Leiston residents react to Sizewell C's plan for a new college
Sizewell C nuclear power plant's decision to open a post-16 college in Leiston, Suffolk, has been described as "fantastic" by some residents, but many still fear the impact of the plant. Sizewell C said on Thursday the college would be opened in September 2027, in partnership with Suffolk New College. The training on offer would not only serve the future nuclear station's workforce, but the wider energy, infrastructure and engineering sectors, it added.Frank Newson, who owns a cafe in Leiston, said the plans for both the college and plant would bring people into the area.
"It can only help the younger population and give them a better grade of education," he said."Looking ahead they've got something to aim for, give them an objective in life to obtain to."I know there's a lot of people against it [the nuclear power plant], more the older generation."The younger generation see the positives in it, they've seen it happen elsewhere, and you've got to look on the bright side and say, 'We're going forward, the town is going forward as a whole'."
'Amazing'
Francis Newson echoed Mr Newson and said the news of the college was "brilliant"."Leiston is a lovely town, but it needs more amenities especially for the youngsters because they are our tomorrow," she said."A lot of children now won't go to sixth form or college because they have to go out of town and it's too far to travel."So if they can get their further education on site, it's amazing."
'An opportunity'
Reece Stone, 27, from Leiston, believed the college would "level up" the area while the nuclear power plant plan was a "positive"."It's wonderful because this area has been in need of investment, it's been in need of opportunity," he explained."I know a lot of young people who have gone further afield, they've gone to Ipswich, they've gone to London in search of jobs and careers that mean something to them."There's not been much for that [in Leiston], so Sizewell is an opportunity for them to do that, having the college here as a place for them to learn and then potentially go on to work there or elsewhere in the area."
'Wrong place, wrong time'
Robert Flindall, 70, and his wife Helen Flindall, 64, live in Eastbridge, north of Leiston.They both have reservations about the college and nuclear power plant."Where on Earth would a college be put in a small town like Leiston," Mr Flindall questioned."I'm a planner by profession, I know it would be difficult to provide, but if a college provides that service for local people then that'll be wonderful, but not necessarily associated with Sizewell C."Mr Flindall said he felt Sizewell C would not help solve the climate emergency in time while Mrs Flindall did not believe the nuclear power plant would help younger generations."It's the wrong place at the wrong time and there's other things that they could do that'll be faster to generate the electricity that we need," she said."We know we need it, we're not being silly about it."
'There's nothing here'
Linda Middleditch, 75, who works in a Leiston shop said the plan for the college was "brilliant"."You're always going to get people who are going to [be negative about] it, but why? "The youngsters have got to have a chance to travel and there's nothing here, so they've got to travel and they may not want to travel. It's a good thing."She added she had no problems with the power plant.
'It'll help families'
James Felgate, 46, believed the college was a "great opportunity" for young people."At the moment they have to travel to Ipswich or Lowestoft or Halesworth so it'll be good for them not to have to travel because of the cost of things, it'll help families out and stops pricing them out from going to colleges," he said.Mr Felgate's son, Freddie, 15, is doing his GCSEs right now and planned to study landscaping at Suffolk New College's rural campus in Otley."If the [Sizewell C] college was already built here and they did the same course, I probably would have gone," he said.While Freddie said he did not know anyone his age considering a career at Sizewell, he said an apprenticeship there "would be nice".
'Devastation'
Jenny Kirtley is the chairperson of Together Against Sizewell C.While she felt the college was "probably a good idea", she questioned what the courses would involve."We are hoping it'll maybe include an environmentalist conservation course because my goodness, this area is going to need it after this [Sizewell C's] build," she said."I think local people thought it was going to be just like the Sizewell B build, one road needed for Sizewell A and B."Ms Kirtley also questioned how many local students would get a space in the college.
