Hinkley Point C Jetty and Harbour Construction

Report to the Marine Management Organisation and to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change by K G Smith BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Marine Management Organisation and by the Secretary of State for

Energy and Climate Change

Date: 7 February 2012

Hinkley Point C Jetty and Harbour Construction

Harbour Empowerment Order

Two Marine Licences

Transport and Works Act Order

Inquiry held from 15 November until 2 December 2011 Hinkley Point C Power Station, Hinkley Point, near Bridgwater, Somerset TA5 1UD Pins File Ref: DPI/G3300/11/15. MMO Refs:DC9228, DC9229, DC9235. DECC Ref: 12.04.09.06/183C

Report DPI/G3300/11/15

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Page 1

•

•

•

File Refs: DPI/G3300/11/15 and DC9229 Hinkley Point C Power Station, Hinkley Point, near Bridgwater, Somerset TA5 1UD

The application for The Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order 201[X] was made to the Marine Management Organisation under the terms of S16 of the Harbours Act 1964. The application is made by NNB Generation Company Limited.

• The application Reference DC9229 is dated 10 December 2010. • The Harbour Empowerment Order and associated two licences would, if granted, authorise

the creation of a harbour authority and harbour at Hinkley Point. The harbour would consist of a jetty and some terrestrial works to be used to deliver materials for the construction of a proposed new nuclear plant, Hinkley Point C. The Marine Management Organisation called the local public inquiry on 26 May 2011 to inform its determination of the Order application.

Summary of Recommendation: That the Order be confirmed as amended.

File Refs: DPI/G3300/11/15 and DC9235 Hinkley Point C Power Station, Hinkley Point, near Bridgwater, Somerset TA5 1UD •

•

•

The application for consent to dredge and deposit dredged material, for the creation of a berthing pocket for a temporary jetty, was made to the Marine Management Organisation under the terms of the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985, Part II (as amended) Deposits in the Sea; Coast Protection Act 1949 (as amended). The application is made by NNB Generation Company Limited.

• The application Reference DC9235 is dated 8 December 2010. • The application is for the creation of a berthing pocket for a temporary jetty.

The Marine Management Organisation called the local public inquiry on 26 May 2011 to inform its determination of the Licence application.

Summary of Recommendation: That the licence be granted subject to conditions.

File Refs: DPI/G3300/11/15 and DC9228 Hinkley Point C Power Station, Hinkley Point, near Bridgwater, Somerset TA5 1UD •

•

•

The application for consent to undertake marine works was made to the Marine Management Organisation under the terms of the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985, Part II (as amended) Deposits in the Sea; Coast Protection Act 1949 (as amended); Telecommunications Act 1984. The application is made by NNB Generation Company Limited.

• The application Reference DC9228 is dated 8 December 2010. • The application is for the construction of a temporary jetty.

The Marine Management Organisation called the local public inquiry on 26 May 2011 to inform its determination of the Licence application.

Summary of Recommendation: That the licence be granted subject to conditions.

File Refs: DPI/G3300/11/15 and 12.04.09.06/183C Hinkley Point C Power Station, Hinkley Point, near Bridgwater, Somerset TA5 1UD • The application for The Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) (Land Acquisition) Order 201[X]



•

•

was made to Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change under the terms of section 6 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 for an Order under sections 3 and 5 of that Act. The application is made by NNB Generation Company Limited.

• The application Reference 12.04.09.06/183C is dated 14 December 2010. • The object of the proposed Order is to confer powers on the Company for the compulsory

acquisition of land and rights in or over land adjacent to Bridgwater Bay in the district of West Somerset. The Secretary of State called the local public inquiry on 26 May 2011 to inform his determination of the Order application.

Summary of Recommendation: That the Order be made.

CONTENTS Paragraphs

Procedural Matters 1 - 7

The Site and Surroundings 8 - 12

Planning Policy 13 - 18

The Proposals 19 - 27

The TWAO Application 28

Related Development 29 - 30

Implementation and Removal 31 - 34

Environmental Statements 35

Statements of Common Ground 36 - 53

Agreements and Obligations 54 - 56

THE CASE FOR EDF ENERGY

The HEO and Marine Licences

Introduction 57 - 64

MMO Matter 1 65 - 76

Transport benefits 69 - 76

MMO Matters 2 and 3 77 - 78




The need to protect the marine environment 85 - 87

The need to protect human health 88 - 105

The need to prevent interference with legitimate

uses of the sea 106 - 107




Overview 108 - 109

Noise 110 - 114

Lighting 115 - 117

Recreation and access 118 - 131

Landscape and visual impacts 132 - 136

Navigation 137

Ornithology 138 - 141

The marine environment 142

Transport impacts 143 - 145

MMO Matter 8 146

Habitats Regulations/Appropriate Assessment 147 - 153

Proximity to fossil beach 154

Hedgerows Regulations 155

Other issues relating to terrestrial ecology 156

Unexploded ordnance 157

Conditions, Undertakings and Management Plans 158

The Transport and Works Act Order

DECC Matter 1 159 - 166

DECC Matter 2 167


DECC Matter 4 171

DECC Matter 5 172

Conclusion 173

THE CASES FOR THE RULE 7 PARTIES

Fairfield Estate


The relevant test for granting powers 176 - 178

Landscape and Visual 179 - 191

Cliff Stability 192 - 193

Conditions/Restrictions 194 - 195



Legal points 196 - 210

Conclusion 211

Natural England 212 - 223

Environment Agency 224 - 232

Stogursey Parish Council


Noise and Light 240 - 242

Jetty Siting 243 - 246

Design Issues 247 - 249

Other Issues 250 - 253

Stop Hinkley Campaign 254 - 262

Mr A Jeffrey

Introduction 263

Enriched Uranium Contamination 264 - 266

Starting to build without Consent 267 - 269

HPC may never be built 270

Damage to the local environment 271

Conclusion 272

Bridgwater Bay Wildfowlers Association 273 - 275

Ms C Collingridge

Introduction 276

The applications 277 - 279

Radioactivity and Health Impacts 280 - 294

Air Quality and Monitoring 295 - 298

Air Flows and Plume Modelling 299

Marine Environment 300

Chemical and Explosives Risks from Munitions 301 - 302

Tolerability 303 - 304

Conclusion 305

Conditions 306



THE CASES FOR OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS

Mrs Barbara Oates 307 - 312

Mrs Katy Attwater 313 - 315

Ms Lesley Flash 316 - 319

Mr Alex Reed (SCAG) 320

Mr Alan Beasley (CPC) 321 - 324

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS 325 - 344

INSPECTOR’S CONCLUSIONS

HEO and Two Marine Licences – Introduction 345 - 347

Site and Surroundings 348 - 351

The Proposals 352 - 358

Policy Background 359 - 365

Need and Benefits 366 - 372

Radioactivity and Human Health 373 - 380

Perception of Harm 381 - 382

Unexploded Ordnance 383

Ornithology, Habitats Regs and Appropriate Assessment 384 - 392

Navigation 393 - 394

Public Rights of Way 395 - 397

Wildfowling 398 - 399

Fossil Beach 400

The Inquiry Proceedings 401 - 402

Environmental Statement 403 - 404

HEO Conditions


Approach to the Imposition of Conditions 411 - 417

Jurisdiction and the Definition of ‘Site’ 418 - 420

The Temporal Dimension 421 - 425

Provision of a Bond 426

Conditions 427 - 459

Other HEO Conditions and Amendments 460 - 462



Marine Licences Conditions 463 - 467

MMO Matters 468 - 474

HEO and Marine Licences – Overall Conclusion 475 - 481

TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT ORDER


DECC Matter 2 487


DECC Matter 4 493

DECC Matter 5 494

Conclusion on the TWAO 495

Recommendations 496 - 499

APPENDIX 1 – HEO AMENDMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS (Deemed Planning Conditions)

APPENDIX 2 – MARINE LICENCES CONDITIONS

HEO INQUIRY APPEARANCES

TWAO INQUIRY APPEARANCES

DOCUMENTS

GLOSSARY



Procedural Matters

1. The inquiry sat for 9 days, on 15-18, 22, 23 and 25 November and 1 and 2 December 2011. An accompanied site visit was carried out on 7 September, prior to the pre-inquiry meeting (PIM) which was held the next day, and accompanied and unaccompanied visits took place on 23 November 2011.

2. The formal notification of the inquiry was dated 26 May 2011. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change decided to call the inquiry into the Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) on the grounds that there were objections and objectors common to the TWAO and to the Harbour Empowerment Order (HEO) and Marine Licences applications. Considering these at a joint public inquiry was - given the link between the two Orders and the fact that the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) was minded to call a public inquiry – an appropriate way to afford the parties and the objectors a more streamlined process than would have been the case had two separate procedures been followed.

3. Most of the inquiry was taken up with matters concerning the HEO and the two Marine Licences. A ‘separate’ mini-inquiry was held during the proceedings into the TWAO for the compulsory acquisition of interests in the land. This report follows a similar format, with a section on the TWAO, albeit that this is closely linked with and rests on the jetty and harbour proposals.

4. As the lists at the end of this report indicate, numerous documents have been submitted. The prefix letters generally indicate the source of the document. Within this report, I refer to documents simply by their prefix and number; I use ‘p’ to indicate paragraph, ‘pg’ for page and ‘Appx’ for Appendix. A Glossary at the end of the report lists the abbreviations or acronyms used and it explains the technical terms where necessary.

5. I am grateful to Helen Wilson for her tireless and efficient work as the Programme Officer for the inquiry and, in particular, her smooth and reliable programming in response to changing circumstances and her assistance and support for me in ensuring that I always had all of the hard copy and electronic documentation that I needed.

6. NNB Generation Co Ltd, from hereon referred to as EDF Energy or, in short, as EDF, has made applications for the above Orders and Licences that together would allow for the construction and operation of a temporary jetty that would extend into Bridgwater Bay, along with associated onshore infrastructure at Hinkley Point, Somerset.

7. The principal issues raised by these applications have been identified by the MMO in its Statement of Matters of 26 August (ID2), by the Statement of Matters published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (ID3) on the same day and in my notes of the pre-inquiry meeting (PIM) held on 8 September 2011 (ID1).

The Site and Surroundings

8. The landward part of the site for the proposed temporary jetty development (the jetty) is open land on West Somerset’s coast, 25km to the east of Minehead and 12km to the north-west of Bridgwater (CD1.7 Fig21-1). The site falls within the



parish of Stogursey in the District of West Somerset. Immediately to the east of the application site are the Hinkley Point A and Hinkley Point B nuclear power stations, which together form the Hinkley Point Power Station Complex (CD1.7 useful photos of the area and surroundings after tab 21 plus photomontages of the proposals). The remaining land area near the application site is predominantly agricultural with, at some distance, scattered settlements. The site (CD1.7 Figs 1-1 – 1-3) also extends offshore into Bridgwater Bay, part of the Severn Estuary.

9. The marine area includes the foreshore and sub-tidal areas fronting the development site. At low tide, the shore – as shown on the front of this report - comprises a relatively narrow platform of rock, cobbles and pebbles, interspersed with and fringed by muddy sand. Inter-tidal areas to the west include more extensive areas of mobile sand while, to the east, adjacent to the existing Hinkley Point Power Station Complex, the inter-tidal rock platforms, mud and sand extend up to 500m from the upper shore at low water. The Severn Estuary is recognised for its international and national nature conservation importance. The site of the jetty is subject to the following designations (NE1 Annex A):

• Special Protection Area (SPA) (Severn Estuary) under the Birds Directive, as it is classified as a wetland of international importance;

• Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the European Habitats Directive;

• The Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve (NNR) is designated a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention; and

• Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Bridgwater Bay).

10. During my site inspection, I visited a number of the photograph viewpoints (E55, E59, CD1.7 Tab 21, CD1.6.15). A number of points merit mention. The photographs make buildings look smaller than they look in real life, and undulations in the terrain appear less pronounced. The cliff (CD1.11 pg9 Plate 6) and the foreshore are particularly interesting and the coastal path, to the south west of the site, is within a very attractive sweep of grassland which, in part, is above the level of the site, affording downward views of it. The “fossil beach”, which is mentioned in the evidence, has a remarkable display of huge ammonites; it lies at Shurton Bars to the south west of the site. The nearest houses are some distance from the site, and hidden from it by the landform. The Quantock Hills are a few miles to the south.

11. I also visited the village of Cannington, much of which is occupied by the Cannington College campus of the Bridgwater College. The main route to the site would pass through this village on the C182 road. The whole of the C182 through the village is a bus route. The section of road leading north from the War Memorial junction does not have a footpath on each side for all of its length and there are College accesses and provision for parking. In addition, I went to Burnham-on-Sea and looked at the seascape and the views towards the power stations and the proposed jetty.

12. The site lies within the Vale of Taunton and Quantock Fringes National Landscape Character Area (NLCA 146) (CD16.1, CD1.7 Fig 21-3, CD1.6 section 21.4 from pg21-17).



Planning Policy

13. Relevant national policy guidance is set out in an agreed statement between EDF and the Councils of West Somerset and Sedgemoor (WSC and SDC) (E19.2 p8.2). The national guidance listed includes 15 sources. Of these, the most relevant are the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) (CD3.1) and the National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6) (CD3.2, CD3.3). Other guidance includes the UK Marine Policy Statement (2011) (CD3.5) which sets out the ‘High level principles for decision making’ (p2.3.2); also, it gives the approach for considering ‘Energy production and infrastructure development (p3.3.1-3.3.6). A letter from the Department for Communities and Local Government of 16 July 2009 (CD3.6) states, with regard to preliminary works, that: “Government policy on new nuclear may be a material factor for local authorities to consider in exercising any role they may have in relation to nuclear new build. Where appropriate this may include considering applications for planning permission for preliminary or preparatory works on site ahead of the main application to the IPC (Infrastructure Planning Commission)" and "local authorities should have confidence in considering such applications on their merits" and that "they may decide that such consent should potentially be granted on the basis that any preliminary works carried out will be removed if the subsequent application to the IPC is turned down or if, within a specified time, no application is made”.

14. The extant Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10 1994) and the Draft Regional Strategy for the South West (CD4.8) (April 2006) contain little of direct relevance to these proposals. The policies of the Joint Structure Plan Review (1996 -2011) (CD4.2), with the exception of Policy 53, remain and are likely to be extant policy until 2012; some 22 main policies of potential relevance to the proposal are listed (E19.2 pg12). In addition, WSC and SDC agree that there are 26 potentially relevant policies of the West Somerset Local Plan (2006) (CD4.3, E19.2 pg12/13). In particular, Policies STR1, STR6 and Policy 15 in the Structure Plan and Policy SP/5 of the Local Plan recognise that development can take place outside the limits of settlements where a need can be shown to do so, where it would provide economic benefit and where it would achieve or contribute to sustainable transport objectives. The policies expect development to be of high quality and good design. Neither the Structure Plan nor the Local Plan was prepared in the knowledge of national policies now set out in the NPSs.

15. In the absence of up-to-date policy, WSC has approved a Position Statement in relation to the Hinkley Point C proposed nuclear power station (HPC) which sets out its approach to the development (E1 p2.5.6-2.5.8, E19.2 p8.5.5).

16. The adopted Sedgemoor District Local Plan (CD4.5) is relevant, given the proximity of the HPC site to Sedgemoor District, the key strategic transport routes from the M5 that run through the District, the strategically significant town of Bridgwater identified to accommodate significant levels of housing and employment growth, and the Key Rural Settlement of Cannington. Also, SDC’s adopted (12 October 2011) Core Strategy has policies of potential relevance to the jetty, including Policy D9: Sustainable Transport and Movement, and Policy D10: Managing the Transport Impacts of Development (E19.2 p8.5.6-8.5.7).

17. Moreover, the Core Strategy makes clear its role in relation to an application for Development Consent to the IPC for a nationally significant infrastructure project



(NSIP): “Because NSIPs are subject to a separate planning process within the national planning regime, the Core Strategy does not set any policies, tests or requirements ……to apply in deciding whether any element of the development comprised in an application for development consent is acceptable….. Accordingly, the Core Strategy does not have the same status for decision making ….. as it does for decisions where the Council is the determining authority. However (regard must be had to) any Local Impact Report (LIR) (and) this chapter of the Core Strategy will inform the LIR …. in connection with the determination of any application for development consent” (E19.2 p8.5.8-8.5.9).

18. WSC and SDC have each adopted a Hinkley Point C Project Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This is expressly subject to a similar caveat to the Sedgemoor Core Strategy, i.e. that it does not set policies for applications which are the subject of the Development Consent Order (DCO)/IPC process and it describes its approach as providing advice for the promoter rather than as setting planning policies. The SPD was objected to by EDF but was subject to local consultation and has been approved. In the SPD, the Sustainable Transport Approach expects the HPC project promoter to – among other things - align the Transport/Freight Strategy with other Council plans and strategies and it seeks to minimise the volume of road traffic associated with the development of the new power station at all times and to ensure as much material as possible is delivered by sea (E19.2 p8.5.10).

The Proposals

19. The proposed jetty would be in the area fronting the HPC development site. This location would allow for bulk materials for the making of concrete and for the import of other construction materials directly to where they would be required for building the HPC Nuclear Power Station.

20. The applications for Food and Environment protection Act 1985 (FEPA) licences (CD1.15; CD1.16) to the MMO (by virtue of paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009) have effect as applications for marine licences under Part 4 of the 2009 Act.

21. The HEO application comprises the following:

• Draft HEO (CD/1.2; CD/1.2.1 and CD/1.2.4);

• HEO plans and sections (CD1.3, CD1.3.1 and CD1.3.2);

• Environmental Statement (ES) (CD1.5, CD1.6, CD1.7, CD,1.8);

• ES Addendum (ESA) (CD1.10, CD1.11, CD, 1.12; CD1.13).

The purpose of the HEO application is to obtain powers to authorise EDF to construct, maintain and operate in Bridgwater Bay and on adjacent land a harbour which comprises the temporary jetty development and associated harbour works to facilitate the construction of HPC.

22. The two marine licence applications would authorise EDF to carry out marine works and to dredge and dispose of material from the capital dredge of the berthing pocket and place material below Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) required for the construction of the jetty.

23. The temporary jetty development will include the following main elements:



• an aggregates storage area comprising stockpile areas for stone and sand, and a covered storage area, and silos for cement and/or cement replacement products, and including a surface water drainage system with a water management zone for the treatment and control of discharges;

• a rock extraction area and two soil storage areas to facilitate construction of the onshore components;

• a service road providing access to the aggregates storage area, the rock extraction area and, temporarily for the purposes of construction, to the foreshore;

• a jetty bridge constructed from tubular piles supporting horizontal crossheads and a deck;

• a jetty head constructed from tubular piles supporting horizontal crossheads and a deck, and incorporating mooring infrastructure (e.g. dolphins);

• a berthing pocket dredged alongside the jetty head to accommodate vessels at various states of the tide;

• materials handling and conveyance equipment (e.g. hoppers, pipelines and conveyors) installed on the jetty’s head and bridge as far as the aggregates storage area;

• a turning circle (for trucks) and a mobile crane on the jetty head and a roadway along the jetty bridge; and

• aids to navigation.

24. The “Works Provisions” of Part 2 of the HEO set out some 10 specific works for which power to construct would be given (CD1.2.4). For example, Work No 1 is the open piled construction jetty including an elevated roadway supported on tubular steel piles, for which the location is specified and the 506m extension into Bridgwater Bay. Other works are, in summary: (No 2) covered conveyor; (No 3) pipeline; (No 4) an 8.4ha hardstanding including a sand shed; (No 5) eight silos; (No 6) service road; (no 7) access corridor; (No 8) rock extraction area; (No 9) topsoil and subsoil storage areas; (No 10) security fence. Article 5 of the HEO specifies limits of deviation for the works, laterally and, in most cases, vertically up or down.

25. The draft HEO included Article 29 which sought powers to close the harbour (i.e. provisions to allow for the dismantling of the jetty and the reinstatement or restoration of the site and the removal of the harbour powers following the construction of HPC or the failure to secure the DCO consent). Article 29 was subsequently withdrawn from the HEO as the MMO was of the view that it would not be possible to include it.

26. EDF and WSC/SDC consider that there is power under S16 of the Harbours Act 1964 (the 1964 Act) for provision to be made in the HEO for the dismantling and removal of the jetty works, the reinstatement of the site and the termination of the powers and duties under the HEO when the jetty had served its limited purpose (or if the DCO is not made). That provision could be made by the reinstatement of a provision such as Article 29. This would be their preferred method of securing that these matters are dealt with. However, if it were



concluded that that would not be legally possible, those ends would be secured by EDF entering into appropriate contractually binding commitments enforceable by WSC, the local planning authority (E16, see obligation 46 of the Bilateral Agreement (BA) E56.2.1 and HEO Article 28A CD1.2.4).

27. Subject to the making of the HEO and marine licences, it was envisaged at the time of the ES that the jetty construction would commence in the second quarter of 2011. Assuming that the DCO is granted for HPC, and dependent upon timings, the jetty would operate for up to eight years during the construction of HPC, up to the completion of the second reactor unit sometime in 2019-2020. At this point, the jetty would be dismantled and the site restored where it lies outside of the area of permanent works. Dismantling works would last for about one year and restoration/reinstatement up to two years (CD1.6 p1.4.6, E19.2 p4.2.1-.3).

The TWAO application

28. EDF has provided an Explanatory Memorandum for the TWAO (CD1.19) which deals with each of the Articles in the Order (CD1.17-CD1.18.2, as amended by E26) and explains that “The land is required for the purpose of the construction of a harbour comprising a jetty and harbour related works which are to be authorised …..by the Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order 201[x]. The harbour will facilitate the construction of a nuclear power station…” The main Core Documents for the TWAO are CD1.17-CD1.25 and CD2.10. As described in CD1.23, funding would be by a semi-annual Cash Call process for all amounts relating to pre-development and construction costs of HPC, including the temporary jetty. EDF’s legal paper is E18 and its proofs are listed in the EDF Documents at E2-E3.2, along with the papers at E40, E44 and E77 p145-166.

Related Development

29. The Site Preparation Works (SPW) would expedite the construction of HPC. The SPW includes three major components: land clearance; earthworks, including site levelling and the commencement of deep excavations for foundations and structures (otherwise known as ground terracing); and the installation of temporary drainage to manage surface water and groundwater during the site preparation works and construction of HPC. The SPW also include construction of internal haulage roads, site access points and the main civil works contractor’s mobilisation. Permission has been granted subject to a S106 Obligation which, at the close of the inquiry, had not been signed (E43, E45, E46); it was envisaged that the works would commence in early 2011 and span approximately 15 months.

30. Other HPC related and associated development includes a new bypass around the village of Cannington; campus accommodation facilities for construction workers on-site and at sites in Bridgwater; park and ride facilities close to Junctions 23 and 24 of the M5; freight logistics facilities at Junction 23 and Junction 24 of the M5 and at Combwich Wharf; and extension and refurbishment of the existing marine berthing facility at Combwich Wharf.



Implementation and Removal

31. If EDF is granted a DCO for HPC, the jetty would operate during the construction of HPC up to the completion of the second reactor unit when demand for significant materials would come to an end. The jetty would then be dismantled and the site restored. Alternatively, in the event that the DCO is not granted within five years of the HEO consent, the jetty would also be dismantled and the site would be reinstated. Aftercare would be likely to continue for a further five years. [ Inspector’s note; see p134 below for the definitions of reinstatement and restoration]

32. Recognising that there would need to be certainty that the jetty would be removed and the land reinstated in the event that DCO consent is not granted, EDF would make appropriate financial security (e.g. a bond) available that could be drawn upon for the removal of the jetty and the reinstatement of the land in the unlikely event that EDF had not carried out the work. Financial security would be made available to the Crown Estate and the Environment Agency (EA) for the offshore components of the jetty that fall within the land that EDF has agreed to lease from those parties. For the land above Mean High Water, in the event that consent is granted for SPW, the earthworks needed to build the jetty would be carried out under that consent. EDF has already offered security to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to cover the reinstatement of those works.

33. The additional infrastructure required for the jetty would be, principally the landward end of the jetty, the silos and the sand shed. The site preparation security would therefore be largely sufficient (if the site preparation security is provided following implementation of the SPW), but supplementary security would be provided insofar as that was necessary to cover the additional cost of removing the jetty works. In the event that the jetty was built without the site preparation works having commenced first, EDF would offer security to the LPA to cover the full cost of removing the jetty infrastructure above Mean High Water and reinstating the land. The security would remain in place until an appropriate trigger date beyond the DCO consent to be agreed by EDF and WSC, unless otherwise superseded by any alternative arrangements under the DCO consent.

34. EDF and WSC will work together to agree drafting for financial security in keeping with the above principles, to be submitted to the MMO following the close of the jetty inquiry.

Environmental Statements

35. An Environmental Statement (ES) has been submitted and an ES Addendum (ESA) (CD1.5-CD1.13) in order to address responses to the MMO’s consultation on the ES (CD1.13 p1.1.4-1.1.8).

Statements of Common Ground (SoCG)

36. The SoCG between EDF and West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils (E19.2) includes descriptions of the proposals, of the site and surroundings, the relevant policy background and the principal considerations. Article 29 of the draft HEO for the removal etc of the jetty was withdrawn because the MMO considered that it was not possible for it to be included. WSC and EDF are of the opinion that S16 of the Harbours Act 1964 includes power to make provision in the HEO for the removal of the jetty (E19.2 p2.2.7-.8). There



is a description of the consultation processes and activities carried on since 2008 (E19.2 pg7-10).

37. WSC/SDC confirm that the Bilateral Agreement (BA) and proposed marine licence conditions address all of their issues in respect of conditions (E19.2 p9.4.2). Also WSC/SDC commented on the provisions of the draft HEO. EDF made a number of amendments to the HEO in response to the comments received, and offered commitments regarding the relationship with the Port of Bridgwater. As a result, SDC wrote to EDF confirming that all of its representations regarding the effects of the HEO on the operation of the Port of Bridgwater had been addressed, and accordingly it had withdrawn its objections to the MMO and to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (E19.2 p9.5.1 and AppxA and B).

38. The SoCG between EDF and Stogursey Parish Council (SPC) (E20) confirms: SPC’s support for the principle of the construction of the jetty; that EDF would use the jetty efficiently and seek to maximise the use of available slots; that the balance of impacts would be in favour of providing the jetty with reservations; that early construction of the jetty would allow for a more efficient construction period for HPC; on-shore working hours are agreed; noise from the foghorn would be constrained; HGV reversing alarms would be avoided where possible; a 24 hour complaints hotline would be set up and a system for the dissemination of information; SPC would strongly welcome provision in the HEO for removal of the jetty.

39. Matters outstanding between the parties at the time of the SoCG include off-shore working hours and night-time noise; lighting impact; jetty siting and landscape impacts; and additional use of the jetty.

40. The SoCG between EDF and Natural England (NE) (E21.1) provides background information about the role of NE and its involvement in the project. For the purposes of the Habitats Regulations (CD2.37, see also CD2.11), the jetty proposals constitute a ‘project’ and the MMO is a ‘competent authority’ (E21.1 p1.2.4). The parties to this Statement agree that the jetty should only be retained for as long as it would be needed to construct HPC. They would welcome provision in the HEO to secure its removal (E21.1 p2.1.2).

41. NE’s letter of 27 September 2011 confirmed that it was largely satisfied with EDF’s information to inform the Habitats Regulations Assessment (CD1.14) but it requested further information, which EDF has provided. The Corallina turf is a component of the Annex 1 Estuaries habitat for which the SAC has been designated; this is protected under that and the Ramsar site designations (E21.1 p2.3.1). Surface water discharge to sea is not predicted to result in impacts on marine ecology receptors (E21.1 p2.3.2). Surface water from the jetty would fall like rain into the sea, through gully holes. It would not be necessary to confine capital or maintenance dredging to certain periods of the tidal cycle. Dredging activities would not have a “likely significant effect on the SAC or Ramsar in relation to the Corallina turf feature.” (E21.1 p2.3.10). EDF’s Corallina monitoring programme will be agreed with NE (p2.3.12). EDF proposes to retain all maintenance dredged arisings within the local transport sediment system, as requested by NE (p2.4.2). Also, NE welcomes EDF’s proposal to retain the capital dredge arisings in the Severn Estuary system (p2.4.3).

42. The Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) information (CD1.14, E21.1 p2.5.1) confirmed that large numbers of shelduck - which are significant for the Severn



Estuary SPA population - have been recorded at Hinkley Point. The distributions of shelduck and boat routes had not been mapped so further information was provided. It is agreed that the operation of the temporary jetty, by itself, would not have a “likely significant effect on the SPA (in relation to shelduck)” (p2.5.10). There would be limited potential for the jetty boat traffic to act in an in-combination manner (on shelduck) with boat traffic to and from Combwich Wharf, which is part of the HPC project. EDF is willing to offer a monitoring condition as part of the jetty consent (to monitor the effects of boat traffic on the shelduck), albeit that it considers that any such condition should be part of the DCO consent (p2.5.13). As to jetty boat movements and the effect of the thermal plume, the period of overlap between the operational phases of the jetty and the pressurised water reactor would be relatively short (about a year) and would “not be of sufficient magnitude to have a likely significant effect on the Severn Estuary SPA” (p2.5.14). There would be no in-combination effect on SPA waterfowl by the combination of jetty construction and wharf refurbishment and operation (P2.5.18).

43. The SoCG between EDF and the Bridgwater Bay Wildfowling Association (BBWA) (E22.1) confirms that the foreshore to the north of Hinkley Point is part of the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve (NNR), managed by the EA and NE. The western foreshore is an Excepted Area for wildfowling and recreational uses such as shore angling. BBWA believes that the Hinkley foreshore is unique nationally, as the only place in England and Wales where unfettered wildfowling can take place. BBWA has no in-principle objection to the jetty but it is concerned that wildfowling would be compromised and it would like EDF to explore with NE the provision of an extension into the reserve of the Excepted Area (p2.4.1).

44. EDF’s position is that, although it may be necessary to acquire further land, for developments such as the sea wall, that is not part of these applications. For the jetty proposals, the legal ability of persons to shoot wildfowl would be unaffected; EDF would not place restrictions on wildfowling on the foreshore other than restricting access for safety reasons during the construction and dismantling of the jetty; when reasonably practicable, the construction area would be arranged to allow access at some point along the foreshore between the eastern and western parts of the Excepted Area; the jetty development would not obstruct access and egress points to/from the foreshore Excepted Area; given the temporary nature of the jetty and the extent of the Excepted Area, the impacts would not generate the need for a further extension of the Excepted Area as mitigation. EDF is willing to assist the BBWA in exploring further opportunities for wildfowling in connection with the DCO.

45. BBWA is concerned about safe access from the lay-bys on the C182 road to the Public Right(s) of Way (PRoW) and to PRoW diversions because of increased site traffic and security arrangements. EDF argues that an average increase of 6 vehicles per hour would have no material effect on the safety of crossing the road; a protocol should be agreed for the use of PRoW and PRoW diversions by wildfowlers (p2.5). If the SPW and the jetty development were to take place at the same time, the jetty PRoW mitigation measures would be of no value to BBWA. Wildfowlers would have to walk longer distances to the foreshore carrying heavy equipment (p2.6).



46. The SoCG between EDF and Fairfield Estate (FE) (E36) concerns Landscape and Visual Amenity (LVA). The LVA chapters of the ES and ESA consider the impact on landscape character and visual receptors in relation to the heritage land within FE, including the cumulative impact of the jetty with the SPW and HPC on landscape character and visual receptors (E36 p1.2-1.4). There is no dispute over the policy context, the landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) methodology used, the size of the study area and the consideration of all relevant landscape character assessments. The assessment of the ‘Area of Outstanding Scenic Interest’ (AOSI), which abuts the western boundary of the site (FE2.2 Fig 1) has been accurately presented. However, FE considers that the ESA has not evaluated sufficiently highly the value of the land comprised in the heritage land (the AOSI). The combined impacts of the jetty with the SPW and HPC are assessed in the cumulative impact assessment in the ES and ESA (E36 p2.1-2.13).

47. The representative viewpoints within the heritage land are appropriate for undertaking the LVIA and no issue is taken with the description and sensitivity of representative receptors (p2.14-2.20; see p2.19 re photomontages). It is agreed that five key components of the project would have potential to cause landscape and visual impacts: construction of the jetty, silos and sand shed; boundary fencing; site clearance and construction works; materials and aggregate stockpile; and lighting (p2.21). Also, FE considers that ambient noise levels would have the potential to cause landscape and visual impacts. During construction works, there is dispute over the magnitude of change but it is agreed that impacts would be short term and of major adverse significance at viewpoints P1 and P2 (p2.22-2.23).

48. During operation, the magnitude of change to the perceptual qualities of the Coastal Eastern Lowlands sub-character area of the Quantock Vale landscape character area would be of ‘major adverse significance’ close to the site, decreasing to ‘moderate’ with distance. At P1 and P2, it is agreed that impacts would be of major adverse significance. As to the mitigation of impacts during construction, the proposed boundary hedge would be of limited effect (p2.27). A bund is proposed by EDF on the western boundary of the site in connection with the SPW and the DCO. Its effectiveness in mitigating the effect of the HEO scheme would depend on its height, the maturity of the proposed planting and the timing of its completion (p2.28).

49. EDF would require the contractor in designing the sand shed to minimise its height to 16m if possible. The duration of impact would be reduced by delaying construction of the most visually intrusive parts of the on-shore infrastructure structures until March 2013. FE seeks a binding commitment from EDF to limit the height of the sand shed to 16m to its apex but EDF will not agree. FE also seeks a binding commitment to set the finished floor levels of all buildings and structures at 20m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). Again this has been refused. EDF argues that height restrictions should be as shown in the HEO (p2.32-2.33).

50. FE has also sought a binding commitment to limit the height of the silos to 20m. EDF has refused; it states that height restrictions should be as permitted in the HEO (which would limit them to 20m high plus up to 3m vertical deviation). The silos would be aligned to be parallel with the sand shed; the jetty would be removed as soon as it was no longer required (p2.35-2.37).



51. There is dispute over the methodology for the assessment of impacts (p3.1-3.2).

52. FE argues that the western bund should be secured as part of the jetty proposals, by way of a condition, planning obligation or other legal agreement; the bund should be at least 3m higher than the level of the outer haul road, so that it would screen low level clutter, smaller vehicles, ground level construction activities and the headlights of larger vehicles. EDF states that the jetty proposals would mitigate but not screen the residual effects of the jetty and it accepts that the effects would remain locally significant, albeit mitigated through the temporary nature of the proposal. EDF has agreed not to construct the most visually intrusive parts of the onshore jetty infrastructure – the sand shed and silos – until the western bund had been constructed under either the SPW or the DCO (p3.3-3.7).

53. FE suggests that restrictions be imposed to secure specified height and lateral deviation limits and a detailed planting and landscape mitigation scheme for the north western boundary of the site, plus details of particular matters to secure restoration of the land to its pre-development condition (p3.8). EDF is not convinced that all of the proposed restrictions would be necessary (p3.9).

Agreements and Obligations

54. A BA was signed by EDF (NNB Generation Co Ltd) and WSC on the last day of the inquiry (E56.2.1). The First Schedule to the Agreement includes 51 paragraphs, akin to planning conditions, that “NNB covenants with West Somerset that it will perform and observe…” (Clause 5.1). The use of upper case letters at the start of some words in these paragraphs indicates that they are terms - such as ‘the Onshore Area’ in paragraph 38 - which are defined at the start of the First Schedule or in Clause 1.1. The same protocol applies to the deemed conditions (E54.1). Provision is included in the BA for dealing with breaches of obligations and for an “Expert” to resolve disputes, not by acting as an arbitrator but by giving binding and final decisions (Clauses 9 and 10). WSC undertakes to determine Authorisations speedily, in line with set time limits (Clause 8). Clause 13.1 provides that “If a deemed planning condition in the HEO deals with the same subject matter ….as a paragraph in the First Schedule to this Agreement the paragraph in the First Schedule shall not have effect.”

55. The Second Schedule to the Agreement deals with PRoW. It includes provision for the payment of an HEO PRoW contribution of £247,478 to Somerset County Council (SCC) for the carrying out of the PRoW schedule of works. The three Tables of Works in Part 2 in the PRoW Schedule of Works have been redacted over concerns about cost inflation. The maximum liability “of NNB GENCO” in Part 3.6 in respect of sums to be paid to the County Council is £539,279 being the maximum amount of the PRoW index-linked contribution. The Third Schedule provides for bat mitigation measures by creating 7ha of wildflower meadow within 5km of the boundaries of the HEO.

56. A Unilateral Obligation offered by EDF to FE (E64), which was unsigned at the end of the inquiry, would (in summary): specify the Silos and Sand Shed construction programme by date and reference to the construction of ‘a bund’ (as per condition 14 but referring to ‘a bund’ in lower case letters rather than to ‘the Bund’ and excluding the Hopper which is in that condition); require the Contractor in designing the Sand Shed to limit the height, if practicable, to 16m; consider the use of timber cladding for the Sand Shed; provide the Landowner



(FE) with a colour scheme for approval for the Sand Shed or Silos or for an alternative to be suggested; provide the Landowner with the Construction Method Statement and Relevant Construction and Environment Plan (CEMP) Information; give access rights at reasonable times to monitor jetty construction progress; provide Light Detection and ranging (LiDAR) cliff monitoring information; provide information on levels of removed piles and the materials to be used for capping the parts remaining; plus a dispute resolution procedure. The drawing numbers for the Bund Plans are specified. [Inspector’s Note: the above use of initial upper case letters denotes defined terms in the Obligation]

THE CASE FOR EDF ENERGY (EDF)

The material points are:

The Harbour Empowerment Order and Marine Licences

Introduction

57. The Orders and Licences for which NNB (hereafter referred to as EDF) has applied would together allow the construction and operation of a temporary jetty (the jetty) that would extend into Bridgwater Bay, along with associated onshore infrastructure (such as sand and aggregate storage areas and cement silos) at Hinkley Point. The jetty would facilitate the construction of the Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station (HPC) which, as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, is the subject of a separate application accepted by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (“IPC”) on 24.11.11 for a Development Consent Order (DCO) pursuant to the Planning Act 2008.

58. As SPC says of the HPC project: “The volumes of material required for this construction are monumental.”1 Around 5.4 million tonnes (mt) of construction materials would be required of which at least 2.3mt would be bulk materials for the production of concrete. There can be no doubt that bringing bulk materials to the site by sea via the temporary jetty instead of in HGVs by road through, for example, the village of Cannington, is an extremely good idea. The Government states that: “Waterborne ...transport is preferred over road transport at all stages of the project, where cost-effective.”2 The jetty would save hundreds of thousands of HGV movements from local roads3 and the sooner it is in place, the sooner it could start reducing the number of deliveries by HGVs.

59. The jetty would fulfil the relevant statutory purpose of being “...desirable in the interests of facilitating the efficient and economic transport of goods...by sea....”4 The jetty is included in the separate DCO application as well (as a failsafe) but if the HEO and Marine Licences were made and granted, it would enable the temporary jetty to be built in advance so that it would be ready for use early on once (if, as and when) the HPC project has been consented. If HPC were not consented, EDF would remove the jetty and carry out reinstatement works.5 The Government has endorsed the legitimacy of just such an approach where one

1 SPC Proof of Evidence at 2.1.1; 2 NPS EN-1 (CD 3.1) at 5.13.10; 3 E 42; 4 Section 16(5) of the Harbours Act 1964 (CD 2.2); 5 E56.2.1: First Schedule at paragraph 46



applies for preliminary works in advance, with an obligation to remove and reinstate if needs be.6

60. There is a compelling case for the early provision of the jetty. Were objectors like “Stop Hinkley”7 to prevail in their campaign to resist the making of the HEO, then one of two undesirable consequences would flow if HPC were granted consent. Either more HGV movements would take place than would be the case with the jetty in place early on or, if the IPC decided to restrict the number of HGV movements (pending the opening of the Cannington bypass which is included in the DCO application) then, without the jetty being in place early on, the construction of the HPC project would be delayed. In the latter case, the construction of HPC would take considerably longer than otherwise would have been the case8 which would be inimical to the Government’s clearly stated imperative that new nuclear power stations like HPC are needed “as soon as possible”..9

61. Government Energy Policy is emphatic: it is “vitally important” that new nuclear power stations are provided “significantly earlier than 2025” as the need for them is urgent; accordingly, the Government has identified eight sites including HPC in the NPS.10 HPC is the first of these to apply for consent. Moreover, Government Marine Policy is to prioritise contributing to securing the UK’s energy objectives; the “important” role of nuclear power stations sited in coastal locations in this regard is explicitly recognised.11

62. Some object to the jetty because they oppose new nuclear power stations as a matter of principle and do not accept Government policy on the subject. Mrs Attwater’s submission to the inquiry is a perfect example of this: she spoke of the “Coalition Government’s misguided energy policy.” Such objections are beside the point as the wisdom of Government policy cannot be debated or challenged legitimately through this inquiry.12

63. Against that background, it is unsurprising that the applications before this inquiry have generated relatively little opposition. Indeed, far more inquiry time was spent in discussing the restrictions that should be put in place should the HEO be made than was taken debating the principle of the jetty itself. This is a telling point. The principle behind the early provision of the temporary jetty is widely accepted, in particular by both WSC and SDC as local planning authorities,13 SPC14 and Cannington Parish Council. 15

64. The matters set out in the relevant Statements of Matters (ID/2, ID/3) are dealt with in turn, along with the issues identified at the pre-inquiry meeting (ID1).

