Suffolk Coastal is doing more than its fair share in supporting the UK’s transition to clean, home-grown energy. I support that transition, but it must be delivered properly, with better planning, stronger coordination and proper respect for the communities, farmland, businesses and natural environment affected by it.

Too often, major projects have been brought forward in isolation, without proper strategic oversight or coordination, while local residents are left to deal with the cumulative impact.

I am doing a lot of work on this, both in Parliament and locally, and I will use this page to keep constituents updated on the action I am taking, the proposals I am putting forward, and the responses I receive from Ministers, regulators and developers.

Please click below to explore the areas of my work you would like to read more about:

HAVE YOUR SAY

Take part in my research report on the energy projects in Suffolk Coastal by completing the surveys below

I am running a series of surveys to hear from residents, businesses, farmers, parish councils and community groups about the impact of energy projects across Suffolk Coastal.

Please complete whichever survey, or surveys, are most relevant to you and your experiences and where you feel you can contribute.

Your views will help build a detailed picture of the cumulative impact of these projects and will feed directly into my energy report. I will be presenting this report to developers, Ministers and regulators in the autumn/winter, to push for better coordination, stronger mitigation and clearer benefits for local communities.

Energy Newsletter

Updating you on the work that I have been doing since I was elected to hold developers to account and push for better in Suffolk Coastal

My Energy Developers’ Levy Proposal

As part of my wider work to hold energy developers to account, I have proposed an Energy Developers’ Levy to help fund better coordination between major energy projects in areas like Suffolk Coastal. In simple terms, this would be a dedicated fund paid for by energy developers, not local communities, to support shared modelling and evidence, better design coordination, joint construction scheduling, stronger mitigation for nature, and measures to reduce community impacts such as traffic disruption and poor communication.

I have been developing this model in detail and engaging other Members of Parliament with the proposal, while also pressing the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to look at it seriously. I have asked Ministers to carry out a feasibility study into the proposals I have set out, so we can properly test how an Energy Developers’ Levy could work in practice.

I recently led a Westminster Hall debate in Parliament on this proposal, where I made the case that Suffolk Coastal should not be left to deal with repeated disruption, duplicated works and cumulative land take without proper coordination or support. The Minister acknowledged that the lack of coordination is a real issue here in Suffolk Coastal and agreed to meet with me to discuss the proposal further. You can read more about this in my newsletter on pages 6 and 7, or watch the full debate below.

Calling for Better Coordination of NSIPs on the Suffolk Coast

I am concerned that our planning system still examines proposals for major energy projects project by project, even when multiple projects are being developed in the same area, and I find it absurd that developers are not required by law to co-ordinate. In Suffolk Coastal, that means communities are expected to host multiple billion-pound schemes without the statutory tools needed to force or enforce proper coordination between developers.

I have been pushing this point hard in Parliament and with Ministers, while also working to find practical solutions to this challenge. One of the key changes I am calling for is the creation of an overarching body to oversee coordination between projects, whether they have already been consented, are going through the development consent process, or are still in the pipeline.

That body could sit within Government or operate independently, but it should work under the direction of the Secretary of State and focus on the cumulative impact of all NSIP schemes being proposed or developed in one area. Without this level of strategic oversight, communities like ours are left dealing with the consequences of projects being planned in isolation, with no proper way to challenge their combined impact.

My work in Parliament has focused on making it a legal requirement for large energy projects to coordinate and plan their work together, particularly where they are developing in the same area. I have also tabled amendments to legislation, met with Ministers and officials, and continued to press for stronger coordination, better mitigation, and proper protections for communities, nature, farmland and local businesses. You can read more about this in my newsletter on pages 4 and 5, or watch below the Westminster Hall Debate I led on this last September.

East Suffolk Line's New Rail Timetable and My Work on this

A bit of a long video here, about the new rail timetable, and the work I've been doing over the past few months to make sure we benefit from even better services.

In summary, I've been told that the reason the new evening service can't extent further south of Beccles is because of construction of Sizewell C - which has booked out freight slots in the evening and overnight, to help get construction material off the roads.

Getting freight off the roads is very important. No doubt about it. But I'm very concerned that this action is now affecting passenger services in the evening.

I've spoken at length to SZC, Network Rail, Greater Anglia and local partners about this. And raised it with the rail Minister a few months ago.