'Important role'
The new college is to be an extension of Suffolk New College's coastal campus.Julia Pyke, Sizewell C joint managing director, said the college would create a "highly skilled, homegrown workforce".While some work is ongoing to prepare for the Sizewell C nuclear power plant, a final investment decision will be made by the government during the spending review next month.Energy Secretary Ed Miliband previously said he wanted to develop further nuclear sites and the government has insisted that new nuclear plants would be needed for the UK to hit its target to decarbonise power generation.Nuclear currently produces about 14% of the UK's electricity.The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero explained Sizewell C would "play an important role in helping the UK achieve energy security and net zero", while creating thousands of jobs."The project is expected to reduce the cost of the electricity system, boost our supply of secure homegrown power and generate major investment nationwide," they added.
Political analysis
Sizewell C is a very expensive project and critics question exactly how it will be funded. There are also concerns about the environmental impact, even if the current technology is out of date.But despite all that, the mood from the government suggests that it does want to back this project.It has already given it £6bn and though we are saying Sizewell C will put money into this college, it is probably the taxpayer's money that is partly funding it.Leiston is a bit off the beaten track, there is limited access to further education and training, so the project would be very big for the town.Within the energy industry, at the moment, there is a lot of concern about where the sector's workers are going to come from. This is a particular problem for Suffolk, which is not just expanding in nuclear energy but also offshore wind and solar as well. A number of colleges in the region have started to increase their training provision and their apprenticeship courses.Now we have got a new college coming on to the market which intends to do the same.
Follow Suffolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
13 minutes ago
- Times
Keir Starmer's citizenship plans ‘will increase illegal migrants'
Sir Keir Starmer's plans to double the time foreigners must wait to qualify for permanent settlement have plunged 1.7 million people in limbo and will increase Britain's illegal migrant population, experts have said. Immigration reforms announced last month will double the time foreign citizens must wait before they can settle in the UK and apply for British citizenship to ten years. The Times revealed that Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, wanted to apply these changes to all migrants who arrived in the UK in the past five years because of concerns that the record levels of immigration since the post-Brexit immigration system came into effect in 2020 would lead to hundreds of thousands of extra people being granted permanent settlement in the UK. Grants of British citizenship hit a record high of 269,621 last year, while 172,798 were given permanent settlement, the highest level in 13 years. Analysis by the IPPR think tank has found that plans to apply the ten-year wait on settlement rights will apply to 1.2 million migrant workers, 183,000 Hongkongers and 160,000 refugees who were on a route to settlement at the end of last year. They will now be forced to wait another five years — ten in total — to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Once an individual has been granted indefinite leave to remain, they can apply for British citizenship. • The IPPR warned that this would be detrimental to efforts to integrate migrants into society and would also risk increasing the number of illegal migrants in the UK. Gaining indefinite leave to remain grants foreign citizens the right to live, work and study in the UK without restriction and ends the need to pay visa fees and annual payments of more than £1,000 to access the NHS. It also removes the bar on accessing mainstream benefits. This 'gives people a secure foundation to put down roots, integrate into their communities and pursue long-term career goals — for instance by allowing them to move into new jobs without needing to reapply for a visa,' according to the paper by the IPPR's Marley Morris and Lucy Mort. They warned: 'Lengthening the route to settlement therefore risks holding up migrant integration and significantly expanding the group of people in the UK with insecure status.' There are no official figures on the size of Britain's illegal migrant population but unofficial estimates have ranged from 700,000 to 1.2 million. • They said extending the wait to secure permanent settlement would place pressures on household budgets, making it harder to find stable work and prevent people from feeling 'properly settled'. The need for additional visa extensions and the significant costs associated with applying increase the risk that people miss the window for extending and end up without status altogether, making them susceptible to exploitation and destitution, the pair warned. The IPPR said the changes were unfair given migrants originally came to the UK on the basis they would be eligible for settlement after five years not ten. The paper also argued that the reforms went against public opinion. The annual British social attitudes