6 CLG / DECC letter dated 16/7/09 (CD 3.6); 7 Stop Hinkley Campaign; 8 See e.g. Mr. Rhodes’ Proof of Evidence E1 at 3.4.6; 9 NPS EN-1 (CD 3.1) at 3.5.9; 10 NPS EN-1 at 3.1.3; 3.2.3; 3.3.15; 3.5.1; 3.5.9; 3.5.10 and NPS EN-6 (CD 3.2) at 2.2.1; 2.2.2; 2.2.4; 2.3.2; 2.4.4 & see Annex C at Section C5 (CD 3.3); 11 CD 3.5 at Introduction; 2.3.2.1 / 2; 3.3.1 – 6 & see 1.3.1, 1.3.2 and 1.3.4; & NPS EN-1 at 1.2.2 & 4.1.6; 12 The legal position was stated clearly by the House of Lords in the leading case on the subject: Bushell v SSE [1981] AC 75 at page 103E (& see page 100B & C); 13 Document E19.2 at 9.1 & 9.2; 14 E20 at 2.1 & 2.5; 15 Cannington PC in oral evidence on day 3;



r

-

ossible.

EDF has submitted two documents (E27, E28) which identify where its response is to be found in relation to each of those Matters and issues.16 That exercise is not repeated: EDF’s case on each is herein summarised.

The HEO and the Marine Licences

MMO Matter 1: Whether the need for the Order and Licences to be granted separate to and ahead of the application for an order granting development consent under the Planning Act 2008 has been sufficiently demonstrated17.

65. As indicated above, established in evidence18 and acknowledged almost universally (only Cecily Collingridge disagreed19), as a matter of principle a temporary jetty is a very good idea. There is an overwhelmingly compelling case for it. Some objectors argue that, although the jetty is a very good idea in principle, it should not be authorised in advance of (and separate from) the decision on the DCO application for HPC itself. But the Government has endorsed the principle of applying for preliminary works in advance, with an obligation to remove and reinstate if needs be.20 This endorsement was given well before the finalisation of NPSs EN-1 and EN-6. Now that Government policy on energy and nuclear power has been promulgated, the justification for advance preliminary works must be all the greater. In addition, as the DCO application has now been made to and accepted by the IPC, the case for providing the jetty in advance is even stronger.

66. WSC has acted in accordance with the Government’s endorsement of advance preliminary works by resolving to grant permission for the SPW application which would involve far more extensive21 works than the HEO (E45, CD1.7 Figs 1-1 – 1-3). The case for consenting preliminary works to enable the expeditious delivery of (to use the language of the NPS) “vitally important”22 new nucleapower stations like HPC was put tellingly in the WSC Planning Committee report which endorsed the SPW application with reference to: “the national imperative of the timely delivery of new nuclear power stations.”23 The benefits of early delivery of the temporary jetty – saving24 1,000 HGVs a week from local roadsmake a powerful case for putting the jetty in early so that it can be used for its intended purpose as soon as p

67. Failure to progress the jetty at this stage via the HEO would either put back the date when these benefits would take effect or, if the provision of the jetty was made some form of prerequisite in the DCO, HPC would be significantly delayed. Any such delay would fly in the face of the Government’s repeated emphasis on

16 EDF Energy has also submitted a Schedule identifying where it has addressed the issues raised in the proofs of evidence submitted by Objectors (E31); 17 See also ID/1 paragraph 11, 2nd bullet point (prematurity and benefits of early delivery), 3rd bullet point (need and benefits); 18 E.g. Mr Rhodes’ Proof E1 at Sections 2, 3 & 4; 19 EDF points out that Ms. Collingridge thinks that it would be better to have a haul road from the motorway rather than a temporary jetty (E1.2 at p2.3.4); SHC also supported this in its closing submission SHC4 but this was not in its case SHC2 and SHC3; 20 CLG / DECC letter dated 16/7/09 (CD 3.6); 21 See e.g. E45; 22 EN-1 (CD 3.1) at 3.5.10; 23 E35 in the 2nd paragraph on page 327; 24 In answer to the Inspector on day 2;



the critical importance of the earliest possible delivery of new nuclear power stations.25 Either of these outcomes would be very bad news for local residents and for the nation.

68. There is clear local planning policy support for the principle of the jetty and for its early provision; the SoCG with WSC/SDC26 describes the jetty as “a fundamental element of the [HPC] project” and that its early provision is “essential” (p8.5.11).

Transport benefits

69. The very significant transport benefits that the temporary jetty would provide are uncontroversial as between the parties to the inquiry. The jetty would allow for the delivery of substantial quantities of cement, sand, aggregates and cement replacement products to the HPC site, and the potential would be likely to exist to use spare capacity at the jetty for the delivery of other construction materials. The LPAs agree that it would significantly reduce the numbers of HGVs required for the construction of HPC, shifting freight movement from local roads to the more sustainable option of the sea, which would reduce the environmental impacts from HGV trips, respond positively to the concerns of local residents, deliver on Government objectives for sustainable freight transport and expedite the HPC construction programme.27 [Inspector’s note: an HGV is defined by EDF as any vehicle with three or more axles – E4 pg11 p6.1.5.]

70. Those benefits are acknowledged by SPC,28 although it would have preferred a slightly different location for the jetty. EDF has explained why it chose the location in the HEO.29 Mr. Malim for SPC confirmed30 that the parish’s preference is not an objection to the jetty in the proposed location and it would not want its preference to stand in the way of the expeditious delivery of the jetty.

71. EDF is confident that at least 80% of the import of materials for concrete production via the jetty should be achieved once it is available for use.31 A requirement has been offered in the draft DCO32 to secure this percentage.

72. At least 236,335 HGV movements33 (net) would be taken off the roads as a result of the ability to deliver materials for concrete production to the HPC site by sea.34 During the peak period of demand for concrete (early in the construction programme), this would equate to a saving of about 1,000 HGVs each week.35 An early consent for the jetty would avoid a lot of congestion and difficulties which could cause a significant delay to the construction works. That saving must be regarded as a minimum because no allowance has been made for the delivery of other materials via the jetty. The HEO works would include the

25 See the references in 13 & 14 above; 26 E19.2; 27 SoCG, E19.2, paragraph 9.1.1; 28 SoCG, E20, paragraphs 2.1.1 and 2.3.1; 29 E1.2 at 2.1.6 – 2.1.9; 30 In answer to CKQC on day 3; 31 E1.1, section 4.1, and E1.1.2, paragraphs 3.1.1 to 3.1.10; 32 Requirement PW18 (see E1.1.2, paragraph 3.1.4); 33 Approximately ¼ of the total 1.1m HGV movements associated with the construction of HPC; E4 p4.1.3-4.1.7. Gross saving in HGV distances travelled using local sources would be 25 million km; E4 p4.2.1-4.2.3; 34 E42, paragraph 4; 35 In answer to the Inspector, day 2;



l

infrastructure necessary to facilitate such additional deliveries36; this has been done because EDF expects to make good use of that infrastructure.

73. Under normal conditions there would be capacity for delivery of additional materials.37 However, because of the factors that would have the potential adversely to affect capacity, and the need to prioritise the primary purpose of the jetty, other deliveries would only be scheduled when there was a clear window of several tides between deliveries of concrete-making materials. EDF would seek to make best use of the jetty for the import of other construction materials but the greatest benefit would be from the import of concrete-making materials and it is important that they would not be displaced by a competing quota for other deliveries.38

74. The proposed use of the sea for the delivery of a significant quantity of material accords with the national advice (EN-139) that “Water-borne … transport is preferred over road transport at all stages of the project, where cost effective”. Important benefits would comprise a saving in the distance travelled by HGVs in the region40; the removal of HGVs from roads within Bridgwater41 and the removal of HGVs from roads within Cannington.42 There are no credible alternative means of achieving those important benefits.43

75. Even zealous opponents of HPC present at this inquiry have accepted (at least in principle) the obvious transport advantages of the early provision of the jetty.44 Ms Collingridge was alone in resisting the principle of the provision of the jetty.45 Others have gone further. SPC describes the jetty as “an essential element of the development”46 and has confirmed that, as a matter of principle, it is a good idea to have the jetty, and the sooner the better.47 In addition, Mr Reed, of the Save Cannington Action Group, does not object to the jetty.48 Mr Beasley, for Cannington Parish Council, says it is “generally in favour of the jetty”,49 and his view was that the jetty was “a very good idea” and the “best piece of common sense we have seen so far as Cannington is concerned.”50 Mr Beasley confirmed that Cannington Parish Council was in favour of the HEO as “built-in mitigation”.51 Mr Hill, for the BBWA confirmed that his case did not go so far as suggesting that the adverse impact on wildfowling activity should outweigh thebenefits to the environment and local amenity of taking so many HGVs off loca

, paragraphs 3.1.6 to 3.1.10; h 5.13.10;

answers given by Mr Jeffrey in xx on day 3 and Mrs Attwater on day 5;

f of evidence (SPC2, paragraph 2.1.1);

;

36 X-i-c, day 8; 37 E1.1, paragraph 4.1.1; 38 E1.1, paragraph 4.1.2, E1.1.239 CD/3.1, paragrap40 E4, section 4.2; 41 E4, section 4.3; 42 E4, section 4.4; 43 E4, section 4.5 and E4.2, sections 2 and 3; 44 See e.g. the45 Xx, day 5; 46 SPC’s proo47 Xx, day 3; 48 Xx, day 3; 49 X-i-c, day 3; 50 X-i-c, day 351 Xx, day 3;



all do”.

F’s

roads.52 Mrs Flash was asked whether she supported the principle of the jetty and replied: “We 53

76. For the above reasons, the substantial and uncontested transportation benefits from the jetty, and with its early provision, provide a compelling case for the approval of the HEO in advance of the DCO.

MMO Matter 2: Whether (and if so how) the powers to be granted by the Order should reflect the temporary nature of the Proposed Works54.

MMO Matter 3: How any specified removal of any constructed jetty and harbour development forming part of the Proposed Works should be given effect and whether any rights should be included in the Order for the purposes of such removal55.

77. The jetty would be a temporary structure required for a specific time-limited purpose. EDF has no interest in retaining and maintaining the jetty once that purpose has been served. EDF’s Legal Paper 2 ‘Response to the Marine Management Organisation’s Statement of Matters 2 and 3’56 explains why there is power under the Harbours Act 1964 to include provision within the HEO to enable the closure of the harbour, the dismantling, demolition and removal of thejetty, and the reinstatement or restoration of the site. This could be achieved bythe inclusion of a provision such as Article 28A in the revised draft HEO.57 EDpreference is for the HEO to include an express provision dealing with the dismantling and removal of the jetty, the reinstatement or restoration of the site, and the termination of the HEO powers. None of the main parties to this inquiry has taken issue with that or with EDF’s submission that such provision would be lawful.

78. In the event that the MMO takes a different view, there would be a binding commitment to take the necessary steps to achieve the same result58.

MMO Matter 4: Whether all of the powers contained in the Order are required by the Applicant in order to secure satisfactory implementation of the Proposed Works or for any works otherwise authorised and ancillary to such works.

79. Two Legal Papers (E15 and E17) provide the legal basis for the response to this matter. Legal Paper 1, ‘A Guide to the Harbour Empowerment Order’ (E15) explains the purpose and effect of the draft HEO. Legal Paper 3, ‘Response to issues raised in relation to the Harbour Empowerment Order’ (E17) deals with the following points:

• Amendments to the modified HEO submitted by EDF on 17 June 201159.

52 Xx, day 3; 53 Xx day 5; 54 See also ID/1 paragraph 11, 3rd bullet point (EIA without provision for removal of the jetty), 4th bullet point (provision for jetty removal and restoration); 55 See also ID/1 paragraph 11, 4th bullet point (provision for jetty removal and restoration); 56 E16; 57 CD/1.2.4; 58 E56.2.1, paragraph 46; 59 CD/1.2.1, see Part 1 of Appendix 1 to E17;



• Amendments requested to the HEO by consultee respondents which have not been agreed by EDF, and EDF’s responses to those requests60.

• Justification for the inclusion in the HEO of permitted development rights61.

• Justification for the inclusion within the HEO of the power in Article 6 to carry out subsidiary works and operations62.

• Justification for the inclusion within the HEO of the provisions of Articles 18 and 19 for the permanent stopping up of footpaths63.

80. EDF’s response to the written representations made by the Royal Yachting Association64 explains in detail why the power to make General and Special Directions to vessels in Articles 23 and 24 of the draft HEO would be appropriate and would not require any further revision.

81. Latterly, EDF has produced the following documents which are relevant to the determination of this matter:

• The final draft HEO dated 30 November 2011 (CD/1.2.4).

• A paper of amendments to the draft HEO (E25.1), explaining all of the amendments made to the draft HEO as applied for on 10 December 2010 (CD/1.2).

• A note enclosing correspondence between EDF/Trinity House and EDF/Maritime Coastguard Agency, dealing with the responses made to consultation by those parties (E70). The note identifies where amendments have been made to the draft HEO to address points raised in the responses.

82. The practical need for the powers contained in the draft HEO has been demonstrated in evidence.65 66 That evidence was not subjected to any significant challenge.

MMO Matter 5: The likely impacts of the powers contained in the Order on the owners and occupiers of premises and land in respect of which such powers would be conferred, and on any other persons with rights over that land, including their ability to carry out their businesses effectively or fulfil any statutory responsibilities.

83. The likely impacts of the powers contained in the HEO on the owners and occupiers of land within the scope of the Order would be very limited. That is reflected in the absence of any outstanding objection by any owner or occupier of premises and land within the limits of the HEO on the basis that the impact of the Order would have an unacceptable impact on their ability to carry out their business effectively, or fulfil any statutory responsibilities.

60 See Part 2 of Appendix 1 to E17; 61 See section 3 of E17; 62 See section 4 of E17; 63 See section 5 of E17; 64 E30; RYA/w 65 E1.1, section 3, paragraphs 4.2.1 to 4.2.6, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 4.3.7, 4.3.12 and 4.3.13 to 4.3.16; 66 E14, paragraphs 3.1.13 and 3.1.14;



84. If the EA and NE do not reach agreement on varying the Management Agreement insofar as it relates to parcel TWA_1, then the effect of the TWAO (as opposed to the HEO) would be to extinguish that Agreement so far as it affects that area of land (see report section below on the TWAO at p159-173). NE does not object to this aspect of the proposals and has not suggested that it would present any obstacle to it fulfilling any of its statutory responsibilities. The same position pertains in the case of the understood-to-be redundant BT cable in parcel TWA_2.67

MMO Matter 6: Whether the measures proposed by the Applicant are appropriate and sufficient to mitigate potential adverse effects of the Proposed Works.

The need to protect the marine environment68

85. EDF has carefully designed the jetty so as to avoid and reduce the impacts on the marine environment so far as reasonably practicable. This is reflected in the location and orientation selected, the form and scale of the proposed structures, and the mitigation measures proposed.

86. As explained in the evidence,69 the jetty would consist of an open piled – rather than a mass - structure set at an oblique angle to the inter-tidal zone, which would minimise impacts on hydrodynamic processes as well as the jetty’s footprint on the marine environment. Also, the number and diameter of piles and jetty uprights would be kept to a minimum so as to lower the magnitude of effects on coastal processes, the sea bed and marine ecology. And the bridge-unit structure would help to limit the period of construction.

87. The location of the jetty has been chosen to minimise impacts on key areas of Corallina.70 Potential contamination of the water body would be avoided through the use of the enclosed cement delivery and aggregate conveyor system, as well as oil/water separators and a water management zone for the aggregates storage area.71 Also, specific mitigation measures are proposed to protect Corallina habitat from disturbance, together with a number of precautionary measures.72 As a result, no significant residual impacts on the marine environment are predicted. All residual impacts are predicted to be of either negligible or minor significance.73 NE and EDF agree that, with the proposed mitigation measures in place, there would not be likely to be any significant residual impact on the marine environment.74

The need to protect human health75

88. The only issue relating to human health that is in any way controversial concerns radiological investigation of the HEO site itself.76 However, this is not an issue so

67 EDF Energy have received written confirmation from BT that it has no legal interest in the route of the cable; 68 See also ID/1 paragraph 11, 6th bullet point (marine effects); 69 E6, paragraph 3.1.2; 70 E6, paragraph 3.1.3; 71 E6, paragraph 3.1.4; 72 E6, section 4.3, and E6.2, sections 2, 3 and 7; 73 E6, paragraph 3.1.7; 74 E21.1, paragraphs 2.2.1-2.2.2, sections 2.3 and 2.4 and paragraphs 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.5; 75 See also ID/1 paragraph 11 , 11th bullet point (radiological investigations and impacts);



far as the relevant regulatory body, the EA, is concerned. Nor is it a concern raised by the local planning authorities, Stogursey Parish Council, or even Stop Hinkley. The only parties to this inquiry who pursue this issue are Mr Jeffrey77 and Ms Collingridge.78 Neither has any proper basis for doing so.

89. The radiological surveys for the ES were in addition to those carried out routinely to support the operation of the existing licensed nuclear sites at Hinkley Point. Radioactive materials occur naturally; they do not only arise as the result of activities by human beings. Radiological surveys are capable of detecting extremely small quantities of radioactive materials and, in any such assessment, naturally occurring radioactive materials will be measured. Since this is naturally occurring and as this radioactivity is not evenly distributed in the environment and its levels may even vary seasonally at any particular location, care is needed in interpreting the significance of particular results. The surveys can also detect small quantities of man-made radioactive materials whose origin may be many miles from the measurement site. Also, it is important to note the uncertainty inherent within the measurement, particularly when using instruments to measure very small levels of radioactivity at near the limits of detection (E13 p2.1.1-2.1.4)

90. The ES contained a baseline description of the environmental conditions in the area and information on the likely environmental impacts of the development. The radiological assessments covered the issues of water, groundwater and land contamination, in order to assess any impact from disturbing the local environment. The ES Chapter 16 (CD1.6) describes the investigations carried out into land contamination. They were initiated in 2008 to support the overall HPC project, to assess impacts and, if necessary, recommend mitigation measures. In total, for the Built Development Area West” (BDAW) and the “Built Development Area East” (BDAE), comprising the land that would potentially be affected by the jetty development, some 78 samples from 109 locations were assessed. The conclusion reached, by comparing the results with UK regulatory standards, was that “there is no evidence of significant contamination with anthropogenic [i.e. man-made] radionuclides and that the levels of radionuclides present are generally consistent with background levels” (E13 p2.1.5-2.1.11).

91. Samples in three locations within BDAE had slightly elevated levels of the naturally occurring radioisotopes of uranium. It is believed that these samples reveal an area where granite chippings had been deposited (E13 p2.1.12).

92. Additional sampling by the EA in relation to claims of contamination of the site with enriched uranium confirmed the ES conclusion that the levels of uranium found in the soil “are low, and at naturally occurring levels”. The ES concluded that “….the risk to humans from radiological contamination on the Built Development Area East land is considered to be very low…” The jetty development would have no radiological impact of any significance for human health or the wider environment.

76 Any air quality impacts, for example, would be addressed through the Air Quality Scheme to be submitted to and approved by the LPA and have not given rise to any significant concern; 77 AJ2; 78 CC2, CC5 et seq;



93. As to water quality, the results are in line with the earlier ground investigation results which showed insignificant levels of radioactivity and are consistent with the site being radiologically uncontaminated. The jetty development would therefore have no radiological impact (E13 p2.1.18-2.1.24).

94. Examination of the potential impacts on groundwater resources and groundwater quality involved, in the ES, a baseline assessment of the conditions prior to the project being commenced. This included radiochemical and radiometric analysis of borehole samples obtained over 5 campaigns in line with a programme that had been validated by the EA. The ES also reports on results obtained over several years of monitoring of separate boreholes on the adjoining HPA site. The results of these investigations reveal that the level of radioactivity measured in all samples on the proposed development site is low and generally below or close to the Drinking Water Inspectorate screening values and within World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance levels. The results are consistent with the earlier conclusion that the site of the jetty development is not contaminated with radioactivity. The development would have no radiological impact (E13 p2.1.25-2.1.27).

95. Hinkley Point has been the subject of an ongoing routine programme of radiological surveys since 1957, before the HPA station was commissioned in 1964. These programmes are carried out to ensure that any discharges from the site are not giving rise to any untoward impacts and to establish a datum of existing levels. This programme is carried out to meet the requirements of the regulatory bodies. The results are subject to independent quality assurance and checking, are provided to the regulators, and are publicly available. Also, the regulatory bodies carry out an independent monitoring programme whose results are reported annually in the Radioactivity in Food and the Environment (RIFE) reports (E13 p2.1.30). The focus of this programme for over 50 years has always been to concentrate on the potential radioactive materials and pathways that could be most significant in terms of radiological impact. There is a wide range and variety of monitoring (E13 p2.1.28-2.1.32). EDF offered to release information to Prof Busby on behalf of Ms Collingridge but only if it was established that the recipient was qualified to interpret the data (E32).

96. To derive an estimate of the level of potential radiological impact associated with the power stations, the monitoring information is combined with information about patterns of food consumption and occupancy in the locality. The most recent RIFE report, in 2010, estimates that the most exposed people at Hinkley Point could receive a dose of 0.055mSv/y, which is less than 6% of the dose limit for members of the public (of 1mSv/y). For comparison, the average annual dose from natural background radiation in the UK is 2.2mSv/y (and this natural background dose can vary between around 1mSv/y to around 100mSv/y depending on where in the UK a person lives – with the highest doses resulting almost entirely from naturally occurring radon gas) (E13 p2.1.33-2.1.34, see also E13.1.a pg132 7.31).

97. On 12 January 2011, an organisation called Green Audit issued a press release headed “Radioactive Contamination of proposed nuclear site at Hinkley Point, Somerset” claimed that “Examining gamma spectroscopy radioactivity data tables that formed part of the Environment Impact Statement supplied by developers EDF Energy, it was possible to show that the 2 square kilometre site contained approximately 10 tonnes of enriched uranium reactor fuel.” The press release



quoted Professor Busby’s speculation that this finding could help explain results in “earlier studies” that he claimed revealed evidence of increased rates of adult and childhood leukaemia in Burnham-on-Sea (E13 p3.1.1-3.1.2).

98. The claims were referred to at a public meeting held at SDC on 12 January. EDF had not received any prior notice of this allegation. The allegations were repeated in local leaflets distributed to residents by Mrs Katy Attwater and in press releases from Stop Hinkley. They also appeared on several websites. In response to the Green Audit claims, an urgent assessment of its report was carried out on 13 January in collaboration with the contractor responsible for the gamma spectroscopy measurements. It was quickly established that the Green Audit work was fundamentally flawed and that the conclusions were without foundation. To anyone familiar with nuclear power station design or operation, it was incredible that 10 tonnes of enriched uranium fuel could ever have been released and spread across neighbouring land without this having been previously detected (E13 p3.1.3-3.1.5). The reactors are permitted to release very tiny amounts of material. Based on the fission product Caesium 137 (because uranium is not permitted to be released at all), operation at the full limit of what is allowed for 500,000 years would generate one teaspoonful of material released from the fuel.

99. EDF issued a press statement on 13 January containing its initial response. The EA also issued a statement to say that “…Green Audit has drawn conclusions that are not statistically accurate, and that the data relating to the site have been misinterpreted. ……………..We, the Health and Safety Executive and other organisations subject the existing power stations at Hinkley Point to stringent regulation. We and others carry out routine discharge and environmental monitoring which would easily detect losses of the alleged quantities of uranium. We publish our results annually….” (E13 p3.1.6).

100. EDF’s response to Prof Busby was provided on 7 February 2011. It provided a full explanation of the errors in the Green Audit report, and additional information on why it was simply incredible for the alleged contamination to have occurred and not to have been detected (E13a AppxF). While Green Audit’s calculation was not wrong in principle, it contains errors. EDF’s response to Ms Collingridge explained the errors in it and she was asked to withdraw the baseless allegation (E13 p3.1.7-3.1.9).

101. In view of the local level of concern, the EA commissioned additional sampling. The work was carried out independently from EDF or its contractors. This found that “The results of our sampling show that no enriched uranium is present. (and) The levels of uranium found in the soil samples taken both on and off the site are low, and at naturally occurring levels”. After a further press release by Stop Hinkley, alleging site contamination, the EA responded to points raised in a letter to Ms Collingridge (E13a AppxD). The final paragraph reads: “As a result of the sampling we have undertaken and the lack of any plausible scenario which would deliver 10 tonnes of enriched uranium into the environment without the presence of readily detectable fission products we continue to maintain that there is no evidence for such contamination around Hinkley Point B. We have carefully considered our next steps and do not consider it necessary to repeat any soil contamination surveys either independently or in partnership with Green Audit.” (E13 p3.1.10-3.1.12). The EA’s press release of February 2011 states that “Ten tonnes equates to the entire uranium content of over 200 fuel elements from HPB



– some 8,000 fuel pins, as there are 36 in each element (and that) there is no credible mechanism for the scale of loss claimed by Green Audit” (E13a AppxB pg3).

102. Ms Collingridge raises questions over the current understanding of health impacts from Hinkley Point nuclear power stations and claims that this is inadequate to allow further development. She refers to a report by the Government’s advisory Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) and to evidence from Dr (Prof) Chris Busby which she claims “reveals a range of adverse health effects entrenched in the local population, particularly Burnham on Sea, as a result of radiological exposure”. It is not clear that these wide ranging allegations are relevant to the jetty proposal. Such claims have been made in the past and have been investigated on a number of occasions by various official bodies (E13.1). On each occasion, the investigators concluded that the claims were not supported by the evidence.

103. The extensive body of radiological investigations and survey work carried out (both by EDF and the EA) demonstrates that neither the construction nor operation of the jetty would pose a radiological risk to people or the environment.79

104. The inquiry has heard clear and compelling evidence from EDF why the concerns that have been raised based on the Green Audit allegation that the 2km² HPC site contains approximately 10 tonnes of enriched uranium reactor fuel80 are not simply misconceived but are in fact incredible. This evidence was not subject to any challenge by way of cross-examination and it is difficult to see what credible challenge could have been made. Mr Jeffery avoided making any response when he gave his evidence. Ms Collingridge’s suggestion that some 163kg of enriched uranium could have been escaping from Hinkley Point A (“HPA”) and Hinkley Point B (“HPB”) each and every week81 for 35 years (without being detected) and (in a way which was not satisfactorily explained) finding its way onto the HEO land underlined the fundamentally implausible nature of the allegation. [Inspector’s note: this calculation first appeared in the closing submissions for EDF. At the time, I did not have chance to check it. The calculation of 163kg per week by EDF was based on a statement by Ms Collingridge that “A loss of 10 tonnes spread over 35 years would be 0.27g/second/reactor”. This does work out at 163kg/week for each reactor but, when multiplied by the 1820 weeks that there are in 35 years, it gives a total of 296,660kg or nearly 300 tonnes per reactor. Looked at another way, the 10 tonnes or 10,000kg over 35 years would be 10,000/1820 = 5.4945kg or approximately 5.5kg per week on average, to compare with the above figure of 163kg/week.]

105. The entirely baseless Green Audit allegation, which gave rise to understandable local concern, should never have been made. Once it had been shown to be misconceived, the allegation should have been withdrawn (E77 p69).

79 E13, section 2; 80 See E13, section 3; also, the EA points out that HPA did not use enriched uranium fuel and that presumably the origin is alleged to be HPB, E13a AppxB 3rd page; 81 Extrapolating from the suggested rate of 0.27g per second;



itten

The need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea82

106. EDF’s evidence in response to this matter83 has not been disputed by any party to this inquiry; it should be read together with the response to the wrrepresentations made by the RYA.84 The following conclusions are invited:

• The navigation and marine risks associated with the construction, operation, dismantling/restoration phases of the proposed temporary jetty have been comprehensively analysed and commitments made to reduce the residual risks to commercial vessels, the Port of Bridgwater’s interests and the Ministry of Defence’s military activities to moderate and be as low as reasonably practicable.

• The residual risks to military, fishing and recreational vessels would be low and acceptable.

• The inherent risks would be no different from those found in other marine development environments in both type and magnitude and could be addressed in a systematic and constructive way under the specified legislation and regulations.

• A comprehensive Marine Operations Plan would be put in place under the direction of the jetty harbour authority and the day-to-day control of an appointed Harbour Master. The Marine Operations Plan would be compliant with and derived from the Port Marine Safety Code.

• EDF’s powers under the HEO to issue directions would be sufficient to control and mitigate any risks of conflict with other vessels in the area, so that any such risks would be both acceptable and as low as reasonably practicable.

• A sensible set of provisions has been included to ensure co-ordination with the Port of Bridgwater.85 SDC (in its capacity as the Harbour Authority for that Port) is content with those provisions.

• Relevant concerns by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have been incorporated in the marine licence conditions (E70).

• The impact on recreational vessels would be very limited.

o The sheltered anchorage within the proposed harbour limits is acknowledged by the RYA to be seldom used.86

o The diversion required for vessels on passage from Burnham to Watchett would be small and passage through the Bristol Channel hardly affected.

o There would be ample room for navigation away from the jetty works, and small boats would be shielded from the works themselves by the proposed exclusion zone.

82 See also ID/1 paragraph 11 , 6th bullet point (navigation effects, Bridgwater Harbour); 83 E14, Written Statement on Navigation; 84 E30; 85 See articles 22(1), 22(3), 22(2A) and 24 (2A) of the HEO; 86 E14, paragraph 5.1.9;



o The RYA would be consulted prior to the making, revocation or amendment of any general directions.87

• The provision of navigational aids and marking requirements for all construction equipment, the exclusion zone and the temporary jetty itself would be discussed by EDF with Trinity House during the development of the project, and any markings or navigational aids to be used would accord with its requirements and those of the relevant legislation.88

• Trinity House has written to the MMO,89 making plain that, in the light of the amendments made to the draft HEO by EDF in response to its representations, Trinity House has no further comments in relation to the Order.

107. For the above reasons, the measures proposed would be appropriate to mitigate the potential adverse effects of the works with regard to the need to prevent interference with legitimate users of the sea and properly to address concerns raised regarding navigation.

MMO Matter 7: Whether the measures proposed by the Applicant are appropriate and sufficient to mitigate potential adverse effects of the Proposed Works in light of concerns raised by those persons and bodies who have made objections to or representations about the Applications.

Overview

108. EDF has carried out a thorough assessment of potential adverse effects of the proposed works in the ES and ESA. In addition to the mitigation measures built into the design, a comprehensive set of controls and mitigation measures are proposed to be secured (either by condition or obligation, as the case may be). Such residual adverse impacts as would be likely to occur must be placed in their proper context and would not be sufficient to justify rejecting the applications. As explained in the evidence,90 there are three points of context which are of particular significance:

• Any degree of adverse impact falls to be considered against the scale of the need for the project.

• National policy recognizes that the construction of HPC itself would be likely to have adverse environmental effects,91 but there are overriding reasons (amounting to imperative reasons of overriding public interest) why its development should nevertheless be supported.

• The adverse effects of the jetty would also need to be balanced against the positive impacts of the jetty itself – particularly the exceptional benefits that it could provide in saving around a quarter of a million HGV movements.

109. The evidence before this inquiry has not identified any significant impact which was not covered by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or any

87 See articles 22(1) and 22(3) of the HEO; 88 See in this context draft HEO (CD/1.2.4), Articles 3(1), 11, 13 and 14; 89 E70, letter dated 8 July 2011; 90 E1, paragraph 4.4.2; 91 Adverse effects which coincide with those anticipated in the preparation of the NPS, i.e. landscape impacts and potential impacts on the marine environment;



mitigation measure which could properly be said to be necessary in the light of that assessment but which has not been secured.

Noise92

110. The assessment undertaken shows that there would be no significant (let alone unacceptable) disturbance to residential amenity as a result of construction activity or the operation of the jetty93. None of EDF’s technical evidence was disputed in any of the written or oral evidence given to the inquiry and there was no attempt to challenge any aspect of this evidence through cross-examination.

Construction activity

111. The only issue raised by objectors and others in relation to construction noise and its impact on amenity concerned the potential effects of working in the evening and at night.94 But the assessment of worst-case construction noise levels as experienced at the nearest residential properties demonstrates that these would be well within (i.e. much lower than) the limits recommended in BS5228.95 Therefore, the impacts would be low.96

112. The Inspector had suggested that a restriction should be imposed such that construction noise levels would be pegged at the predicted levels. The response to this (E60.1) led to a Note from the Inspector (ID6) which was replied to in turn (E71). The Inspector’s approach was not appropriate97 but EDF has volunteered lower noise limits than those contemplated in the evidence and assessed as part of the EIA (E77 pg21, E76). The lower limits would be 5 dB below Category A in BS5228 for all periods (E71 pg7 item b). The Inspector stated that this is an approach that he regards as preferable and it is one that EDF is content to accept.

113. Furthermore, it was also acknowledged by the Inspector that, in circumstances where the SPW planning permission and/or DCO (which would be subject to higher noise limits) were being implemented at the same time as the jetty works, it would be reasonable for the jetty works to be controlled by those higher limits, not least because the SPW would be taking place much closer to the nearest residential properties98.

The fog horn

114. The potential noise impacts from the fog-horn, as experienced at the nearest residential properties, would be low and very unlikely to result in noise levels which would result in either complaint (by reference to BS414299) or sleep

92 See also ID/1 paragraph 11, 11th bullet point (noise, working hours and foghorn); 93 Disturbance effects from noise to users of public rights of way are addressed further below; 94 E9, paragraphs 2.7 to 2.24; 95 CD/15.7; 96 E9, paragraphs 6.2.1 to 6.2.5; 97 EDF argues that most fundamentally the approach is inconsistent with the basic principle that a restriction of the type suggested should not be contemplated unless it is the case that it has been demonstrated that unacceptable harm would be caused to residential amenity absent such a condition. There is no such evidence. Just because an applicant predicts that he will be able to do better than an acceptable noise control level does not mean that it is necessary to oblige the developer to work to the lower, predicted, noise levels; 98 As discussed on day 8; 99 CD/15.5;



disturbance (by reference to the WHO guidelines).100 Furthermore, the noise levels at those properties would be reduced further by either choosing a directional fog horn or screening an omni-directional one. A restriction101 is proposed to ensure this.

Lighting102

115. EDF proposes a restriction to control the impact of lighting the site.103 Any lighting on site would be installed and operated in accordance with the detailed Temporary Jetty Lighting Strategy (June 2011)104 (“the Strategy”). This has been developed to accord with the Department for Communities and Local Government Guidance ‘Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice’, other relevant guidance and British Standards,105 and is supplemented by a Technical Appendix which provides technical details of the proposed lighting scheme. No party to the inquiry takes issue with the approach or contents of the Strategy.

116. The Strategy seeks to ensure that, in the absence of natural light, a safe working environment would be maintained. However, in view of the relatively sensitive environment in which the site is located, it sets out an approach to minimise the amount of light spill to areas outside the working or access areas. It would also require zero light spill above the horizontal and it suggests the use of shields and baffles to reduce light spill to a minimum. The Strategy identifies a number of landscape features that would contribute to lighting mitigation, such as the Green Lane Ridge and local landform, which would combine to reduce the potential impact of lighting on surrounding farmland and local settlements.106 The details of any lighting to be installed on the site must first be approved by the local planning authority.

117. The effect of the lighting on fish, marine mammals and Corallina would give rise only to minimal impacts on marine ecology.107 Similarly, the mitigation proposed through the Strategy (in combination with the bat barn, which is south of Green Lane near Viewpoint 1 on E55, E59, and the off-site habitat provision) would result in there being only a minor adverse impact on bat populations during the construction phase, and a negligible impact during the operational phase.108

Recreation and access109

118. If a temporary jetty were to be provided to serve the construction of HPC, it is inevitable that this would have some adverse impact on the ability of the public to access the land within the scope of the HEO, and to use that land for recreation. The extent to which access is proposed to be restricted would be kept to a sensible minimum; appropriate mitigation is proposed wherever justified.

100 E9, paragraphs 6.3.1 to 6.3.5; 101 E54.1, Schedule 3, condition 8; E56.2.1, First Schedule, paragraph 8; 102 See also ID/1 paragraph 11, 10th bullet point (lighting impacts); 103 E54.1, Schedule 3, condition 13; E56.2.1, First Schedule, paragraph 13; 104 Appendix 3 to the ESA (CD/1.11); 105 See paragraph 1.3.1 of the Strategy; 106 See paragraph 3.2.2 of the Strategy; 107 Proof of Sian John, E6, paragraphs 4.3.47 to 4.3.49; 108 Proof of Richard Knightbridge, E7, paragraphs 2.1.7 and 2.1.8; 109 See also ID/1 paragraph 11, 13th bullet point (recreation, rights of way, wildfowling);



Wildfowling

119. Mr Hill, on behalf of the BBWA, is concerned about the impact of the jetty on those who currently use this area for wildfowling but none of the points he has raised would provide a proper basis for rejecting the HEO. He accepts that even if greater weight were given to his concerns (i.e. if the significance of the impact on wildfowling reported in the ES were to be increased), he does not argue that they would outweigh the benefits to the environment and local amenity associated with the early provision of the jetty.

120. Thus, the issues raised as to whether the ES and ESA ascribe sufficient weight to the impact on wildfowling110 do not make any material difference to the decision whether the HEO ought to be granted. In any event, the conclusions in the ES are sound.111 Indeed,

• The jetty construction area would obstruct less than 2% of the total Excepted Area, and the operational area even less.112

• There are other local areas available for wildfowling, including two – subject to permits from NE - within the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve.113

• The view of NE, the body responsible for the Excepted Area, is that usage of it in front of Hinkley Point is low.114

• The BBWA has not provided any evidence of usage of this part of the Excepted Area to contradict NE’s assessment.

121. Mr Hill accepts the following points as common ground115:

• The concern about prohibition of armed access, one of the main planks of the BBWA’s initial objection, had now been overcome.

• Some temporary diversions of public rights of way would be needed. The BBWA does not advance an alternative set of diversions or argue that the proposed temporary closures are more than would be needed.

• The diversions associated with the jetty would have less of an impact than those associated with the SPW. The BBWA had raised the same points in its response to consultation on the SPW; the LPA was not persuaded that those concerns outweighed the benefits associated with those works.

• There would be no impact on access along the foreshore during the operational phase of the jetty.

• During the construction phase, it would be necessary to restrict access along the foreshore in places from time to time. The extent to which that would be necessary would vary and a judgment would need to be made at that time. The ES had assumed complete obstruction as a worst-case scenario but the likelihood is that it would not be as bad as that in practice.

110 See Miss Calder’s evidence (E11 paragraphs 4.3.6 to 4.3.11) and Mr Hill’s written evidence (BBWA/2); 111 Re-x, day 2; 112 E11, paragraph 4.3.7; 113 E11, paragraph 4.3.7; 114 E11, paragraph 4.3.10; 115 Xx, day 3;



122. No additional mitigation is therefore required. Moreover, NE’s view is that it would be problematic to permit any additional wildfowling to the east of Hinkley Point, that wildfowling is well provided for in the vicinity, and that additional areas are not required.116 The SoCG with BBWA117 sets out the position of the parties on the issues of concern to the BBWA.

Public Rights of Way (“PRoW”)

123. Some temporary diversions to PRoW would inevitably be required for safety reasons to exclude the public from construction areas. These would be kept as short as possible, in terms of both length and duration. The approach adopted is that the diverted PRoW would take the shortest and most convenient route from point to point and be re-opened as the works progressed.118 The proposed mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of the impacts on PRoW to ‘very low’, and the impacts to ‘short-term minor adverse’ and ‘negligible’.119

124. The ES also identifies ‘negligible’ to ‘moderate adverse’ disturbance to users of PRoW from construction noise but these effects would, by their nature, be short-lived, only affecting walkers as they passed the noisy activity during the construction period.120

125. The proposed diversions would be more limited than those approved for the SPW. If the SPW development commences, those more extensive diversions would occur instead. In that case, EDF would make a very substantial contribution to Somerset County Council (SCC) (pursuant to the S106 obligation associated with the SPW) to fund wider network enhancements in order to mitigate the longer diversions required.

126. If the jetty development were to take place ahead of (or without) the SPW development, then pursuant to the Second Schedule of the BA between EDF and WSC, EDF would make a financial contribution121 to SCC for improvements to the PRoW network. However, and as has been made clear, EDF does not consider this contribution to be necessary or justified by the jetty development. No party to this inquiry has sought to demonstrate through evidence that this contribution is necessary to make the proposed jetty development acceptable. It is offered simply as a gesture of goodwill, not as a matter to which weight should attach in the decision-making process.122

127. If the SPW planning permission were issued and implemented, the contribution made pursuant to the BA would be deducted from the total contribution to be made under the SPW planning obligation.

128. The more extensive diversions associated with the SPW are not before this inquiry for approval but are material to the MMO’s decision in relation to

116 E11, paragraph 4.3.10; 117 E22.1; 118 See generally E11 section 4.2 and Figures 17.4, 17.5 and 9-1, and Miss Calder’s x-i-c on day 2; E66 footpath distances; 119 CD/1.6, p. 17-40, paragraphs 17.7.1 to 17.7.2; 120 CD/1.6, p. 17-41, paragraph 17.7.4; 121 The precise sum will be determined pursuant to the provisions of the Second Schedule, and will comprise the HEO PROW Contribution (as defined) of £247,478 together with an additional contribution (the appropriate proportion of £291,801) for PROW improvements relating to reinstatement; 122 SPC considers weight ought to attach to the contributions;



cumulative impact. In that context, it is important to understand that the diversions proposed pursuant to the HEO would not give rise to any additional diversions beyond those proposed (and accepted by the LPA) as part of the SPW.

Boats and fishing

129. The impacts on anglers and recreational sailors would be minimal. This is a result of the very small area of the Bristol Channel potentially affected and the relatively low usage of the particular area. No specific concerns have been raised by shore anglers about the impact of the proposed temporary jetty on their ability to pursue their pastime. Most activity takes place to the east in front of the Hinkley Point B power station.123 There is no evidence of significant usage of the limited area within the limits of the HEO.

130. The concerns raised by the Burnham Boat Owners Sea Angling Association124 have not been supported by any evidence to, or appearance before, this inquiry. Those concerns should not be regarded as significant, having regard to the limited area affected by the construction and operation of the jetty and the extensive area remaining for their use.125

Conclusion

131. The measures proposed by EDF would be appropriate and sufficient to mitigate potential adverse effects of the proposed works with regard to the concerns raised by respondents in terms of recreation and access.

