Campaigners have rejected claims that Bradwell-on-Sea, in the Maldon district, would be an appropriate site for a proposed nuclear power station.

The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) has said Maldon MP John Whittingdale's support for a nuclear power station at Bradwell "ignores the effects that climate change in the not-too-distant future is likely to wreak on the low-lying site - such as flooding, storm surges and other coastal processes".

Mr Whittingdale told the House of Commons earlier this month he "remains a strong supporter of nuclear power", after acknowledging the potential removal of China's state-owned energy company from the proposed nuclear power station amid security concerns.

The Conservative MP said: "If the Government decides it is not appropriate for a Chinese reactor to be built, I would still like to think that Bradwell would be a possible site for an alternative development of a nuclear power station."

He added: "I would like to put on record that Bradwell has hosted a nuclear power station very successfully for 40 years - Bradwell A - and that in general I saw from that the benefits it can bring to the local community."

But a spokesperson for BANNG said it has "argued for 14 years that Bradwell is completely unsuitable for any new nuclear development - including the construction and operation of a new nuclear power station with its stores of spent fuel and other highly radioactive wastes that would remain on the site until towards the end of the next century".

The spokesperson added: "Mr Whittingdale would also seem to be out of step with many of his constituents, local councils and many others who oppose a new nuclear power station at Bradwell.

"He must be aware that there is serious opposition in his constituency and the surrounding area."

The group said advice by the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) "reinforces the arguments that BANNG and many others have long been making" that there is "no need for a third large nuclear power station" in addition to Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C.

A letter to the chancellor and secretary of state by the NIC in September says: "A third new nuclear plant is not necessary to reach the 2035 emissions target and more gas CCS [carbon capture storage], hydrogen-powered gas plants and BECCS [bioenergy with carbon capture storage] could be deployed instead."

The letter says it is "highly unlikely" that a new large-scale nuclear power station is deliverable in the next 15 years, and that "trying and failing would jeopardise" delivery of the UK's target to slash emissions by 78 per cent by 2035.

It adds: "A final investment decision on a third new large-scale nuclear plant should be considered in the mid to late 2020s."

BANNG said: "The case put forward by the NIC reiterates BANNG's long-held view that nuclear power plants are incredibly difficult to deliver on short timescales."

The group also agreed with the NIC's comments that the "vast majority" of new low carbon capacity that needs to be deployed over the next 15 years "should be wind and solar power".