survey last year found 84 per cent of the public believed that migrants who were working and paying taxes in the UK should be able to access the same welfare benefits as UK citizens after five years or fewer. Seventy-eight per cent said migrants should be able to gain the same rights to political participation as UK citizens after no more than five years. The immigration white paper said migrants would be able to fast-track their route to settlement in the UK through 'contributions to the UK economy and society'. The Home Office has not set out how migrants can qualify for this fast-tracked process. Morris and Mort said there were various ways this policy could be implemented in practice. One of them is basing contributions on income, meaning higher-paid migrants can qualify for earlier settlement if they are contributing more to tax revenues. However, they warned that this approach risked entrenching child poverty because it would be harder for people with children to qualify for settlement. Another model could be basing it on social contribution, which would encourage migrants to integrate. For instance, people who are able to demonstrate 'exceptional integration' through volunteering or playing an active role in their community could obtain settlement more quickly. This would follow a similar approach introduced by the last German government when reforming its citizenship laws. Morris and Mort urged the government to provide urgent clarity on who would be affected by the changes and how the fast-track process would work. They said: 'The government has said that it will consult on its plans later this year. This will be a vital opportunity for shaping a pro-integration agenda on settlement and citizenship. But in the meantime, the government should try to clarify its position on how the policy will apply to people already here. Providing certainty would help to establish trust and confidence in the immigration system for the many hundreds of thousands who want to make the UK their home.'
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves in stand-off over policing and council budgets days before spending review
Rachel Reeves has been locked in a standoff over the policing and council budgets just days before this week's spending review, which is set to give billions to the NHS, defence and technology. Yvette Cooper's Home Office and Angela Rayner's housing and local government ministry were the two departments still at the negotiating table on Sunday fighting for more cash, after weeks of trying to reach a settlement. Whitehall sources said the policing budget would not face a real terms cut, but there was still disagreement over the level of investment needed for the Home Office to meet its commitments. Rayner's department is understood to have reached an agreement with the Treasury late on Sunday night after last-minute wrangling over housing, local councils and growth funds. However, any failure to strike a deal would raise the prospect of a budget being imposed on an unwilling department. The spending review, taking place on Wednesday, is a chance for Reeves to hold up billions of pounds of capital spending as a sign she is working to repair public services after years of Tory austerity. After tweaking her fiscal rules last autumn, she has an additional £113bn funded by borrowing for capital spending. Her plans will include £86bn for science and technology across four years and an extra £4.5bn for schools – taking funding per pupil to its highest level ever. However, day-to-day spending is more constrained in some areas, while the NHS and defence swallow up higher allocations. As well as policing, the Home Office budget covers the border force and spending on asylum costs, while the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been battling for funds for the affordable homes programme, councils, homelessness and regional growth. Labour has manifesto pledges to build 1.5m homes and deliver 13,000 new police officers. Pressed on the policing budget, the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, said Home Office and others would have to 'do their bit'. Funding for the police has the potential to become a politically difficult issue for Keir Starmer. Tory former shadow cabinet minister Robert Jenrick has been campaigning against transport fare dodging and Nigel Farage's Reform are also highlighting the issue. Asked about which public services will be prioritised, Kyle said 'every part of our society is struggling' and numerous sectors had asked Reeves for more money. 'On the fact that the police have been writing to the chancellor, they have,' he told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme. 'We also have letters from the universities, we have letters from doctors about the health service, we have letters from campaigners for child poverty writing to us, and other aspects of challenges in Britain at the moment. 'Every part of our society is struggling because of the inheritance that we had as a country and as a government.' He pointed to the £1.1bn extra funding already earmarked for police this year, as he defended Reeves's handling of the spending review process. 'We expect the police to start embracing the change they need to do, to do their bit for change as well. We are doing our bit,' Kyle said. 