Landscape and visual impacts126

132. The jetty development would take place in a pleasant, attractive farmed landscape, albeit not one protected by any statutory or non-statutory planning designation such as AONB, in close proximity to the Hinkley Point A and B Nuclear Power Stations.

133. Illustrations of the landscape proposals and visualisations are included in the ES (CD1.7 Figs21-6 – 21-27) and in the ESA (CD1.10 Figs13.1 - 13.15).

134. The jetty landscape mitigation proposals (CD1.6 Section 21.6) cover impacts during construction, operation and dismantling/restoration and removal/ reinstatement. There is a difference between the Jetty Reinstatement Proposals and the Site Restoration Proposals. The former would ‘bite’ should the HEO be granted for the jetty development but the DCO be refused. If the DCO were not granted within five years of the HEO, the site would be reinstated with the proposals illustrated in CD1.7 Fig21-27. The aim would be to re-establish the landscape substantially in the form that it is in now. Site ‘restoration’ proposals, contingent upon the DCO being granted, would take the form indicated in the ESA (CD1.10 Fig13-10); the jetty infrastructure would be dismantled and removed and the land remodelled on the western side to tie in with the contours of the existing landscape to the west and with the (assumed) consented Site

123 E11, paragraph 4.4.4; 124 E11, paragraph 4.4.3; 125 E11, paragraph 4.4.3; 126 See also ID/1 paragraph 11, 8th bullet point (landscape and visual);



Preparation Works (SPW) Restoration Scheme extending further to the south (CD1.10 Fig13-10) and tying in with what is proposed in the DCO application.

135. During the lifetime of the jetty development, there would inevitably be a significant adverse effect on local landscape character. The effect would be mitigated as far as reasonably practicable but, in view of the scale and nature of the development, the residual landscape and visual effects would remain significant. Such an effect would be acceptable in this case, as the written127 and the oral evidence128 confirm. In summary, the reasons are:

• The landscape at the site and in its local context, whilst attractive, is not especially sensitive to the form of development proposed.

o It is a varied landscape.

o The HPA and HPB power stations have a substantial visual impact on the area – an impact which is greatest on the coast to the west and on the low lying area to the east.

o Whilst effects would be greater close by, there would be a noticeable but lesser impact on views from the Quantocks because of the greater distance and the very ‘large-ness’ of the views available.

o Within a short distance of the site, the viewer would not be ‘blinkered’ to look in one direction only. Views are dynamic and kinetic. The landscape to the west and south west would remain unaltered and, in landscape character terms, the industrialisation of the site would form a narrow part of the broad panorama. In visual terms, as one moved away from the site, the presence of the jetty would become increasingly peripheral.

o As a matter of context, one must not lose sight of WSC’s resolution to permit the much more extensive SPW application nor the in-principle support for HPC as set out in the NPS.

• The potential landscape and visual effects would be mitigated through a combination of:

o avoiding, where possible, the removal of trees and other vegetation;

o seeking to minimise the visual presence of the sand shed and silos in terms of scale and appearance;129

o planting on and off-site;130

o the deployment of the lighting strategy set out in Appendix 3 to the ESA;131

o aligning the silos with the sand shed;

127 E10 and E10.2; 128 Day 3; 129 See Appendix 2 to the ES, CD/1.8; 130 See ES Volume 3, Figure 21-25 (CD/1.7) and ESA Figure 13-14 (CD/1.10); 131 CD/1.11;



o a restriction to prevent the construction of the superstructure of the silos and sand shed before 1 March 2013 and the construction of the bund had been completed; and,

o by limiting the temporal effects of the proposed development.

136. Combining the environmental attributes of the site and its setting with the mitigation proposals and the temporary nature of the development, this area is capable of accommodating the landscape and visual impacts of the jetty development in an acceptable manner.

Navigation132

137. EDF’s case on this matter is set out above in the context of preventing interference with the legitimate uses of the sea.

Ornithology133

138. The ES134 and ESA135 have carefully assessed the potential for the proposed jetty to disturb water birds feeding, resting or roosting within or in close proximity to the HEO site. In summary, the assessment demonstrates the following136:

o The areas within the potential disturbance zone are not used regularly by large numbers of waders or wildfowl.

o Core foraging, roosting or loafing areas are not likely to be significantly disturbed during the construction or operation of the jetty.

o Moulting shelduck aggregating on the water surface are unlikely to be significantly affected as they are usually present a considerable distance from shore, are not relying on remaining in a specific location (i.e. they are not exploiting a particular habitat patch), and can move away from any disturbance by swimming.

o The disturbance associated with the jetty proposal would not result in any detectable decline in the populations of bird species that are interest features of the Severn Estuary Special Protection Area (“SPA”) or Ramsar site or the Bridgwater Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”).

139. Any in-combination effect could not occur for 3 years. Additional survey work has been undertaken following discussion with NE to provide further information on the potential for boat traffic using the temporary jetty to disturb or displace moulting shelduck.137 In the light of that additional survey information, EDF and NE have been able to agree the following matters (amongst others) as common ground:

132 See also ID/1 paragraph 11 , 6th bullet point (navigation effects, Bridgwater Harbour); 133 See also ID/1 paragraph 11, 7th bullet point (marine and terrestrial ecology); 134 CD/1.6, chapter 11; 135 CD/1.10, paragraphs 4.3.8 to 4.3.19; 136 See E8, section 4; 137 See E8a, which provides the results of this additional survey work;



o Disturbance associated with the operation of the jetty, considered alone, would be of a low magnitude during the limited time period that the jetty would be in operation, and would not have a likely significant effect on the SPA.138

o The combined effect of the operation of the jetty and the operational phase of the first HPC reactor would not be of sufficient magnitude to have a likely significant effect on the SPA.139

o There would be no in-combination effects on SPA waterfowl as a result of jetty construction and the construction of the seawall, in combination with the construction and operation of Combwich Wharf.140

o The effect of boat traffic to and from the temporary jetty would have limited potential to act in an in-combination manner with traffic to and from Combwich Wharf.141

o In view of EDF Energy’s willingness to put in place a monitoring plan, and, if necessary, to apply mitigation measures to ensure that an in-combination effect on shelduck from the operation of the jetty and the operation of Combwich Wharf, though unlikely, would not occur, there would not be any in-combination effects on SPA waterfowl.142

140. Save for one point, there are no outstanding issues in relation to ornithology (or any other matter) between EDF and NE. The one remaining issue concerns exactly what the HEO should specify to address possible impacts on shelduck if, as and when the DCO is approved and Combwich Wharf is used as part of the DCO in combination with the jetty. EDF’s position on this is as follows:

• EDF’s and NE’s positions are fairly close to each other. The key facts are agreed in the SoCG (E21.1).

o The essential point is that vessel movements to and from the jetty itself, i.e. the subject of the HEO, would not give rise to a significant effect on shelduck (e.g. E21.1 p3.1.4).

o The only potential issue arises if Combwich Wharf were to operate under the DCO alongside the HEO jetty. It is important to appreciate that it is agreed that if this in-combination operation gave rise to an impact on shelduck, there would be a way of satisfactorily dealing with this (should the issue ever manifest itself in reality), namely, by adjusting vessel movements or the number of vessel movements (E21.1 p2.5.13).

• Given this agreed position, no legal issue or problem would arise in applying the Habitats Directive and Regulations.

o The MMO as Competent Authority should conclude on the evidence before it, including the SoCG, that any potential impact - should it arise in reality from operating Combwich Wharf under the DCO in combination with the HEO jetty – could be satisfactorily mitigated.

138 E21.1, paragraph 2.5.10; 139 E21.1, paragraph 2.5.14; 140 E21.1, paragraphs 2.5.15-2.5.18; 141 E21.1, paragraph 2.5.12; 142 E21.1, paragraphs 2.5.13 and 3.1.4;



o EDF has suggested a draft Article (E61) to secure this, which would prohibit the in-combination operation of the jetty and Combwich Wharf unless and until a Monitoring and Mitigation Scheme had been submitted, approved and thereafter implemented. This would ensure that the in-combination impact would not arise. It would be more than sufficient.

o NE disagrees, and submits that the Article must require the Scheme to accord with a draft of it settled now, and that construction of the jetty should not commence until the Scheme had been submitted to and approved by the MMO (NE9). Although the parties now agree on the wording of the draft (NE9.1), there is fundamental disagreement with NE’s requirement.

o It is known that there is a means to mitigate in-combination impact, and that knowledge is all that the MMO needs in order to discharge its Habitat Directive and Regulations duties. There is no need to prohibit construction of the jetty, given that it is agreed that it is not the jetty that would give rise to the impact.

o At the very most (not that EDF considers this appropriate or necessary) the draft Article in E61 could have an additional clause: ‘(1A) The Shelduck Monitoring and Mitigation Scheme shall be in general accordance with the “Principles for an adaptive monitoring strategy for shelduck” set out in Annex A to NE9.1’.

o NE seeks to justify its approach by arguing that monitoring needs to commence next year. However this does not warrant holding up the construction of the jetty. EDF is aware of the need to monitor from next year (and onwards) and will do so in any event. NE’s position would be protected because, if EDF failed to carry out sufficient monitoring, it would be unable to operate Combwich Wharf in combination with the jetty (E61 draft Article).

141. The appropriate conclusion is that the measures proposed by EDF would be sufficient to mitigate potential adverse impacts in relation to ornithology.

The marine environment143

142. EDF’s case on this subject is set out above in relation to MMO Matter 6.

Transport impacts144

143. The assessment of the transport impacts of the jetty works has been carried out in close co-operation with the Highways Agency, SCC, WSC and SDC. No objections or outstanding transport issues have been raised by any of those bodies.145

144. The transport impacts of constructing the jetty would be very limited. Initially, those impacts were assessed only in combination with the SPW because the

143 See also ID/1 paragraph 11, 7th bullet point (marine ecology), 8th bullet point (fishing impacts); 144 Whilst this does not appear to be an issue specifically identified in ID1 paragraph 11, it is a concern raised by at least one objector (SPC), and we have therefore addressed it by reference to this Matter; 145 Mr Bird’s proof, E4, paragraph 1.1.6;



traffic generated by construction of the jetty alone would be below the thresholds whereby its impact could be identified by the Paramics Transport Model.146 However, an assessment of the jetty in isolation was undertaken for the purposes of producing the ESA, and agreed with the authorities. The assessment showed that:

• there would be on average only 16 HGV movements per day generated by the jetty construction (8 in and 8 out);

• there would be on average 54 car/minibus movements per day;

• this level of additional traffic would have no material impact on highway capacity in the Bridgwater or Cannington areas; and

• the additional traffic would have minimal impact on the amenity of the residents of Cannington147.

145. The conclusions of the assessment are supported by a set of restrictions which would ensure that the impacts would be no worse than those assessed in the ESA and found to be acceptable.148

MMO Matter 8: Whether the making of the Order is desirable in the interests of facilitating the efficient and economic transport of goods by sea.

146. The substance of EDF’s case on MMO Matter 8 is set out above in relation to MMO Matter 1. In short, providing the jetty would allow very substantial quantities of construction materials to be transported, efficiently and economically, by sea.

Additional Issues from the Inspector (ID1)

Habitats Regulations/Appropriate Assessment

147. EDF has provided a detailed report, entitled ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment Information’ (“the HRA Report”)149, which considers the likely implications of the proposed development for the European designated sites in the study area150, and provides information for a Habitats Regulations Assessment. The HRA Report sits alongside the ES and ESA, and has been produced using data and assessment in those documents.

148. These matters are for the MMO to take forward as the Competent Authority.

149. The HRA process has two stages. The first is the likely significant effects test (i.e. could the proposals have a significant effect on a site or feature of European interest), and the second (if a significant effect cannot be ruled out) is ‘appropriate assessment’. The second stage involves an assessment of whether an adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant site would occur in practice.

146 E4, paragraph 5.1.3; 147 E4 section 5; 148 E54.1, Schedule 3, condition 45; E56.2.1, Final Schedule, paragraph 45; 149 CD/1.14; 150 The Severn Estuary SAC, the Severn Estuary Special Protection Area, Severn Estuary Ramsar site, and the Exmoor and Quantocks Oakwoods SAC (CD/1.14 paragraph 1.1.5);



150. In this case, the HRA Report only moved to the second stage in relation to the Severn Estuary SPA and Ramsar site, due to the potential in-combination effects of the jetty development’s construction works and the HPC works.151 With relevant mitigation in place, the Report determined that an adverse effect on the integrity of these sites would not arise.152

151. NE worked extensively on the information to inform the HRA Report, and has confirmed that it is largely satisfied with the conclusions it reaches, subject to the inclusion of the additional baseline material on which conclusions can be based on the level of boat disturbance to wildfowl.153 NE is satisfied with the additional information that EDF has provided to address this matter.154 As explained above, the only potential significant impact on a European site (i.e. in-combination effects on shelduck) could be prevented.

152. If EDF failed to demonstrate ‘no problem’, then before it could use the jetty in combination with Combwich Wharf, it would need to have a mitigation scheme approved by the MMO and, if necessary, it would need to adjust vessel movements. The MMO is invited to conclude that no appropriate assessment would be required.

153. If it is concluded that an appropriate assessment is required, all the information needed for such an assessment has been provided, and it can safely be concluded that no significant adverse impact on the integrity of the relevant European sites would occur as a result of the jetty development alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

Proximity to fossil beach

154. The foreshore that would be affected by the proposed development contains fossils but is not itself designated as a “fossil beach”. Potential impacts on the foreshore have been addressed in considerable detail in the ES155 and ESA.156 In short, no significant effect is predicted on local geomorphological processes, and nor are the works predicted to produce scour across the beach, given the nature of the rock platform, or to result in pollution of the foreshore. There is no evidence that any significant effect would be likely. Thus, even if the request for financial compensation from SPC were legitimate in principle – which it is not – no such payment would be justified in this case.

Hedgerows Regulations

155. Pursuant to regulation 6(1)(e) of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, hedgerow consent is not required to remove hedgerows to carry out development for which planning permission has been granted under Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995, i.e. it is not required for development authorised under the HEO (E41). The proposed loss of hedgerows would be an impact of low magnitude and of only minor adverse significance. The restoration scheme would include the creation of a greater

151 E5, paragraph 3.1.6; 152 CD/1/14, section 8.5; 153 NE6, and E21.1 paragraph 2.2.1; 154 E21.1, paragraph 3.1.1; 155 CD/1.6, section 16.5; 156 CD/1.10, section 2.2;



length (680m) of species-rich hedgerow than that to be removed to construct the jetty works.157

Other issues relating to terrestrial ecology158

156. Although a small number of other issues in relation to terrestrial ecology have been raised by objectors,159 none has proved to be of any substance. EDF has addressed the approach taken to the use of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment,160 the impact on bats and the Exmoor and Quantocks Oakwoods Special Area of Conservation,161 and compliance with Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9).162 This evidence was not challenged and it should be accepted.163 None of the impacts on terrestrial ecology would be of more than minor significance; the proposed development would accord with the key requirements of PPS9.

Unexploded Ordnance

157. EDF recognises the risk of unexploded ordnance in relation to marine works. A specific survey was undertaken before the offshore investigation works were carried out. A number of anomalies were identified by the survey, and further surveys would be undertaken in the period immediately preceding any intrusive marine works.164

Conditions, Undertakings and Management Plans

158. After extensive and detailed discussion over a number of days at the inquiry, EDF’s final position in relation to restrictions which it would be appropriate to place upon the construction and operation of the jetty is found in the following papers:

• E54.1 (Amendments converting the BA with WSC into HEO restrictions having effect as deemed planning conditions). On the question of the overlap of jurisdiction, HEO Article 16B on pg1 of E54.1 would extend the LPA’s jurisdiction to the ‘wet’ area (p5 and 6). Whereas this would allow the Council to vary conditions under S73 and 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) 1990, it could not grant permissions below the level of mean low water as it could not grant new permissions. This amendment to the HEO would take account of the fact that the LPA powers do not extend to the ‘wet’ area but the receptors of the impacts are on dry land.

• EDF and FE agree that the combination of Clause 13 of the BA and Article 28A of the draft HEO would not supplant condition 46 of the BA (FE10 p7). Thus, BA condition 46 (Potential Reinstatement) would remain in force. FE’s suggestion that HEO Article 28A be amended would not be necessary. Article 28A would not be overridden by condition 46. The only question is where this matter should be covered, not whether it should be covered. For its part, EDF

157 E7, section 3.1; 158 ID/1, paragraph 11, 7th bullet point (terrestrial ecological matters); 159 See E7, paragraph 1.2.2; 160 See E7, section 3.2; 161 See E7, section 3.3; 162 See E7, section 3.4; 163 See E7, paragraph 4.1.9; 164 See Mr Hutton’s evidence (E1.1) at paragraph 4.3.1;



sees no need for Article 28C as proposed by FE but has no objection to it. The Council’s version of Article 28C (WSSC6.1) is also not appropriate but its words and content are satisfactory.

• E56.2.1 (BA – Completed 2 December 2011).

• E23 (Approach for imposing restrictions on the development authorised by the HEO) which explains why EDF considers that it would be appropriate to impose restrictions by means of an obligation enforceable by the LPA rather than by means of deemed conditions on the face of the HEO itself. Nevertheless, EDF does not have any particular objection to the MMO adopting the latter approach if it so prefers. Both approaches have been presented so that the MMO can readily make the Order using whichever approach it considers most appropriate. The legal paper E17 deals with the HEO powers, the justification for including permitted development rights in the HEO, for Article 6 (subsidiary works and operations) and for Articles 17 and 18 (re PRoW).

• E53 sets out HEO amendments to meet the EA’s concerns (Article 33A).

• E63, which deals with the issue of financial security for jetty removal and reinstatement.

o The principles for the security arrangements have been agreed between EDF and the LPAs and the detailed arrangements will be set out in a supplemental bilateral agreement between EDF and WSC, which will be submitted to the MMO following the close of the inquiry.

o In order to secure agreements with the Crown Estate and the EA to lease the necessary ‘wet land’ to construct and operate the jetty, EDF has to make available financial security to those two parties to deal with the reinstatement of that land.

o FE suggests that it is necessary for the MMO to satisfy itself as to the detailed terms of the security EDF has agreed with the Crown Estate and the EA165. This is not necessary, given that there is no doubt that the nature and extent of the financial security provided by EDF has been accepted by those two bodies as sufficient to enable them to lease the necessary land to EDF and to withdraw any objection to the Order.

• E69 (re bond, bund, operational limits, sand shed height, PRoW, Definitions, conditions) along with E37 (bund), E56.1 (Bilateral Agreement) and E72 (cliff stability) to which it cross refers, identifies and responds to the outstanding matters relied on by FE in relation to the BA.

• E25.1 (see also E58) sets out the amendments proposed by EDF to the HEO after the opening of the inquiry. These are included in CD1.2.4 and 1.2.5. [See report p81 above]

• The Marine Licences conditions are set out in E50.3. Natural England has requested that a condition (No 8) be included that would require the licensed works to be carried out in accordance with p6.2.98 of the HRA (CD1.14). This is not necessary as each item in this paragraph is addressed elsewhere in the

165 See comments made by Leading Counsel for the Estate on 1 December 2011



documentation submitted to the inquiry (see E73). However, if it is considered that a condition of this nature is necessary, the following is suggested: The authorised works shall be carried out in general accordance with paragraph 6.2.98 of the Habitats Regulations Assessment Information (June 2011) (CD1.14).

THE TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT ORDER166

DECC Matter 1: Whether all of the land and rights over land for which compulsory acquisition powers are sought in the Order (“the specified land and rights”) are required by the Company in order to secure satisfactory implementation of the works which would be authorised under the powers which the Company is seeking to have conferred on it by the proposed HEO or for any works otherwise authorised and ancillary to such works (“the proposed works”).

159. The scope of the proposed compulsory acquisition of interests in land is now extremely limited but, as matters stand at the close of the inquiry, the TWAO is still necessary for the reasons set out in the opening submissions167 and in EDF’s (now uncontested) evidence168 subject to one amendment as explained below.

160. There are four parcels of land covered by the proposed TWAO (marked as “TWA_1, 2, 3 and 4” on the Order Land Plan169). At the close of the inquiry, the position in relation to each parcel is as follows.

TWA_1

161. Following the completion of an agreement with the EA, its interests in TWA_1 have been excluded from the TWAO.170

162. Compulsory purchase powers are sought in order to extinguish the interests held by NE via a (Nature Reserve) Management Agreement in parcel TWA_1. Discussions are in hand171 between NE and the EA to vary the Management Agreement to exclude the area required for the jetty. So far, those discussions have not borne fruit. Therefore, EDF requires the powers sought in order to remove the restrictions arising from the Management Agreement. Those restrictions172 are patently not compatible with EDF’s proposed development of that land for the jetty bridge infrastructure;173 that evidence is not in dispute.

163. If the position changes before the Secretary of State decides whether to make the Order, EDF will notify him that NE’s interests should be excluded from the Order.

166 ID/1 paragraph 11 does not raise any additional points beyond those set out in DECC’s Statement of Matters; 167 E40, paragraphs 3 to 8; 168 E2, 2a (John Rhodes), E3, 3a and 3.2 (Simon Baker) and E3.1 (Hugh Hutton); 169 CD/1.24; 170 See amended Article 3 in CD/1.18.1 (track-changed in CD/1.18.2); 171 E40, paragraph 5; 172 E3, paragraphs 4.2.6 to 4.2.9; 173 See E3.1, paragraph 3.2.2;



TWA_2

164. Compulsory powers were sought in order to extinguish BT’s rights to an understood-to-be redundant cable in parcel TWA_2. This parcel includes the northern part of the rock extraction area, together with land required for the service roads connecting the site entrance to the rock extraction area, the foreshore access and the main onshore works area174. In the then absence of formal confirmation from BT that EDF may remove the cable in order to carry out those works, the powers sought were necessary to enable the proposed development to be implemented. EDF has now received written confirmation that BT has no legal interest in the route of the cable, so EDF no longer makes this part of its case in support of the Order.

TWA_1, 2, 3 and 4

165. There is a possibility that other rights and interests might exist in the four TWAO parcels, and so compulsory purchase powers are sought over all four in order to deal with any as yet unknown rights and interests.

The relationship between the TWAO and the SPW

166. If the SPW planning permission were issued and works under that permission had commenced in parcels TWA_2, 3 and 4 prior to the start of the jetty works, then compulsory purchase powers to enable the carrying out of jetty-related works would no longer be required over them175. However, at the close of the jetty inquiry, the SPW planning permission had yet to be issued. Once it is, EDF would need to wait until that permission was safe from legal challenge before relying upon it to restrict further the scope of the TWAO. In the event that those circumstances arose prior to decision, EDF would notify the Secretary of State that these parcels should be excluded from the Order.

DECC Matter 2: The likely impacts of the exercise of the powers contained in the Order on the owners and occupiers of premises and land in respect of which such powers would be conferred, and on any other persons with rights over that land, including their ability to carry out their businesses effectively or fulfil any statutory responsibilities.

167. As explained by reference to MMO Matter 5, the effect of the TWAO on the owners and occupiers of the land affected by the TWAO would be very limited, and no outstanding objections remain from any owner or occupier.176 Making the Order would not give rise to any significant impediment to the ability of any owner or occupier to carry out their business effectively or to fulfil any statutory responsibilities.

DECC Matter 3: Whether in all the circumstances there is a compelling case in the public interest for granting the Company the powers it seeks to acquire the specified land and rights compulsorily for the purposes of the proposed works, having regard to the guidance on making compulsory

174 E3.1, paragraph 3.2.5; 175 See E3.1, paragraphs 3.2.4 and 3.2.6, which explain the different uses to which those areas would be put in that scenario; 176 See EA19, letter from the Environment Agency to the Programme Officer confirming withdrawal of its objections to the TWAO;



purchase orders in ODPM Circular 06/2004, in particular paragraphs 16 to 23.

168. EDF’s written177 and oral178 evidence on the TWAO emphasises the following important points:

• National policy represents the public interest.

o It deals with national planning policy for HPC rather than the jetty, but the jetty would form part of the HPC project; it would only exist to facilitate the construction of HPC.

o No national policy document in the last 30 years has so clearly established a need in principle for a project. The development of new nuclear capacity is described as “urgent”179, “vitally important”180 and to be provided “as soon as possible and significantly earlier than 2025”181.

o Note what is at stake: national energy supply, energy security and carbon reduction obligations.182 There could scarcely be a more important context.

o This national policy has been established through unprecedented research, assessment, consultation and parliamentary approval.

o It names Hinkley as an appropriate location in principle for a new nuclear power station, and tells us that there are no alternatives to the listed sites183.

o Some useful conclusions can be drawn from the fact that the NPS identifies that there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (“IROPI”) for the planned development of the listed sites184. The tests of IROPI on the one hand, and compelling case in the public interest for compulsory acquisition on the other, are different. One does not necessarily justify the other. Nevertheless, substantial weight should attach to the fact that the Government has concluded that there are imperative reasons to support new nuclear development even where it cannot rule out the potential for adverse effects on the integrity of European designated sites, and in the knowledge that there would be landscape impacts which could not be fully mitigated.

o In principle, the policy context establishes that there is a compelling case in the public interest.

169. There is also a compelling case in the public interest having regard to the local context.

177 E2, paragraphs 2.1.1 to 2.1.11, and the documents referred to therein; 178 Day 4; 179 CD/3.1 (EN-1) paragraph 3.2.3 (and elsewhere); 180 CD/3.1 (EN-1) paragraph 3.5.10; 181 CD/3.1 (EN-1) paragraph 3.5.9; 182 CD/3.1 (EN-1), paragraph 3.2.3; 183 CD/3.2 (EN-6), paragraph 3.2.3; 184 CD/3.2 (EN-6), paragraph 1.8.2;



• The evidence establishes that the jetty would accelerate the construction and therefore the operation of HPC:

o It would take a substantial number of HGVs off the local roads and thereby reduce the risk that restrictions would be imposed on traffic movements which would limit the supply of construction materials. If that were to happen, it would extend the construction period for HPC, whether through a limitation on movements or even a Grampian condition until the Cannington bypass was in place185.

o It would literally get the jetty construction ‘out of the way’ and allow the HPC construction to take place more efficiently186. If the operation of HPC were to be brought forward by one year, the effect of the jetty would be to save an estimated 12mt of carbon dioxide, as well as the sustainability benefits of reducing HGV traffic.

o There would be compelling local benefits, particularly the estimated saving of at least 250,000 HGV movements. Even if these were to be netted down to take account of the construction traffic for the jetty, the saving still comes in at some 236,000 HGV movements. And this is an underestimate because it takes no account of the savings to be generated by the other part of the jetty infrastructure, the roadway and the turning head, which would be built as part of the jetty, to bring in other construction materials.

o The impacts would be relatively small, localised and well mitigated. There would be a need for controls but it is significant that there is no objection from WSC, SDC, SCC or the environmental regulators.

o SPC, the Parish Council most adversely affected, supports the principle of the jetty and Cannington Parish Council has also given evidence of its support.

170. This is one of those rare cases which would generate substantial benefits of national and local importance, whilst having relatively limited adverse effects. Accordingly, there is a clear and compelling case in the public interest.

DECC Matter 4: Whether (and if so how) the powers to be granted by the Order should reflect the temporary nature of the proposed works.

171. The substance of EDF’s position as to the temporary nature of the proposed works has been addressed by reference to MMO Matter 2. Also, ‘Legal Paper 4: Response to issues raised in relation to the Transport and Works Act Order’187 deals specifically with the issue of temporary acquisition. It explains why powers of permanent acquisition were sought, rather than temporary occupation188. However, that issue is now effectively academic following the conclusion of an agreement between EDF and the EA for a lease of TWA_1.

185 E1, paragraph 3.4.6; 186 E1.1, section 4.3; 187 E18; 188 E18, section 3;



DECC Matter 5: How any specified removal of the constructed jetty and harbour development forming part of the proposed works should be given effect and whether such rights should be included in the Order for the purposes of such removal.

172. The substance of this matter has been addressed above by reference to MMO Matter 3. The TWAO is concerned only with the acquisition of rights in land, and since no additional rights in land would need to be acquired to enable the removal of the works and the reinstatement or restoration of the site, no specific provision needs to be made in the TWAO for these purposes.189

Conclusion

173. For the above reasons, there is a compelling case for the Inspector to recommend, and that the Orders and Licences be made and granted.

THE CASES FOR THE RULE 7 PARTIES


FAIRFIELD ESTATE (FE)

Introduction

174. The Closing Submissions for FE build on and follow a similar structure to its Opening (FE1). They repeat some, but not all, of the submissions already made at the Conditions and Obligations sessions (FE6.1, FE10, FE11). Oral submissions made during those sessions still stand, save in so far as EDF has conceded the point by making appropriate amendments.

175. FE and Lady Gass do not object to the principle of granting temporary powers for the proposed jetty. FE’s objection relates to various matters of detail. There has been much useful discussion between EDF and FE and substantial progress has been made in dealing with FE’s concerns. Several of the points taken by FE relate to legal issues. Whilst, in part, such points were pursued to ensure that the estate achieves appropriate, enforceable safeguards for its own protection, FE has equally been seeking to assist the promoter, the Inspector and the MMO. It is in nobody’s interest that any HEO made be in such a form as to be open to the risk of subsequent legal challenge under section 44 of the Harbours Act 1964 (“the 1964 Act”).

The relevant test for granting powers

176. A fundamental point is to understand the test which EDF must meet if it is to succeed in persuading the MMO not only that the HEO be made but also, and importantly from FE’s point of view, that the parameters and provisions contained within the HEO are appropriate and justified. S16(5) of the 1964 Act precludes the decision-maker making a HEO …unless he is satisfied that the making thereof is desirable in the interests of facilitating the efficient and economic transport of goods … by sea190. Use of the word “desirable” in the section does not indicate a test falling short of necessity; indeed it requires that, even if something can be shown to be necessary, the HEO can still only issue – or

189 See E18, section 4; 190 The quoted extract quotes only that part of section 16(5) upon which the promoter apparently relies



a given provision only be included in the form proposed by the promoter - if it is also “desirable” to meet that need (in that way).

177. FE does not oppose the principle here; but the statutory test applies equally to whether EDF has justified the breadth of the various individual powers proposed in the HEO. For example, it is for EDF to show that the test is met in respect of the proposed height of the various structures, including the sand shed. For the MMO to be satisfied on such matters, two hurdles must be cleared. First, there must be evidence from EDF to justify what is sought; if there is no such evidence, as is the case in several instances here, then EDF would fail at the outset. Second, even if evidence were advanced on the issue by EDF, the MMO must, additionally, be satisfied that such evidence is both clear and sufficient to outweigh the various adverse environmental aspects which EDF has frankly acknowledged.

178. The fact that the test is couched in terms of desirability has particular resonance in deciding the terms and stringency of the condition/restrictions to be placed on the powers sought.

Landscape and Visual

Preliminary

179. An extensive part of FE’s land adjoining the western boundary of the jetty land (and the HPC project land as a whole) has been evaluated as being an Area of Outstanding Scenic Interest (AOSI). FE’s evidence191 correctly identifies that this means it has met NE’s very stringent test, namely that: ‘it has qualities well in excess of scenic land of its general type, assessed by national rather than regional or local standards. Not all land within existing National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty will meet the high standards applicable to conditional exemption. Conversely some land outside National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty may qualify.’

180. It is interesting to note that even some land within National Parks and AONBs will not qualify. Whilst the result of land meeting such criteria may be a capital tax exemption, that in no way alters or affects the very high screening test which has to be passed and the resulting quality status of the landscape categorisation. This point has particular resonance in determining what mitigation would here be appropriate. This status has, wrongly, been ignored or underplayed in EDF’s baseline assessment of the sensitivity of the receiving environment. It would be wrong to accept EDF’s conclusion that no mitigation by way of a bund might be tenable in an assumed scenario where there was no such landscape designation. Such a view cannot survive on the actual facts where the receiving environment includes a substantial tract of land meeting NE’s stringent criteria of national importance.

Bund

181. Many of the residual issues of the bund, on the north-western boundary of the HEO works, have substantially disappeared. Whilst a bund is already promoted

191 Lewis Proof paragraph 2.1.6; quoting from NE’s Guidance at HttP://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/landscape/protection/historiccultural/heritagelandscapes/outstandingland.aspx



ment

as part of the SPW application (and, it is understood, the DCO application), the construction of an appropriately designed bund would also have relevance as mitigation in respect of works and operations pursuant to the HEO. The residual issue, at the outset of this inquiry, touched both (i) the requirement for some legal linkage between the bund proposal and the HEO and also (ii) the height of the bund at certain points along the western boundary of the HEO land. Constructive negotiation has resulted in a substantial measure of agreement192.

182. As to the timing of any bund, FE has sought and seeks imposition of a legal requirement in the HEO tying the promoter to provision of such a bund at the earliest possible stage and in any event before the earlier of commencement of the site preparation works or any part of the construction works under the HEO; the underlying aim is to ensure screening of lower level construction activities. FE6.1 reiterates the limited issue which remains and FE’s submissions thereon. In particular:

• The form of an acceptable bund has been agreed, including the relevant plans193. Yet the presently proposed conditions/restrictions194 refer to a form of bund and to different plans which are being discussed in the context of the site preparation works/DCO applications. Whatever may be being discussed in the context of other applications not before this inquiry, the relevance of the bund here is as mitigation of the HEO works. As noted, E37 identifies plans which are agreed to secure what FE seeks; moreover, the unilateral agreeprovided to FE by EDF is expressly tied, subject to local planning authority approval, to the provision of a bund in accordance with the plans identified in E37195. In the circumstances, there can be no residual or sensible reason why the E37 plans should not be referenced in the BA and in any Schedule of deemed planning conditions on the face of the HEO196.

• EDF presently seeks expressly to exclude the completion of any planting from the timing of bund provision. Since this would be an essential element of the visual screening to be provided by any bund, it would be wrong to delay the requirement to plant. Although EDF has sought to suggest that planting could only occur in certain months, this ignores the availability of techniques such as container planting that allow planting throughout the year. This would remove EDF’s only objection on this element197.

Height and other details of sand shed

183. The height of the sand shed would be determined by two factors, the overhead conveyor and the size of the sand stockpiles198. EDF has confirmed a design objective to limit the shed to a height of 16m but declines to accept a binding requirement to that effect199. EDF accepts that200:

192 See L&V Statement of Common Ground (E36) and the Bund Agreement (E37) 193 E37 194 For deemed planning conditions see E54.1 at definition of “the Bund” on page 2 and condition 14 on page 8; for the Bilateral Agreement see E56.1 at pages 11 and 14 respectively. 195 E64 at Clause 1.1 (the definition of “Bund Plans”) and Clause 2 196 See FE6.1 at paragraphs 3 to 8 197 FE6.1 at paragraph 5 198 E1.1 paragraph 4.2.5 199 E36 Statement of Common Ground L&V



• It is possible so to design the conveyor as to allow a sand-shed limited to 16m. But EDF wishes to leave scope for the contractor, should it so wish, to build higher.

• There is no evidence before this inquiry – by way of calculation or otherwise – to identify the requirement for height of sand stockpiles, and thus to inform the height of sand shed required.

• EDF seemed to suggest that, since neither FE nor any other objector had produced any calculations in this respect, EDF’s own omission did not matter. It is true that FE has not carried out any calculations; but this is because FE, without access to information uniquely in EDF’s knowledge, is not in a position to produce such calculations. In any event, even were there no objection to this HEO, EDF would still bear the burden of satisfying the MMO that what it sought was justified. It has not done so.

184. Thus, there is no quantitative evidence to justify any height of the sand shed, whether at 16m or 21m or whatever. Logically, a strict application of S16(5) of the 1964 Act, might dictate that powers should not be granted in this respect at all. But, notwithstanding the lack of supporting evidence, FE does not oppose the grant of powers for a 16m high structure (36m AOD). But the Inspector and the MMO have available to them no evidence whatsoever to support the grant of powers for any higher sand shed; to grant such wider powers in the absence of an appropriate evidential matrix would be a clear error of law.

185. A further interesting matter of clarification emerged201 when it was confirmed that the sand shed had been variously assessed at 15, 16 and 21m in height (and all assuming a base at 20m AOD). Although the HEO seeks a power to deviate upwards to a further 3m, it is common ground that no assessment has been carried out of this. In such circumstances, EDF is fixed with the inevitable legal consequence that no such power to deviate can be granted.

186. FE also seeks various further restrictions in respect of the sand shed’s appearance.

Height of other structures, limits of deviation etc

187. As to other structures, stockpiles etc, FE seeks the imposition of height limits in a similar form to that to be found in the Bristol and Hull Harbour Revision Orders (HROs) (FE5, FE9, see further below). FE also notes the point elicited by Mr Malim for SPC202; it is common ground that the silos have been assessed only at 20m (above 20m AOD). Again, EDF would be fixed with loss of any power to deviate vertically/upwards in that respect.

Bond supporting performance

188. Another matter (which is also relevant to cliff-stability) is the need for the removal of the works and accompanying restoration to be supported by a bond203; the recipient of such a bond would be an appropriate public body such

200 xx Newcombe Day 1 201 Day 3 202 xx Stevenson Day 3 203 FE Statement of Case paragraphs 24 and 36



as the LPA and/or the MMO; FE would be largely agnostic as to the recipient. For obvious reasons, and without intending any slur on EDF, it is essential that an appropriate public body would have oversight of the removal of the works and restoration of the land in order to ensure that it was carried out satisfactorily. Such a body would need to be able to step in should there be a default. A bond would ensure that any void in the relevant public purse would not act to hamper or prevent that public body taking action to remedy any default in removal/ restoration/reinstatement.

189. E63 indicates EDF’s intention but does not go far enough. The MMO should not, indeed could not, make the HEO until it was satisfied that there was a legally enforceable mechanism for a bond; in an appropriate sum; and on appropriate terms. Additionally, the MMO would need to be satisfied that removal of the totality of the HEO works – i.e. both “wet” and “dry” – was supported by an appropriate bond and that the removal of any works implemented under the HEO were expressly covered. The fact that there may be provision of bonds or other security in the context of other applications is irrelevant for present purposes.

190. It is noted from various documents that there is a proposal to submit a supplemental agreement – between EDF and the LPA - relating to bond provision. It is to be expected that this will be copied to FE and that FE will be afforded a sufficient opportunity to make comment before the HEO decision is taken.

191. It is further understood that there are (to be) agreements for bond provision with both the EA and the Crown Estate. The promoter has indicated that the only evidence or detail in this regard to be provided to the MMO is the information contained in E63, together with any supplementary text in the amended SoCG between EDF and the LPA (E19.2). Since those bald statements provide no detail of important elements such as the terms of the bond and the adequacy of financial cover, the MMO cannot be in a position to reach a view on their adequacy.

Cliff Stability

192. There is a substantial measure of agreement in this respect. Similarly there is some, albeit incomplete, consensus on the terms of the restrictions necessary to ensure that an appropriate scheme of measures would be submitted in advance to deal with construction, operation and removal of the jetty works. Although there remain some areas of difference between the two experts, the overall consensus between the parties is to the effect that, subject to the imposition of appropriate restrictions, there is no objection to the principle of the works which would affect the cliff. Such debate as remains goes to the terms of the various conditions dealing with cliff stability. FE has already made its submissions – oral and written – on this matter during the conditions and obligations session. Among other things, see FE6.1; save for one matter, they are not repeated.

193. Particular mention is needed of a peak particle velocity (ppv) limit; no convincing case has been advanced to demonstrate why, given the agreed sensitivity of the existing cliff, imposition of such a limit represents anything other than a proportionate and prudent exercise of the precautionary principle. In particular, the promoter has scrupulously avoided saying that such a limit would be unworkable.



Conditions/restrictions

194. The various other matters set out in FE6.1, 10 and 11 are relevant but do not need repetition.

195. As to the general approach to the imposition of conditions, EDF has repeatedly stressed the “necessity” test and the question of whether the absence of a given condition would dictate refusal. FE makes the following points:

• Section 72 of the 1990 Act, as glossed by judicial authority, merely requires that conditions be imposed for a planning purpose, fairly and reasonably relate to the development permitted and avoid being Wednesbury unreasonable.

• It is the Secretary of State’s policy which imposes a test of necessity; even then the test is not limited to whether permission would be refused in the absence of the condition. Circular 11/95 provides204: In considering whether a particular condition is necessary, authorities should ask themselves whether planning permission would have to be refused if the condition were not to be imposed. If it would not, then the condition needs special and precise justification. The argument that a condition will do no harm is no justification for its imposition: as a matter of policy, a condition ought not to be imposed unless there is a definite need for it. (emphasis added)

• Thus, if one follows the promoter’s case that there is a strong need for this jetty, that need still does not preclude, even in policy terms, the imposition of conditions which – even though their absence would not dictate refusal – impose sensible and prudent environmental safeguards.

Legal Points

General

196. FE has throughout sought to adopt a cooperative and constructive approach to the drafting of the HEO. This is illustrated by, for instance, the care which FE took to set out the HEO amendments it sought, in some detail, in both the Statement of Case (FE1) and in its letter to the MMO (FE1).

The HEO

197. It remains essential that the HEO powers (and resulting planning permissions under the GPDO) are ‘lifed’. Any HEO granted without such temporal restriction would go beyond what could be lawfully granted. There is a large measure of agreement between FE and EDF on both the principle and detail of what is required in this respect. FE refers to, without repeating, the legal submissions made in its Statement of Case and in its letter to the MMO, attached thereto.

198. It is significant that there is unanimity between all legally advised parties to this inquiry that an order under section 16 of the 1964 Act can include closure provisions. The result is a uniform endorsement – subject to various points of detail - of the approach embodied in Clause 28A (also called Article 28A). Any decision by the MMO, for whatever reason, that the HEO should be made without Clause 28A – even assuming such a decision were lawfully open to the MMO (which FE does not accept) - would constitute a proposal to make the Order with

204 Paragraph 15 of the Annex to the Circular; see also paragraphs 16 and 17



a modification so substantially affecting its character as to trigger the procedural requirements of paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 to the 1964 Act i.e. a requirement to allow the parties to comment further before any HEO was made.

