Why salt marshes risk delaying Hinkley Point C

Nuclear power stations, it turns out, need a lot of water. Hinkley Point C, just outside my constituency of Bridgwater, will be no different. Once operational, it will need nearly 8,000,000 litres of water a minute. That’s an Olympic swimming pool taken from the Bristol Channel every 20 seconds.

When EDF was given permission to build Hinkley Point C, they were required to take three measures to mitigate damage to marine life caused by the water intake pipes. First, a specially designed cap on the pipes to reduce the number of fish getting sucked in as they swim past the end. Second, a recovery and return system to allow more resilient species to be returned to the sea. Third, an Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD), that involved underwater sound projectors discouraging fish from approaching the area of the intake pipes.

For the last several years, EDF has been working to try and remove the AFD from the Development Consent Order (DCO). This requires them to submit a ‘Material Change Application’ and involves coming up with environmental mitigations to “make up” for the change. Some of these are totally benign: upgrading weirs, creating hectares of seagrass, and new kelp forests. One proposal is significantly less so – establishing 800 acres of saltmarsh.

So when, at the beginning of this year, EDF began a consultation on locating a salt marsh in Pawlett Hams in my constituency, I was completely behind the efforts of the local community to save their beautiful countryside.

The Pawlett Hams Action Group was a true grassroots campaign that fought against the plans to destroy this lush, biodiverse, habitat. Instead of benefitting the Severn Estuary’s ecology, a salt marsh would have driven out species such as swans, lapwings, redshanks, otters, water voles, water beetles, deer, and yellow wagtails.

Thanks to the hard work of our local action group, EDF decided last month that they would no longer be considering the Hams as a potential site. They have now listed four other locations to consider: Kingston Seymour, Littleton, Arlingham, and Rodley.

On 9th October I led a Westminster Hall debate in which I sought to highlight the problems with environmental impacts of the salt marsh proposals and obtain crucial answers from the Government over decision making processes within the Environmental Agency (EA) surrounding the plan.

When I met with representatives of EDF they seemed (at best) half-hearted about the salt marsh plan. They told me that they included an AFD in their original DCO submission at the behest of the EA. Additionally, they indicated that it was the EA that was the driving force behind the salt marsh plan as well.

If this is true, we must ask a simple question: why? Could it be that the EA wishes to save itself the cost of maintaining the river defences that would need to be removed in order to flood the land? They have already admitted that a marsh isn’t a like-for-like solution to the loss of fish.

As well as causing ecological damage, I also worry that this salt marsh plan might delay how long it takes Hinkley Point C to become operational. That is because environmental mitigations have to be in place before testing can begin at the power station. To meet the current timetable, that means starting work on a marsh in 2026 ready for testing to begin in 2028. If the communities in the new proposed marsh locations are as opposed as my own residents – and early indications would suggest that to be the case – we could see delays to this critical piece of national infrastructure. That is bad for energy security and bad for the environment.

So what can EDF and the Environment Agency do?

Many people in my constituency, including some experts, have been in touch with me to say that EDF should go ahead with the original AFD plan. EDF say that it would be impractical and represent unacceptable safety risks to the divers required to maintain the system. I don’t have the technical knowledge to know if this is a realistic option, but I have called on the Government to make their decision making around the removal of the AFD clear.

If there is no prospect of installing an AFD, then now is the time for bold new ideas to get Hinkley Point C generating and protect our environment. EDF are likely to save more than £50m if the Secretary of State agrees with their request not to install an AFD. What if, instead of imposing an unwanted salt marsh on a local area, EDF wrote a cheque for the amount of money they will save to our local councils to spend on environmental improvements across Somerset? At least this way, a democratically accountable body can use the money for projects to best preserve and protect local ecosystems in a way which doesn’t cause the destruction of many hundreds of acres of countryside.

One thing is clear – if EDF and the EA continue on their current course, Hinkley Point C will be further delayed, and our local environment will suffer.