Jenny stated:
“What is remarkable—it is the point of the debate—is the lack of co-ordination between the plans. No attempt has been made to plan for the cumulative impact of the projects or to consider how better to co-ordinate them…. What we have been left with is a series of unco-ordinated whack-a-mole projects on the Suffolk coast. We have an opportunity under the new Government to provide greater planning and leadership on these critical infrastructure challenges.”
READ her full speech and Minister Shanks reply in the Hansard report HERE
We fully support what Jenny says regarding coordinated planning, holistic network design, and use of brownfield sites for onshore energy hubs. We are convinced that these terrible plans for Sea Link and LionLink should not be implemented. We know from in-depth research that there are a number of better solutions. No mitigation will be adequate for the scale of long term damage and blight which these projects will bring to bear upon these rare wetlands and heathlands.
Jenny’s intervention has brought national political attention to the systemic failures in how energy infrastructure is being imposed on Suffolk. Her arguments closely reflect what local campaigners and SEAS have long been calling for: holistic planning, brownfield hubs, and an end to the piecemeal developer-led approach. While the Minister’s reply nodded to the principle of coordination, it did not answer the urgent call for a pause and rethink. Without that, Suffolk faces long-term damage for the sake of projects that could and should be designed differently.
Jenny’s Speech – Key Themes
Drawing on local concerns and national lessons, Jenny made a number of important points:
- Developer-led system is failing – Projects are being planned in isolation, without sufficient regard for cumulative impacts on communities and landscapes.
- Holistic, coordinated planning – She pressed for a joined-up approach to grid development, stressing that developers should be instructed to work together rather than carve out separate cable routes and converter stations. She emphasised that other North Sea countries (e.g. Belgium, Netherlands, Germany) follow Holistic Network Design principles.
- Use of brownfield sites – Jenny highlighted the need to prioritise brownfield locations for substations, converter stations and Energy hubs, avoiding sensitive rural and coastal areas, using the comparison of Belgium and Netherlands choosing brownfield industrial hubs such as Zeebrugge and Rotterdam.
- Environmental and community harm – She underlined the permanent impact on rare landscapes, habitats, and local livelihoods if Suffolk continues to be treated as the main landing point for multiple overlapping projects.
- Fairness and balance – While recognising the need for offshore wind and grid reinforcement, Jenny argued that Suffolk should not be disproportionately burdened when better alternatives exist.
Minister Shanks’s Response
The Minister acknowledged the importance of coordination and the need to avoid wasted costs from grid inefficiencies in the future, but avoided addressing existing project plans, and completely dodged the issue of cumulative impact on Suffolk Coastal and better solutions. He tried to defend the Government’s current approach, blaming errors on the previous Government, mentioning the necessity of delivering new capacity quickly. However:
- He stopped short of committing to a pause or reassessment of Suffolk NSIPs.
- His focus remained on cost trade-offs and timelines, rather than ecological or cumulative impacts.