199. One remaining issue on Clause 28A merits mention. This relates to FE’s proposed extension of the definition of “termination day” to include the position where a DCO for HPC was either not forthcoming within 5 years or, though made, was not implemented205. The wording proposed by WSC (WSSC6.1) would also be appropriate. EDF accepts – indeed proposes - that such an eventuality should at least be covered in the BA; in such circumstances, there can be no tenable reason for not making this manifest on the face of the HEO. BA condition 46 has errors in relation to the submission of the landscape and mitigation strategy (FE11).

The Marine Licence for the Jetty Works

200. Appropriate temporal limitation is necessary not only for the HEO but also for the Marine Licence which relates to the jetty works. The terms of any such licence need not only (i) to identify when the licence would terminate but also (ii) to require submission of a scheme for removing the works and reinstating the seabed and (iii) implementing any such approved scheme in accordance with that approval and prior to the licence’s expiration. The promoter now accepts the requirement for (i)206 but continues to resist (ii) and (iii); it is wrong to do so. FE commends its suggested condition to the MMO207.

Whether restrictions on GPDO rights should appear on the face of the HEO and be deemed planning conditions?

201. There is no application for planning permission to be considered here. This is because works authorised by, among other things, an HEO, attract GPDO rights for the relevant development where the HEO designates specifically the nature of the development authorised and the land upon which it may be carried out (“Part 11 rights”)208. By virtue of the land covered by the HEO being deemed to be “operational land”209, it would also attract GPDO rights under Part 17B (to the extent that development thereunder would not require environmental assessment and subject to various other specified restrictions)210. The Part 11 and 17 rights all fall within the definition of “planning permission” for the purposes of the 1990 Act.

202. Two important points arise. Firstly, there is no reason why – as matter of law - these Part 11 and 17 rights cannot be made subject to further appropriate restrictions on the face of the HEO211; the promoter does not, so far as FE is

205 FE10 paragraphs 7 to 9 206 E50.3 and condition 12 207 FE10 paragraph 1 208 Article 3 of and Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order 1995 209 Clause 16 of the draft HEO 210 Whilst the operational land status would also have attracted GPDO rights under Part 17D, it is understood that NNB is prepared to disapply those rights 211 Section 16(6) of the 1964 Act expressly envisages that an HEO may include all such provisions as appear to [the MMO] …to be requisite for giving full effect to any provision included in the order by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section and any supplementary, consequential or incidental provisions appearing to [the MMO] to be requisite or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, the order, including, but without prejudice to the



aware, dispute the principle of this. Secondly, there is no lawful reason why any such restrictions should not be deemed to be planning conditions so as to incorporate the procedures, including enforcement, available under the 1990 Act.

203. The Secretary of State has already accepted this proposition and adopted precisely this approach in making the Associated British Ports (Hull) Harbour Revision Order 2006212 (“the Hull Order”); more recently he applied exactly the same approach in the Port of Bristol (Deep Sea Container Terminal) Harbour Revision Order 2010213 (“the Bristol Order”). Again, EDF does not, apparently, dispute the lawfulness of such an approach. Whilst EDF has, in the past, questioned whether the ‘Hull approach’ would be fully effective214, it now appears that such doubt has been allayed. The Hull approach is perfectly clear and precise; it has already satisfied the Secretary of State and has not been subject to legal challenge. In any event, even if FE (and the Secretary of State) were wrong in this, the promoter does not suggest or submit that it would be impossible to draft a suitably clear provision to achieve the desired effect.

204. Circular 05/2005 provides215: “It is important that, if there is a choice between imposing planning conditions and entering into a planning obligation, the imposition of a condition which satisfies the policy tests of Department of the Environment Circular 11/95 is preferable because it enables a developer to appeal to the Secretary of State regarding imposition of a condition….The enforcement of conditions is also more straightforward since it generally involves use of the planning enforcement system, as opposed to private contractual action in the Courts …”

205. Here, the agreement with the LPA (E56.2.1) is not even pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 but only sections 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 and section 2 of the Local Government Act 2002; thus, unlike any 106 obligation, the agreement here would found merely in private contract law and would not run with the land. Thus, an agreement here would be even more unsatisfactory than that envisaged in the Circular.

206. As a matter of principle, the use of restrictions, deemed to be planning conditions, on the face of the HEO is materially to be preferred to a bilateral agreement between the LPA and the developer. Including such restrictions and deeming them to be planning conditions would ensure that the various GPDO rights were subject to appropriate, scheme-specific conditions and that the well tried planning condition regime was invoked, with its well rehearsed enforcement powers, if necessary, and public involvement.

207. It is relevant to note that, notwithstanding any remaining scepticism about the Hull approach216, EDF accepts the use of deeming provisions in, for instance, Clause 16 of the draft HEO which provides that the planning permission granted by article 3 of the (GPDO) shall be treated as (i.e. deemed to be) a specific

generality of the foregoing words….. provisions for excluding or modifying any provision of any Act or any instrument made under any Act.. (emphasis added) 212 2006 No 1135. There is, for present purposes, no material distinction between an HEO and an HRO; FE9 213 2010 No 2020, FE5 214 E23 at paragraph 2.3 215 Circular 05/2005 at paragraph B51 216 See also the



planning permission for the purposes of section 264(3)(a) of (the 1990 Act – i.e. as operational land). Put simply, if ‘deeming’ can work in that context, it is difficult to argue that it would not work in the context of the Hull approach, whether with the Hull wording or some variation on it.

208. There is also a temporal dimension. The planning permissions which would flow from the grant of the HEO would need to be limited to the appropriate term, whether by reference to a particular date, or term of years or precise, determining event.

209. As in the Bristol Order217, the restrictions and deemed planning conditions should apply both to the main works pursuant to clause 4 and to any subsidiary works pursuant to clause 6. They should also, as in the Hull Order218, apply to limit the exercise of GPDO rights pursuant to Parts 11 and 17. FE10 was written before the deemed conditions paper E54.1 was available; p2 and 3 still stand but p4-6 are overtaken by events. The approach in E54.1 to add Article 16B to the HEO to deal with the question of jurisdiction would be an elegant solution to this problem if it is accepted by the MMO. However, the licence would still need to cross refer to the HEO and the licence should include a provision like this in it or it could refer to the deemed conditions. The MMO would need to be satisfied that any order or licence issued could stand in isolation. The licence would need to complement and not frustrate the HEO and vice versa but how this would be achieved would be a matter for the MMO.

The definition of “site” in the draft Bilateral Agreement between the promoter and WSC and in the proposed Schedule 3 (Deemed Planning Conditions) to the HEO

210. The LPA’s jurisdiction here extends to include the inter-tidal down to mean low water (“MLW”)219. In the BA, which EDF proposes as the mechanism for imposing - in so far as is material for the purposes of the LPA - obligations on the works permitted under the HEO, “site” is defined to exclude the inter-tidal area. This error similarly contaminates the proposed deemed planning conditions. To define the site to exclude that part of the LPA’s jurisdiction which lies below mean high water (“MHW”) would be wrong both in law and in terms of common sense.

Conclusion

211. FE does not oppose the grant of temporary powers for the temporary jetty but it does commend to the MMO the various points of detail it has raised.

NATURAL ENGLAND (NE)

212. NE participated in this inquiry at the Inspector’s request220 [for which I am grateful], and it has, in addition to its Statement of Case (SoC)221, Proofs of Evidence222 and Opening Statement223, submitted the following documents:

217 FE5 Articles3(4) and 4(5) 218 The Hull Order (extract appended to the FE Statement of Case, FE 1) at paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 219 See Volume 2 of the Planning Encyclopaedia at P57.13 – The approach taken by the Secretary of State is that the mean low-water mark is the limit of local authority jurisdiction, although there are a number of exceptions such as enclosed bays… The Government’s traditional view is that this provides a sensible boundary in terms of policy as well as law.. 220 ID4 221 NE1



DF.

iry.]

• A letter setting out NE’s position as of 11 November 2011224 and updating NE’s SoC in the light of subsequent SoCG discussions with E

• Two sets of commentary225 in relation to successive drafts of EDF’s proposed (i) BA with WSC226, (ii) Marine Licence Conditions227, (iii) Shelduck Monitoring Strategy228, and a submission entitled “Principles for an adaptive Shelduck Monitoring Strategy”229.

213. As of 1 December 2011, in consideration of (i) NE’s updated advice of 11 November and (ii) the SoCG between EDF and NE230, NE considers that all of the matters raised in its SoC have been resolved through the inquiry process save for certain issues in its commentary of 25 November 2011 (NE8). With regard to these and the submissions to the inquiry as of 1 December231, the first two within NE8 relate to the proposed BA between EDF and WSC232. [Inspector’s note: the BA E56.2.1 was signed on 2 December, the day after NE’s closing statement was written. The closing statement was in written form; it was not read out at the inqu

214. For point 1 of NE8, the required new form of words for the second paragraph of the obligation entitled “Drainage: Surface Water and Foul Drainage Works” has been incorporated into condition 27 of the BA. This point is fully resolved.

215. Point 2 concerns the addition of an obligation to ensure that the temporary jetty (and the associated berthing pocket) would be developed in accordance with its proposed design. In response, EDF proposed to add a new condition to the marine licence covering construction activities233. This proposed condition addresses the point raised and this point is sufficiently resolved234.

216. The next four points of NE8 relate to the proposed Marine Licence Conditions235. Of these, point 1 concerns the point just addressed, which is now sufficiently resolved. For point 2, a marine licence condition in relation to

222 NE3A, NE3C and NE4A 223 NE2 224 NE5 225 NE7 and NE8 226 NE7 was submitted on 23 November 2011 in relation to E47, and NE8 was submitted on 25 November 2011 in relation to E56. 227 NE7 was submitted on 23 November 2011 in relation to E50 and NE8 was submitted on 25 November 2011 in relation to E50.1. 228 NE7 was submitted on 23 November 2011 in relation to E52 and NE8 was submitted on 25 November in relation to E52.1. 229 NE9 230 E21.1 231 In particular, E50.2 (Proposed Marine Licence Conditions), E56.1.1 (Bilateral Agreement), E73 (Mitigation Measures set out in Paragraph 6.2.98 of the HRA Information) and E52.2 (Updated Shelduck Monitoring Strategy) and E75. 232 E56 was the relevant document at the time NE8 was submitted; E56 has now been amended and re‐submitted as E56.1.1. 233 Condition 2 of E50.2. 234 Although it considers the issue to be sufficiently resolved, Natural England maintains that it would be best to require a parallel obligation to this effect in the Bilateral Agreement to give West Somerset Council a corresponding enforcement role, as discussed in NE8. 235 E50.1 was the relevant document at the time NE8 was submitted; E50.1 has now been amended and re‐submitted as E50.2.



maintenance dredging would not be a necessary outcome of these proceedings, as maintenance dredging would be the subject of a separate marine licence application in the future236.

217. As to point 3, the mitigation measures set out in p6.2.98 of the June 2011 Habitats Regulations Assessment Information Report237 need to be incorporated by reference into the marine conditions, as EDF’s commitment to deliver these measures would be fundamental to reaching the conclusion that the project would not have a likely significant effect on the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar site. The additions that EDF has made to the marine conditions (E50.2) at condition 3.3 and 8 in this respect are welcomed save that, in both conditions, the relevant plans should be “in accordance” with p6.2.98 rather than in “general accordance” with it, as the latter wording creates ambiguity. The point made by EDF at the Inquiry on 25 November is taken, that some of the measures identified in p6.2.98 may require variation. A better approach to dealing with this would be to add language to both conditions to the effect that the plans shall be in accordance with the measures identified in p6.2.98 “unless the Licensee proposes, and the MMO, in consultation with NE, accepts measures that are equivalent or better.”

218. As confirmed at the inquiry on 25 November, the measures contained in Condition 6238 would be sufficient to prevent construction access outside the works/access corridor and that the fencing referred to in the eighth bullet point of p6.2.98 is not required. The preferred approach is that any other proposed changes or alternatives to the measures identified in p6.2.98 may be proposed by EDF to the MMO, which could, after consulting with NE, authorise these so long as it could be assured that no likely significant effect on the protected sites would occur. It is recognised that it is for the MMO, as the competent authority in this matter, to decide which of the approaches to the wording of these conditions, as alternatively proposed by NE and EDF, it should require.

219. Point 4 proposes that an appropriately worded condition be added in relation to the “best method of practice” in order to ensure that the potential for any re-suspension of sediment during jetty construction would be minimised. In response, EDF proposes to add a new condition to the marine licence covering construction activities239. This proposed condition would address the point raised, which is now fully resolved.

220. The final two points of NE8 relate to the principles for an adaptive shelduck monitoring plan (the “shelduck principles”) for which both NE and EDF have submitted alternative versions240. On 1 December 2011, NE received comments from EDF on NE’s recommended shelduck plan (NE9, see also E52.2 and E67) in the form of E75. It is understood that EDF is now in agreement with NE9 but for the eight comments that it has made in relation to NE9 within E75.

236 Natural England previously raised this matter as an issue in NE5. 237 CD/1.14 238 Condition 6 of E50.2. 239 Condition 4 of E50.2 240 NE9 and E52.2.



221. NE accepts all but the first of EDF’s comments (see next paragraph) and submits NE9.1, which reflects the resulting changes. Clarification has also been made with reference to paragraph 4 of NE9 in NE9.1, as the requirement to discharge the proposed condition prior to the commencement of construction activity would relate to proposed Condition [X] only.

222. EDF’s first comment (in E75) was that the now-agreed ‘shelduck principles’ should not be referenced in a relevant condition to require these principles to be delivered; this is not accepted. The MMO, as the competent authority in this matter, must have sufficient assurance that the adaptive monitoring and mitigation strategy would be delivered in accordance with the agreed principles and be capable of enforcement. This approach has been largely conceded by EDF in relation to the conditions and obligations that incorporate all of the other necessary HRA mitigation measures. There is no reason why the same approach should not be applied here in order to ensure that this project would not cause an adverse effect on the integrity of the Severn Estuary Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations requires certainty before a consent is given. Shelduck and vessel routes have not been mapped (E21.1 p2.5.1, 2.5.12-.13)

Conclusion

223. The conclusions in the HRA report are predicated on the jetty not being permanent. NE would be concerned if it were (NE1 p6.3). With the above exceptions (on the shelduck principles; the incorporation of the mitigation measures set out in p6.2.98 of the HRA Information Report into the marine conditions; and means of preventing construction access outside the works/access corridor in the marine conditions), all of the matters set out in its SoC in relation to the applications that are the subject of this inquiry, have been resolved. With respect to the exceptions, it is now for the MMO, as the competent authority, to adopt the approach that, in its view, would provide sufficient assurance that the necessary mitigation measures would be delivered.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (EA)

224. The EA provided a Statement of Case (EA1, CR28- withdrawn representation) and proofs of evidence and appendices from 3 witnesses. Its letter of 15 November (EA15) sets out its position; following the formal submission by EDF of an amended Draft Transport and Works Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) (Land Acquisition) Order (CD1.18.1 and CD1.18.2), which removed the provisions for the compulsory purchase of the EA’s freehold land, it removed its previous objection to the Order (EA19). Thus, it did not call any of its witnesses nor cross examine any other party in relation to the HEO or the TWAO. [Inspector’s note: the EA attended the inquiry conditions/obligations sessions at my request, for which I am grateful.]

225. The EA favours the inclusion of certain terms within the draft HEO in line with the approach adopted in the Port of Bristol (Deep Sea Container Terminal) HRO 2010 (EA22 p1, FE5, see also FE9, E54.1.1 pg1 p16B and p5 and 6). EDF would have no objection to the confirmation of the Order that it promotes in the form confirmed by the Bristol HRO. If the BA were used for the imposition of conditions, the HEO does not indicate what agreements exist; they could be overlooked.



226. With regard to flood risk, the EA’s concerns would be met by conditions. Those conditions include a requirement for minimum base datums for parts of the works including the jetty. Those datums derive from several sources (EA22 p3). Flood risk concerns would be met by the proposal to set base datums below which finished works would not fall.

227. EDF accepts by its proposed terms in its Agreement with WSC that the latter has a regulatory role in relation to matters within its (geographical) jurisdiction. The jetty would extend seawards beyond that jurisdiction into the jurisdiction of the MMO. But the MMO is not a party to the proposed EDF/WSC contract terms. By way of example, the said base datums would lie in each jurisdiction, as may matters covered by the other proposed conditions.

228. EDF is currently a private party without experience in public administrative matters. Subsequent to any confirmation of the Order, it would become entitled to those terms, powers and obligations. In the exercise of those powers, the sole remedy for a third party would be judicial review which, at its realistic best, could only require reconsideration by EDF of its decisions. Furthermore, within the HEO, the presence of one ‘fact and degree’ regulator for part of the area across which the jetty is proposed but no such regulator for the other part would be illogical, problematic and impracticable for enforcement of the EA’s agreed requirement for base datums.

Conclusion

229. Unlike the Port of Bristol Order, the EA would not be a regulator within the HEO that is proposed (EA22). Therefore, it requests the adoption of the Bristol Order approach here by analogy, so that the HEO may have unified regulation across its geographical area by third party ‘fact and degree’ regulators whose own decisions would be, in turn, subject to the usual rules of administrative law.

230. Whilst the draft HEO terms could include provision to extend LPA jurisdiction seawards along the jetty, it remains difficult to see how that jurisdiction could include the sea itself outside of the LPA’s area (see also EA18 and EA20: “the consent of the MMO to the BA would be preferable….”).

231. It would be preferable that each specialist jurisdictional regulator retained jurisdiction over its own territory, which here is conveniently divided in the mid-section of the jetty structure so that the whole of the berthing pocket and related matters would be within the MMO area, with the MMO also responsible for ‘wet’ matters within the LPA’s area (EA22, EA21 pg20 Sch3 p1).

232. There are no comments (EA23) on the mitigation measures set out in p6.2.98 of the Habitats Risk Assessment information (CD1.14).

STOGURSEY PARISH COUNCIL (SPC)

Introduction

233. The proposed HPC nuclear power station complex is within the Parish of Stogursey. SPC represents the people who would be most affected by the construction and operation of this massive industrial complex. Its views matter and should be given due weight. The Inspector is thanked for his consideration and assistance at the inquiry.



234. Parish Councillors are part-time volunteers. SPC’s budget does not stretch to paying experts to advise on the technical aspects of the proposed development, nor to professional representatives at the inquiry. It has therefore relied on others involved in the inquiry to consider many aspects of EDF’s proposals. SPC has concentrated on those areas where it has some expertise and where local knowledge can be brought to bear.

235. The Government has published NPS EN-1 and EN-6 which make it clear that nuclear power is to be part of the mix of energy sources for future electrical power and that Hinkley Point is one of the sites considered to be suitable. EDF has been given approval by WSC, subject to ratification of the S106 agreement, to begin the SPW as a precursor to the main works, which are the subject of the recently validated DCO application.

236. SPC has taken the pragmatic view that the course of action that will best serve the needs and wishes of the local population is to ensure that, for this element of the overall programme, robust conditions are stipulated and enforced, to minimise the effects of the inevitable disruption to parishioners’ lives.

237. The provision of a temporary jetty is an absolutely essential element of the development plans, as it would substantially reduce the number of HGV movements, on the only access road to the development site, and it would therefore also reduce CO2 emissions.

238. SPC supports the principle of the jetty as a stand-alone project with construction times to support the start of the main works. There are risks associated with this strategy but, given Government policy and the urgent need to replace generation capacity, these risks are outweighed by the benefits to the local population and the environment in general of the earliest possible reduction in HGV traffic.

239. There are concerns about the details of how the jetty and the land-based complex would be constructed and operated. As suggested by the Inspector, SPC worked with EDF to agree a Statement of Common Ground (E20). This covers both the areas of agreement and the outstanding issues where the Council was seeking reassurance or alterations to the design.

Noise and Light

240. Concerns as to light pollution and noise, particularly at night, have largely been addressed during the inquiry through the agreement of robust conditions. However there is still work to be done to ensure that the plans required to be provided by EDF to underpin the control of these aspects are robustly drafted and rigorously enforced.

241. SPC is particularly grateful to the Inspector for the interest he has taken in the discussions of evening and night-time noise level limits. We note that all of the limits have been reduced in the latest version of the conditions presented at E56.2, and this is welcomed. However, it is not clear that night-time piling works would not cause problems. The noise measurements are averaged over an hour. Therefore, loud noises such as piling hammer blows followed by quiet for the rest of the period could well pass the test stated in the relevant condition but still cause difficulties in sleeping.



242. This issue is important as it would set a precedent for the Main Works, where the proposed night-time working would be far more extensive and the noise sources much closer to parishioners’ homes.

Jetty Siting

243. There were eastern and western options for the siting of the jetty. To site it in the western position would not take into account all of the receptors. The human element has been entirely ignored. The proposed site is about 150 metres further west than the eastern option, and therefore closer to Shurton Bars and the irreplaceable fossil beach. This is a site of great local importance, not just due to the high quality of the fossils but also because the site has national cultural significance as the location for some of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s most important poetry writing.

244. The unnecessarily close proximity of the jetty to Shurton Bars would also have a seriously detrimental effect on the use of this important local amenity to local hikers, dog walkers, fisherman and others. It is a place where families very much enjoy the innocent pleasure of a picnic and sandcastle building.

245. The enjoyment of this amenity derives from its peacefulness and fine views. The peace would be shattered during construction and subsequent operation by the noise of machinery. The visual impact of the large structures such as the silos, sand shed and hoppers would be horrendous, particularly as they would be on a plateau above the local ground level. The proposed bund would only be effective in screening these elements when standing close to the site; it would be ineffective when viewing from Shurton Bars and the access path from Knighton.

246. People would be much less likely to visit in the future as it would no longer be a pleasant place. SPC is extremely disappointed that EDF has refused to consider any compensation to the local population for the loss of this important amenity for a decade. The provision of alternative recreational facilities such as new public rights of way off-site would be, therefore, a prerequisite to permitting the development.

Design Issues

247. It has become clear during the inquiry that much of the detail of the design is far from finalised. Uncertainty remains on most of the major elements of the development. Particular areas where detail is lacking are the way the offshore jetty elements are to be constructed and installed, the height and design of the sand shed, the number, size and location of the cement hoppers, and the design and height of the onshore element of the conveyor system.

248. This lack of detail at this stage means that any approval should be seen as being equivalent to an Outline Planning Permission with Reserved Matters to be agreed subsequently.

249. If the HEO is confirmed, SPC will be looking for a close involvement in the development and agreement of these designs as they become available during the coming months. This is another area where the proper prosecution of ‘conditions’ is vital to ensure a satisfactory outcome, particularly in respect of the visual impact of the tall structures.



Other Issues

250. The timing of the works in relation to the SPW would have a substantial bearing on the availability of existing and diversionary PRoW. Footpaths, particularly the Coast Path, should be re-opened as soon as possible. EDF’s payment via the BA would be necessary.

251. It is disappointing that EDF has not been prepared to commit to a volume of unitized loads in addition to the 80% of bulk material to maximise the use of the jetty and reduce HGV traffic on the C182. This will be pursued during the consultation on the DCO application.

252. With regard to the amended conditions in the BA, the proposed new wordings (SPC6, E57) are generally acceptable. Condition 45 on traffic obligations would not provide any control over vehicles approaching the site from the west. In common with the condition in the SPW ‘approval’, a route must be specified to avoid heavy vehicles using unsuitable local lanes. The route must be to use the A39 road to Cannington and then the C182 to the site. The ridge of the Sand Shed should not exceed 36m AOD.

253. As to the suggested Marine Licence conditions (E50.1-E50.3), the modified Obligations p6 (burning of waste) and p7 (amplified sound) relate to the ‘Onshore’ area only (E56, SPC7). Similar restrictions were expected to be included in the Marine Licence for the ‘Offshore’ area but they are not. There would be particular concern about amplified sound.

STOP HINKLEY CAMPAIGN (SHC)

254. There is no urgency for the jetty in advance of a DCO consent for HPC. The crucial date in national policy is 2025. Plans for a dedicated haul road from the motorway direct to Hinkley should have been included against which the need for the jetty could have been measured. By the direct haul road option - for which there are a number of possible routes - being knocked out early in EDF’s consultation, it has effectively been suppressed in people’s minds. By haul road plans not being included, all options have not been explored and consulted upon (SHC2-4, CR31). [Inspector’s note: SHC’s evidence did not refer to a haul road. The only reference made by SHC to the haul road is in its closing submissions. The haul road alternative is in Ms Collingridge’s case. Nevertheless, I have reported this alternative because it does not constitute new evidence, albeit that it is new to SHC’s case.]

255. The economy of the area is heavily reliant on tourism. The detrimental effects on people’s lives and businesses would be significant from even the 20% of road traffic movements that EDF has calculated. As this target is aspirational and not guaranteed, the risks to the local economy would be very great.

256. When referring to the method for transporting building materials, the phrase ‘if cost effective’ is always used by EDF. What if transport by sea were not cost effective and the use of roads was the cheapest option, as was the case with the Olympic Stadium? As EDF has not identified where the materials would come from and which company would be supplying them, how can it assess the most cost effective route? For example, if the aggregates were to come from the Mendips, the main supplier of road building materials in the UK, how would they get to a jetty off Hinkley Point? Would they go via the M5 to Avonmouth to be loaded onto boats and then to the Jetty? No, they would be driven straight to Hinkley Point but not via the haul road that EDF refused to build.



257. EDF’s counsel asked every non-statutory participant the same question along the lines of ‘As a matter of principle, do you support the jetty as opposed to 100% of materials coming by road?’. Because of the nature of the questioning nearly everyone said “yes”. EDF did not ask for reasons. It obviously felt that it was important that this was established in order to strengthen its case.

258. To the public, the thought of that additional traffic outside their homes and grid-locking Bridgwater would be unbearable for most. But they were not given the opportunity to consider anything other than a two-horse race. A three-horse race may have had a different result. This inquiry should insist that EDF be asked to supply plans for a direct route. The inquiry should then be re-run to take a third way into account.

259. I (as read by Mrs Attwater) have never been to a public inquiry before and I have been very surprised at how it works. It appears to be a forum for statutory objectors i.e. EA, Councils, FE and NE, to negotiate with EDF for obligations and conditions, mainly outside the inquiry. It has not been a transparent process and the majority of the continuously changing documentation is too technical and voluminous for lay people to understand. A thorough challenging of EDF’s plans and assumptions by independent expert witnesses had been expected, in a way that could establish if the jetty was necessary. EDF seems to have got off pretty lightly, being questioned by self-funded amateurs with little expert knowledge who were also trying to challenge the might of EDF’s expensive counsel paid for by EDF and probably the tax payer at the end of the day when EDF fails.

260. Simple and inexpensive mediation would probably arrive at the conditions drawn up between the objectors and EDF. This whole show seems a huge waste of taxpayers’ money. Innocent amateurs were subjected to ridiculous point-scoring questions by EDF’s lawyer rather than serious debate. Where are the unbiased professional scientists and technicians paid for by the government who are rigorously testing the assumptions made by EDF and its contractors? Local objectors have donated huge amounts of their time to be asked ridiculous questions by expensive and highly paid lawyers.

261. The very current and alive international debate on the effects of low level radiation has been ignored by this public inquiry. The dangers to workers and local residents have been totally overlooked. The submissions made by Ms C Collingridge, that there is an unacceptable amount of low level radiation throughout the site and that there has been no assessment of the amounts of radiation held in the offshore mud, indicates that EDF is not prepared to consider the possible dangers to the health of its workers and of local residents.

262. It is definitely a case of David and Goliath. The lesson no one seems to be learning from Fukushima is that neither the Government nor the Nuclear Industry has the safety and the welfare of the people at heart. Profit and politics are king.

Mr A JEFFREY

Introduction

263. As a Bridgwater resident and stakeholder in the community forum on the nuclear new-build ay Hinkley, Mr Jeffrey has great concerns about the building of the EPR reactors. Permission for the jetty should be refused (AJ2, CR33). [Inspector’s note: my apologies to Mr Jeffrey if his name is shown wrongly. On AJ1 and CR33 it is “Jeffrey” but on AJ2 it is “Jeffery”.]



Enriched Uranium Contamination

264. The January report by Green Audit, by independent scientist Chris Busby and by Ms C Collingridge, seems to indicate that there is a considerable amount of enriched uranium (EU) contaminating this coastal site. If so, this would mean a serious health hazard to workers who would be disturbing the soil during the construction of the jetty and associated works and also to members of the public walking in the area. The inhalation of dust contaminated with EU can have long term medical consequences.

265. The Green Audit report investigated data from the sample measurements of radioactivity, including some from the HEO site. More than half of the samples contained EU, not natural uranium as had been suggested by the original analysis of the results. Two trends were noted: there was more EU near to the surface, indicating possible contamination from airborne precipitation, and more EU in areas near to the sea, indicating a possible sea to land transfer. A possible source was the liquid radioactive discharges from HPA and HPB in 1990-1997. More detailed studies are needed to investigate the possible health effects from the site contamination.

266. The full report of data and technical analysis can be found in the Green Audit Report (Occasional Paper 2011/1; found at CC2 Appx4). The report indicates why it is difficult to have trust in the results of the scientific inspections put forward by EDF. Numerous examples of poor scientific method by EDF’s scientists are found in the Green Audit Report (AJ2 pg2).

Starting to Build without Consent

267. Development of the jetty would be way in advance of any consent for HPC. Under normal planning conditions, such major works would never be allowed without planning permission. The preliminary works cannot be separated from the main application for HPC and should not start in advance of consent for it. This must include consideration of the full environmental effects of the preliminary works, the 10 years of building the HPC and the 60 years of running it.

268. Many legal and financial reasons cast doubt on whether HPC will be permitted and, if so, whether EDF would have the finances and the will to build it in unfavourable circumstances. Moreover, the NPSs that indicate the national need for nuclear power stations are the subject of legal challenge by Greenpeace.

269. The recent (resolution to grant) permission for SPW by WSC in addition to the jetty proposal could result in 15 months of damage to the landscape, wildlife and the quality of life for residents – all for nothing. Satisfactory reinstatement would be impossible.

HPC May Never be Built

270. There are numerous reasons for this: NPS legal challenge; acceptability of the pressurised water reactor; decommissioning and disposal costs; consent may be refused; economic factors; the consent for the previous HPC, after a year long inquiry, was not implemented (AJ2 pg3).



Damage to the Local Environment

271. The construction, dredging and shipping movements for the jetty/associated works would have damaging effects on the marine ecology and the protected coastal areas. There would be particularly major effects over the 10 year life of the jetty, in the building of HPC. Added to this would be the cumulative effects of running the two most powerful reactors in the world for 60 years, and possible irreversible damage to the protected habitats.

Conclusion

272. The radioactive contamination of the HEO site would be a health hazard to workers. There is great doubt whether HPC would ever be built. There would be irreversible environmental damage. The normally peaceful rural communities in this beautiful part of Somerset would be industrialised.

BRIDGWATER BAY WILDFOWLERS ASSOCIATION (BBWA)

273. Arrangements for wildfowling were set up during the inquiry into the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve (NNR) (BBWA2). Provision of the permissible area was as compensation for the bylaws that removed common rights over other areas of the NNR. This is the last place in England and Wales where anyone can wildfowl without the need to obtain consent. There are about 140 shooting members of the two wildfowling clubs in the area. The ES and some of EDF’s proofs contain a number of errors (BBWA2 pg2/3).

274. Unresolved matters with EDF are set out in the SoCG. The proffered north-south PRoW diversion from point F3 to F16 (E11 Fig 17-5) would not be available if the SPW were implemented. This route should be maintained throughout the development. It has been confirmed that, subject to a suitable protocol, there would be no serious implications from this. Wildfowlers would have to walk longer distances carrying heavy kit (E66). Lack of detail about public access provision onto the foreshore does not allow a fair assessment of the obstructions to many of the access points (BBWA2 pg3). A safe parking area close to the point on the C182 road, where paths WL23/70 and WL23/71 join it, would not be provided (E11 Fig 17-5).

275. EDF’s recreational access survey was carried out during the summer months and during ‘normal hours’ outside the foreshore wildfowling season (1 September to 21 February).

Ms C COLLINGRIDGE

Introduction

276. Ms Collingridge is a resident of Bridgwater. She has decades of experience in a wide range of sectors and has held management positions. Research of one kind or another has been a fairly consistent feature. Areas of her background have parallels with regard to risk assessment, environmental modelling and socio-economic and health impacts upon affected populations.

The Applications

277. These applications should not be seen in isolation but as part of the whole development of new nuclear build at Hinkley, as is recognised in ARUP Associates’ report to SDC (CC4 Appx1, CR34, see also CR38). The jetty is an



intrinsic part of the HPC development and should not be considered separately. The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive requires that the environmental impacts of projects as a whole are considered, not parts of them. There is a danger that important issues can be overlooked, minimised or fall between the cracks altogether and it does not serve the public interest for EDF to have split its plans into fragmented applications. One of the lessons from Fukushima is the problem of locating nuclear plants in close proximity to one another (CC2 p1.9, 2.1). The way that EDF has structured its assessments has failings and it is not transparent or accessible (CC2 p1.1, 1.2, 1.8). EDF has been convicted on spying charges (CC9.1).

278. The jetty proposal is premature. The NPS is facing a legal challenge (CC2 p1.9).

279. EDF has failed to provide detailed plans for the alternative to a jetty – a dedicated haul road direct from Junction 23 of the M5 to Hinkley; SDC has asked EDF to draw up plans for a Bridgwater by-pass (CC2 p1.7). This alternative was a request from the public at the beginning in the Stage One consultation that was rejected without sufficient justification. The provision of a dedicated haul road would make the need for a jetty obsolete.

Radioactivity and Health Impacts

280. With regard to the ES, nuclear radiation – that intrinsic and most hazardous component of nuclear power generation - has not warranted a chapter of its own as would have been logical (CC2 p1.3-1.6); this has created a dangerous lack of focus, it is a barrier to the public’s understanding and it creates the potential for this subject to barely register on a decision-maker’s ‘radar’. The radiological aspect as a whole has not been considered over a wide enough area. Neither has EDF provided a Health Impact Assessment. Radiation is more harmful to women (CC5 Appx p42.2, 42.4); this has not been considered. EDF actively discouraged discussion of health concerns in its consultations or at the Community Forum, except on its own terms. The health assessment at Stage 2 was inaccurate and inadequate.

281. There is a risk from low level radiation and the properties of uranium, in particular, which are not well understood. A loss of 10 tonnes spread over 35 years would be 0.27g per second per reactor. There could be a very small loss over a long period that ‘slips under the EA’s radar’. [Inspector’s note: see my calculation at p104 above which shows that a loss of 0.27g per second per reactor would be nearly 300 tonnes per reactor over 35 years. Conversely, the loss of 10 tonnes over 35 years would be at an average overall rate of about one 30th of the 0.27g/second figure, say 0.009g/s]. The reactors at HPB contain 200 tonnes in the two that are replaced every 5 years, giving a throughput of 1,400t in 35 years; ten tonnes is only 0.71% of this figure.

282. EDF failed to consider radionuclides off-shore in the Severn Estuary, cumulative impacts or their impact on ecology. What would have happened if a tsunami had damaged Hinkley Point on 11 March 2011 (CC2 p2.2-2.17)? A plume would have spread and there would have been other plumes from Oldbury and Berkeley in Gloucestershire. Rain would wash radionuclides back to earth. Contamination would be long-lived and include remote locations. Cumulative impacts would need to be determined. EDF has not done a spatial analysis or plan of radionuclides across the region. Past discharges do not simply disappear



and they do not remain in the vicinity (CC4 Appx4, Appx5). Impacts and risks are being underestimated (CC4 Appx6). The ES says that the Caesium-137 detected was at levels consistent with atmospheric fallout but Cs-137 is routinely discharged from the Hinkley complex (CC6 Pg7 Table 6); it is not all from weapons testing.

283. There would be potential for interaction of the jetty with the nearby Steart Coastal Management Project to dig a large hole to create salt marshes that would flood at each high tide (CC2 p2.13). Radionuclides within the sediments would be liberated.

284. There is an on-going debate about the health impacts of radiation, particularly of low level radiation (CC2 p3.1-3.5, CC4 Appx7-9). The elevated levels of uranium found at the HPC site should not be dismissed as unimportant. There is a lack of evidence showing ‘no risk’ (CC2 p4.1-4.3). The COMARE report No 14 failed to demonstrate that there are no detrimental health effects around nuclear power stations; the work is flawed (CC2 P5.1-5.2, CC4 Appx10-11). Professor Wakeford provided a commentary for EDF on radiological issues. He has worked in the nuclear industry for 29 years; his involvement with a number of bodies such as COMARE and his work as editor of a scientific journal illustrate the problems with peer review literature where, to criticise one, it applies to all. His comments appear to be from the extreme pro-nuclear end of the spectrum. Prof Busby is one among many who criticise the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) model, which is physics-based; a human being is a complex biological system. COMARE is ignoring the criticisms of its work and ignoring its own faults (CC5).

285. There has been systemic obstruction to the furtherance of research into local health detriments (CC2 p6.1-6.3, CC4 Appx12). EDF has every motive to denigrate Prof Busby’s health studies at Burnham-on-Sea (CC2 p7.1-7.6, CC4 Appx13-14).

286. Double standards are at work in the media and elsewhere. Information about contamination on the HPC site is being suppressed by charges of scaremongering (CC2 p8.1-8.4). Sampling by the EA is inadequate and it is not to be trusted. Information is being withheld and EDF seeks to avoid scrutiny. The EA’s grounds for dismissing the Green Audit report are baseless. The ‘tacky shades’ used as passive deposition collectors are unable to detect airborne materials. They are useless. EDF’s monitoring is not robust and the RIFE reports do not go into great detail. In the Site Stakeholders Group Annual Radiation Reports, Caesium-137 is shown as being discharged. The ES states that the Caesium-137 detected in all of the surface samples was at levels consistent with background due to atmospheric fallout. This is a very unsafe conclusion (CC6).

287. EDF did not do a health impact assessment for the jetty project as it was deemed to be ‘not necessary’ (CC2 p9.1-9.6, CC4 Appx11). There has not been adequate information or consultation on the health impacts among the local population (CC2 p11.1-11.5). EDF thwarted health issues being raised at the Community Forum (CC2 p12.1-12.13, CC4 Appx15-23). Perception and fear are material considerations (CC2 p14.1-16, and p22-23, CC4 Appx25, see also E13.1.a p7.25). The claim that the actual health risk would be very small is challenged (CC2 p17.1-23, CC4 Appx26-27).



288. The on-shore radiological site characterisation was unsound in every respect; the work was rushed and corners were cut (CC2 p24.1-24.3). Further investigation is needed for numerous reasons (CC2 p25.1-25.2, CC4 Appx28).

289. An analysis of (EDF’s contractor) AMEC’s data by Prof. Chris Busby showed contamination by EU (CC2 p25.3, CC4 Appx4, Appx30-33). The key findings of the Green Audit report still stand. AMEC failed to identify all of the anthropogenic radiological contamination.

290. Subsequent soil samples were insufficient to compensate for the poor coverage in AMEC’s work nor to disprove the EU findings. In fact, one sample showed Depleted Uranium (DU) (CC2 p25.3). As AMEC failed to find DU, this reinforces the fact that its coverage was inadequate. Prof Busby also did his own gamma survey and found elevated levels of radiation way above the background level determined in 1991 and higher than AMEC readings.

291. It is not accepted that AMEC’s use of the Radioactively Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (RCLEA) modelling software package has arrived at a safe determination of health risks on the HPC site and neither is the use of this model on its own sufficient due to its limitations. A five stage assessment of the use of RCLEA is addressed (CC2 p25.4-26). EDF’s quantitative risk assessment in RCLEA was based on a default generic model and was not ‘site specific’; the resultant dose rates are unsafe. Parameters were not adjusted to assess the risk to workers. Providing accommodation, infrastructure, parking, health and leisure facilities for workers would be a change of land use from a greenfield site. An RCLEA dose rate set to reflect the conditions for workers who would be living and working on-site would bring the dose rates over permitted levels.

292. The result of the 5 stage assessment shows that the threshold limit for workers on the site would be exceeded (CC2 p25.82-25.85). Workers should not live on the site as well as work there [EDF states that workers would not live on site in connection with the jetty proposals]. EDF has inappropriately relied on Exemption Orders to exclude radionuclides found on the site that exceed permitted levels (CC2 p26).

293. EDF failed to disprove the findings of EU in the Green Audit report (CC2 p27.1-27.9). It relied on the assessment by the EA. The EA’s work contains errors and AMEC is making mistakes in its interpretation of the laboratory results. There have been problems with fuel rods (CC9.6). Spikes in radioactive releases during re-fuelling of nuclear power stations (CC9.5), uranium leaks in France (CC9.4) and uranium contamination by fertilizing (CC9.3). It is necessary to understand land quality liabilities when sites are redeveloped (CC9.2).

294. The proposal would have a harmful effect on the human and natural environments (CC2 p28.1-28.3). The vulnerabilities of people have not been considered sufficiently.

Air Quality and Monitoring

295. Radiation is not mentioned. Other pollutants are considered but not the gaseous emissions from the nuclear facilities (CC2 p28.4-28.12, CC4 Appx28, Appx36). There would be risk from radioactivity in the topsoil and upper levels that would become airborne from activities on the site. There is no monitoring location at Shurton, yet it would certainly be impacted by dust. The ES used a



distance of 500 metres from the construction activity for the spread of dust but fine particles of dust travel a very long way; sand from the Sahara arrives in the UK (CC2 p28.13-28.18).

