Sea Link and LionLink projects have a substantial lack of co-ordination, councillors have said.

Suffolk County Council's cabinet met to discuss its formal response to the Sea Link energy project — an electricity grid reinforcement scheme.

The cabinet unanimously agreed to submit a response to National Grid in which it supports projects necessary to deliver the UK's net zero commitments but also recognises its impacts on local communities.

Cabinet member for finance and environment, Cllr Richard Rout, said the council felt there is a 'very substantial' lack of co-ordination between Sea Link and LionLink which it is committed to pushing for alongside making sure impacts of communities are properly mitigated.

He said: "There are understandable concerns in our coastal communities, who are exhausted by a seemingly constant stream of energy projects that threaten to erode the special character of the area and the all too apparent piecemeal approach of multiple projects."

The project is proposing an undersea link between Suffolk and Kent and has seen ongoing protests from local communities for its onshore infrastructure proposals.

This includes underground cabling running from Aldeburgh to a converter station to the southeast of Saxmundham and a consented, but not yet built, substation at Friston — considered by Cllr Rout to be the 'least worst of the options put forward'.

Because Sea Link is considered to be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), a final decision will be taken by the Secretary of State at the Department of Energy Security & Net Zero.

This is expected to happen in Spring 2026 after a Development Consent Order (DCO) — an official planning application — is submitted, expected to be in autumn 2024.

When this DCO is submitted, the plans will once again come before Suffolk's cabinet at which point, Cllr Rout said, the council will formally object if there is still a lack of co-ordination and information.

He continued: "While we have long advocated for an offshore grid, and continue to do so, we need to be realistic both about the cost and how those offshore efforts will need to make landfall in certain points along our coast.

"We need to brace ourselves and think long and hard about where those landfalls should be if they're to follow existing grid infrastructure."

Concerns were raised, however, by Cllr Simon Harley, who believes the council's current response is akin to 'sitting on the fence'.

Similarly, opposition leader, Cllr Andrew Stringer, said the council should stand its ground and tell National Grid its current plans are not good enough.

Cllr Rout replied that if the council were to object to the project over lack of information as to how projects will be coordinated and mitigations implemented, it may have had to withdraw its objection if more information is provided.

The current response, he said, does not take away from the council's commitment to lessen the impact on communities and push for as much offshore infrastructure as possible.