'You see a chancellor that is striving to get investment to the key parts of our country that needs it the most … You will see the priorities of this government reflected in the spending review, which sets the departmental spending into the long term. 'But this is a partnership. Yes, the Treasury needs to find more money for those key priorities, but the people delivering them need to do their bit as well.' While some areas of spending may be cut or receive only low increases, the NHS is set to receive a boost of up to £30bn by 2028, while defence spending is expected to rise to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. Kyle defended the chancellor's approach to public spending, saying she was like Apple founder Steve Jobs who turned the company around when it was 90 days from insolvency. He told Sky News's Trevor Phllips: 'Now Steve Jobs turned it around by inventing the iMac, moving to a series of products like the iPod. 'Now we're starting to invest in the vaccine processes of the future. Some of the hi-tech solutions that are going to be high growth. We're investing in our space sector. All these really high, highly innovative sectors. 'We are investing into those key innovations of the future. We know that we cannot break this vicious cycle of high tax and low growth by doing the same as we always have done. We have to innovate our way out of this and we are doing so by investing in those high-growth sectors.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system
This, according to senior criminologists and ex-police officers, is not just a failure of admin, it's the result of austerity-era cuts that stripped police forces of capacity, dismantled the state-run Forensic Science Service in 2012, and left fragmented, underfunded systems to cope with ballooning evidence demands. Austerity didn't just weaken institutions; it disassembled infrastructure. READ MORE: Nigel Farage could cut the Barnett Formula. Here's what devolution experts think of that While these failings may seem like an English and Welsh concern, they tell a broader UK-wide story. Because when public services are cut in England, the Barnett formula translates those cuts into reduced budget allocations for Holyrood, too. Scotland has long borne the dual burden of being denied full fiscal autonomy while also seeing its devolved budget squeezed by decisions made for entirely different priorities south of the Border. Cuts to police, criminal courts, housing, public health, and local government in England have systematically eroded the spending floor on which Scottish services rest. So when justice collapses in England, it affects Scotland financially – even if the governance is separate. And now, against this backdrop of UK-wide budgetary degradation, Nigel Farage has called for the scrapping of the Barnett formula entirely. It's a move that's politically convenient, historically illiterate, and economically reckless. But more than anything, it's a distillation of what's already happening by stealth. Successive UK governments have undermined the foundations of the Barnett system – and devolution itself – for more than a decade. READ MORE: Furious Anas Sarwar clashes with BBC journalist over Labour policies It's obvious to every Scot that Farage's view relies on a mischaracterisation of Barnett as a subsidy, when in fact it simply ensures Scotland receives a proportional share of changes to spending in England for devolved services. It doesn't calculate entitlement or need, it mirrors policy shifts at Westminster. If England increases education or health spending, Scotland sees a relative uplift. If England cuts deeply, Scotland's budget falls, even if demand remains or rises. This has led to an absurd and punitive dynamic where Scotland loses funding not by its own decisions, but because England spends less. And when Scotland chooses to maintain higher standards in public services, it must do so from a proportionately smaller pot. Perversely, it doesn't stop there, though. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, Westminster has begun bypassing devolved governments directly. Funds like the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund are allocated by UK ministers to local authorities, often bypassing Holyrood entirely. Promises made in The Vow on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum to deliver near-federal powers and respect Scottish decision-making have unravelled. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action' The Internal Market Act has overridden devolved laws under the banner of market 'consistency'. Powers that returned from Brussels in areas like food standards, procurement, and agriculture were supposed to go to Holyrood, but in many cases they were retained by Westminster. The Sewel Convention, once a safeguard of devolved consent, has been treated as optional. Farage's proposal to scrap Barnett isn't an outlier, it's the natural conclusion of a decade-long pattern: cut services in England, shrink the Barnett allocation, bypass devolved institutions, and then blame the devolved nations for 'taking more than their share'. There's no consideration of fairness, or implementation of a needs-based analysis, it's a strategy of erosion; one that gouges out the Union from the centre while draping itself in the flag. The failures of justice in England, catastrophic as they are, expose a deeper injustice: the systematic unravelling of the constitutional promises made to Scotland. Ron Lumiere via email