296. Dust mitigation measures would not be comprehensive. Face masks would not capture sub-micron particles. Residents at Shurton would not have such masks (CC2 p28.19-28.26). Offers of double glazing would not help. The condition in the SPW decision, when issued, to require monitoring in Shurton for three months is welcomed but the period should be a year.

297. There is also no aerodynamic assessment on the effects on air flows that addresses localised effects from changing the topography, filling in the valley and building a bund. Shurton and the general public require protection; the vulnerability of the workers at HPA, HPB and at the jetty has not been adequately addressed (CC2 p28.27-28.35).

298. As Hinkley Point is not in a radon-affected area, it may not be considered necessary to assess radioactive airborne pollutants but because of the way EDF has structured its ES, aspects of radiation are addressed in separate chapters. There are numerous factors that lead to the conclusion that it is impossible to believe that EDF’s mitigation measures against radioactive dust would be enough to protect public health. EDF should be made to do an airborne assessment for radioactive particles or it should be required to carefully remove the top layers (of soil) first and bury them in the valley and not retain them for landscaping, rather than run the risk of exposure (CC2 p28.36-28.37).

Air Flows and Plume Modelling

299. When looking at the effects of landscaping or of structures such as the proposed silos, EDF considers only their visual impact, not their effect on air flows and gaseous emission plumes. EDF has not included any air flow modelling. Thus, it cannot demonstrate what effect a wind coming from the west [Inspector’s note: I believe that this should read “east” but it was not clarified at the inquiry. Nevertheless, any such change would not affect the point of concern about worker safety.] would have on HPA’s or HPB’s gaseous emissions once the silos and canopy were erected. The turbulence could ground the plume onto workers? The slopes being created would not be immune from katabatic flows. The screen planting near Shurton could act as a funnel for the plume, concentrating any airborne radioactivity. At ground level, the highest level of airborne radioactive contamination from Hinkley Point has historically been recorded at a dry cloth monitoring station at Kilton, to the SW of Hinkley, which is counter to the prevailing wind direction. Changing topography and introducing new, large structures would influence plume behaviour at ground level with possible, unexpected consequences. Monitoring is needed at Burnham-on-Sea (CC2 p29.1-29.20, CC4 Appx37-40).

Marine Environment

300. There is no radiological characterisation of the foreshore or adequate assessment of radionuclides in Bridgwater Bay, let alone the Severn Estuary. The dispersion and deposition in the aquatic environment of the estuary is poorly understood (CC2 p30.1-30.3).



Chemical and Explosive Risks from Munitions

301. A further potential hazard in the sediments from metal microcrystal pollutants that EDF has not identified in its health assessment is the variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (vCJD) cluster in Burnham (CC2 p31.1, CC4 Appx41).

302. EDF did not do an unexploded ordnance risk assessment of the threats to human life, vessels in the berthing bay, Hinkley Point water intake pipes or living organisms. The amount of ordnance in the Severn Estuary is considerable. Neither did EDF consider the toxic effects on biota from the chemical explosive material that would leak out of corroded or damaged ordnance into the aquatic environment (CC2 p31.2-32, CC4 Appx42-44).

Tolerability

303. EDF’s Health Impact Appraisal states that “The likelihood of occurrence of a stochastic effect (rather than the severity of that effect) is related to the level of exposure to radiation. The system of dose limitation, together with the requirement to optimise all discharges and resultant doses to members of the public, is designed to reduce the probability of stochastic effects. The Health & Safety Executive ….introduced a concept of ‘tolerability’ to describe “a willingness to live with a risk so as to secure certain benefits and in the confidence that it is being properly controlled”. “ EDF has failed to demonstrate there would be no risk to health from exposure to radioactivity by its activities (CC2 p33.1-2).

304. As a result of EDF’s undue influence upon Ministers, and the resultant loss of trust and confidence in the EA and the wider regulatory bodies, the public cannot have confidence that the risk is being properly controlled. This undermining of the assessment of ‘tolerability’ in the local community and the concerns and subsequent health impacts regarding this are material planning considerations to the case.

Conclusion

305. EDF has failed to establish the health baseline of the local communities; it has misrepresented the data; it has not adequately assessed the potential impacts on health; it has failed to address gender differences; it has failed to quantify the risks adequately; it has failed to inform; and it has failed to consult (CC5 pg30 p53). The EA’s soil analysis and conclusions are unsafe (CC6 Appx2 pg12). EDF’s work is unsound and safety would be put at risk. There is a clear case for the applications to be refused.

Conditions

306. If granted, there should be the following eight conditions:

• A thorough radiological site characterisation is done both on-shore and off-shore before work commences.

• The contaminated topsoil and upper layers are remediated/removed and not retained for future landscaping.

• Workers are not to be housed on site.



• That EDF draws up full plans for a dedicated haul road from M5 Junction 23 direct to Hinkley.

• EDF must provide a full Health Impact Assessment.

• EDF to provide a Community Benefit health facility to undertake radiological screening and blood testing for chromosomal aberrations.

• High Volume Air filters at Burnham-on-Sea, Shurton and Kilton be installed to test for airborne radionuclides.

• An unexploded ordnance risk assessment is done.

THE CASES FOR OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS


307. Mrs Barbara Oates (OAT1, CR9) is a resident of Shurton and a Stogursey Parish Councillor. Although speaking not as a Councillor, she has the sure knowledge that she can speak on behalf of the people in the local community who are not at the inquiry. The jetty would take many HGV movements off our over-crowded roads and, because of this, EDF’s application is supported, with certain grave reservations.

308. Mrs Oates came to live in this beautiful corner of Somerset for a simple but fulfilling life in an area of beauty, peace and tranquillity, which she found in Shurton, a small but friendly community. The area has many local pleasures, including the ‘wonderful peaceful walks along the cliffs listening to the waves of the Bristol Channel’. The historic beach at Shurton Bars with its fossil beach is valued by locals and the wider community. It must be protected.

309. What would the effect be if EDF builds the jetty with its accompanying monstrous edifices? They plan to work 24/7 with work that would include pile driving. When are local residents supposed to sleep?

310. PRoW would be closed. Over the whole site, some 14 km of footpaths would be lost behind security fences around the whole site, reaching down to the edge of Shurton. All the wildlife would be lost from the area, together with the darkness at night and the peace and tranquillity. Who would find pleasure in walking round the perimeter of a building site next to a security fence?

311. The photomontages from the cliff top to the west of the site show only too clearly the visual intrusion from this monstrous jetty and the complex. Also, the noise from the jetty through all the phases would be even more intrusive and nobody near the area would be able to ignore that.

312. Ms Oates says that all she can do is to appeal for rigorous conditions and obligations to make the lives of residents slightly less unbearable, by providing screening, replanted hedgerows, alternative PRoW, peace at night, and lighting that would be strictly controlled and appropriate. The beach and Shurton Bars should be protected from constructors and machinery. Provision should be made for complaints, about infringements of the conditions, directly to someone with the authority to act at once.

313. Mrs Katy Attwater (ATT1) says that an article in The Times of 22 September 2009 advised that EDF carried 34 billion euros of debt. Since then its share price



has fallen and the Eurozone crisis makes its financial stability doubtful. EDF has acknowledged this and said that it will need to look into the viability of HPC. Yet it argues that it needs to start the jetty and preparatory works as soon as possible to meet an urgent Government requirement.

314. As the major component of the Government’s misguided energy policy, HPC should be in the hands of a company that could be trusted to deliver it safely and within budget. But EDF has demonstrated the opposite of this in Finland and Flammanville.

315. Two senior executives of EDF have been given jail sentences in France for spying on Greenpeace. EDF was fined 1.5 million euros and Greenpeace was awarded 0.5 million euros damages. We would be handing over our beautiful Somerset countryside to a bankrupt French-owned company (ATT1 pg1 3rd and 4th paras).

316. Ms Lesley Flash (FLA1, CR2) invokes the name of Samuel Taylor Coleridge who wrote his poem ‘Lines on Shurton Bars’ at Shurton Bars and speaks of a landscape which is virtually the same now as it was then.

317. Stogursey Parish has around 1300 parishioners. Many families have lived there for generations. There is an incomparable solace of simplicity, natural beauty and tranquillity. Shurton Bars is a relatively isolated spot but it is within walking distance of most of the main village and the nearby hamlets and it is an amenity for everyone. Ms Flash describes in eloquent detail the value to residents of this beach (FLA1 pg2). After the jetty would come the power station and whereas at present one can drop down into the landscape and cease to see or hear HPA and HPB, HPC would loom into the horizon, the land would be permanently altered and, effectively, Shurton Bars would be destroyed.

318. The deed is more or less done. At least the jetty would take traffic off the road and reduce the misery for those who live along it. Thus, its provision is supported. Poetry and feeling, art and beauty, heritage and culture, personal experience and the privacy of the soul are all embarrassing subjects that are not quantifiable to an accountant; so it comes down to money.

319. EDF has chosen to apply for the jetty separately from the preparatory works. Likewise compensation, in full knowledge of the impact on Shurton Bars and on the Stogursey parishioners, should be additional and separate.

320. Mr Alex Reed for the Save Cannington Action Group (SCAG) states that most of the traffic would come through the village. SCAG has 400 addresses in its mailing group. Residents approach SCAG and ask to be kept informed. The Group does not formally object to the current proposals, its only concern is over traffic impacts (SCAG1).

321. Mr Alan Beasley for Cannington Parish Council is a retired professional engineer who spent 46 years in the nuclear industry and has lived locally for 40 years. The Parish is generally in favour of the jetty. However, there is concern about the prospect of heavy traffic in the village. HGVs through the mediaeval village of Cannington have increased to 750/day from earlier lower estimates. Depending on the definition of an HGV in terms of the number of axles (E4 p6.1.5), this number could be doubled. There would also be large cranes passing



along the C182 road to the site. There might be 1,000 large vehicles through Cannington each day.

322. The jetty is supported; it is a very good idea as it would reduce these flows. The figures given by EDF for traffic through the village are those with the jetty in place and there is a history of mistrust about Hinkley traffic flows. It is difficult to manage lorry traffic over time and distance so that vehicles are not grouped together. A bypass to Cannington was expected at the time of the Barnes report on HPB. Yet it would be at least 3 years from now before a bypass is built. That is appalling management. The bypass is needed as soon as possible.

323. If building HPC is so urgent, an experimental foreign design should not be used.

324. It is suspected that the final design of the jetty would be more substantial and stronger than is shown in the proposals.

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS


325. Some 43 written representations were made to the proposals. I have read them all and will take them into account in preparing my conclusions. A table of the representations has been prepared by the Programme Officer to indicate the subjects covered in each letter (ID5). Many of the objections deal with matters that were heard in evidence at the inquiry. They are already reported above and do not need to be repeated but some points merit specific mention here.

326. English Heritage (CR5) requests that a condition be attached with regard to the dredging operations with regard to archaeological matters. It also states that every effort should be made to limit the sand sheds to a maximum of 16m high; the scheme should be conditioned to control the height of this facility.

327. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) (CR6) suggests revisions to Sections 11(1) (for the safety of navigation), 19(1)(a) (to provide latitude and longitude for the harbour limits as well as grid references) and 31 (to safeguard the rights etc of Trinity House and the MCA) of the Order. Also, the MCA advises that the works would be unlikely to have an adverse effect on the safety of navigation provided some 16 matters, as specified, are controlled by conditions. Also, maritime users should be notified of the works.

328. Dr John White (CR8) makes a detailed submission. This begins with a number of general observations, principally in relation to coastal processes, field data and coastal environmental studies. Consultation with the public has been deficient. Dr White attended consultation meetings twice and expressed an interest in what he would like to undertake. He also approached EDF staff in London; public bodies are seeking information that he could have provided.

329. Clarification is needed of a number of terms and intentions (CR8 Part C) [Inspector’s note; some of these matters are dealt with by conditions and some are already included in the cases reported above]. Leaving parts of steel tubes in the sea floor after dismantling of the jetty could present a hazard. As to ‘Geomorphology/ Holocene’, there is conflicting information on field studies. Evidence suggests that the coastal processes are critically dependent on the supply of material, linked with the unknown relative abrasion rates of the Lias and the Old Red



Sandstone. There is no sediment budget and no information on the quantities of sediment that are moved. The ES appears to focus on fine suspended sediments but the connection between these and cliff recession and coarse sediment transport is not clear. The Hinkley sea wall prevents the supply of material in a cross-shore direction but not all reasons for cliff retreat are examined. There are other examples where information is lacking in the ES or where conclusions are unsound or not substantiated. The effect of the jetty on downstream scour may be greater than has been anticipated.

330. The ES considers that there would be no cumulative impacts on the coastal hydrodynamics regime arising from the jetty and the SPW. But it may be that numerical models are unable to predict this on such a coast. The seawall would impact on the hydrodynamics and it would cut off the supply of sediments to the active beach face and near the shore. With two major projects at a relatively short length of coast and within a short period of time, a joint and detailed exercise with long term field data collection is warranted.

331. As to the ESA, it is not certain that the structure would not impact on the foreshore. Further research is needed of the factors affecting the rates of cliff erosion, including rock jointing density, faulting, rock platform width and unconsolidated material at the base of the cliff. EDF has not investigated the source and transport of gravel; the time and spatial scales of processes may not be as EDF claims. Wave data and water current data are limited. The cumulative effects of the jetty and the sea wall are not made clear. EDF concedes that little long term hydrodynamic or geomorphic data exist; and there is nothing on sediment transport, morphodynamics (the interaction of the physical beach face and incident waves) or hydrodynamic processes.

332. Alternatives to nuclear energy exist. The Severn Barrage would have bestowed greater benefits on the local community. It would be cheaper and wiser for the French to build a power station in France and for the UK to pay for the transmission lines to bring the power here.

333. Dr White’s later submission, after a meeting with EDF (CR08.1) advises that he has data on coastal processes over a period of 6 years at Wall Common; his concerns would be waived if EDF would mount wave and water current instrumentation on the jetty to help in understanding the processes at work. EDF says that the monitoring procedure document is being prepared and that airborne LiDAR would be used to monitor the cliff-line but this would not be suitable; it would not be sufficiently accurate and data collection would be weather dependent. [EDF’s oral response is that the sea wall/coastal processes are not before this inquiry. There was no commitment to putting instrumentation on the jetty and it is expected that the LiDAR would be ground based rather than airborne. The jetty would not have a major impact on the cliff or coastal transport of materials and a monitoring programme is proposed in the DCO application.]

334. EDF claims that it would assist with jobs and education. Coastal engineering students would be available to assist with data processing and their production.

335. The representations of the Royal Yachting Association, whose principal concern is over the impact on recreational vessels, are the subject of a detailed response by EDF (CR13, CR18, E30).

336. Trinity House (CR15, CR35) has a number of comments on Articles 3, 4, 9 and 19 of the HEO and it has other comments on marking requirements.



Amendments to the draft HEO have led to Trinity House having no comments on it other than with regard to ‘marking requirements’ (E70).

337. The Ministry of Defence, Defence Estates Safeguarding (CR24) advises that, taking into account the position of the harbour within Danger Area D119 of the Lilstock Range, it would be appropriate to require that the harbour is not to be used for any other purpose than the import of construction materials for HPC. Also, before making any bylaws to regulate vessels using the harbour, the Company “shall first obtain approval from the Secretary of State for Defence”. Provision would be needed for liaison between the harbour authority and range controllers. A management plan to be approved by the MMO would deal with this matter.

338. Mr Chinks Grylls (CR27) raises a wide variety of objections to the proposal. In addition to ones included above, he is concerned about the ‘inconsiderate consultation procedure’ and makes additional points on transport impacts and on the timescales and issues of prematurity in advance of the DCO. He also expresses concerns about the effects on some fish species. Could EDF afford to build the development? The area would be overloaded with the building of HPC and only 45% of the workforce from the local area; with the decommissioning of HPA; with the continued operation of HPB and the proposed transmission line upgrade; and with the proposed Steart Habitat Creation and Steart Coastal Management Project coming on stream in 2012.

339. Somerset County Council (CR30) supports the principle of the jetty. Its holding objection is withdrawn on condition that EDF removes the term ‘extinguishment’ in relation to rights of way; the reference to ‘South West Coastal Path’ be corrected to West Somerset Coast Path; that the Obligations confirm that the jetty would be temporary and would be removed and the Coast Path reinstated if the jetty were removed; that the rights of way network reinstatement be based on the SPW PRoW schedule of 1 July 2011 rather than that which is included in the ESA. The proposed conditions and obligations would satisfactorily address concerns about transport impacts.

340. Bridgwater Town Council (CR36) is generally in support of the jetty in principle but it is concerned about the traffic impacts on Bridgwater during its construction.

341. The Quantock Hills AONB Service (CR37) states that the jetty would have significant adverse impacts on the landscape character and quality of views to and from the Quantock Hills, in conflict with the key purpose of the AONB. Also, the light pollution would harm the dark skies of the Quantock Hills and this and the proposed foghorn would detract from the tranquillity of the AONB. The categorisation of viewpoints as Primary or Secondary is disputed, as are some of the impacts that are assessed.

342. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) (CR40), to which the BBWA is affiliated (CR41), is opposed to restrictions on shooters accessing their legitimate coastal shooting ground and the negative impact of the construction and use of the jetty on wildlife. The most serious potential effect of the structure and its lighting would be the disturbance to birds and their feeding. The applications should be withdrawn and resubmitted after having carefully considered the long standing and culturally important activity of shooting and the sensitive nature of the habitats.



343. Mrs L S Jones (CR42) is a close neighbour of the proposal. She is concerned about the noise from 24 hour working, the foghorn, the need for alternative routes to compensate for the closure of PRoW, the need to reduce as much as possible the heights of the sand shed and silos (with short wide silos rather than tall slim ones) and to ensure that non-reflective paint would be used and a colour to blend into the landscape. The peace and tranquillity of Shurton Bars should be preserved and views from the beach shielded as much as possible.

344. The Burnham Boatowners Sea Angling Association (CR43) is concerned about the possible loss of fishing grounds, disruption of fishing, the loss of available fish stocks, possible loss of tubeworm beds in construction areas and a consequent impact on fish which feed on the tubeworms, and possible disruption of the Club’s activities as the areas in question are very good fishing grounds for bass, cod, ling, thornback and spurdog. The jetty could be used as an artificial reef at the end of its life.



INSPECTOR’S CONCLUSIONS

HARBOUR EMPOWERMENT ORDER (HEO) AND TWO MARINE LICENCES

Introduction

345. The sequence of the sections in these conclusions is set out in the Contents list at the start of this report. The Glossary is at the end. Paragraph references in square brackets at the end of a paragraph indicate the sources of the material relied on in reaching my conclusions. Some references may be included to show that a particular argument has been considered, even though it might not merit specific mention. Inevitably, in a report of this length, it is necessary to be selective about the source paragraphs, especially where the same point is made by more than one party.

346. There was relatively little objection in principle to the HEO. Indeed, many of the concerns about it relate to matters that would be covered by restrictions or - for want of a better word – ‘conditions’, of the sort that would normally be found in a planning permission. Indeed, a substantial part of the inquiry was taken up with this subject. In reporting on some issues, the main concern has been over the actual controls to be exercised by the conditions. Thus, for example, it is most convenient and will avoid repetition by reporting on the topic of ‘construction noise’ when dealing with conditions rather than having a short section on general concerns about construction noise and then another when looking at the relevant conditions. [60, 63, 175, 238, 254, 263, 305, 312-314, 318, 320, 322,

325, 333, 335, 338, 340-344]

347. To set the scene and to make the Conclusions relatively self-contained, I will begin with background matters, a short description of the proposals and an assessment of the relevant policy and guidance.

Site and Surroundings

348. The landward part of the site for the proposed temporary jetty development (the jetty) is open land on West Somerset’s coast, 25km to the east of Minehead and 12km to the north-west of Bridgwater, within the parish of Stogursey in the District of West Somerset. Immediately to the east of the application site are the Hinkley Point A (HPA) and Hinkley Point B (HPB) nuclear power stations, which are shown on the submitted photographs of the area and surroundings. The remaining landward area near to the application site is predominantly agricultural with, at some distance, scattered settlements. The site also extends offshore into Bridgwater Bay, part of the Severn Estuary. [8]

349. The marine area includes the foreshore and sub-tidal areas. At low tide, the shore – seen on the front of this report - comprises a relatively narrow platform of rock, cobbles and pebbles, interspersed with and fringed by muddy sand. Inter-tidal areas to the west include more extensive stretches of mobile sand while, to the east adjacent to the existing Hinkley Point Power Station Complex, the inter-tidal rock platforms, mud and sand extend up to 500m from the upper shore at low water. [9]

350. The Severn Estuary is recognised for its international and national nature conservation importance in the following designations:



• Special Protection Area (SPA) (Severn Estuary) under the Birds Directive, as it is classified as a wetland of international importance;

• Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the European Habitats Directive;

• The Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve (NNR) is designated a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention; and

• Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Bridgwater Bay). [9]

351. The cliff and the foreshore, shown on the submitted photographs, are particularly interesting and the West Somerset Coast Path, to the south west of the site, is within a very attractive sweep of grassland which, in part, is above the level of the site, affording downward views towards it. The “fossil beach”, which is mentioned in the evidence, has a remarkable display of huge ammonites; it lies at Shurton Bars to the south west. The nearest houses are some distance from the site, and hidden from it by the landform. The Quantock Hills are a few miles to the south. [10, 339]

The Proposals

352. The proposed jetty would be in the area fronting the Hinkley Point C (HPC) development site. This location would allow for bulk materials for the making of concrete and for other construction materials to be imported directly to where they would be required for building the HPC Nuclear Power Station. As the Stogursey Parish Council (SPC) aptly states, “The volumes of material required for this construction are monumental”. [19, 57, 58]

353. The HEO application comprises a Draft HEO, plans and sections, an Environmental Statement (ES) and an ES Addendum (ESA). The purpose of this application is to obtain powers to authorise EDF to construct, maintain and operate in Bridgwater Bay and on adjacent land a harbour which comprises the temporary jetty development and associated harbour works to facilitate the construction of HPC. [21]

354. The two applications for FEPA licences to the MMO (by virtue of p4 of Sch9 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009) have effect as applications for marine licences under Part 4 of the 2009 Act; they seek to authorise EDF to carry out marine works and to dredge and dispose of material from the capital dredge of the berthing pocket and place material below Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) for the construction of the jetty. [20, 22]

355. The temporary jetty development would include, in brief, the following main elements: an aggregates storage area with sand shed and silos; a rock extraction area and two soil storage areas; a service road; a jetty bridge constructed from tubular piles supporting horizontal crossheads and a deck; a jetty head of similar construction and mooring infrastructure; a dredged berthing pocket alongside the jetty head; materials handling and conveyance equipment to the aggregates storage area; a turning circle (for trucks) and a mobile crane on the jetty head and a roadway along the jetty bridge; and aids to navigation. The “Works Provisions” of Part 2 of the HEO set out in Article 4 some 10 specific works for which power to construct would be given. Article 5 of the HEO specifies limits of deviation for the Article 4 works, laterally and, in most cases, vertically. [23, 24]



356. The draft HEO included Article 29 which sought powers to close the Harbour (i.e. provisions to allow for the dismantling of the jetty and the reinstatement or restoration of the site and the removal of the harbour powers following the construction of HPC or the failure to secure for it the Development Consent Order (DCO) consent). Article 29 was subsequently withdrawn from the HEO as the MMO was of the view that it could not be included. [25, 26]

357. The ES states that, subject to the making of the HEO and marine licences, jetty construction would start in the second quarter of 2011. Assuming that the DCO is granted for HPC, and dependent upon timings, the jetty would operate for up to eight years during the construction of HPC, up to the completion of the second reactor unit sometime in 2019-2020. Subject to provision for its removal, the jetty would then be dismantled and the site restored where it lies outside the area of permanent works. Dismantling works would last for about one year and restoration up to two years. [27, 31, 197-199]

358. The application has been submitted for a DCO for HPC, as a nationally significant infrastructure project pursuant to the Planning Act 2008. That application also includes the jetty and it has been accepted by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). [57, 59]

Policy Background

359. Relevant policy guidance is set out in an agreed statement between EDF and the Councils of West Somerset and Sedgemoor (WSC and SDC). The most relevant national guidance is found in the National Policy Statements (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) and for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6), together with the UK Marine Policy Statement (2011) which sets out the ‘High level principles for decision making’ and the approach for considering ‘Energy production and infrastructure development’. A letter from the Department for Communities and Local Government of 16 July 2009 states, with regard to preliminary works, that: “Government policy on new nuclear may be a material factor for local authorities to consider in exercising any role they may have in relation to nuclear new build. Where appropriate this may include considering applications for planning permission for preliminary or preparatory works on site ahead of the main application to the IPC" and "local authorities should have confidence in considering such applications on their merits" and that "they may decide that such consent should potentially be granted on the basis that any preliminary works carried out will be removed if the subsequent application to the IPC is turned down or if, within a specified time, no application is made”. [13, 62, 65, 66, 68,

254, 314]

360. The Government’s clearly stated position is that new nuclear power stations like HPC are needed “as soon as possible”; and it is “vitally important” that new nuclear power stations are provided “significantly earlier than 2025” as the need for them is urgent. Accordingly, the Government has identified eight sites including HPC in the NPS, of which HPC is the first to apply for consent. It is material that Government Marine Policy is to prioritise contributing to securing the UK’s energy objectives; the “important” role of nuclear power stations sited in coastal locations in this regard is explicitly recognised. [13, 60, 61, 66]

361. Moreover, the Harbours Act 1964 confirms that it is “...desirable in the interests of facilitating the efficient and economic transport of goods...by sea....”, while the Government’s Energy Policy states that “Waterborne… transport is



preferred over road transport at all stages of the project, where cost effective”. [13, 58, 59]

362. A significant number of local policies are relevant to the proposals but there are no objections from WSC/SDC on development plan policy grounds. In particular, Policies STR1, STR6 and Policy 15 in the Structure Plan and Policy SP/5 of the Local Plan recognise that development can take place outside the limits of settlements where a need can be shown to do so, where it would provide economic benefit and where it would achieve or contribute to sustainable transport objectives. The policies expect development to be of high quality and good design. Neither the Structure Plan nor the Local Plan were prepared in the knowledge of national policies now set out in the NPSs. [14, 16, 36, 63]

363. In the absence of up-to-date local policy, WSC has approved a Position Statement in relation to HPC which sets out its approach to the development. SDC’s Core Strategy makes clear its role in relation to an application for Development Consent to the IPC for a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP): “Because NSIPs are subject to a separate planning process within the national planning regime, the Core Strategy does not set any policies, tests or requirements ……to apply in deciding whether any element of the development comprised in an application for development consent is acceptable….. Accordingly, the Core Strategy does not have the same status for decision making ….. as it does for decisions where the Council is the determining authority. However (regard must be had to) any Local Impact Report (LIR) (and) this chapter of the Core Strategy will inform the LIR …. in connection with the determination of any application for development consent”. [16,17]

364. WSC and SDC have each adopted a Hinkley Point C Project Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This is subject to a similar caveat to the Sedgemoor Core Strategy, i.e. it does not set policies for applications which are the subject of the DCO/IPC process. Its approach is to provide advice for the promoter rather than to set planning policies. The SPD was objected to by EDF but was subject to local consultation and has been approved. In the SPD, the Sustainable Transport Approach expects the HPC project promoter to – among other things - align the Transport/Freight Strategy with other Council plans and strategies and it seeks to minimise the volume of road traffic associated with the development of the new power station at all times and to ensure as much material as possible is delivered by sea. [18]

365. The opinion of the two LPAs – WSC and SDC - on the policy background, as set out in the SoCG with EDF, is worth repeating: “To conclude, the local planning policy framework and the supplementary guidance, seek to encourage and support the maximum use of transportation of materials by sea, to minimise the volume of road traffic generated. From a Sedgemoor perspective, the jetty proposal is considered a fundamental element of the project which could reduce impacts locally, however in order to do this to maximum effect, the early delivery of the jetty is an essential pre-requisite to avoiding volumes of heavy goods traffic through Bridgwater and Cannington which will cause significant adverse effects. The jetty forms a key part of a wider comprehensive package of measures to avoid, minimise and then mitigate adverse impacts on the transport network arising from the movement of people, goods and services and any other associated transport movements. Whilst a package has been agreed for the site



preparation application, and is yet to be agreed for the DCO as a whole, the jetty is an agreed core element of such a package.” [36, 37, 63]

Need and Benefits

366. Firstly, EDF is seeking to do what the Government encourages, to bring new nuclear generating capacity on stream as soon as possible. Recent Government advice in EN-6 (CD3.2 p2.2.1) is that the need for nuclear power stations has been demonstrated. The proposed jetty and the very much larger SPW application both seek to smooth and speed up the HPC construction programme. [13, 29]

367. The proposed jetty and associated facilities would make provision for the import of bulk materials for the making of concrete and for the import of other construction materials for the construction of HPC. The DCO application also includes the jetty proposals. If that Consent is granted but the current HEO/marine licence applications are not, then the construction of the jetty would be delayed by at least the equivalent of the time period between the decisions on the current applications and that on the DCO. The delay involved would be in conflict with the Government’s aim to secure new nuclear power stations like HPC as soon as possible. [19, 31, 57-61, 65-68]

368. Also, if – in the absence of the early provision of the jetty - the DCO were to include a restriction on the number of HGV movements (pending the opening of the Cannington bypass which is included in the DCO application) then the development of HPC would be delayed even more, as its construction period would be extended. [60]

369. What would be the benefit of the jetty in traffic terms? The unchallenged estimate is that some 1.1m HGV movements would be needed over the 9 year period to build HPC. With 80% of the materials for concrete production on site brought in by sea, this would equate to 250,000 HGV movements taken off the roads by the use of the jetty, a saving of 23%; with some 13,665 HGV movements to construct and decommission the jetty, the net saving would be 236,335 HGV movements or up to 1,000 HGVs per week. The estimated gross saving in HGV km travelled, using local sources for materials, would be 100km per trip on average or 25 million kilometres, with savings in HGV emissions, highway maintenance, congestion and potential road accidents. [69-72, 237]

370. Would the above 80% figure for concrete construction materials by sea be achieved? Could or should the figure be higher? Could or should there be a requirement for bringing in other construction materials by sea and, if so, what amount? These are legitimate questions that have been asked. EDF has offered a requirement in the draft DCO to achieve the 80% figure. I have no doubt that EDF would want to make the best use of its expensive jetty infrastructure but higher figures could not be guaranteed because allowance would need to be made for marine conditions and the weather. As to also bringing in other construction materials by sea, the jetty would include the infrastructure to make this possible. Clearly, this would be expensive to provide and it would not be done if use were not to be made of it. But, as EDF says, the main benefit would derive from the delivery of concrete making materials and this should not be put at risk by a competing quota for other materials. [23, 38, 39, 71-73, 251, 256, 258, 307,

318, 320-322, 325, 338-340]



371. Some argue that it is premature to consider the jetty proposals in isolation from the HPC project as a whole and, it is, of course, necessary to be mindful that, if HPC were not to proceed, then some 13,665 extra HGV movements would have taken place to no avail, with harmful impacts on HGV emissions, highway maintenance, congestion and potential road accidents. In simple terms, an extra 13,665 extra HGV movements would take place in order to save 250,000 gross HGV movements. If HPC were not to proceed but the jetty did, then in addition to the unnecessary HGV movements, there would be the many other environmental effects associated with a large construction and deconstruction project, including the noise, the disturbance and the visual, landscape and ecological impacts. [65-68, 85-145, 154, 156, 179-187, 192, 193, 238, 240, 243-253, 264-268, 270,

271, 274, 277, 278, 280-305, 308-321, 325, 326, 328-338, 340-344]

372. In summary on this matter, provided that HPC was developed, the jetty would greatly reduce the environmental impacts of HGV traffic, to be replaced by more sustainable sea traffic, and it would respond positively to the concerns of local residents. If the jetty were developed but not HPC, there would be environmental harm. However, this harm would exist to a much lesser degree and over a much shorter period than the very substantial gains that would be achieved if the jetty were developed and it operated to assist the construction of HPC. These gains include: speeding up the construction of HPC in accordance with Government policy for energy supply and security; achieving a very large reduction in HGV traffic, with implications for highway safety and highway maintenance; achieving the delivery of a significant quantity of material by water borne transport, in accordance with national advice; and reducing CO2 emissions and thereby helping to meet national climate targets. [38, 69, 108, 168, 318, 320-322,

325, 340]

Radioactivity and Human Health

373. Ms Collingridge and Mr Jeffrey state that - based upon a report written by Prof Chris Busby and Cecily Collingridge, entitled “Evidence of significant enriched uranium atomic fuel contamination of the Hinkley Point proposed nuclear site in Somerset and its potential implications”, Occasional Paper 2011/1, Aberystwyth: Green Audit, January 2011 – the two sq km site contains approximately 10 tonnes of enriched uranium (EU) and that all of this is from the Hinkley Point historic operation. A press release based on this report was issued on 12 January 2011. The essence of the objection is that the site is contaminated and that this dangerous material would be disturbed by jetty development works. [97, 104, 263-

266, 271-272, 276-306, 325]

374. Can this be so when the Hinkley Point site has been the subject of radiological investigations and surveys since 1957, prior to the opening of HPA in 1964? The regulatory bodies carry out an independent monitoring programme whose results are reported annually in the Radioactivity in Food and the Environment (RIFE) reports and are published jointly by the relevant regulatory bodies. [88-95, 103]

375. The radiological investigations have become more refined over the years, such that the currently specified programme of monitoring by EDF staff for HPA and HPB is as follows:

• Thermoluminescent dosimeters deployed quarterly at defined locations on land at distances of up to about 5km from the site;



• “Spot” measurements of dose rates quarterly in defined locations close to the station and in an arc around Hinkley Point up to about 7km;

• Deployment of passive deposition collectors (“shades”) close to the station and in a ring about 1 to 2km distant, to trap airborne materials;

• Quarterly grass and herbage samples from locations around the site including local farms;

• Soil core samples carried out annually rotating between 5 locations (including local farms);

• Quarterly milk sampling at a number of local farms;

• Quarterly “spot” measurements of dose rates at defined locations on local beaches up to around 10km in either direction from the site;

• Six-monthly strandline contamination monitoring over a 1km distance either side of the cooling water outfall;

• Annual monitoring of fishing equipment used by local fishermen;

• Quarterly sampling of sediment from defined locations along the local coastline;

• Quarterly sampling of seaweed from defined locations along the local coastline;

• Quarterly sampling of locally caught fish;

• Quarterly sampling of locally caught crustacean (shrimps, crabs and lobster). [95, 103]

376. There can be no doubt that a considerable level of monitoring, including water quality and groundwater, has been carried out over a very lengthy period. The latest RIFE report shows that the most exposed people at Hinkley Point could receive a dose that is well within the dose limit for members of the public. [89-96,

101, 103, 104]

377. If the 10 tonnes of EU exists, where could it have come from? The reactors are permitted to release very tiny amounts of material. Based on the fission product Caesium 137 (because uranium is not permitted to be released at all), EDF calculates that operation at the full limit of what is allowed for 500,000 years would generate one teaspoonful of material released from the fuel. The EA points out that HPA did not use EU fuel so that presumably the alleged origin must be HPB. [References after next paragraph]

378. Ten tonnes equates to the uranium content of over 200 fuel elements from HPB – some 8,000 fuel pins, as there are 36 in each element. Looked at another way, if the site was clear of EU 35 years ago, than the existence of 10t of EU there now would mean that 5.5kg of EU could have been escaping from HPB or from some other source elsewhere and had been deposited on the 2 sq km site - and if material did escape, only part of it would end up on the site - every week for 35 years without being detected. Even this average weekly deposit, rather than the 163kg/week calculated by EDF based on a figure from Ms Collingridge (which should have been 163kg per week and per reactor) would be huge, when



the monitoring is of extremely tiny amounts. And whether the figures are calculated in terms of loss per second or per week makes no difference when dealing with a build up of uranium in the site and when much of the monitoring is done quarterly. [90-92, 98-101, 103 Fn79, 104, 281]

379. For its part, in response to the Green Audit report, the EA commissioned additional sampling, independently from EDF and its contractors. This found that no EU was present and that the levels of uranium found on and off the site are low and at naturally occurring levels. The EA states that “…Green Audit has drawn conclusions that are not statistically accurate, and that the data relating to the site have been misinterpreted. ……………..We, the Health and Safety Executive and other organisations subject the existing power stations at Hinkley Point to stringent regulation. We and others carry out routine discharge and environmental monitoring which would easily detect losses of the alleged quantities of uranium”. Also, “As a result of the sampling we have undertaken and the lack of any plausible scenario which would deliver 10 tonnes of enriched uranium into the environment without the presence of readily detectable fission products we continue to maintain that there is no evidence for such contamination around Hinkley Point B. We …….do not consider it necessary to repeat any soil contamination surveys either independently or in partnership with Green Audit… There is no credible mechanism for the scale of loss claimed by Green Audit”. [101]

380. The jetty and its use would not generate any radioactivity. The Government’s guidance in Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (CD3.19) says, at p10, that “Planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced.” Is there any evidence that the regulatory bodies have missed finding substantial levels of radioactive pollution at the site, despite the extensive monitoring over a very long period of time? They are clearly satisfied that they have not. Moreover, they can see no credible means by which such a large amount of EU could have been released into the environment. They have carried out additional work to assess the validity of the Green Audit report and have rejected its findings. I see no reason to disagree.

Perception of harm

381. Ms Collingridge argues that perception and fear are material considerations. This is true but the weight to be accorded to them in the decision-making process depends on many factors. One of these is the context set by the actual level of any harm from the development. Also relevant are the benefits that would derive from an activity or a proposal, which affect perceptions and, hence, the tolerability of a risk. An example would be the dangers from driving that are well tolerated because of its benefits. A risk that is not voluntary but is imposed by others, when the ‘others’ would gain the direct benefit, is not tolerated as well and a reduced level of risk would be expected. [References after next paragraph]

382. Nevertheless, it is remarkable in these proposals how few public objections there are in principle to a development of this scale, linked to a proposal for a nuclear power station, in an attractive landscape across the line of the West Somerset Coast Path and in a highly protected coastal area. The information about the actual risks from the development and the numbers of objectors do not



suggest to me that there is an undue level of perception of harm among the local populace. [9, 46, 63, 88, 287, 303, 304, 325, 338]

Unexploded Ordnance

383. EDF is aware of the risks from unexploded ordnance in the Severn Estuary. A survey was carried out before the offshore investigation works were undertaken. It has confirmed that further surveys would be done before any intrusive marine works were undertaken. There is no evidence that more than this would be necessary. I see no need for a condition to require that a risk assessment be carried out. [157, 301, 302, 306, 325]

Ornithology, Habitats Regulations and Appropriate Assessment

384. In p350 above I set out the designations applicable to the site. For the purposes of the Habitats Regulations, the jetty proposals constitute a ‘project’ and the MMO is a ‘competent authority’ for the purposes of Regulations 61, 62 and 66. The construction of a jetty is not a project that would be directly connected with or necessary to the management of the SAC/SPA under the terms of Regulation 61(1)(b). [40]

385. EDF and Natural England (NE) agree that the jetty should only be retained for as long as it would be needed to construct HPC. NE is largely satisfied with EDF’s report to inform the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and a large measure of agreement has been reached on matters such as dredging, the effect on Corallina turf, the retention of dredged arisings, jetty boat movements and the effect of the thermal plume. [41, 42, 87]

386. As EDF correctly says, the HRA process has two stages. The first is whether the proposals could have a significant effect on a site or feature of European interest. The second, if a significant effect cannot be ruled out, is the appropriate assessment: whether an adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant site would occur in practice. [147-149]

387. The HRA information confirmed that large numbers of shelduck - which are significant for the Severn Estuary SPA population - have been recorded at Hinkley Point. NE agrees that the operation of the temporary jetty, by itself, would not have a “likely significant effect on the SPA (in relation to shelduck)” but there would be limited potential for the jetty boat traffic to act in an in-combination manner with boat traffic to and from Combwich Wharf, which is part of the HPC project. Any in-combination effect could not occur for 3 years. EDF is willing to offer a monitoring condition as part of the jetty HEO, albeit that it considers that any such condition should be part of the DCO consent. [42, 138, 139, 212, 213]

388. Thus, the issue of concern is the potential effect on shelduck if the jetty were to operate at the same time as the DCO proposal, Combwich Wharf. NE submits that the draft Article (E61) or conditions must require that the construction of the jetty should not commence until EDF has submitted and had approved a ‘Shelduck Monitoring and Mitigation Scheme’ and that the requirement should be imposed now and discharged before construction commenced because the ‘adaptive monitoring principles’ would require EDF to monitor shelduck and vessel movements from at least the time that construction commenced. [140 – NE9.1 p3,

141, 220-223].



389. If conditions were imposed rather than an Article in the HEO, NE considers that they could be enforced by WSC if the MMO were not able to enforce land-based monitoring via the marine licences. In that event, the two conditions, which could be combined, would need to be included in the BA or as deemed conditions as the case may be. [140 – NE9.1 p5]

390. However, the means of mitigating against in-combination effects is known, the jetty itself would not give rise to such effects, EDF is well aware of the need to monitor in 2012 and onwards so it must do so. With regard to the DCO, EDF would need to be able to demonstrate that the use of the jetty and the wharf in combination would not “adversely affect the integrity of the European site…” (Habitats Reg 61(5)). If it could not, then it would risk not being able to operate Combwich Wharf for HPC in combination with the jetty.

