No one is legally required to add it all up.
Suffolk coast
What we can show
The local MP described a 'whack-a-mole' of energy projects on the Suffolk coast with no cumulative planning. Amendments that would have required cumulative assessment were rejected. Do not say government has agreed to act.
- Westminster Hall debate: energy infrastructure on the Suffolk coast
- Walberswick Parish Council: cumulative-assessment amendments rejected
How sprawl adds to this
Housing sprawl and energy sprawl use the same trick: each project is judged alone. The coast gets the stack. Inland villages get the estates. Nobody holds a total.
Why a larger settlement does not fix this one
A larger planned settlement inland does not stop those coastal projects. Different geography. The planning lesson is the same: if nobody has to add it up, the harm accumulates. Concentration elsewhere does not create more of that coastal stack.
What this page does not claim
Nothing here coordinates or cancels the Suffolk-coast energy projects.
The pattern is fewer, larger places with infrastructure first, not another estate on the edge of every village.
Energy · How to stop urban sprawl · All cumulative harms · Corrections
We can stop this
We want building concentrated in fewer, larger places with schools, health, water and transport built in — not another estate on the edge of every village.
Sign the petition
678 people in the East of England have already signed.
Sign the petition to stop urban sprawl. We'll email about development in this area and related updates. You can unsubscribe from any email. We don't sell or share the list. Privacy policy.