He was since confirmed in writing with me, following our meeting, that he agrees and shares my concerns. He is now going to ask Sizewell C, Greater Anglia and Network Rail to relook again at these bookings, and see if anything can be done to improve our passenger services. And if absolutely nothing can be done, then we need to look at other ways to be compensated - including an evening bus route paid and funded by Sizewell C - this was my suggestion, and something I have already put to SZC. But first, we must relook again at the passenger services and see if something else can be done for rail first.

In his letter back to me, the Minister for Rail, Minister Lord Hendy said the following:

"Thank you for meeting with me on the 24 March to discuss services on the East Suffolk line. I will address the issues around through trains, more frequent services generally and evening services around the south of Beccles, as discussed at the meeting.

Firstly, with regard to evening rail services around Beccles and the construction of Sizewell C. Network Rail (NR) is making improvements to the condition of the track to accommodate the freight trains needed for Sizewell. Rail freight is critical as construction activity ramps up to ensure the timely delivery of this Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Sizewell has committed to moving 60% of materials by rail or sea and it is expected that c. 2.5m tonnes of aggregates and c.1.3m tonnes of cement will be required during the construction phase. This equates to c. 1,900 freight services. Using rail freight could remove the need for around 100,000 HGV movements.

Colleagues at Greater Anglia (GA) and NR will engage with the team at Sizewell to see if the pattern of freight services can be flexed to improve the passenger service timetable. Also, GA and NR colleagues continue to engage with the team at Sizewell regarding investment in infrastructure and legacy benefits for the rail network.

In the event that it is not possible to flex or move the current freight train paths to allow for additional later services south of Beccles, then I ask that colleagues at GA and NR engage with the team at Sizewell to secure funding for a bus in lieu of that later train south of Beccles."

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill

When the Planning and Infrastructure Bill - now Act - was going through Parliament, I worked with groups like the Suffolk Wildlife Trust and CLA to table amendments and push for changes so that communities like ours are better protected when multiple major projects are being brought forward at once.

For Suffolk Coastal, this matters because we are being asked to host nationally significant energy infrastructure in some of the most sensitive landscapes in the country. I support the transition to clean energy, but net zero and nature should be two sides of the same coin, and it would be a coin with no value if we had one without the other. That means better strategic oversight, stronger community engagement, proper coordination between developers, and higher expectations on private companies profiting from the green energy transition.

You can see more about my amendments below, or watch my videos below.

A legal duty for energy developers to coordinate

This would have required energy developers in the same area to share information, coordinate plans, assess cumulative impacts and reduce disruption. It would also have allowed local planning authorities to request a Joint Coordination Statement setting out how developers would work together and minimise harm.

Minimum cable depths on agricultural land

This would have required underground cables on active agricultural land to be buried to a minimum depth of 1.8 metres, unless this was technically unfeasible and alternative protections were put in place.

Making the Nature Restoration Levy work for nature

In Suffolk Coastal, where major energy infrastructure is being brought forward near sensitive landscapes and habitats, it is vital that any levy delivers real environmental improvements. This amendment would have ensured that any levy directly contributed to improving biodiversity and conservation in the immediate locality, rather than filling general funds.

Stronger building regulations in developments for nature

New developments should do more to support nature from the start. This proposed amendment would have required new building regulations to include practical biodiversity measures such as bird boxes, bat boxes, swift bricks, hedgehog highways, splash-free pavements, biodiverse roofs and walls, alongside limits on the use of artificial grass.

Protecting long-term strategic planning

Strategic planning needs certainty if it is going to work properly. This proposal would have prevented a local authority’s first spatial development strategy from being fully reviewed or replaced within its first five years, unless agreed by the Secretary of State. This would help avoid constant changes, give communities and councils a clearer long-term framework, and make sure strategic plans have enough time to shape development properly.

My wider work on Energy

Suffolk Coastal is proud to be the tourism capital of Suffolk, with places like Aldeburgh, Southwold, Woodbridge and Saxmundham at the heart of our visitor economy. I raised in Parliament the impact that multiple major energy infrastructure projects, concentrated within a small area, could have on local tourism businesses if they are not properly coordinated.

I made clear that investing in clean energy and supporting tourism do not need to be in conflict. That is why I asked the Minister whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to ensure areas like Suffolk Coastal receive proper support, better coordination and recognition of the pressure these projects place on rural and coastal economies.

I continue to raise and push these issues through conversations with Ministers, letters to Government departments and engagement with officials and developers. The video below is just a snapshot of some of that wider work.