391. In the light of the above, the conditions(s) suggested by NE would not be necessary and they could have the effect of delaying the jetty development. Rather, EDF proposes a draft proposed Article in the HEO which would prohibit the in-combination operation of the jetty and Combwich Wharf until a Shelduck Monitoring and Mitigation Scheme had been approved by the MMO. This would provide an adequate safeguard and I will recommend that the HEO be amended to include the draft Article in E61. [140]

392. There has been a substantial and valuable input to EDF’s HRA. This concluded that with the proposed mitigation in place, an adverse effect on the European sites would not arise. EDF’s HRA report only moved to the second stage in relation to the SPA/Ramsar site due to the potential in-combination effects on shelduck. However, with the above proposed Article in the HEO, or with NE’s suggested condition(s), this in-combination effect could be avoided. Thus, the MMO may conclude that an appropriate assessment would not be required. Alternatively, if it were to decide that one would be required, the available evidence indicates that there would be no significant impact on the European sites as a result of the jetty development by itself or – with a control in place to prevent use along with Combwich Wharf – in combination with other plans or projects. [85-87, 150-153]

Navigation

393. EDF has adequately addressed concerns raised by the Royal Yachting Association, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Trinity House and the Burnham Boatowners Sea Angling Association. A number of changes have been proposed to the HEO. Navigational aids and marking requirements would be discussed with Trinity House and would meet its requirements. A Marine Operations Plan would be put in place. As the Harbour Authority for the new Harbour, EDF would have the responsibility for the safety and good order of the Harbour. [37, 80-82, 106, 107, 129-131, 137, 325, 335, 336, 344]

394. The power by the new Harbour Authority to make General and Special Directions to control vessel movements via Articles 23 and 24 of the draft HEO would be appropriate for reasons of safety and security. The available evidence indicates that there would be minimal interference with recreational, fishing or other vessel movements as the area for the new Harbour is little used by them. Article 22 of the HEO would make provision for consultation. There would be no significant detriment to navigation and associated activity as a result of the jetty proposals. [80 – E30]



Public Rights of Way (PRoW)

395. This is an issue of concern for a variety of reasons. There are PRoW on the site and provision has been made for their diversion to exclude the public from construction areas. There would be a comprehensive and appropriate set of diversions for the jetty. If the SPW permission were issued and implemented, the more extensive diversions in that would take place instead of those now proposed and EDF would make a large donation to Somerset County Council for wider network enhancements. [45, 55, 79, 118, 123-128, 158 – E69, 246, 250, 274, 310, 312,

325, 339, 343]

396. Concerns about the proposed diversions in the SPW are not for consideration now. Development of the jetty before or without the SPW would give rise to the financial payment to the County Council found in the Second Schedule of the BA. I asked EDF what weight should be placed on this donation in the decision-making process. I was advised ‘none’ - albeit that this was disputed by SPC - because the donation is offered only as a gesture of goodwill and is not an attempt to make the jetty more acceptable. If the SPW were later implemented, the HEO contribution would be deducted from the one attached to the SPW.

397. In conclusion, the proposed arrangements for the PROW would be satisfactory.

Wildfowling

398. The Bridgwater Bay Wildfowling Association (BBWA) points to the importance of the foreshore near Hinkley Point for wildfowling. The western foreshore is an Excepted Area for wildfowling, as well as for activities such as shore angling. Indeed, it believes that this foreshore is unique nationally. The Association is concerned that wildfowling would be compromised. However, the jetty development would not obstruct access to and egress from the foreshore Excepted Area. Also, condition 33 has been drafted to require only the demarcation, rather than the fencing, of the works area/access corridor so as to retain pedestrian access beneath the structure whenever possible. Moreover, there would be no impact on pedestrian access along the foreshore during the operational phase. The impacts on wildfowling would be limited in extent and duration. [43-44, 118-122, 273-275, 325]

399. The BBWA’s second main concern is that the development would result in wildfowlers having to walk longer distances carrying heavy kit. Also, it requests the provision of a safe parking area on the C182 road near the links to public footpaths, which I agree could be an advantage for all of those wishing to gain access to rights of way and the foreshore in this area. However, this is not something that EDF could be required to provide as a consequence of the jetty proposals. Indeed, much as I sympathise with the concerns raised by Mr Hill for the BBWA, they would derive for the most part from the SPW developments that have already been considered and agreed by the Council. [45, 121, 274]

Fossil Beach

400. The fossil beach is at Shurton Bars, a short distance south west of the HEO site. It would not be directly affected by the jetty proposals and there is no evidence that there would be any marine or geomorphological effects on the beach. Linked with concern over the fossil beach, the Parish Council argues that the site for the proposed jetty would be 150m further west than the eastern



option, and too close to fossil beach and Shurton Bars. However, as EDF explains, the western option was chosen because the jetty would be 70m shorter, thereby saving in time and expense to build, operate and dismantle. Also, it would have fewer piles and less environmental impact, in a number of ways including with regard to Corallina and Corallina turfs, whose presence reduces from east to west. [10, 70, 154, 243-246, 308]

The Inquiry Proceedings

401. Stop Hinkley Campaign (SHC) complains about negotiations taking place outside the inquiry on conditions and obligations. These related to specialist matters between EDF and other individual parties about points of concern that were generally specific to them both. Good examples are those that derived from questions by me that led to revised SoCGs, and the valuable discussion between EDF and NE about mitigating impacts on the protected coastal areas. The discussions reached a very large measure of agreement. If they had not taken place and the detailed concerns had had to be examined a point at a time by cross examination, the inquiry would have been substantially extended, by days if not more. I am satisfied that there was no prejudice to any party by adopting this approach. [36, 37, 40-45, 259]

402. SHC had expected there to be a thorough challenging of EDF’s case by independent expert witnesses, paid for by the Government. But the normal public inquiry operates on an adversarial rather than an inquisitorial system, with evidence that is tested in cross examination by the opposing side, with additional questions where necessary by the inspector. Most unusually, there was little cross examination of EDF’s witnesses because the legally represented parties at this inquiry did not oppose the principle of the development. [259, 260]

Environmental Statement

403. Ms Collingridge states that the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive requires that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment – not parts of projects – are the subject of assessment. Also, she points out that the IPC’s scoping opinion draws attention to the need to consider the development as a whole and not as a series of unconnected specialist reports. However, although the jetty proposals would be provided to assist and speed up the construction of HPC, the jetty and HPC are independent of each other to the extent that the HEO may be confirmed but HPC might not, in which case the jetty development, if it had taken place, would have to be removed. Moreover, as the DCO application for HPC includes the jetty, the whole development will be considered at that stage. [13, 35, 59, 277]

404. Ms Collingridge also argues that the ES and ESA are deficient in that there is no specific chapter on nuclear radiation. However, there had been monitoring of Hinkley Point since 1957 and additional surveys were carried out for the ES. The construction and use of the proposed jetty would not give rise to any radiation and the surveys did not point to the need for an ES chapter. Moreover, previous investigations into claims about adverse health effects found them to be not supported by the evidence. EDF decided that there was no need for a chapter on nuclear radiation in the ES or ESA for the jetty proposals and I see no reason to disagree. The ES/ESA meet the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999. [89, 95, 102, 280-294]



HEO ‘Conditions’

Introduction

405. I put one of the words in the above main heading in single inverted commas because any restrictions or ‘conditions’ within the HEO and marine licences, if confirmed, would not actually be conditions of the sort imposed in planning permissions, although they could be deemed planning conditions. From hereon, for simplicity and consistency, I will generally use the word ‘conditions’ rather than ‘restrictions’ or ‘paragraphs’ or ‘obligations’ and I will dispense with the quotation marks. The use of upper case letters at the start of some words in these paragraphs indicates that they are terms - such as ‘Termination Day’ – that are defined in the submitted Bilateral Agreement (BA) between EDF and WSC. Both the BA and the deemed conditions include definitions of terms used within them. The same protocol has not been used in the HEO. [54, 81, 158]

406. It is necessary to examine the subject of conditions in all planning inquiries, so that if an application is approved or an appeal is allowed, the decision-maker can be aware of the conditions that the parties want, or do not want, to be imposed and the reasons for their views. This HEO proposal is no different in that respect, albeit that there is a division of jurisdiction between the ‘wet’ and the ‘dry’ parts of the site; the decision will be taken by the MMO, which has jurisdiction for the wet but not the dry area and the majority of the conditions seek to control impacts for those on the land; and the precise boundary between the wet and dry areas is itself the subject of debate, of which more later.

407. The means of imposing any conditions and their content were the subject of detailed and lengthy consideration at the inquiry. None of the parties could be sure what means the MMO would prefer for the imposition of conditions for the HEO: they could be within the BA, they could be deemed planning conditions within the HEO and some might be Articles (also referred to as Clauses) within the HEO. [54-55, 79, 81, 158, 196-210, 212, 225, 227-231]

408. For its part, EDF considers that it would be appropriate to impose conditions by means of an obligation enforceable by the LPA – the BA - rather than by deemed conditions on the face of the HEO but it has no objection to the MMO adopting the latter approach. Both are presented so that the MMO can use whichever it considers most appropriate. [158]

409. The BA was signed on the last day of the inquiry between EDF and WSC and the 51 conditions within this were converted during the inquiry to have effect, if necessary, as 50 deemed planning conditions. The numbers used for the conditions in the BA and in the deemed set are, for the most part, the same. Condition 46 in the BA, which deals with Potential Reinstatement, is not included in the deemed conditions so that the numbering of the two sets of conditions changes at that point. In the vast majority of cases, the conditions have identical wording. The BA includes provision for dealing with breaches of obligations, which include conditions as defined above, for dispute resolution and for the time to deal with Authorisations. [54, 158]

410. If deemed conditions were imposed within the HEO rather than in the BA, the problem of duplication would not occur because the latter states at Clause 13.1 that “If a deemed planning condition in the HEO deals with the same subject matter…as a paragraph (i.e. a condition) in the First Schedule to this Agreement



the paragraph in the First Schedule shall not have effect”. I will examine each condition below but, before that, I need to consider which approach should be adopted.

Approach to the Imposition of Conditions

411. EDF’s paper (E23) is a useful starting point. In short, planning permission is required for development above Mean Low Water but the HEO would make it unnecessary to apply for permission because this would be granted by Permitted Development rights, by virtue of the HEO land being deemed to be ‘operational land’, subject to the prior approval provisions for the detailed plans and specifications. The HEO itself would not be a planning permission. [References after next paragraph]

412. EDF argues that it is not usual for conditions to be attached to an HEO. It states that the technical difficulty with attaching quasi-planning conditions is that the regime for the enforcement, variation and appeals in the Planning Acts would not apply in the absence of an artificial deeming provision in the HEO. Also, the deeming provision in the Hull Harbour Revision Order (2006) (the Hull HRO) – which was the only precedent known when E23 was written - may not be fully effective. In addition, it is not clear whether the planning appeals regime to amend or discharge conditions would apply and, in any event, the deeming provisions have not been tested in the courts. Therefore, EDF states that, given the legal artificiality of imposing deemed conditions, its proposed approach is the one most commonly used, a bilateral agreement in which the terms of the obligations within the Schedule equate to planning conditions which would be contractually enforceable by the council against the developer. [54, 55, 158, 201-203]

413. This is not accepted by Fairfield Estate (FE) and indeed, since E23 was written in October 2011, another HRO has come to light, the Bristol HRO of 2010. In the Hull and the Bristol HROs, the Secretary of State has adopted the approach of imposing deemed conditions within the Orders. Therefore, he must be satisfied that the provisions for the amendment, discharge or enforcement of the deemed conditions are satisfactory. For example, Schedule 6 of the Bristol HRO provides measures “For the Protection of the Environment Agency”, which includes consents, approvals and agreements to be given by the Agency, as a set of conditions. Indeed, the EA seeks the adoption of the Bristol HRO approach here by analogy to secure unified regulation across the whole of the site by third party ‘fact and degree’ regulators whose own decisions would then be subject to the usual rules of administrative law. [203, 229]

414. The EA also points to the need for a one-stop-shop, where the conditions can be found within the HEO. If the BA approach were adopted, the EA comments that the Order does not show what relevant agreements exist and they could be overlooked. [225]

415. The Hull and Bristol HROs have not been challenged. Also, as FE states, EDF does not say that it would be impossible to draft suitably clear provisions. Moreover, Circular 5/2005 advises that planning conditions which meet the relevant tests are preferable to a S106 planning obligation because of the measures for appeals and enforcement. Of even more concern here is that the BA is not under the terms of S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it is under the Local Government Acts of 1972 (section 111) and 2002 (section 2), it is founded merely in private contract law and, importantly, it would not run



with the land, which could cause significant problems if HPC were to be developed by another company. [203-206]

416. I share the EA’s concern about the BA in that WSC’s regulatory role for its area of jurisdiction does not extend into the marine jurisdiction of the MMO but the MMO is not a party to the Agreement. Also, matters covered by the conditions may lie in each jurisdiction, a point to which I will return in the next section of these Conclusions. In addition, as the EA says, EDF is a private party with no experience of public administrative matters. Subject to confirmation of the HEO, it would be entitled to those powers and obligations. In exercising them, a third party’s remedy would be by judicial review which could only require EDF to reconsider its decisions.

417. Lastly, if the conditions were in the BA and the MMO were to decide that some alteration would be needed, this could only be achieved by approaching the two parties to the Agreement. Unless there are legal difficulties of which I am unaware that would prevent the inclusion of deemed planning conditions in the HEO, it is an approach that is much to be preferred to the use of the BA and it is the one that I will recommend. This is primarily for the clarity of jurisdiction and the appeal and enforcement provisions. Also, for accessibility and ease of comprehension, the HEO Articles and deemed conditions would be in a single document, the EA’s one-stop-shop. [225, 227-231]

Jurisdiction and the Definition of ‘Site’

418. WSC’s jurisdiction includes the inter-tidal area down to mean low water but in the BA and the deemed conditions, the ‘Site’ is defined as “so much of the HEO Land as is above mean high water”. Thus, it excludes the inter-tidal area. I agree with FE that to define the site to exclude that part of the LPA’s jurisdiction which lies below mean high water would be wrong in law and in terms of common sense. [210]

419. This problem with the interface between the ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ areas also emerges in the deemed conditions and in the BA where it has been necessary to define the ‘Onshore Area’ as that part of the HEO land above the mean low water mark, while “the Development means the development authorised by the HEO and includes Development authorised by Parts 11 and 17 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995”.

420. Part of FE’s paper FE10, which was written before the deemed conditions paper E54.1 was available, has been overtaken by events. E54.1 deals with the question of jurisdiction. FE considers, and I agree, that the approach in E54.1, to add Article 16B to the HEO, would be an elegant solution to this problem. The Council’s powers do not extend to the ‘wet’ area but the receptors of the impacts would be on dry land. The effect of HEO Article 16B would extend the LPA’s jurisdiction to the ‘wet’ area, which would allow the Council to vary conditions under S73 and 73A of the TCPA1990 but not allow it to grant new permissions below the level of mean low water. FE points out that the licence would still need to cross refer to the HEO and that the licence should either include a provision like this or refer to the deemed conditions. I agree. I will recommend that the HEO be amended to include Article 16B, as set out in E54.1, and that both marine licences should cross refer to the deemed conditions. [158, 209]



The Temporal Dimension

421. The proposal is for a temporary jetty, to be erected for a specific purpose. Indeed, it is called The Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) HEO. Thus representations are on the basis that it would be a temporary structure. Crucially, the observations of NE concerning whether or not an appropriate assessment would be needed under the terms of the Habitats Regulations, about the potential impact on the protected coastal areas, are founded on the structure being in existence for a limited period of time. [9, 41, 197-199, 208, 223, 237, 325]

422. The draft HEO had included Article 29 but, as I say in p356 above, this was removed from the draft because the MMO was, and presumably still is, of the view that it could not be included. The wording of S16.6 of the Harbours Act 1964 (as amended) is drafted to give a very wide degree of latitude in its interpretation. It provides for “all such provisions as appear……to be requisite for giving full effect to any provision included in the order and any supplementary, consequential or incidental provisions appearing to him to be requisite or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, the order….”. All of the legally represented parties to the inquiry agree that S16 can include closure provisions and they all endorse, subject to some points of detail, Article 28A, which is included in the current draft. Indeed, FE goes further by stating that an HEO made without Article 28A would be unlawful and it would trigger a requirement to allow the parties to comment further. [21, 25-27, 36, 158, 197-199, 208]

423. The HEO does not include a definition of ‘termination day’ but it is a term used in Article 28A. FE had expressed concern that Clause 13 of the BA on the Prevention of Duplication with the HEO, and Article 28A of the HEO should not supplant the reinstatement condition 46 of the BA. Article 28A, being an Article, falls outside the scope of Clause 13 and BA condition 46 would remain in force and be enforceable by WSC. The BA includes in the First Schedule the definition of a Termination Day, being 31 December 2025 or such later date as the MMO and WSC may allow, or earlier when the jetty is no longer required. BA condition 46 amends this definition to include the position where a DCO for HPC had not been granted within 5 years or had been granted but not implemented within the relevant time period of the DCO. Thus, the BA Termination Day is amended in BA condition 46 but, in the absence of Article 28A and in the absence of any deemed condition that would result in a temporary permission, it would not be in the HEO in any form. [158, 199]

424. As EDF says, the only question is how this matter should be covered, not whether it should be covered. Both FE and WSC have submitted versions of Article 28A(i)(c) with suitable wording to extend the definition of “termination day” to include the position where a DCO for HPC was either not forthcoming within 5 years or, though made, was not implemented. EDF proposes that this matter should be covered in the BA but I agree with FE that it should be made manifest on the face of the HEO. Neither FE’s nor WSC’s version of the amendment to Article 28A would impose any form of premature date for closing the harbour. [158, 199]

425. I have not been advised of the legal reasons why the MMO considers that it would not be possible to include provisions in the HEO for closure, removal and restoration. Subject to those reasons, and in conclusion on this subject, I will



recommend that HEO Article 28A be included in the HEO, in the form amended by FE as Article 28A(i)(c).

Provision of a Bond

426. EDF recognises that there would need to be certainty that the jetty would be removed and the land reinstated if the DCO were not granted. There is no dispute that a bond would be necessary. To secure the agreements with the Crown Estate and the EA to lease the necessary ‘wet land’ to build and operate the jetty, financial security has been made available to them to deal with the reinstatement of the land. I have not seen any details of the security that has been agreed but it can be expected that both parties will have secured satisfactory legal backing to ensure payment of the bond if necessary. I am advised also that there is to be a supplemental agreement between EDF and WSC on bond provision (on which FE has requested the opportunity to comment). Matters such as the terms of the bonds and the extent of the financial cover are not to hand. There is always the risk when there are 3 agreements to deal with a bond that they might be incompatible in some details, for example with regard to the boundaries of the areas covered. The MMO may wish to satisfy itself that the bonds would be adequate and that they would be compatible with each other. [158 - E63, 188-191]

Conditions

427. I will deal with each in turn and, as indicated above, whether they are deemed conditions attached to the HEO or ‘paragraphs’ in Schedule 1 of the BA, I will call them conditions. Where I say that I have no comment on a condition, that means that I am satisfied that it would pass the six tests in C11/95 (i.e. necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects) on the use of conditions in planning permissions. Also, where concerns have been expressed as to specific impacts of the scheme, then where an appropriate condition would provide an adequate safeguard, I have no need to comment further. Where changes would be needed to the conditions set out in the deemed conditions, I will draw attention to this by indicating what I will recommend, albeit that any changes will be included in the list of deemed conditions. [54]

428. The use of upper case letters at the start of certain words in this section (such as ‘Development’ in the next sentence) indicates that they are defined terms in the BA or the deemed conditions. The conditions apply to both the construction and the operation of the Development (and ‘works’ in the deemed conditions) with the exception of the five conditions 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 which, in the BA, do not apply to the operation of the Development. In the deemed conditions, these five conditions also do not apply to the ‘works’.

429. Conditions 1-8 inclusive. No comment. [158 - E69 p26-28]

430. Condition 9 - Noise and vibration: Noise Level (construction noise). BA condition 48 and deemed condition 47 – Noise and Vibration: Control of Noise During Reinstatement. Noise and disturbance from the proposed development are of particular concern to local residents. They are worried about the potential effects of pile driving, especially at night; in addition to the noise condition, there would be control of piling under the terms of condition 38g. It must be noted that the permitted working hours (condition No 2) for construction



of the development would be 07.00-18.00 Mondays to Fridays and 07.00-13.00 on Saturdays but these would not apply to construction of the jetty in the sea where 24 hour working would be needed. Thus, any construction noise outside the specified working hours in condition No 2 would be from the works at sea. [References after next paragraph]

431. The predicted construction noise levels, in the evening (18.00-23.00 hours) and at night (23.00-07.00 hours) at the nearest noise-sensitive properties, which are at some distance from the HEO site, are much lower than the limits recommended in BS5228. The latter are, for Category A residential receptors, for daytime, evenings and night-time, 65, 55 and 45 dB LAeq respectively and, in each case averaged over the full period of the day, evening or night. The conditions originally proposed by EDF, and included in the first submitted version of the draft agreement with WSC (E56), for construction and dismantling activity were 65, 60 and 45, albeit that these are LAeq 1hr – i.e. the sound pressure levels are averaged over a one hour period rather than a full evening, night or daytime and, as such, they are more restrictive. No justification was given for the evening limit (60 dB) being higher than the figure (55 dB) in the table. [10, 110-

113, 158, 240-242, 245, 311, 325, 343]

432. EDF argued that the noise levels should be as set out in BS5228-1:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites, Part 1: Noise as these are regarded as acceptable. After I gave my comments on the suggested noise levels, EDF responded with lower limits, some 5dB below Category A for all periods. These levels would be appropriate but, for them to be imposed, they must still pass the tests in C11/95. I am satisfied that they would, for the reasons that I set out below, which are taken from the email (Ref ID6) that I sent to EDF via the Programme Officer. [110-113, 195]

433. The major emphasis in BS5228 is to minimise noise emissions. Also, page iv in the Foreword confirms that "..this part of BS5228 takes the form of guidance and recommendations. It should not be quoted as if it were a specification and particular care should be taken to ensure that claims of compliance are not misleading." Section 4 deals with Community Relations, including allaying people's fears and p6.3 pg7/8 sets out the factors likely to affect the acceptability of noise. Table E1 provides the ‘Example threshold of significant effect at dwellings’; Section E3 is where the 65, 55 and 45 figures are found for Category A residential receptors and the preceding paragraph E2 advises that the levels in E3 "are often used as limits above which noise insulation would be provided if the temporal criteria are also exceeded." For the sake of simplicity, I leave aside comment on the Sunday and Bank Holiday periods.

434. The predicted evening noise levels (including, for ease of reference, Saturdays between 13.00-23.00 hours) in the EDF noise proof and in the ES at the 3 nearest noise sensitive properties are, for ambient noise plus construction or dismantling activity, 36, 37 and 39 dB LAeq 1hr but I acknowledge that these are predictions and that achieving them would depend on many factors. In passing, these figures confirm that this rural area is quiet. As indicated above, the figures in the originally suggested conditions for construction and dismantling activity, for day, evening and night of 65, 60 and 45, were each well above the predictions, where a 10 dB change represents a doubling or halving of the noise level.



435. The same limits of 65, 60 and 45 for day, evening and night are given in Table 20.2 of the ES as the Proposed Emission Limits for Construction, as measured at a noise sensitive receptor location and they are used for the assessment of potential impacts (ES p20.3.10). And, importantly, the ES states that they are the figures with which the Noise and Vibration Management Plan would seek to comply (CD1.10 ES Addendum p12.2.9). ESA p12.2.9 also indicates that the limit values would, where required, "assist in investigations for complaints received or in the event of noise limit values being exceeded."

436. Thus, the noise sensitive properties are in a quiet rural area. BS5228 seeks to minimise noise; it provides guidance and not a specification; its limits are the maxima above which insulation could be needed; community relations are important; and the specified levels would be used as an input to the Noise and Vibration Management Plan (condition 11) and for the consideration of complaints. The dB levels in the amended conditions, of 60, 50 and 40, would be acceptable and they would pass the tests in C11/95. They would comprise, in the words of FE, sensible and prudent environmental safeguards. [195]

437. Lastly on these conditions, their relationship with the conditions in the resolution to permit the SPW application is set out. The daytime work hours in the SPW resolution-to-permit are the same as in the HEO works and the noise limit would be 65 dB, the site for the SPW being much closer to the houses. If that permission is issued and it is implemented and it includes noise limits related to specified times, then they would apply rather than those in the HEO. This would apply also if a DCO for HPC were granted and implemented. [242]

438. Conditions 10-12 inclusive. No comments. [158]

439. Condition 13 Landscape and Visual: Lighting. The intrusion of lighting - on the jetty, on vessels and on the landward work areas, next to the lights of the HP complex - into a location that has been unlit at nights to date, is a concern to many. It would harm this rural location. If the jetty proposals proceed, the harm could not be avoided but it could be ameliorated. This condition would provide for the consideration of the lighting details by WSC to reduce light pollution. [39, 47, 52, 115-117, 135, 158, 240, 242, 312, 341, 342]

440. Condition 14 – Construction programme for Silos and Sand Shed. This condition would provide for no part of the superstructure of the Silos, Sand Shed and any Hopper to be constructed until 1 March 2013 and until the construction of the Bund on the north west boundary of the site had been completed in accordance with the SPW permission or the DCO. EDF argues that a bund is not necessary for the jetty proposals and that it has not been assessed as part of the application. However, the site abuts an Area of Outstanding Scenic Interest (AOSI), being land of scenic quality that meets national standards. In views from the west, the Bund would screen low level clutter such as vehicles, activity, storage and the like connected with the HEO jetty development, as well as reduce the apparent height of the HEO Silos and the large Sand Shed. Also, it must be borne in mind that the HEO is independent from the SPW development and that EDF hopes to construct the jetty in advance of the implementation of any DCO consent. [References after next paragraph]

441. As EDF acknowledges, during the lifetime of the jetty development, there would inevitably be a significant adverse effect on local landscape character and, even with mitigation, the residual landscape and visual effects would remain



significant. A screening Bund would be needed for the HEO developments to mitigate their impact on the AOSI and views from it. The plans that EDF proposes to use for the construction of the Bund, as confirmed to FE, show a structure that is between 2.0 and 8.7m in height above the adjacent land. Those are plans prepared for the HEO scheme but they are not the ones specified for the Bund in the Definitions in the BA and in the deemed conditions. The latter plans are linked with the SPW and DCO applications for “the purpose of identification only”. Also, in passing, the plans listed in the BA which are said to be attached to it, are not. [10, 48, 52, 56, 132—136, 158 – E37, E69, 180-185, 187, 245, 249, 297,

299, 325, 343]

442. As the Bund would be needed for the HEO, there is no logical reason why it should be constructed in accordance with plans prepared for other applications. Plans and sections were made available to FE and to the inquiry (in E37 and confirmed in E69) for the HEO. However, while these appear to me to be satisfactory, they have not been made available for public comment other than by those involved with the inquiry. Therefore, it would be wrong to specify that they be used for the construction of the Bund. I will recommend that the definition of the Bund in the HEO Third Schedule definitions should be changed to delete reference to the HPCSPW plans. Also, I will recommend an amended form of condition 14 to require the construction of a bund and the submission of details for it. If the MMO agrees with this amendment to deemed condition 14 and the Definition of Bund for the deemed conditions then, if it were to confirm the HEO but use the BA as the vehicle for the imposition of conditions, then consequent changes would be needed to the BA.

443. Planting of the bund would be necessary and I note that the plans in E37 and E64 show proposed woodland screening and other planting and that E69 confirms (at p4b) that the bund would be built and planted in accordance with the plans and sections agreed with FE in E37. There is, however, no provision to secure any planting in the conditions. FE argues that it would be necessary to require the planting of trees and bushes on the bund as soon as it was constructed but the first available planting season would suffice. I will recommend two additional landscaping conditions to deal with this matter, numbers 51 and 52 of the deemed conditions. Consequential changes would be needed to the BA as conditions 52 and 53 if the conditions therein were to be applied. [158, 182]

444. Condition 15. No comments.

445. Condition 16 – Height and Details of the Sand Shed and Silos. The suggested condition provides that the height of the Sand Shed would not exceed 41m AOD and the Silos would not exceed 40m AOD, with the ground level being 20m AOD. These heights accord with the details in the HEO: Work No 4 in Article 4 is for the Sand Shed (shown in CD1.3 Sheet 11 as 21m high, 98m long and 80m wide) and Work No 5 is the Silos (shown in CD1.3 Sheet 12 as 20m high). EDF has indicated a willingness to require the Contractor to minimise, if practicable, the height of the Sand Shed such that it would not exceed 16m high (36m AOD). Clearly EDF considers that a maximum height of 16m would be achievable. [23, 24, 33, 47, 49, 50, 52, 56, 135, 158, 183-185, 187, 245, 252, 299, 325, 343]

446. Nevertheless, EDF seeks a height of 21m plus provision for a 3m vertical deviation, which would be up to 44m AOD. This would be on a site that abuts, on its western boundary, an AOSI. Moreover, there is no evidence on the amount of



sand and other material to be stored on the site or the height of the stockpiles. If the HEO were confirmed, it would be wrong to limit the height of the Sand Shed to a level that would not allow it to be used efficiently to accommodate the necessary amount of material. However, there is no evidence to support a ridge height of more than 16m. Moreover, there is no justification for the additional 3m vertical deviation found in the HEO. I will recommend that the Sand Shed ridge height be limited to not higher than 36m AOD in condition 16 and that the 3m vertical deviation in Article 5 for Work No 4 in Article 4 be deleted. [46, 179]

447. As to the height of the eight slender Silos, for similar reasons, this should be limited to 20m above the ground level (40m AOD). I will recommend that the 3m vertical deviation in Article 5 for Work No 5 in Article 4 be deleted. The hoppers in condition 17a (which would not have the benefit of a vertical deviation) would be at the same height. [50, 158, 187]

448. Conditions 18-28. No comments.

449. Condition 29 – Air Quality. I agree with EDF that the dust management plan in condition 29a would provide appropriate safeguards. [E69 p31, 32]


451. Condition 36 – Geology and Land: Previous Contamination Unidentified. An alternative version of this is submitted by the EA (shown in E54.1 and shown deleted in E54.2). The primary version is to be preferred and it is the one included in the deemed conditions below. The EA’s alternative could involve jurisdiction problems, it would need to be amended to require that the strategy be implemented and it is not the same as the version in the BA.

452. Condition 37. No comments

453. Condition 38 – Construction Method Statement. As FE says, the cliff is a dynamic and unstable environment. A cliff stability assessment has been carried out by EDF and Condition 38e would require the Construction Method Statement to include arrangements for cliff face protection and signage. FE is concerned to protect the stability of the cliff from the effects of vibration during the works. While I accept that rock falls could be accelerated by the jetty construction, the longer term natural processes that govern the rate of cliff retreat would not change. Indeed, FE predicts that the cliff will retreat around 6m in 10 years. The jetty has been designed with the protection of the cliff in mind. Also, there would be measures in the Construction Environmental Management Plan and the Construction Method Statement that would protect the stability of the cliff, including the approval of details for the piling techniques, plus relevant controls in deemed conditions 46 and 47 (BA conditions 47 and 48). A baseline Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) survey would be carried out by EDF as well as LiDAR monitoring during construction. [10, 56, 158 – E72, 188, 192 – FE6.1, FE10 p11, 193,

329, 331, 333]

454. FE argues that a predictive assessment must be made of the likely cliff stability and vibration levels and that the latter should be kept below a 10mm/s ppv limit. However, as FE acknowledges, vibration prediction is not an exact science. I am not convinced that, in addition to the many other controls, some of which are outlined above, a ppv limit would be a necessary or an effective tool.



455. While Dr White states that LiDAR monitoring would not be sufficiently accurate, in a cliff that is retreating at a significant rate, as a result of natural processes, the LiDAR monitoring would be satisfactory. [333]


457. Condition 45 – Traffic Obligations. The reduction of HGV traffic is the reason for the HEO. HGV traffic is a major point of concern and this condition, with its 11 subsections, would secure substantial levels of control for HGVs, cars and minibuses as well as monitoring numbers and routes and providing parking for motorcycles and bicycles. This condition has been amended to meet the concerns of SPC with regard to HGV routes from the west. [18, 45, 144, 158, 238, 251,

252, 255, 258, 318, 320-322, 325, 340]

458. BA Condition 46 – Potential Reinstatement. This has been dealt with above in the section on The Temporal Dimension. However, on a point of detail, FE correctly points out that there are errors. It requires the submission of a landscape and mitigation strategy in three circumstances, in 46(1), (2) and (3) but 46(5) only refers to the submission of the strategy in one such case. If the MMO were to apply conditions via the BA, then condition 46(5) would need to be amended to refer to “subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3)” and, in the Second Schedule of the BA, paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 would need to be amended to refer to “subparagraphs 46(1), (2) and (3).” [199]

459. BA Conditions 47-51 and deemed conditions 46-50. No comments. The condition on noise during reinstatement was considered with condition 9 above.

Other HEO Conditions and Amendments

460. Ms Collingridge states that eight additional conditions should be imposed. Six of these are based on her argument about the site being highly contaminated which I have examined above with regard to Radioactivity and Human Health. Of these, some would be controlled by the regulatory authorities and there are two conditions in the BA and the deemed conditions (Nos 35 and 36) to deal with radiological monitoring and unidentified contaminated land. The seventh suggested condition relates to unexploded ordnance on which I have commented above. [References after next paragraph]

461. The eighth would require that plans be drawn up for building a haul road from the M5 to the site rather than build a jetty. But this would fly in the face of the Government’s policy to prefer waterborne transport over road transport at all stages of the project, where cost effective, as well as conflicting with the aim of the WSC/SDC’s Supplementary Planning Document to minimise road traffic and ensure that as much material as possible would be delivered by sea. Moreover, there would be scope in any DCO consent for HPC to restrict the amount of HGV traffic. This and the fact that EDF has offered a requirement that 80% of the import of materials for concrete production would be via the jetty would overcome concerns that the materials would be sourced from the Mendips and be delivered overland. Also, it is unlikely that EDF would invest in jetty infrastructure in order to reduce lorry traffic and then not use it for that purpose. In addition, p4.4.1 of the NPS EN-1 advises that “…this NPS does not contain any general requirement to consider alternatives or to establish whether the proposed project represents the best option.”[18, 58-60, 71, 251, 254, 279, 306]



462. In addition to the changes to which I refer above, such as Articles 16B and 28A, there are other changes to the HEO as submitted. These are shown on the tracked versions of the HEO. They were not the subject of dispute at the inquiry or they are not the subject of any remaining dispute. For example, Article 33A is proposed to meet concerns by the EA over which the MMO should have jurisdiction (E53). I will recommend that the amendments to the HEO as shown on the tracked changes in CD1.2.5, which are not the subject of any specific comment herein, be accepted. [158]

Marine Licences Conditions

463. A schedule of conditions is submitted. FE’s argument that the construction licence would need a temporal dimension has been incorporated as condition 11. Linked with this, FE states that there should be provision for the submission and implementation of a scheme for removing the works and reinstating the seabed. I agree that the condition would be necessary and I will recommend it as condition 12. [158, 200]

464. SPC asks why HEO conditions 6 and 7 on the burning of waste and prohibition of amplified sound relate only to the onshore area. As there would be little likelihood of waste being burnt on the jetty, a condition to control it would not be necessary. There may be safety and navigational reasons for using amplified sound at the seaward end of the jetty for communication purposes. [253]

465. NE agrees that many of its concerns have been resolved sufficiently. However, it requests a condition to require that the licensed works be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures in p6.2.98 of the HRA, being measures to protect the Corallina habitat in the inter-tidal zone from physical disturbance and disturbance to drainage channels. EDF argues that this would not be necessary as each item in that paragraph is addressed elsewhere in the documentation submitted to the inquiry. A paper from EDF spells out where this has been done but it suggests a form of words for use if the MMO considers a condition to be necessary. [158 – E73, E50.3 condition 8, 212-219]

466. EDF’s wording would require that the authorised works be carried out in ‘general accordance’ with HRA p6.2.98. This seeks to cater for the fact that some of the matters in that paragraph have been superseded but it would be too imprecise to be acceptable. NE suggests a form of words to overcome that problem but that too is imprecise. For example, how would ‘better’ be assessed? I prefer the approach set out in E73 which specifies where the individual mitigation measures would be controlled. Therefore, I will recommend that condition 8 as shown in draft schedule E50.3 is not included in the licence conditions. Clearly, it would be necessary for the MMO to be mindful of E73 and the p6.2.98 measures when dealing with submitted details.

467. NE also states that condition 3.3 should be amended to require ‘accordance’ rather than ‘general accordance’. However, as this condition would require the submission of a detailed plan, there would be no need for this amendment. If the detailed plan were not acceptable, it would not be approved. [217]

MMO Matters

468. Matter 1: Whether the need for the Order and Licences to be granted separate to and ahead of the application for an order granting



development consent under the Planning Act 2008 has been sufficiently demonstrated. This is dealt with in the section of these Conclusions on Need and Benefits.

469. Matter 2: Whether (and if so how) the powers to be granted by the Order should reflect the temporary nature of the Proposed Works; and Matter 3: How any specified removal of any constructed jetty and harbour development forming part of the Proposed Works should be given effect and whether any rights should be included in the Order for the purposes of such removal. These are dealt with in these Conclusions in the sections on The Temporal Dimension and the Provision of a Bond.

470. Matter 4: Whether all of the powers contained in the Order are required by the Applicant in order to secure satisfactory implementation of the Proposed Works or for any works otherwise authorised and ancillary to such works. EDF has provided two legal papers on this subject. The HEO is proposed to be amended in response to details of concern. In addition, I deal with Matter 4 in the section of these Conclusions on Navigation, in the Conditions Introduction, in the Approach to the Imposition of Conditions and in changes to the HEO that I will recommend with regard to some individual conditions (such as the vertical deviation for the Sand Shed and Silos). [79-82]

471. MMO Matter 5: The likely impacts of the powers contained in the Order on the owners and occupiers of premises and land in respect of which such powers would be conferred, and on any other persons with rights over that land, including their ability to carry out their businesses effectively or fulfil any statutory responsibilities. The impacts on the owners and occupiers would be very limited. There are no outstanding objections by owners or occupiers as to their businesses or responsibilities. [83, 84, see also

TWAO 159-173]

472. Matter 6: Whether the measures proposed by the Applicant are appropriate and sufficient to mitigate potential adverse effects of the Proposed Works. This is dealt with in the sections of these Conclusions on Radioactivity and Human Health, on Perception of Harm, on Unexploded Ordnance, on Ornithology, Habitats Regulations and Appropriate Assessment, on Navigation, on Public Rights of Way, on Wildfowling, the Fossil Beach, the transport elements of Need and Benefits and in the numerous conditions on topics such as noise, lighting, air quality, landscape impacts in relation to the Sand Shed and Silos.

473. Matter 7: Whether the measures proposed by the Applicant are appropriate and sufficient to mitigate potential adverse effects of the Proposed Works in light of concerns raised by those persons and bodies who have made objections to or representations about the Applications. Relevant topics are included in those for Matter 6.

474. Matter 8: Whether the making of the Order is desirable in the interests of facilitating the efficient and economic transport of goods by sea. As with Matter 1, this is dealt with in the section of these Conclusions on Need and Benefits.



HEO and Marine Licences - Overall Conclusion

475. With regard to the application of policy, which I set out in the Policy Background section above, there can be no doubt that there are elements of the relevant policies of the development plan with which the proposals are in conflict. However, there is no objection by WSC/SDC on development plan grounds and the national policies in the NPSs postdate the Structure and Local Plans. These national policies provide very strong support for the urgent development of new nuclear power stations. Indeed, there are many NPS quotations, in addition to those in the above Policy Background section of these Conclusions, that I could have included which carry a similar message.

476. It is clear from the NPSs that the Government sees the need to develop new nuclear capacity as being very urgent. So much so that it is encouraging the submission of applications for and the carrying out of preparatory or preliminary works in advance of the main application to the IPC, while acknowledging that the works may need to be removed and the land reinstated if the subsequent application to the IPC is refused or is not made within a specified time.

477. As indicated above, some argue that the jetty proposals are premature and that they should be considered and dealt with as part of the HPC Development Consent Order. But, there is express encouragement for dealing with discrete elements of the HPC scheme in advance, in order to speed up the construction process where possible. Moreover, WSC has already acted in line with the Government’s encouragement to deal with advance works by resolving to grant permission for the SPW, a very much larger scheme than the jetty proposals. [29, 65-68, 267, 277, 278]

478. Some claim that the Government’s energy policy is misguided. However, an inquiry into a jetty which is proposed to assist the construction of a nuclear power station is not a forum in which Government policy can be challenged. The Government has set out its policy against which these proposals fall to be considered. Indeed, p2.2.1 of EN-6 says that “The IPC should …assess applications for new nuclear power stations on the basis that the need for such infrastructure has been demonstrated” and, in p2.2.4, “…the IPC should give substantial weight to the benefits”. I am advised that the Government’s energy policy is the subject of legal challenge but I have no details of the challenge and, until and if that challenge is completed successfully, the energy policy remains in place. [62, 268, 270, 278, 314]

479. I have examined above, often in the context of the conditions that would need to be imposed, the potential harmful impacts of the proposals, be they radioactivity and human health, noise, appropriate assessment, landscape impact and more. For example, and as EDF acknowledges, during the lifetime of the jetty development, there would inevitably be a significant adverse effect on local landscape character and, even with mitigation, the residual landscape and visual effects would remain significant, even with a screening bund. [108, 109]

480. As I have outlined above, there is strong Government support for HPC and, in the section on Need and Benefits, the potential benefits from the early provision of the jetty would be substantial. As EDF says, against that background, it is perhaps unsurprising that the applications before this inquiry have generated relatively little opposition. The principle behind the early provision of the



temporary jetty is widely accepted, in particular by both WSC and SDC as local planning authorities, by SPC and by Cannington PC. [63]

481. In conclusion, I have taken the ES and ESA and all of the environmental information into account. The building of the jetty at an early stage so as to be available to start the construction of HPC would have substantial benefits. Hinkley Point is identified in the national policy as one of eight suitable sites and there are no alternatives to the ones listed. The need for a nuclear power station at HPC is established and national policy points to the urgency of that need. The jetty would be part of the preparatory works necessary to speed up the development of HPC in the manner endorsed by the Government. The potential benefits would far outweigh the harm, as proposed to be mitigated by the conditions and measures in the amended HEO. For these reasons, I will recommend that the HEO be confirmed and that the two marine licences be granted.

TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT ORDER (TWAO)

DECC Matter 1: Whether all of the land and rights over land for which compulsory acquisition powers are sought in the Order (“the specified land and rights”) are required by the Company in order to secure satisfactory implementation of the works which would be authorised under the powers which the Company is seeking to have conferred on it by the proposed HEO or for any works otherwise authorised and ancillary to such works (“the proposed works”).

482. I list the Core Documents and EDF’s proofs and related papers for the TWAO in p28 of this report. Where I refer to information from the body of this report, I will use square brackets at the end of the paragraph to indicate the source material. EDF has provided a funding statement and an explanatory memorandum on the TWAO. These are referred to near the start of this report along with background information on the site and surroundings, policy, the HEO proposals and related development. [1-30]

483. EDF’s evidence on the TWAO was uncontested. None of the hitherto opposing parties for the four parcels of land in the Order (TWA_1, TWA_2, TWA_3 and TWA_4) called evidence or appeared in this part of the combined inquiry. For TWA_1, discussions are in hand between Natural England and the Environment Agency (EA) with regard to varying a Nature Reserve Management Agreement to exclude the land needed for the jetty. It would be necessary to extinguish this interest. [84, 159-163]

484. As to TWAO_2, this area contains a redundant British Telecom cable. BT has confirmed that it has no legal interest in the route of the cable. [164]

485. With regard to all 4 plots, other unknown rights and interests might exist and EDF seeks compulsory purchase powers to deal with these. [165]

486. West Somerset Council has resolved to grant planning permission to an application for Site Preparation Works on a large area of land that includes the HEO site but this resolution is subject to the completion of a S106 Obligation. At the end of the inquiry, several months after the resolution to grant permission, that Obligation had not been completed and the permission had not been issued.



If it is, and after the end of the period for any potential legal challenge, then it could be relied on to restrict further the scope of the TWAO. [29, 166]

DECC Matter 2: The likely impacts of the exercise of the powers contained in the Order on the owners and occupiers of premises and land in respect of which such powers would be conferred, and on any other persons with rights over that land, including their ability to carry out their businesses effectively or fulfil any statutory responsibilities.

487. There is no dispute that the effect on the owners and occupiers would be very limited. They have no outstanding objections. [167]

DECC Matter 3: Whether in all the circumstances there is a compelling case in the public interest for granting the Company the powers it seeks to acquire the specified land and rights compulsorily for the purposes of the proposed works, having regard to the guidance on making compulsory purchase orders in ODPM Circular 06/2004, in particular paragraphs 16 to 23.

488. AS EDF correctly states, national policy represents the public interest. There can be no doubt that the national policy in this case views the construction of new nuclear energy facilities as vitally important and urgent in the national interest. Hinkley Point is identified in the national policy as one of eight suitable sites and there are no alternatives to the ones listed. The jetty would be part of the construction works needed at Hinkley Point. The Government has endorsed the provision of advance preliminary or preparatory works, to speed up the development process. The proposed jetty would be one such advance work. [13,

60, 61, 66, 168]

489. Moreover, there is national policy in support of facilitating the efficient and economic transport of goods by sea. [58, 59]

490. As to the importance of new nuclear power facilities, the National Policy Statement confirms that there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest for the planned development of the listed sites, i.e. the IROPI test as used in the Habitats Regulations. Substantial weight should attach to the fact that there are imperative reasons to support new nuclear development. While this test is not the same as a compelling case in the public interest, it does constitute a strong indicator. At stake would be national energy supply, energy security and carbon reduction obligations. The national policy is very clear and convincing. [168]

491. Moreover, with regard to local benefits, the jetty would advance the construction of HPC, while avoiding the use of local roads by many thousands of HGVs and reducing carbon emissions. Adverse environmental impacts, as can be seen from my conclusions on the HEO, would be limited and well mitigated. [169]

492. The national policy, the need for and the benefits from the jetty proposal and the relatively limited and well mitigated adverse impacts amount to a compelling case in the public interest.

DECC Matter 4: Whether (and if so how) the powers to be granted by the Order should reflect the temporary nature of the proposed works.



493. As EDF says, this issue is largely academic now that a lease has been agreed with the EA for TWA_1. EA’s objection to the Order is subject to the amendment to Article 3 shown in document E26, concerning its interests in TWA_1, which is incorporated in the amended TWAO (CD1.18.1). [28, 171]

DECC Matter 5: How any specified removal of the constructed jetty and harbour development forming part of the proposed works should be given effect and whether such rights should be included in the Order for the purposes of such removal.

494. This is addressed above with regard to MMO Matter 3. No additional rights in land would be needed for the removal of the works and the reinstatement or restoration of the site. [134]

Conclusion on the TWAO

495. The interests to be acquired would be limited. There is a compelling case in the public interest for acquisition. The Order made under the terms of section 6 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 for an order under sections 3 and 5, as specified in Schedule 1.3, should be made.

Recommendations

496. I recommend that the Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order 201(X) (Reference DC9229) be confirmed subject to amendments to the Order as set out in inquiry documents CD1.2.4 and 1.2.5 as amended by HEO Amendments 1) to 7) in Appendix 1 below on the Harbour Empowerment Order, including the Planning and Works Restrictions, to serve as deemed planning conditions, in HEO Schedule 3.

497. I recommend that the application (Reference DC9228) for a marine licence for the construction of a temporary jetty be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 below headed Marine Licences Conditions and that the licence cross refers to the deemed conditions in the HEO.

498. I recommend that the application (Reference DC9235) for a marine licence for the creation of a berthing pocket for the creation of a temporary jetty be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 below headed Marine Licences Conditions and that the licence cross refers to the deemed conditions in the HEO.

499. I recommend that the Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) (Land Acquisition) Order 201(X) (Reference 12.04.09.06/183C) be made.

K G Smith



APPENDIX 1 - HEO AMENDMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS HARBOUR EMPOWERMENT ORDER (REF DC9229) AMENDMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS HAVING EFFECT AS DEEMED PLANNING CONDITIONS

HEO AMENDMENTS 1) The amendments to the Order as submitted, as shown in CD1.2.4 and

1.2.5, be included, subject to the following as necessary. 2) The amendment of the HEO amendment Article 28A such that

subsection (i) reads: 28A.—(1) The powers of this Order are granted only for the period beginning with the day on which this Order comes into force and ending with the termination day, that is to say the earliest of — (a) 31 December 2025 (or such later day as the Marine Management Organisation may on the application of the Company allow); or (b) if earlier, the day appointed by the Company under paragraph (2); or (c) if development consent for a new nuclear generation station at Hinkley Point C has not been granted within 5 years of the date of the HEO or, though granted, has not been implemented within the relevant time period specified in the development consent order, the day of the expiry of the said 5 year period or of the said relevant time period respectively except so far as those powers may be required for the purposes of paragraphs (3) and (4). 3) That the 3m vertical upward deviation in Article 5 for Work No 4 in Article 4 be deleted. 4) That the 3m vertical upward deviation in Article 5 for Work No 5 in Article 4 be deleted. 5) That the following Article be inserted in the HEO: “Shelduck Monitoring and Mitigation

(1) Unless the Marine Management Organisation has previously confirmed that it is satisfied that no adverse effect on the integrity of the Severn Estuary Special Protection Area and Ramsar site will arise from the operation of Works Nos 1, 2 and 3 in-combination with the use of Combwich Wharf as part of the construction and operation of Hinkley Point C under the DCO, Works Nos 1, 2 and 3 shall not operate in-combination with that use of Combwich Wharf until a Shelduck Monitoring and Mitigation Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Marine Management Organisation.

(2) The Shelduck Monitoring and Mitigation Scheme shall be implemented as

approved under paragraph (1).

(3) In this Article “the DCO” means the development consent order to authorise the construction and operation of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point



to be known as “Hinkley Point C” for which application was lodged on 31st October 2011.”

6) After article 16A, insert Article 16B: “Planning and Works Restrictions 16B – (1) The power conferred by articles 4 (power to construct works) and 6 (subsidiary works) are subject to the provisions contained in Schedule 3 (planning and works restrictions). (2) In their application to the works, article 3 of, and Part 11 of Schedule 2 to, the 1995 Order (which permit development authorised by a harbour empowerment order designating specifically both the nature of the development authorised and the land on which it may be carried out) shall have effect as if the planning permission granted by that Order were subject to the provisions contained in Schedule 3. (3) In their application to other development carried out on land which falls to be treated as operational land of a dock or harbour undertaker by virtue of this Order, article 3 of, and Part 17 of Schedule 2 to, the 1995 Order shall have effect as if the planning permission granted by that Order were subject to the provisions contained in Schedule 3. (4) The provisions of Schedule 3 shall be deemed to be conditions subject to which a planning permission was granted under section 70 of the 1990 Act. (5) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (4) but subject to paragraph (6), the provisions in the 1990 Act and all associated legislation, including the provisions relating to appeals and enforcement, shall apply in relation to the provisions in Schedule 3, as if the land within the limits of deviation shown on the deposited plans and sections were included within the area of the Council. (6) Sections 73 and 73A of the 1990 Act shall, in accordance with paragraphs (4) and (5), apply in relation to the provisions in Schedule 3 so as to enable those provisions to be removed or changed in their application to the works and development referred to in paragraphs (1) to (3) but shall not enable the Council to grant planning permission in relation to any works or development below the level of mean low water. (7) In this article – “the 1990 Act” means the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and “the Council” means West Somerset District Council 7) After Schedule 2, insert Schedule 3, Planning and Works Restrictions.



SCHEDULE 3

PLANNING AND WORKS RESTRICTIONS

Definitions

(A) The following words and expressions shall have the meanings assigned below for the purposes of this Schedule

“Alignment Drawing” means the drawing no HP/SL 302 Revision A in the Deposited Drawings showing the indicative alignments of the Silos and the Sand Shed;

“the Bund” means a bund to be constructed by NNB on the north west boundary of the site;

“Commencement” means in relation to the Development, the carrying out of a material operation (as that term is defined in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) and all cognate terms shall be construed accordingly;

“the DCO” means the development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 for a new nuclear powers station at Hinkley Point, to be known as “Hinkley Point C” for which application was lodged on 31 October 2011 and includes an Order made in substantially the form applied for;

“Deposited Drawings” means the drawings which are bound together and signed in duplicate with reference to this Order and marked “Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order 201[x] Deposited Drawings” and which are deposited at the offices of the Marine Management Organisation and at the office of the Company at 14 King Square, Bridgwater,



Somerset TA6 3DG;

“the Development” means the development for which planning permission is granted pursuant to Part 11 and Part 17 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as a consequence of this Order;

“HEO Land” means the land, foreshore and seabed within the limits of deviation shown on the deposited plans and sections;

“Hopper” means a batching silo for the transfer of cement or similar materials from the storage silos to vehicles;

“the Jetty” means Works Nos. 1 to 3;

“the Local Planning Authority”

means West Somerset District Council which is the local planning authority for the area in which the Site is situated (and including any successor body as local planning authority);

“the Onshore Area” means that part of the HEO Land above the mean low water mark;

“Sand Shed” means the covered area for the storage of sand to be constructed as part of Work No.4;

“Silos” means the silos to be constructed as part of Work No.5;

“the Site” means so much of the HEO Land as is above mean high water;

“Site Preparation Works”

means the development and works authorised by the Site Preparation Works Permission; and



“Site Preparation Works Permission”

means a planning permission to be granted by West Somerset in respect of the application for planning permission reference 3/32/10/037.

Approvals Pursuant to Permission

Any application or submission for any approval pursuant to these obligations shall be made in writing to the Local Planning Authority and no approval shall be deemed to have been given unless approved in writing.

(B) Construction and Operation Conditions

Unless the context otherwise requires the obligations in this Schedule apply to both the construction and the operation of the Development or works except that the following provisions do not apply to the operation of the Development or works:-

Paragraph 2 (Working Hours);

Paragraph 3 (Delivery Hours);

Paragraph 4 (Onsite Vehicular Movements – Permitted Hours);

Paragraph 7 (Noise and Vibration: No Amplified Sound); and

Paragraph 9 (Noise and Vibration: Noise Level).

1. Geology and Land Contamination: Spoil Mound Remediation

No Development shall Commence or be undertaken within any part of the Built Development Area East (as shown on drawing number HP/MR/01 Rev A of planning permission reference 3/32/10/025 dated 13 January 2011 (issued by Somerset County Council) until:

(a) the remediation works in respect of that part of the Built Development Area East have been carried out pursuant to the planning permission reference 3/32/10/025 dated 13 January 2011 or the planning permission reference 3/32/11/038 dated 22 November 2011 (both granted by Somerset County Council);



(b) the validation report has been submitted in writing to Somerset County Council and the written completion certificate in respect of the remediation works has been issued by Somerset County Council.

2. Working Hours

Construction of the Development (insofar as it is carried out on or accessed from the Site) shall not take place on Sundays or Bank Holidays or outside the hours of 07:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays.

3. Delivery Hours

No deliveries associated with the construction of the Development shall arrive or be received or dispatched from the Site on Sundays or Bank Holidays or outside the hours of 07.00 to 18.00 Monday to Friday and 07.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays.

4. On Site Vehicular Movements and Maintenance - Permitted Hours

There shall be no use or maintenance of any construction or demolition vehicles (which term shall not include vessels or barges) associated with the Development (including no starting of vehicle engines, no vehicle movements and no reversing alarms operated) on the Onshore Area on Sundays or Bank Holidays or outside the hours of 07:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays.

5. Landscape and visual: External Storage of Contractors Materials

Other than in the designated storage areas approved pursuant to condition 38 (Construction Method Statement) of this Schedule, there shall be no external storage of any construction materials associated with the Development on the Onshore Area during the Development in excess of 4 metres in height above the ground level as existing at the time the materials are stored. Any such materials may only be stored insofar as is necessary for the purpose of constructing, maintaining or operating the Development and the construction of the proposed new nuclear power station to be known as Hinkley Point C.

6. Landscape and visual and air quality: No Burning of Materials

There shall be no burning of waste, materials or refuse on the Onshore Area at any time during the Development.



7. Noise and Vibration: No Amplified Sound

No public address system shall be used or amplified sound generated at any time within the Onshore Area.

8. Directional Foghorn

Prior to the installation of any foghorn associated with the Development, details of the foghorn shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The foghorn shall not be installed, retained or operated unless in accordance with the approved details.

9. Noise and Vibration: Noise Level

The level of noise emitted during construction of the Development shall not exceed the limits set out in the following table as determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises and monitoring of the noise levels during the construction of the Development shall be carried out as part of the Noise and Vibration Management Plan submitted and approved pursuant to condition 11 (Noise and Vibration: Control of Noise During Construction and Operation) of this Schedule.

Assessment Period BS5228

Days of Week Time of Day Category A – 5 dB LAeq,

1hour Monday – Friday 07.00 – 18.00 60

*18.00 – 23.00 50

*23.00 – 07.00 40

Saturday 07.00 – 13.00 60

*13.00 – 23.00 50

*23.00 – 07.00 40

Sunday and Bank Holidays

*07.00 – 23.00 50

*23.00 – 07.00 40

Notes: dB re: 20μPa. *Offshore construction work only. Where LAeq = the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level, being the single number that represents the total sound energy measured over that period. The above noise level restriction shall apply except for specific, short duration construction or demolition activities (to the extent only as permitted as described in the approved Noise and Vibration Management Plan) during which an increased noise threshold of 75 dB LAeq, 1hour shall apply. Any such activities and duration of such



activities shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority and local residents at least 48 hours before they commence and the duration of such activities and number of such activities during the carrying out of the Development shall be limited to those approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the event that the Site Preparation Works Permission is implemented by the carrying out of a material operation (as that term is defined in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) and contains noise limits relating to specified times (by reference to specified hours and days), the noise limit in this condition relating to a time so specified shall cease to apply and the noise limit in the Site Preparation Works Permission relating to that time shall apply as a noise restriction applicable to both the Site Preparation Works and the Development (unless the development consent order referred to below has been implemented).

In the event that a development consent order for a new nuclear generating station at Hinkley Point C is implemented by the carrying out of a material operation (as that term is defined in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) and contains noise limits relating to specified times (by reference to specified hours and days), the noise limit in the above table relating to a time so specified shall cease to apply and the noise limit in the development consent order relating to that time shall apply as a noise restriction applicable to both the development authorised by the development consent order and the Development).

Noise levels will be determined in accordance with the provisions of British Standard 7445.

10. Operational Noise Limit

The rating level of noise emitted from the operation of the Development shall not exceed the background noise level by more than 5 dB at any time. The noise levels shall be determined at any noise sensitive premises. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to British Standard 4142:1997. In the event that a development consent order for a new nuclear generating station at Hinkley Point C, which contains noise restrictions is implemented by the carrying out of a material operation (as that term is defined in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), the noise limit specified in this paragraph shall cease to apply and the noise limit set out in the development consent order shall apply as a limitation applicable to both the development authorised by the development consent order and the Development.



11. Noise and Vibration: Control of Noise During Construction and Operation

Before the Commencement of the Development, a Noise and Vibration Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which specifies the provision to be made for the control of noise and vibration arising from the construction and operation of the Development. The Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

12. Infill Material

Only uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic materials shall be permitted as infill material used within the Development. All site-won fill materials shall be used subject to the controls established within the Materials Management Plan approved pursuant to condition 41 (Material Management Plan) of this Schedule and shall follow the protocols defined within: “The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice, Version 2, March 2011”; published by Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE).

13. Landscape and Visual: Lighting

Prior to the installation of any lighting in respect of the Development details of any such lighting and its operation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be in general accordance with the Temporary Jetty Lighting Strategy (June 2011). Such lighting shall be installed and operated in accordance with the approved details.

14. Construction programme for Silos and Sand Shed

Except for the construction of the foundations of the Silos, the Sand Shed and any Hopper, no part of the superstructure of the Silos, the Sand Shed and any Hopper shall be constructed until:-

(a) after 1 March 2013; and

(b) a Bund has been constructed on the north west boundary of the site in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.



15. Alignment of the Silos

The Silos shall be constructed in the same northwest alignment as the Sand Shed and in general accordance with the Alignment Drawing.

16. Height and Details of the Sand Shed and Silos

Prior to the construction of the Sand Shed, Silos and any Hopper, details of their height and external appearance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the Sand Shed, Silos and Hopper shall not be constructed otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. The height of the Sand Shed shall not exceed 36 metres above ordnance datum. The height of the Silos shall not exceed 40 metres above ordnance datum.

17. Height of Subsidiary Works

Any works authorised by article 6 shall be subject to the following height restrictions:

(a) the height of any Hopper situated within the land edged by a broken red line on Plan entitled “Land for Potential Siting of Hoppers” in the Deposited Drawings shall not exceed 40 metres above ordnance datum;

(b) the height of any other work situated within the limits of deviation shown on sheet 5 for Work No 4 as defined in article 4(1) shall not exceed 28 metres above ordnance datum; and

(c) the height of any work situated within any other part of the Onshore Area shall not exceed 8 metres above the ground level as existing at the time the work is constructed.

The above height restrictions shall not apply to cranes or other moveable plant, stairways, scaffolding or other temporary access equipment or structures associated with the construction of the works authorised by article 6.

18. Storage of Oils, Fuels, Concrete and Chemicals

Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels, concrete or chemicals shall be sited on an impervious base that shall either be graded to drain to a sump/collector or surrounded by impervious walls to form a bunded compound. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipe work



must be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets must be designed to discharge into the bund. All works and facilities as referred to in this condition shall be constructed and completed prior to the first use of the facilities and shall thereafter be retained.

19. Restriction of Aggregate Washing

No aggregate washing shall take place on the Onshore Area in respect of materials used to support the construction works unless in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

20. Ecological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

No Development shall Commence until an Ecological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall reflect the survey results and ecological mitigation and enhancement measures included in the Environmental Statement and shall include details of:

(a) works for plant community development based on the National Vegetation Classification across the grasslands woodland and hedgerow habitats;

(b) the monitoring of invertebrates (butterflies and other indicator species);

(c) the scale and timing of habitat creation and enhancement works;

(d) the monitoring of bat activity;

(e) a scheme for the protection of badgers;

(f) undertaking bird counts in the immediate inter-tidal area of the HEO Land, and

(g) a timetable for implementation.

The Ecological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be implemented as approved.

21. Habitat Management Plan

No Development shall Commence until a Habitat Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include all areas of habitats proposed to be retained or



created and include information on proposals for the management and monitoring of retained features.

The Habitat Management Plan shall be implemented as approved.

22. Ecological Method Statement

All Development and works shall be carried out in accordance with the Site Preparation Works Ecological Method Statement (Appendix 2.5 of the Further Environmental Information [Part A] and Other Clarification Material [Part B]; April 2011) submitted as part of the Site Preparation Works planning application (planning application reference 3/32/10/037).

23. Ecology: Tree and Hedgerow Protection

(1) Prior to the Commencement of the Development, a plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that identifies the existing trees and hedgerows (or sections of hedgerows) to be retained on the Site together with the type of fencing to be used and arrangements to be made in accordance with British Standard 5837:2005 to protect the retained trees and hedgerows (or sections of hedgerows). The plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

(2) No retained tree or hedgerow (or section of hedgerow) shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree or hedgerow (or section of hedgerow) be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 5837:2005.

(3) If any retained tree or hedgerow (or section of hedgerow) is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree or replacement hedgerow (or section of hedgerow) shall be planted at the same place and that tree or hedgerow (or section of hedgerow) shall be such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

24. Historic Environment: Recording of Important Hedgerows

The recording of archaeological works relating to Important Hedgerows under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 shall be implemented in accordance with the relevant sections of the Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Mitigation, Trenches through Green Lane and Historic Hedgerows (Annex 3 of



Appendix 2.3 of the Further Environmental Information [Part A] and other Clarification Material [Part B]; April 2011), which was submitted as part of the Site Preparation Works planning application (planning permission reference 3/32/10/037). The results shall be published in monograph form within ten years of Commencement of the Development.

25. Historic Environment: Monitoring of Palaeontological Remains

No Development shall Commence until details of a scheme to ensure that any significant fossil finds are identified, removed, conserved and deposited with the Museum of Somerset have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

26. Historic: Scheduled Monument Management Plan

No Development shall Commence until a Monument Management Plan for Wick Barrow (SM No. 28) and also known as Pixies Mound (as shown at figure 22.1 of the Environmental Statement submitted with the application for this Order) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Monument Management Plan shall be implemented as approved.

27. Drainage: Surface Water and Foul Drainage Works

No Development shall Commence until details of the surface and foul water drainage system (including means of pollution control, details of water management zones and a programme of construction and implementation) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Unless otherwise provided pursuant to the Site Preparation Works Permission or a development consent order for a new nuclear generating station at Hinkley Point C, any fresh water discharge associated with the Development shall discharge to the existing Hinkley Point C drainage ditch at the location identified on the drawing referenced figure 13.1 in the Environmental Statement submitted with the application for this Order following attenuation to greenfield run-off rates and treatment within a dedicated water management zone.

The surface and foul water drainage system shall be constructed, maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details.



28. Drainage: Oil Interceptor

Surface water drainage from impermeable parking areas and hardstanding for vehicles and lorry parks shall be passed through oil interceptors prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system. The oil interceptors shall have a sufficient capacity for the areas being drained and shall be constructed prior to the first use of the parking areas or hard standings and shall thereafter be retained. Roof water shall not pass through the oil interceptors.

29. Air Quality

No Development shall Commence until details of an Air Quality Scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include:

(a) A plan for dust management which shall include the methods proposed for the monitoring and control of dust and dust suppression measures.

(b) The air quality monitoring methodology comprising continuous ambient particle (PM10, PM2.5 and TSP) and wind speed and direction, temperature, relative humidity and rainfall monitoring at locations at or near to Doggetts, Bishops Farm House, Knighton Farm and one close to the hamlet of Wick which monitoring shall begin not less than one month prior to the date proposed for Commencement of Development and shall continue until cessation of operation of the Development and the works for the reinstatement of the Onshore Area have been certified as being completed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(c) Provision for the submission to the Local Planning Authority of proposals for continuous periods of monitoring and the provision of the results to the Local Planning Authority together with proposals for the review of monitoring periods following the first anniversary of Commencement of Development.

(d) The monitoring details which shall include real time logging of averaging periods of not less than 15 minutes and include remote interrogation and downloading and details of automatic notification to the Local Planning Authority and other persons (such as the site manager) in circumstances where monitored concentrations exceed the trigger levels.

(e) the maximum hourly mean concentrations [(“the trigger levels”)] of PM10, PM2.5 and Total Suspended Particulates.



(f) The steps to be taken in the event that trigger levels are exceeded.

(g) The identity of persons to carry out visual inspections in order to review the potential for dust nuisance and, in the event of dust nuisance complaints being made, to help quantify the actual or potential dust nuisance.

(h) the measures to ensure that any diesel fuel used on Site shall be ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) (<10mgS/kg).

The Air Quality Scheme shall be implemented as approved throughout the Development.

30. Residential Amenity: Information Dissemination and Complaints Handling

No Development shall Commence until a system for the provision of information to local residents and occupiers about the Development and the investigation of and response to complaints has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The information to be disseminated shall include general provision of information in relation to the carrying out of the Development and specifically in relation to activities on-site that may lead to nuisance. The approved information dissemination and the investigation and responses to complaints system shall be implemented as approved throughout the period of the Development.

31. Drainage: Water & Sediment Management Plan

No Development shall Commence until a Water and Sediment Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Water and Sediment Management Plan shall be implemented as approved throughout the Development.

32. Engineering Details of Foreshore Access Road

No works to construct the foreshore access road forming part of Work No. 6 referred to in article 4(1) shall be Commenced until engineering construction details for the road including any associated drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The foreshore access road shall be constructed and retained in accordance with the approved details. Prior to the removal of the foreshore access road, details of the method and timing of its removal shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The foreshore access road shall be removed in accordance with the approved details.



33. Access to Foreshore

Prior to construction and use of the foreshore access road forming part of Work No. 6 referred to in article 4(1), the works area (being the area bounded by the limit of deviation shown on sheet 2 of Work No.1 as defined in article 4(1)) and the access corridor (being the area bounded by the limit of deviation shown on sheet 7 of Work No.7 as defined in the said article 4(1)) shall be demarcated to prevent the movement of vehicles and plant outside the works area/access corridor on inter-tidal habitats that form part of the designated features of the Severn Estuary European sites and SSSI. Vehicles and plant shall not be permitted to have access to any other areas of the foreshore outside the works area/access corridor.

34. Flooding: Foreshore Access

Prior to first use of the foreshore access road for any construction activities, flood warning notices shall be erected in suitable and visible positions, such positions and wording of the signs to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The flood warning notices shall be retained throughout the period during which the foreshore access road is in place.

35. Geology & Contaminated Land: Radiological Monitoring

No Development shall Commence on the Site until a scheme for radiological monitoring of the land within a 30 metre radius of sample locations GB2 and TE312 specified on figure 16-8 B (Volume 3 Chapter 16 of the Environmental Statement submitted with the application for this Order) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The radiological monitoring scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

36. Geology & Land: Previous Contamination Unidentified

If, in undertaking the Development, contamination which has not been previously identified is found to be present on any part of the Onshore Area, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified and no further work shall be carried out in respect of the part of the area that the Local Planning Authority shall specify in writing, until details as to how such contamination is to be dealt with have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such contamination shall be dealt with in accordance with the approved details.



37. Groundwater: Monitoring

No Development on the Site shall Commence until a scheme for the management and monitoring of groundwater levels and quality has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

38. Construction Method Statement

No Development shall Commence on the Onshore Area until a Construction Method Statement for the Onshore Area has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Method Statement shall include details of the following:

(a) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

(b) The loading and unloading of plant and materials;

(c) The storage of plant and materials used in constructing the Development;

(d) Wheel washing facilities;

(e) Arrangements for cliff face protection and signage;

(f) Details of any measures to be taken to protect the works area and/or access corridor (as both are defined in deemed condition 33); and

(g) Piling techniques.

The Construction Method Statement shall be implemented as approved.

39. Construction and Environmental Management Plan

No Development shall Commence until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include details of the following:

(a) Site Security;

(b) Fuel, oil, chemical and concrete storage, bunding, delivery and use;

(c) The method for dealing with both minor and major pollution or other spillages;

(d) The method for dealing with precipitation events exceeding the drainage system capacity;



(e) Containment of silt/soil contaminated run off;

(f) Disposal of contaminated drainage, including water pumped from excavations;

(g) The means for discharging any silty or discoloured water from excavations over grassland or via a settlement lagoon to remove solids;

(h) Methods for protecting watercourses; and

(i) Site induction for workforce highlighting pollution prevention and awareness.

The CEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

40. Vegetation Clearance

Before undertaking any vegetation clearance within the period from October to March inclusive, a Winter Clearance Scheme designed to avoid or reduce impacts on over-wintering birds which are interest features of the Severn Estuary SPA shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any vegetation clearance undertaken during the period October to March inclusive shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Winter Clearance Scheme.

41. Materials Management Plan

No Development on the Site shall Commence until a Materials Management Plan (MMP) that accords with the principles set out in: “The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice, Version 2, March 2011”; published by Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Materials Management Plan shall be implemented as approved.

42. Site Waste Management Plan

No Development shall Commence until a Site Waste Management Plan for the HEO Land has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Site Waste Management Plan shall be implemented as approved.

43. Soil Management Plan

No Development on the Site shall Commence until a Soil Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.



The Soil Management Plan shall detail the methods and procedures for soil stripping, handling and stockpiling and shall include:

(a) Description of methods for soil stripping, handling, screening and stockpiling of topsoils and subsoils;

(b) A materials stockpile plan which shows the location, composition, movement and duration of any stockpile;

(c) Layout plans that show the locations of proposed treatment facilities (mobile and/or fixed), areas where soils have been or will be treated in-situ, and areas where treated soils and imported soils have been or will be deposited;

(d) Heights of stockpiles; and

(e) Restrictions on activities that may affect stored topsoil including the prevention of vehicles traversing the stockpiles.

The Soil Management Plan shall be implemented as approved.

44. Limit of Closure of Coast Footpath

No Development shall Commence until a scheme to provide for the reopening of the section of the coast footpath on the HEO Land to public access together with safety arrangements has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.

45. Traffic Obligations

(1) For the purposes of this paragraph: "HGV Route 1" means the HGV route (shown coloured green on the plan titled “HGV Routes”, in the Deposited Drawings) from Junction 23 of the M5 motorway via the A38 Bristol Road, The Drove, the Northern Distributor Road (NDR), the A39, High Street in Cannington, and the C182 to the Site;

"HGV Route 2" means the HGV route (shown coloured red on the plan titled "HGV Routes" in the Deposited Drawings) from Junction 24 of the M5 motorway via the A38 Taunton Road, the A39, High Street in Cannington and the C182 to the Site; and



"HGV" means a heavy goods vehicle or any other goods vehicle with three or more axles travelling to or from the Site for the purposes of the Development.

(2) Movements of HGVs for the duration of the Development, shall not exceed the following daily flow limits:

(a) Monday to Friday: Maximum of 8 two-way HGVs per hour between 07.00 and 18.00;

(b) Monday to Friday: Maximum of 50 two-way HGVs between the hours of 07:00 and 17:00; and

(c) Saturday: Maximum of 25 two-way HGVs between the hours of 07:00 and 13:00.

At all other times and on Bank Holidays no HGVs shall be received at or dispatched from the Site.

(3) No Development shall Commence until a scheme to ensure that HGVs travelling between the Site and the M5 motorway will only use HGV Route 1 and HGV Route 2 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

(4) No Development shall Commence until a scheme for monitoring HGV vehicles entering and leaving the Site and travelling on HGV Route 1 and HGV Route 2 using automatic number plate recognition cameras has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

(5) The total number of cars and minibuses accessing the Site each day for the purpose of carrying out the Development shall not exceed 32.

(6) No Development shall Commence until a scheme for monitoring the number of cars and minibuses accessing the Site using automatic number plate recognition cameras has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

(7) The maximum number of car and minibus parking spaces to be provided and available within the Site for the purpose of the Development shall not exceed 32.



(8) No Development shall Commence until 10 motorcycle spaces and covered stands for at least 5 pedal cycles have been provided. The motorcycle spaces and cycle stands shall be retained for the duration of the Development.

(9) In the event that the Site Preparation Works Permission is implemented by the carrying out of a material operation (as that term is defined in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), the limits relating to HGVs and cars set out in sub-paragraphs (2) and (5) shall cease to apply and the limits on HGVs and cars set out in the Site Preparation Works Permission shall apply as a limitation applicable to both the Site Preparation Works and the Development.

(10) In the event that a development consent order for a new nuclear generating station at Hinkley Point C which contains restrictions relating to traffic is implemented by the carrying out of a material operation (as that term is defined in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), the limits relating to HGVs and cars set out in sub-paragraphs (2) and (5) shall cease to apply and the limits on HGVs and cars set out in the development consent order shall apply as a limitation applicable to both the development authorised by the development consent order and the Development.

(11) No HGVs shall be scheduled to travel between the Site and any location within the area shown shaded light green within the area edged black on the plan titled “HGV Routes from West” in the Deposited Drawings until a scheme to regulate the routes to be used by such HGVs (insofar as such HGVs are not regulated by the scheme referred to in (3) above) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reinstatement Conditions

46. Coastal Hydrology: Cliff Management Plan

Prior to the removal of any part of the Jetty, a Cliff Management Plan which shall provide details for arrangements and responsibilities for the removal of those parts of the Jetty and its associated infrastructure which are located within 15m in any direction of the cliff edge shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Cliff Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

47. Noise and Vibration: Control of Noise During Reinstatement



(1) Prior to the commencement of any works of reinstatement pursuant to article 28A (duration of Order powers and closure of harbour) a Noise and Vibration Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which specifies the provision to be made for the control of noise and vibration arising from the reinstatement works.

(2) The level of noise emitted from the reinstatement works shall not exceed the limits set out in the following table as determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises and monitoring of the noise levels during the reinstatement works shall be carried out as part of the Noise and Vibration Management Plan approved pursuant to paragraph (1) above.

Assessment Period BS5228

Days of Week Time of Day Category A – 5 dB LAeq,

1hour Monday – Friday 07.00 – 18.00 60

*18.00 – 23.00 50

*23.00 – 07.00 40

Saturday 07.00 – 13.00 60

*13.00 – 23.00 50

*23.00 – 07.00 40

Sunday and Bank Holidays

*07.00 – 23.00 50

*23.00 – 07.00 40

Notes: dB re: 20μPa. *Offshore dismantling work only. Where LAeq = the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level, being the single number that represents the total sound energy measured over that period. The approved Noise Management and Vibration Management Plan shall be

implemented in accordance with the approved details.

The above noise level restriction shall apply except for specific, short duration construction or demolition activities associated with the reinstatement works (to the extent only as permitted as described in the approved Noise and Vibration Management Plan) during which an increased noise threshold of 75 dB LAeq, 1hour shall apply. Any such activities and duration of such activities shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority and local residents at least 48 hours before they commence and the duration of such activities and number of such activities during the carrying out of the Development shall be limited to those approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.



In the event that the Site Preparation Works Permission is implemented by the carrying out of a material operation (as that term is defined in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) and contains noise limits relating to specified times (by reference to specified hours and days), the noise limit in this condition relating to a time so specified shall cease to apply and the noise limit in the Site Preparation Works Permission relating to that time shall apply as a noise restriction applicable to both the Site Preparation Works and the reinstatement works (unless the development consent order referred to below has been implemented).

In the event that a development consent order for a new nuclear generating station at Hinkley Point C is implemented by the carrying out of a material operation (as that term is defined in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) and contains noise limits relating to specified times (by reference to specified hours and days), the noise limit in the above table relating to a time so specified shall cease to apply and the noise limit in the development consent order relating to that time shall apply as a noise restriction applicable to both the development authorised by the development consent order and the reinstatement works.

Noise levels will be determined in accordance with the provisions of British Standard 7445.

48. Working Hours during Reinstatement

Works of reinstatement pursuant to article 28A (duration of Order powers and closure of harbour) (insofar as they are carried on or accessed from the Site) shall not take place on Sundays or Bank Holidays or outside the hours of 07:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays.

In the event that a development consent order for a new nuclear generating station at Hinkley Point C is implemented by the carrying out of a material operation (as that term is defined in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) the working hours for the reinstatement works shall be restricted to the same extent (if at all) as provided by the development consent order.

49. Onsite Vehicular Movements and Maintenance - Permitted Hours during Reinstatement

There shall be no use or maintenance of any vehicles (which term shall not include vessels or barges) associated with the reinstatement of the Onshore Area (including no starting of vehicular engines, no vehicle movements and no



reversing alarms operated) [on the Onshore Area] on Sundays or Bank Holidays or outside the hours of 07:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. This condition shall only apply to the carrying out of reinstatement of the Onshore Area pursuant to article 28A (duration of Order powers and closure of harbour).

In the event that a development consent order for a new nuclear generating station at Hinkley Point C is implemented by the carrying out of a material operation (as that term is defined in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) the use and maintenance of vehicles (including the starting of vehicular engines, vehicle movements and the operation of reversing alarms) associated with the reinstatement of the Onshore Area shall be restricted to the same extent (if at all) as is provided by the development consent order.

50. Noise and Vibration during Reinstatement: No Amplified Sound

No public address system shall be used or amplified sound generated within the Onshore Area or at any time in the course of reinstatement works. This condition shall only apply to the carrying out of reinstatement of the Onshore Area pursuant to article 28A (duration of Order powers and closure of harbour).

In the event that a development consent order for a new nuclear generating station at Hinkley Point C is implemented by the carrying out of a material operation (as that term is defined in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) the use of public address systems and the generation of amplified sound within the Onshore Area or at any time in the course of the reinstatement works shall be restricted to the same extent (if at all) as is provided by the development consent order.

51. Bund Planting

No works or development shall take place until full details of all proposed tree and shrub planting for the screening Bund in condition 14, and the proposed times of planting, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and all tree and shrub planting shall be carried out in accordance with those details and at those times.

52. Maintenance of planting

If within a period of two years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub that tree or shrub, or any tree or shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree or shrub of the same



species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written approval to any variation.

APPENDIX 2 - MARINE LICENCES CONDITIONS Definitions

Foreshore – Area between Mean High Water Springs and Mean Low Water Springs

Marine Licence Conditions covering Construction Activities (Conditions to relate to Marine Licence CD/1.16) (MMO Ref DC9228)

1. A copy of this licence shall be given to each contractor appointed to carry out all or part of the authorised works in order that the contractors understand the extent of the licensed works and the conditions to which they are subject.

2. The licensed works shall be located in accordance with sheet 2 of the HEO deposited plans subject to the Limits of Deviation in Article 4(1A) of the Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) HEO 201[X].

2.1 The jetty shall be an open piled structure.

2.2 The number of piles for the jetty bridge, head and head extension shall be in the range of 140 - 200. Piles for the jetty bridge shall be in the order of 860mm in diameter and piles for the jetty head shall be in the order of 910mm in diameter.

2.3 The cement delivery and aggregate conveyor system shall be enclosed.

2.4 The berthing pocket shall measure approximately 160m in length, 27m in width and up to 3.5m in depth

3. Prior to the carrying out of any works authorised by this licence on the foreshore:

3.1 details of the methodology for carrying out a survey to identify and characterise the extent of the drainage channels and condition of Corallina swards within the area where works are to be carried out (being the area bounded by the Limits of Deviation as shown on sheets 2 and 7 of the HEO deposited plans) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Marine Management Organisation;



3.2 the survey shall be carried out in accordance with the approved methodology and the report shall be submitted to the Marine Management Organisation for approval; and

3.3 details of a plan for monitoring and management of Corallina (which shall include appropriate measures to maintain key drainage channels within the works area in general accordance with the measures proposed in accordance with the measure proposed in paragraph 6.2.98 of the Habitats Regulations Assessment Information (June 2011) [CD/1.14]) shall be submitted to and approved by the MMO.

3.4 Following the approval of the plan referred to in 3.3, the plan shall be implemented as approved.

4. In relation to the installation of piles associated with the jetty bridge, the Licensee shall ensure that best practice methods equivalent to or better than those outlined in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Information (June 2011) [CD/1.14] are used to minimise the re-suspension of sediment during the authorised works.

5. The Licensee shall ensure that upon completion of the construction of the development works any equipment and materials associated with construction which are not needed for the operation of the jetty are removed from the foreshore.

6. Prior to construction and use of the foreshore access road, the works area (being the area bounded by the limit of deviation shown on sheet 2 of the deposited HEO plans) and the access corridor (being the area bounded by the limit of deviation shown on sheet 7 of the HEO) will be demarcated, to prevent the movement of vehicles and plant outside the works area/access corridor on foreshore habitats that form part of the designated features of the Severn Estuary European sites and SSSI. Vehicles and plant shall not be permitted to have access to any other areas of the foreshore outside the works area/access corridor.

7. Prior to commencing any activity or works in the works area or access corridor referred to in 6, details of the measures to be employed to protect the works area and access corridor (being the area bounded by the limits of deviation shown on sheets 2 and 7 of the HEO deposited plans) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Marine Management Organisation. The approved measures shall be implemented in the carrying out of any activity or works in the works area or access corridor.



8. The articles referred to in the Environmental Statement Addendum Appendix 12 Addendum to Section 9: Archaeological Assessment (June 2011) shall be published in accordance with the requirements of the Publication Strategy outlined therein, but according to the following revised timetable:

8.1.1 An article of c. 6000 words to be submitted to The Holocene by 31/3/2012.

8.1.2 An article of c. 5000 words to be submitted to The Journal of Archaeological Science by 31/3/2012.

8.1.3 An article of c. 5000 words to be submitted to Quaternary Science Reviews by 30/6/2012.

8.1.4 Publication of the local archaeological implications of the work to either the Archaeology in the Severn Estuary or Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society by 30/6/2012.

