With D-Day looming for a decision on whether to give the go ahead for the new Sizewell C nuclear power station, campaigners are planning to appeal if the project is approved.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has until this Friday (July 8) to either approve or reject the twin reactor.

Supporters and opponents have put forward their views again ahead of the decision after an original deadline of May 25 was delayed to allow the Government more time to consider all the information about the plans.

A spokesperson for Sizewell C said the station would provide careers for local people and opportunities to learn new skills and enjoy rewarding long term careers.

However, Opponents Stop Sizewell C have said if the power station is given planning consent they will ‘look closely at any grounds for appeal.’

The group has given six reasons why the power station should be refused, which include ‘wrong project in the wrong place,’ ‘too slow and expensive,’ ‘consumers will carry the funding can,’ ‘the technology is unproven,’ ‘it is insecure’ and ‘there were still hurdles to overcome’.

In particular, they feared the impact on the environment, especially the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) nature reserve at Minsmere and the protected species of marsh harriers that live there.

BEIS estimates of the likely cost of the nuclear plant were also called into question, with Stop Sizewell C claiming the Government had applied an ‘undisclosed appropriate uplift’ to the original figure of £20bn.

There was also concern about the 13-17 year timescale cited for the project’s completion, with campaigners expressing worries that there were other power stations that had not yet been finished.

Consumers could also be hit, campaigners said, due to the plans to use the Regulated Assets Base (RAB) model to fund the plant.

Under the initiative, developers can charge a small amount on electricity bills to cover building costs, with the aim to eventually lower bills for customers once the power station is up and running.

However, Stop Sizewell C feared the RAB could increase costs for poorer consumers at a time when they were already having to deal with rising energy bills caused by the cost-of-living crisis.

Technology failures at other power stations were also cited by the campaign group, including a leak in a fuel rod housing at the Taishan plant in China and delays to a project in Finland.

The campaigners also dismissed claims that the nuclear power was ‘home grown,’ saying that the design, developers and operators would all be ‘foreign.’

Finally, a number of ‘hurdles’ still stood in the way of the project’s completion, including a public consultation into environmental permits for the power station, which was started on Monday (July 4) by the Environment Agency.

Alison Downes, a spokesperson for Stop Sizewell C, said: “Sizewell C will be too slow and expensive to urgently and efficiently meet decarbonisation targets.

“By the time this behemoth project may be completed, at enormous expense, the UK’s energy landscape will be profoundly different, favouring cheaper green energy and green hydrogen.

“Every pound invested in Sizewell C is a pound diverted from other sources.”

However, wildlife photographer Steven Teeder said he supported the project due to the money being provided by the developers to support local infrastructure and the nature reserve at Minsmere.

He said: “Personally, I think it is good for the local economy. It is a clean, green energy. It creates jobs for local people, the younger generation and also the money will be spent to support local energy projects.”

The Sizewell C spokeswoman said: “Sizewell C will deliver £2billion to the Suffolk economy with contracts for local businesses and 1,500 apprenticeships and at least a third of the workforce coming from the local area.

“Sizewell C takes its environmental responsibilities incredibly seriously and is working hard to ensure the protection of the environment before, during and after the construction of the power station.

With regard to the environment, she said nuclear power and wildlife had ‘co-existed’ in the area since the 1960s and the measures that were being put in place would lead to a 19% increase in biodiversity.