9. Prior to the commencement of the licensed works, the Licensee shall notify the local mariners and fishermen’s organisations of the commencement of the authorised works and any other matters arising from the carrying out of the authorised works that may reasonably affect these organisations.

10. Prior to the commencement of the licensed works, the Licensee shall notify the UK Hydrographic Office of the commencement of the authorised works so as to facilitate the promulgation of maritime safety information and updating of nautical publications.

11. This licence shall terminate on 31st December 2025 (or such later date that the Marine Management Organisation may, on the application of the Licensee, allow) or, if earlier, the day on which the harbour established by the Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order 2011 (X) closes.

12. Prior to removing the works authorised by this licence, a detailed scheme for such removal shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Marine Management Organisation. The works shall be removed in accordance with the approved scheme and prior to the termination of this licence.

Marine Licence Conditions for the Capital Dredge (Conditions to relate to Marine Licence CD/1.15) (MMO Ref DC9235)

13. A copy of this licence shall be given to each contractor appointed to carry out all or part of the authorised works in order that the contractors understand



the extent of the authorised works and the conditions to which they are subject.

14. Before undertaking any dredging authorised by this licence:

14.1 A plan for monitoring baseline levels of sedimentation in the vicinity of Corallina swards shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Marine Management Organisation. This plan shall include the locations at which monitoring is to be undertaken;

14.2 This baseline survey is to be carried out in accordance with the approved methodology and a survey report submitted to the Marine Management Organisation for approval;

14.3 Following the baseline survey, a protocol for monitoring during any dredging and agreed sedimentation levels at which measures would be taken to control any significant impacts due to the dredged plume shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Marine Management Organisation.

14.4 Following approval, the plan shall be implemented throughout the carrying out of the works.

15. Materials arising from the capital dredge of the berthing pocket of the jetty shall be deposited at Cardiff Grounds.

16. 1. Dredging operations shall be carried out in accordance with the guidance note “Marine Aggregate Dredging and the Historic Environment” (BMAPA and English Heritage, 2003), and the related “Protocol for Report Finds of Archaeological Interest” (BMAPA and English Heritage, 2005) and any subsequent replacements.

2. If finds of archaeological interest are encountered in the course of the capital dredge, the operator shall comply with the provisions of the Protocols noted in 16.1 and ensure that the discovery is reported to the Marine Management Organisation, English Heritage and the Local Authority archaeological officer within 1 month of the finds being made.

17. Prior to the commencement of the licensed works, the Licensee shall notify all local mariners’ and fishermen’s organisations of the commencement of the authorised works and any other matters arising from the carrying out of the authorised works that may reasonably affect these organisations.



18. Prior to the commencement of the licensed works, the Licensee shall notify the UK Hydrographic Office of the commencement of the authorised works so as to facilitate the promulgation of maritime safety information and updating of nautical publications.



HEO AND MARINE LICENCES APPEARANCES LIST

FOR EDF ENERGY Mr Christoper Katkowski QC assisted by Instructed by Eversheds, One Wood

Street, London, Mr Hereward Phillpot, Counsel EC2V 7WS John Rhodes Director, Quod BSc MRICS Hugh Hutton EDF Energy BSc (Eng) CEng MIMechE ACGI David Bird Vectos Transport Planning BSc CEng MICE Doug Sharps Sharps Acoustics LLP CEng FIMechE FIOA Jane Thrasher Jacobs BSc PLD FGS CGeol Rebecca Calder EDF Energy BA (Hons) Jeffrey Stevenson Gillespies MA Mphil DipEconDev CMLI MRTPI MinstEnV.Sci MIE FRGS Alan Kirby AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK

Limited BSc(Hons) MSc PhD MIEEM Sian John Royal Haskoning BA MA MIEMA

Richard Knightbridge AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Ltd BA(Hons) MA Jeremy Western EDF Energy MA CRadP Angela Piearce EDF Energy Stephen Mannings EDF Energy Monica Peto Partner, Eversheds



FOR NATURAL ENGLAND Kyle Lischak Principal Solicitor Roger Covey Natural England, Truro Richard Saunders Natural England, Norwich FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY Christiaan Zwart, Counsel Louisa McKay Planning Technical Specialist Nick Hayden Regional Solicitor FOR THE FAIRFIELD ESTATE Andrew Newcombe QC Caroline Waller Solicitor, Clarke Willmott LLP FOR WEST SOMERSET AND SEDGEMOOR DISTRICT COUNCILS Lyn Meadows Legal Consultant, Sedgemoor District Council Andrew Goodchild Planning Manager, West Somerset BSc(Hons) MA MRTPI Richard Ford Partner, Pinsent Masons FOR STOGURSEY PARISH COUNCIL Peter Malim OBE Vice-Chairman FOR STOP HINKLEY CAMPAIGN Crispin Aubrey Katy Attwater FOR BRIDGWATER BAY WILDFOWLERS ASSOCIATION Stuart Hill CECILY COLLINGRIDGE Local resident FOR SAVE CANNINGTON ACTION GROUP Alex Reed



FOR CANNINGTON PARISH COUNCIL Councillor Alan Beasley KATY ATTWATER Local resident BARBARA OATES Local resident LESLEY FLASH Local resident

TWAO APPEARANCES LIST FOR EDF ENERGY Mr Christoper Katkowski QC assisted by Instructed by Eversheds, One Wood Street,

London, EC2V 7WS Mr Hereward Phillpot, Counsel They called: Simon Baker BEng MBA EDF Energy Hugh Hutton EDF Energy BSc (Eng) CEng MIMechE ACGI John Rhodes Director, Quod BSc MRICS

DOCUMENTS LIST Core Documents

Ref Description of Document Date Harbour Empowerment Order, Transport and Works Order and Related Application Documents CD1.1 Eversheds LLP: Harbour Empowerment Order – Letter

of Application Dec 2010

CD1.2 Draft Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order

Dec 2010

CD1.2.1 Draft Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order Amended for Addendum to Environmental Statement

June 2011

CD1.2.2 Draft Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order Amended for the Inquiry

Nov 2011

CD1.2.3 Draft Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order Amended for the Inquiry (Tracked)

Nov 2011



Ref Description of Document Date CD1.2.4 Draft Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour

Empowerment Order Amended 30 November 2011 Nov 2011

CD1.2.5 Draft Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order Amended 30 November 2011 (Tracked)

Nov 2011

CD1.3 Eversheds LLP and EDF Energy: The Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order Plans and Sections

Dec 2010

CD1.3.1 EDF Energy: Harbour Empowerment Order Plans amended for Addendum to Environmental Statement

June 2011

CD1.3.2 Marine Management Organisation: Harbour Empowerment Order Composite Plans and Sections

Nov 2011

CD1.4 Eversheds LLP: Explanatory Memorandum for Amended Harbour Empowerment Order and Amended Harbour Empowerment Order Plans

June 2011

CD1.5 EDF Energy: Environmental Statement Volume 1 (Non-Technical Summary)

Nov 2010

CD1.6 EDF Energy: Environmental Statement Volume 2 (Chapters 1 – 25)

Dec 2010

CD1.7 EDF Energy: Environmental Statement Volume 3 (Figures & Plans)

Dec 2010

CD1.8 EDF Energy: Environmental Statement Volume 4 (Appendices)

Dec 2010

CD1.9 Marine Management Organisation: Scoping Opinion June 2010 CD1.10 EDF Energy: Addendum to Environmental Statement June 2011 CD1.11 EDF Energy: Appendices to Addendum to

Environmental Statement – Vol 1 June 2011

CD1.12 EDF Energy: Appendices to Addendum to Environmental Statement – Vol 2

June 2011

CD1.13 EDF Energy: Non-Technical Summary of the Addendum to the Environmental Statement

June 2011

CD1.14 EDF Energy: Habitats Regulations Assessment Information Report

June 2011

CD1.15 FEPA Licence Application for Consents to Dredge and Deposit Dredged Material (Form MUC3)

Dec 2010

CD1.16 FEPA Licence Application for Consents to Undertake Marine Works (Form MUC5)

Dec 2010

CD1.17 Transport and Works Act 1992 – Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) (Land Acquisition) Order Application

Dec 2010

CD1.18 Draft Transport and Works Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) (Land Acquisition) Order

Dec 2010

CD1.18.1 Draft Transport and Works Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) (Land Acquisition) Order Amended for the Inquiry

Nov 2011

CD1.18.2 Draft Transport and Works Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) (Land Acquisition) Order Amended for the Inquiry (Tracked)

Nov 2011

CD1.19 Explanatory Memorandum to Transport and Works Act Order

Dec 2010



Ref Description of Document Date CD1.20 Statement of Aims under Rule 10(2)(c) Dec 2010 CD1.21 EDF Energy: Temporary Jetty Consultation Report Dec 2010 CD1.22 Transport and Works Act 1992: List of Consents,

Permissions and Licences Required Under Other Enactments (Rule 10(2)(f)

Dec 2010

CD1.23 Transport and Works Act 1992: Funding Statement (Rule 10(3)(a) – Applicant’s Proposals for Funding

Dec 2010

CD1.24 Transport and Works Act Order Land Plan Dec 2010 CD1.25 Transport and Works Act Order Book of Reference Dec 2010 CD1.26 Statement of Case of EDF July 2011 Legislation and Circulars CD2.1 Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 [c.27] May 1847 CD2.2 Harbours Act 1964 [c.64] (As Amended) June 1964 CD2.3 The Convention on the International Regulations for

Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 1972

CD2.4 Control of Pollution Act 1974 – Part III (Noise) July 1974 CD2.5 Highways Act 1980 [c.66] - Part III and Section 307 Nov 1980 CD2.6 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 – Part II: Nature

Conservation, Countryside and National Parks Oct 1981

CD2.7 EC Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC)

June 1985

CD2.8 Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 [c.48] - Part II

July 1985

CD2.9 Pilotage Act 1987 [c. 21] May 1987 CD2.10 Transport and Works Act 1992 [c.42] Mar 1992 CD2.11 EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats

and of Wild Flora and Fauna (92/43/EEC) May 1992

CD2.12 Merchant Shipping Act 1995 – Part VIII [c.21] July 1995 CD2.13 Department for Communities and Local Government:

Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions

July 1995

CD2.14 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999

Feb 1999

CD2.15 Department for Communities and Local Government: Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment

Mar 1999

CD2.16 European Commission: Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions.

May 1999

CD2.17 Harbour Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999

Dec 1999

CD2.18 The Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 Mar 2000 CD2.19 Harbour Works (Environmental Impact Assessment)

(Amendment) Regulations 2000 Sept 2000

CD2.20 Countryside Stewardship Regulations 2000 Nov 2000 CD2.21 Environmental Alliance: General Guide to the

Prevention of Pollution: PPG1 – Pollution Prevention Guidelines

May 2001

CD2.22 The Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002

Dec 2002

CD2.23 Transport and Works (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2004 July 2004



Ref Description of Document Date CD2.24 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Circular 06/2004

- Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules Oct 2004

CD2.25 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Circular 05/05 - Planning Obligations

July 2005

CD2.26 The Environmental Stewardship (England) and Countryside Stewardship (Amendment) Regulations

Mar 2006

CD2.27 Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006

June 2006

CD2.28 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Circular 02/07 - Planning and the Strategic Road Network

2007

CD2.29 Communities and Local Government and Department for Transport: Guidance on Transport Assessments

March 2007

CD2.30 Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007

May 2007

CD2.31 Environment Alliance: Pollution Prevention Guidelines -Works and Maintenance In or Near Water (PPG5)

Oct 2007

CD2.32 Harbour Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009

Feb 2009

CD2.33 The Infrastructure Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009

Sept 2009

CD2.34 DEFRA: Circular 1/09 - Rights of Way: Guidance for Local Authorities

Oct 2009

CD2.35 Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009 - Part 4 [c.23] Nov 2009 CD2.36 European Parliament and the Council: EC Directive on

the Conservation of Wild Birds (2009/147/EC) Nov 2009

CD2.37 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

Mar 2010

CD2.38 Environmental Protection - The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010

Mar 2010

CD2.39 Marine Management Organisation: Marine Licensing Guidance 2 – Construction (Including Renewables) and Removals

April 2011

National Energy, Transport and Planning Policy Documents CD3.1 Department of Energy & Climate Change: Overarching

National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) June 2011

CD3.2 Department of Energy & Climate Change: National Policy Statement (NPS) for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6) Volume I of II

July 2011

CD3.3 Department of Energy & Climate Change: National Policy Statement (NPS) for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6) Volume II of II

July 2011

CD3.4 Department of Energy and Climate Change: Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Revised Draft Nuclear National Policy Statement: Main Report

Oct 2010

CD3.5 HM Government: UK Marine Policy Statement Mar 2011 CD3.6 Department of Energy and Climate Change and

Communities and Local Government: Letter to Local Authorities from Steve Quartermain (Chief Planner, DCLG) and Mark Higson Chief Executive, Office for Nuclear Development

July 2009



Ref Description of Document Date CD3.7 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Planning Policy

Statement 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development Jan 2005

CD3.8 Communities and Local Government: Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change - Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1

Dec 2007

CD3.9 Communities and Local Government: Planning Policy Statement 4 - Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

Dec 2009

CD3.10 Communities and Local Government: Planning Policy Statement 5 - Planning for the Historic Environment

Mar 2010

CD3.11 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

Aug 2004

CD3.12 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Planning Policy Statement 9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Aug 2005

CD3.13 Planning Policy Statement 10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

Mar 2011

CD3.14 Communities and Local Government: Planning Policy Guidance 10 – Transport

Jan 2011 (Updated)

CD3.15 Department for Communities and Local Government: Planning Policy Guidance 17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

July 2002

CD3.16 Department of the Environment, Welsh Office: Planning Policy Guidance 20 - Coastal Planning

Sept 1992

CD3.17 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy

Aug 2004

CD3.18 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22

Dec 2004

CD3.19 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Planning Policy Statement 23 - Planning and Pollution Control

Nov 2004

CD3.20 Department for Communities and Local Government: Planning Policy Guidance 24 - Planning and Noise

Oct 1994

CD3.21 Communities and Local Government : Planning Policy Statement 25 - Development and Flood Risk

March 2010

CD3.22 Communities and Local Government: Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk - Practice Guide

Dec 2009

CD3.23 Communities and Local Government: Planning Policy Statement 25 Supplement: Development and Coastal Change – Practice Guide

March 2010

CD3.24 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Minerals Policy Statement 2 - Controlling and Mitigating the Effects of Mineral Extraction in England - Annex 1: Dust

March 2005

CD3.25 Department for Transport: Freight Best Practice – Choosing and Developing a Multi-modal Transport Solution

Aug 2008

CD3.26 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - A Guide to Good Practice

Mar 2006



Ref Description of Document Date CD3.27 Department for Transport: The Future of Transport - A

Network for 2030 White Paper July 2004

CD3.28 Department for Transport: Towards a Sustainable Transport System – Supporting Economic Growth in a Low Carbon World

Oct 2007

CD3.29 Department for Transport: Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: Main Report

Nov 2008

CD3.30 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Safer Places - The Planning System and Crime Prevention

Feb 2004

CD3.31 Maritime and Coastguard Agency: Maritime Guidance Note 401 Navigation – Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) and Local Part Services (LPS) in the United Kingdom

CD3.32 Communities and Local Government: Consultation Paper on a New Planning Policy Statement - Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment

Mar 2010

CD3.33 Department for Communities and Local Government: Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice – Main Document

July 1997

CD3.34 The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage: Landscape Character Assessment - Guidance for England and Scotland.

2002

CD3.35 Department for Communities and Local Government: Environmental Impact Assessment - A Guide to Good Practice and Procedures Consultation Paper

June 2006

CD3.36 Department of Communities and Local Government: Planning for the Protection of European Sites: Appropriate Assessment – Guidance for Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents

Aug 2006

Local Energy, Transport and Planning Policy Documents CD4.1 C F Spencer & Co Ltd (With Updates Undertaken by

Sedgemoor District Council): The Port of Bridgwater Marine Operations Plan (Revision 5)

July 2009

CD4.2 Somerset and Exmoor National Park Authority: Joint Structure Plan Review 1996 – 2011

April 2000

CD4.3 West Somerset Local Plan April 2006 CD4.4 West Somerset Core Strategy Options Paper Jan 2010 CD4.5 Sedgemoor District Local Plan 1991-2011 – Adopted

Version Sept 2004

CD4.6 Sedgemoor Core Strategy Submission Document 2006-26

Sept 2010

CD4.7 West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils: Hinkley Point C Project Supplementary Planning Document Consultation Draft

Feb 2011

CD4.8 South West Regional Assembly: Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West 2006-2026 Incorporating the Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes for Public Consultation.

July 2008.

CD4.9 Somerset County Council: Somerset Local Transport Plan 2006-2011

Feb 2011



Ref Description of Document Date CD4.10 Somerset County Council: Rights of Way Improvement

Plan. Nov 2006

CD4.11 Severn Estuary Partnership: Strategy for the Severn Estuary.

Sept 2001

CD4.12 Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Joint Advisory Committee: Quantock Hills AONB Management Plan 2009-2014.

Mar 2009

Scheme Project Development, Engineering and Appraisal Documents Coastal Hydrodynamics and Geomorphology CD5.1 Environment Agency: Steart Coastal Management

Project - Scoping Consultation Document. 2010

CD5.2 British Energy Estuarine & Marine Studies (BEEMS) (Cefas): Hinkley Point Physical Sciences Report: Hydrodynamics, Climatology, Sedimentology And Coastal Geomorphology - An Initial Assessment Of Coastal Hazards Related To Potential New Nuclear Build (Technical Report No. 060)

Dec 2009

CD5.3 British Energy Estuarine & Marine Studies (BEEMS): Sediment Transport Around Hinkley Point (Scientific Advisory Report No. 014)

May 2011

CD5.4 British Energy Estuarine & Marine Studies (BEEMS): Key Features of the Marine Ecosystem Off Hinkley Point in Relation to New Nuclear Build (Scientific Advisory Report No. 001)

Sept 2010

CD5.5 British Energy Estuarine & Marine Studies (BEEMS) WP7: Water Movements; Hinkley Point Scour Assessment.

June 2010

Marine Ecology CD6.1 British Energy Estuarine & Marine Studies (BEEMS)

(Cefas): Hinkley Point Sabellaria Assessment: Analysis of Survey Data 2010 (Technical Report Series No. 141)

March 2011

CD6.2 British Energy Estuarine & Marine Studies (BEEMS) (Cefas): Hinkley Point Sabellaria Assessment Analysis of Survey Data for 2009 (Technical Report Series No. 104)

Jan 2010

CD6.3 British Energy Estuarine & Marine Studies (BEEMS) (Cefas): Hinkley Point: Nearshore Habitat Survey: Bridgwater Bay Final Report 2010

Jan 2011

CD6.4 British Energy Estuarine & Marine Studies (BEEMS) (Cefas): Literature Review: Pile Driving Sound and Marien Life – Implications for BEEMS Bristol Channel (Technical Report Series No. 169)

June 2011

CD6.5 British Energy Estuarine & Marine Studies (BEEMS) (Cefas): Hinkley Point: Cetacean Monitoring 1st Monitoring Report (Technical Report Series No. 170a)

Mar 2011

Terrestrial Ecology and Ornithology



Ref Description of Document Date CD7.1 Environmental Management (Vol 30: 865 – 871),

Burton, N.H.K., Rehfisch, M.M. & Clark, N.A: Impacts of Disturbance from Construction Work on the Densities and Feeding Behaviour of Waterbirds Using the Intertidal Mudflats of Cardiff Bay, UK.

2002

CD7.2 Journal of Applied Ecology (Vol 43: 464 – 473), Burton, N.H.K., Rehfisch, M.M., Clark, N.A. & Dodd, S.G: Impacts of Sudden Winter Habitat Loss on the Body Condition and Survival of Redshank Tringa Totanus.

2006

CD7.3 Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies, Mander, L. & Cutts, N.D: Ornithological Monitoring, Thorngumbald: Annual Report 1 January to December 2002 - Report to the Environment Agency.

June 2003

CD7.4 Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies, Mander, L. & Cutts, N.D: Ornithological Monitoring, Thorngumbald: Annual Report 2 January to December 2003 - Report to the Environment Agency.

Nov 2004

CD7.5 Natural Research (Projects) Ltd, Ruddock, M. & Whitfield, D.P: A Review of Disturbance Distances in Selected Bird Species - A report from Natural Research (Projects) Ltd to Scottish Natural Heritage.

2007

CD7.6 The Landmark Practice: Birds and Wind Turbines at Avonmouth Docks - Year 2 Monitoring Report for Ecotricity (Rev B)

June 2010

CD7.7 British Trust for Ornithology (Bird Study 52: 120 – 128), Burton, N.H.K. & Armitage, M.J: Differences in the Diurnal and Nocturnal Use of Intertidal Feeding Grounds by Redshank Tringa Totanus

2005

CD7.8 Centre for Ecology and Conservation, Dwyer, R.G: Ecological and Anthropogenic Constraints on Waterbirds of the Forth Estuary: Population and Behavioural Responses to Disturbance.

May 2010

CD7.9 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management: Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom.

June 2006

CD7.10 Bat Conservation Trust / Institute of Lighting Engineers: Bats and Lighting in the UK.

May 2009

CD7.11 ID Wildlife, Davidson-Watts, I & McKenzie, A: Habitat Use and Ranging of Barbastelle Bats of the Mottisfont Estate, Hampshire.

Feb 2006

CD7.12 Department of Energy & Climate Change: Habitats Regulation Assessment - Site Report for Hinkley Point

Oct 2010

CD7.13 British Wildlife, Greenaway, F: The Barbastelle in Britain

June 2001

CD7.14 English Nature, Greenaway, F: Advice for the Management of Flightlines and Foraging Habitats of the Barbastelle Bat Barbastella barbastellus (Report Number 657)

July 2004



Ref Description of Document Date CD7.15 Journal of Zoology (248) 429-432, Sierro, A: Habitat

Selection by Barbastelle Bats (Barbastella Barbastellus) in the Swiss Alps (Valais)

1999

CD7.16 Somerset County Council Report for Exmoor National Park Authority: Exmoor National Park, Local Development Framework, Consultation Draft Core Strategy & Development Management Policies - Habitats Regulations Assessment Scoping Report.

Nov 2010

CD7.17 Zeale, M (2009). Barbastelles in the Landscape: Ecological Research and Conservation in Dartmoor National Park.

Mar 2009

CD7.18 Natural England, Billington, G (2008): Radio Tracking of Barbastelle at Holnicote Estate Owned Horner Woods

2008

Water Quality CD8.1 Amec: Summary of Marine Surface Water Quality

Non-Radiochemical Analysis Results (Campaigns 1-4 Including WFD)

Sept 2010

CD8.2 Sheahan. D, Aldridge. J, Fernand. L, Forster. R, Fisher. T, Painting. S & Sapp. M: An Initial Assessment of the Effects of New Nuclear Build on Water Quality at Hinkley Point (Edition 3)

Mar 2010

CD8.3 Sheahan. D, Aldridge. J, Fernand. L, Forster. R, Fisher. T, Painting. S, Sapp. M, Bredemeier. B and Leech. C: Predicted Effects of New Nuclear Build on Water Quality at Point

July 2011

Hydrology and Drainage CD9.1 Institute of Hydrology, Marshall, D.C.W and Bayliss,

A.C: Flood Estimation for Small Catchments (Report No. 124)

June 1994

CD9.2 Environment Agency: Hinkley Point C, Site Preparation Drainage Design - Discharge Conditionality Report

CD9.3 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: The Revitalised FSR/FEH Rainfall-Runoff Method (Supplementary Report No.1)

2007

CD9.4 HR Wallingford and CIRIA: Drainage of Development Sites - A Guide

2004

CD9.5 British Standards Institute: Drain and Sewer Systems Outside Buildings (BS EN 752:2008).

Oct 2009

CD9.6 North Devon and Somerset Coastal Advisory Group: Hartland Point to Anchor Head Shoreline Management Plan Review (SMP2). b) Appendix to SMP2

June 2010

CD9.7 H R Wallingford and CIRIA: The Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) Manual (Ref: CIRIA C697)

2007

Soils CD10.1 Commission of the European Communities: Thematic

Strategy for Soil Protection (COM(2006) 231) Sept 2006

CD10.2 Defra: Safeguarding Our Soils - A Strategy for England

Sept 2009



Ref Description of Document Date CD10.3 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF):

Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales. Revised Guidelines and Criteria for Grading the Quality of Agricultural Land.

Oct 1988

CD10.4 Defra: Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites

Sept 2009

CD10.5 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF): Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils – Soil Stripping with Excavators and Dump Trucks (Sheet 1)

April 2000

CD10.6 Reading Agricultural Consultants: Land at Hinkley Point, Somerset - Investigation of Soils and Agricultural Land Classification

May 2010

Geology and Contamination CD11.1 EDF: Onshore Geological, Geotechnical and

Hydrogeological Interpretive Report (Report Ref: EDTGG090141A1PREL)

May 2009

CD11.2 AMEC: Geological Survey and Mapping (Report Ref: Ref;15122/TR/0011 B)

June 2009

CD11.3 AMEC: Desk Based Assessment and Synthesis Report for the Built Development Area East and Southern Construction Phase Area (Report Ref:15011/TR/00121)

Nov 2010

CD11.4 AMEC: Phase 1 Desk Study and Preliminary Non-Radiological Site Investigation for the Built Development Area West (BDAW) (Report Ref: 15011/TR/00022)

Mar 2010

CD11.5 AMEC: Final Ground Gas Risk Assessment for the Built Development Area West (BDAW) (Report Ref: 15011/TR/00123)

Sept 2010

CD/11.6 AMEC: Phase 2 Supplementary Investigation for the Built Development Area West (Report Ref: 15011/TR/00031)

Aug 2010

CD11.7 AMEC: Baseline Radiological Survey (Report Ref: 15118/TR/00003)

Nov 2008

CD11.8 AMEC: Phase 2 Supplementary Investigation of Potential Radiological Contamination (Report Ref: 15011/TR/00091)

Jan 2009

CD11.9 AMEC: Phase 2 Contamination Assessment (Non Radiological) of the Built Development Area East and Southern Construction Phase Area (Report Ref: 15011/TR/00151)

Nov 2010

CD11.10 AMEC: Radiological Survey Report for Hinkley Point (Report Ref: 15011/TR/00144)

July 2010

CD11.11 AMEC: Phase 2 Contamination Assessment (Radiological) of the Built Development Area East Report and Southern Construction Phase Area (Report Ref: 15011/TR/00150)

Sept 2010



Ref Description of Document Date CD11.12 Scottish Natural Heritage: A Handbook on

Environmental Impact Assessment - Guidance for Competent Authorities, Consultees and Others Involved in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Scotland.

2009

CD11.13 Natural England: Geological site documentation / management brief, Blue Anchor to Lilstock Coast.

1993

CD11.14 Serco: Baseline Survey of an Area of Land to be Leased from British Energy at Hinkley Point (Report Ref: SA/Env/ 0878/ Issue 1)

Aug 2006

CD11.15 Serco: Pre-Closure Contamination Survey (C - Station Land), Hinkley Point A for Magnox South (Report Ref: TAS/002838/001 Issue 01)

Dec 2008

CD11.16 AMEC: Ground Gas Risk Assessment for the Built Development East and Southern Construction Phase Area (Report Ref: 15011/TR/00166)

Oct 2010

CD11.17 EDF Energy: Hinkley Point C Site Preparation, Preliminary Works - Environmental Scoping Report

April 2010

CD11.18 West Somerset Council: Hinkley Point C Site Preparation Works – Scoping Opinion

May 2010

CD11.19 Structural Soils Limited (September 2010) Interim factual Report No 12 on Second Campaign On-Shore investigations at Hinkley Site. Report 723335

September 2010

Recreation and Amenity CD12 No documents provided in this section Transport CD13.1 Savell Bird & Axon: Proposed Nuclear Development,

Hinkley Point C - Local Model Validation Report Sept 2010

CD13.2 IFF Research Ltd with the University of Warwick: Workforce Mobility and Skills in the UK Construction Sector

Feb 2005

CD13.3 Savell Bird & Axon: Hinkley Point C - Gravity Model Technical Note

Oct 2010

CD13.4 Department for Transport: Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain: Annual Report 2008

Sept 2009

CD13.5 Somerset County Council Environment Directorate: Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 - Bridgwater Transport Strategy Review (Draft Final Report)

2003

Ref Description of Document Date Air Quality CD14.1 West Somerset Council: Air Quality Updating and

Screening Assessment 2009

CD14.2 Sedgemoor District Council. Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment for Sedgemoor District Council 2009 (2009).

April 2009

CD14.3 Environmental Protection UK: Development Control - Planning for Air Quality (2010 Update)

2010



Ref Description of Document Date CD14.4 Greater London Authority and London Councils: The

Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition - Best Practice Guidance

Nov 2006

CD14.5 Highways Agency: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3 - Environmental Assessment Techniques (HA 207/07)

May 2007

CD14.6 Building Research Establishment (BRE) - Kukadia, V., Upton, S. L. and Hall, D. J: Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities

Feb 2003

CD14.7 Quality of Urban Air Review Group (QUARG) prepared for the Department of the Environment: Airborne Particulate Matter in the United Kingdom - Third Report of the Quality of Urban Air Review Group

May 1996

CD14.8 Environmental Pollution 79, 63-75, Farmer, A.M: The Effects of Dust on Vegetation - A Review

1993

CD14.9 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in Partnership with the Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and Department of the Environment Northern Ireland: The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Volume 1).

July 2007

CD14.10 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra): Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(09)

2009

Noise and Vibration CD15.1 World Health Organisation: Guidelines for Community

Noise 1999

CD15.2 World Health Organisation: Night Noise Guidelines for Europe

2009

CD15.3 National Physical Laboratory - Porter, D, Flindell, I and Berry, B: Health Effect Based Noise Assessment Methods: A Review and Feasibility Study

Sept 1998

CD15.4 International Standards Organisation 9613-2: Acoustics - Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors - Part 2 - General Method of Calculation

1996

CD15.5 British Standard BS 4142:1997: Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas

Sept 1997

CD15.6 British Standard BS 8233:1999: Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings – Code Of Practice

1999

CD15.7 British Standard BS5228-1: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites – Part 1: Noise

2009

CD15.8 British Standard BS5228: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites’ – Part 2: Vibration

2009

Landscape and Visual Impact CD16.1 The Countryside Agency: Countryside Character,

Volume 8: South West. 1999



Ref Description of Document Date CD16.2 WS Atkins South West: West Somerset Landscape

Character Assessment Nov 1999

CD16.3 Sedgemoor DC: Sedgemoor Landscape Assessment and Countryside Design Summary, Revised Edition

Sept 2003

CD16.4 Land Use Consultants: North Somerset - Landscape Character Assessment.

Dec 2005

CD16.5 The Countryside Agency: The Quantock Hills Landscape, An Assessment of the AONB.

Jan 2003

CD16.6 Countryside Commission: Landscape Assessment of the Mendip Hills from Steep Holm to Frome

May 1996

CD16.7 North Devon and Somerset Coastal Group: Bridgwater Bay to Bideford Bay Shoreline Management Plan

1998

CD16.8 Department of Trade and Industry: Little Cheyne Court Consent.

Oct 2005

CD16.9 Department of Trade and Industry - Little Cheyne Court Secretary of State Decision Letter.

Oct 2005

CD16.10 The Planning Inspectorate: Little Cheyne Court Inspector’s Report.

Oct 2005

CD16.11 The Planning Inspectorate: Appeal Decision: Land West of Enifer Downs Farm and East of Archers Court Road and Little Pineham Farm, Langdon (Appeal Ref: APP/X2220/A/08/2071880)

March 2009

CD16.12 The Planning Inspectorate: Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Including Burnthouse Farm Decision Document Refs: APP/D0515/A/10/2123739 & APP/D0515/A/10/2131194)

April 2011

CD16.13 Communities and Local Government: Burnthouse Farm Decision Letter Refs: APP/D0515/A/10/2123739 & APP/D0515/A/10/2131194.

July 2011

CD16.14 The Planning Inspectorate: Carsington Pastures, Manystones Lane, Carsington (Appeal Decision Ref: APP/P1045/A/07/2054080)

Sept 2008

CD16.15 The Planning Inspectorate: Land at Cotton Farm, Offord Road, Graveley, St Neots, Cambridgeshire (Appeal Decision Ref: APP/H0520/A/09/2119385)

Dec 2010

CD16.16 Horner and Maclennan & Envision: Visual Representation of Windfarms, Good Practice Guidance

March 2006

Historic Environment CD17.1 AMEC: Dix, J.K., Sturt, F. and Glazier, D: Hinkley

Point C - Archaeological Assessment of Offshore Vibrocores.

Feb 2011

CD17.2 AMEC: Dix, J.K. and Sturt: Hinkley Point C - Offshore and Inter-tidal Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Desk-Based Assessment. Unpublished client report.

Jan 2011

CD17.3 AMEC: A. Chadwick and Catchpole, T Hinkley Point C - Report into Archaeological Foreshore Survey, Gloucester County Council Archaeology Service.

July 2010



Ref Description of Document Date CD17.4 AMEC: Steadman, S and Short, J: Hinkley Point -

Cultural Heritage Desk-Based Assessment (Ref: 15011/TR/00050). Unpublished client report.

July 2009

CD17.5 Stratascan: Smalley, R: Geophysical Survey Report, Hinkley Point, Somerset (Ref: J2543) Unpublished client report.

Dec 2008

CD17.6 Cotswolds Archaeology: K. Saunders: Land at Hinkley Point, Somerset - Archaeological Evaluation (Report Ref: 10049)

June 2010

Socio-Economics CD18.1 EDF Energy: Site Preparation Works, Hinkley Point C,

Proposed Nuclear Development - Construction Workforce Development Strategy (Draft v2.6)

June 2011

Navigation CD19.1 International Management Code for the Safe

Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management (ISM) Code)

1993

CD19.2 Department for Transport: Port Marine Safety Code Oct 2009 Groundwater CD20.1 EDF Energy (March 2010). Hinkley Point C New

Nuclear Development, Preliminary Works: Temporary Jetty, Environmental Scoping Report.

March 2010

CD20.2 AMEC. (Work in Progress) Summary of Groundwater Quality (Campaign 5) Non-Radiochemical Analysis Results for Built Development Area West, Rev 0. Report Ref: 15011/TN/00053.

Oct 2009

CD20.3 AMEC. (Work in Progress)Summary of Groundwater Quality (Campaign 5) Radiochemical Analysis Results, Rev 0. Report Ref: 15011/TN/00066.

August 2009

CD20.4 GroundSure: Environmental Data Report. June 2008 CD20.5 SERCO: Summary Interpretative Land Quality Report

for Hinkley Point A (2 Volumes). March 2010

CD20.6 Structural Soils Ltd: Factual Report on Ground Investigation: On Shore Investigations for Hinkley Site, Report Ref: 721763.

August 2009

CD20.7 EDF: Onshore Geological, Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Interpretative Report. Reference: EDTGG090141

2010

Cumulative Impact Dealt with under other section headings.

Original representations to the Harbour Empowerment Order Rep. No. Respondent CR01 Crown Estate CR02 Lesley Flash CR03 Devon & Severn Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority CR04 Richard Cuttell CR05 English Heritage



CR06 Maritime & Coastguard Agency CR07 Devon & Somerset FRS CR08 John White CR09 Barbara Oates CR10 Stogursey Parish Council CR11 Peter Oates CE12 Richard Jones CR13/CR18 Royal Yachting Association CR14 Avon & Somerset Constabulary CR15/CR35 Trinity House CR16 Countryside Council for Wales CR17 Natural England CR19 Susan Lilienthal CR20 Fairfield Estates CR21 Welsh Assembly Government CR22 RSPB CR23 The Bristol Port Company CR24 Ministry of Defence CR25 Forum21 CR26 West Somerset Council & Sedgemoor DC (Withdrawn) CR27 Chinks Grylls CR28 Environment Agency (Withdrawn) CR29 Graham & Jean Howard CR30 Somerset County Council CR31 Stop Hinkley Campaign CR32 Charles Graham CR33 Allan Jeffrey CR34 Cecily Collingridge CR36 Bridgwater Town Council CR37 Quantock Hills AONB Service CR38 Katy Attwater CR39 Linda Sinclair CR40 British Association for Shooting & Conservation CR41 Bridgwater Bay Wildfowling Association CR42 Lesley Jones CR43 Burnham Boatowners Sea Angling Association

Original objections and representations to the Transport & Works Act Order OBJ/1 Environment Agency (Withdrawn) OBJ/2 Sedgemoor District Council (Withdrawn) OBJ/3 West Somerset District Council (Withdrawn) REP/1 Openreach BT REP/2 National Grid

INQUIRY DOCUMENTS ID1 Notes of the Pre-Inquiry Meeting ID2 Statement of Matters – MMO ID3 Statement of Matters – DECC ID4 Emails dated 12 and 28 September from the Planning Inspectorate

to Natural England regarding their involvement at the Inquiry



ID5 Representations Table ID6 Email from the Programme Officer dated 29 November 2011 on

behalf of the Inspector to EDF regarding Noise Levels

EDF ENERGY E1 HEO Proof of Evidence on Planning by John Rhodes E1a Appendices to HEO Proof of Evidence on Planning by John Rhodes

E1.1 Annex 1 – Construction by Hugh Hutton; to Proof of Evidence on Planning by John Rhodes

E1.1.2 Rebuttal Proof of Evidence on Construction by Hugh Hutton E1.2 HEO Rebuttal Proof of Evidence on Planning by John Rhodes E2 TWAO Proof of Evidence on Planning by John Rhodes E2a Appendices to TWAO Proof of Evidence on Planning by John Rhodes E3 TWAO Proof of Evidence on Land by Simon Baker E3a Appendices to TWAO Proof of Evidence on Land by Simon Baker E3.1 Annex 1 – Construction; to TWAO Proof of Evidence on Land by

Simon Baker E3.2 TWAO Rebuttal Proof of Evidence on Land by Simon Baker E4 HEO Proof of Evidence on Transport by David Bird E4.2 HEO Rebuttal Proof of Evidence on Transport by David Bird E5 HEO Proof of Evidence on Approach to Environmental Assessment

and Cumulative Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment by Sian John

E5.2 HEO Rebuttal Proof of Evidence on Approach to Environmental Assessment and Cumulative Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment by Sian John

E6 HEO Proof of Evidence on Marine Environment by Sian John E6a Appendices to HEO Proof of Evidence on Marine Environment by

Sian John E6.2 HEO Rebuttal Proof of Evidence on Marine Environment by Sian

John E7 HEO Proof of Evidence on Terrestrial Ecology by Richard

Knightbridge E8 HEO Proof of Evidence on Ornithology by Alan Kirby E8a Appendices to HEO Proof of Evidence on Ornithology by Alan Kirby E8.2 HEO Rebuttal Proof of Evidence on Ornithology by Alan Kirby E9 HEO Proof of Evidence on Noise and Vibration by D F Sharps E9a Appendices to HEO Proof of Evidence on Noise and Vibration by D F

Sharps E9a.3 Erratum to HEO Proof of Evidence on Noise and Vibration by D F

Sharps E9.2 HEO Rebuttal Proof of Evidence on Noise and Vibration by D F

Sharps E10 HEO Proof of Evidence on Landscape and Visual Impact by Jeffrey

Stevenson E10a Appendices to HEO Proof of Evidence on Landscape and Visual

Impact by Jeffrey Stevenson E10a.3 Erratum to HEO Proof of Evidence on Landscape and Visual Impact

by Jeffrey Stevenson E10.2 HEO Rebuttal Proof of Evidence on Landscape and Visual Impact by



Jeffrey Stevenson E11 HEO Proof of Evidence on Amenity and Recreation by Rebecca

Calder E12 HEO Proof of Evidence on Cliff Stability by Jane Thrasher E12.2 HEO Rebuttal Proof of Evidence on Cliff Stability by Jane Thrasher E13 HEO Proof of Evidence on Radiological Inspections and Impacts by

Jeremy Western E13a Appendices to HEO Proof of Evidence on Radiological Inspections

and Impacts by Jeremy Western E13.1 Annex 1 – Commentary on Wider Radiological issues raised; to HEO

Proof of Evidence on Radiological Inspections and Impacts by Jeremy Western

E13.1a Appendices to Annex 1 – Commentary on Wider Radiological issues raised; to HEO Proof of Evidence on Radiological Inspections and Impacts by Jeremy Western

E13.2 HEO Rebuttal Proof of Evidence on Radiological Inspections and Impacts by Jeremy Western

E14 Written Statement of Evidence on Navigation by Captain Thomas

James Proctor E15 Legal Paper 1 – A Guide to the Empowerment Order E16 Legal Paper 2 – Response to the Marine Management Organisation’s

Statement of Matters 2 and 3 E17 Legal Paper 3 – Response to issues raised in relation to the Harbour

Empowerment Order E18 Legal Paper 4 - Response to issues raised in relation to the

Transport and Works Act Order E19 Statement of Common Ground with West Somerset

Council/Sedgemoor District Council (superseded) E19.1 Amended Statement of Common Ground with West Somerset

Council/Sedgemoor District Council (superseded) E19.2 Amended Statement of Common Ground with West Somerset

Council/Sedgemoor District Council submitted 1 December 2011 (superseded)

E19.2 Signed amended Statement of Common Ground with West Somerset Council/Sedgemoor District Council submitted 2 December 2011

E20 Statement of Common Ground between EDF Energy and Stogursey Parish Council

E21 Statement of Common Ground between EDF Energy and Natural England (superseded)

E21.1 Amended Statement of Common Ground between EDF Energy and Natural England

E22 Statement of Common Ground between EDF Energy and Bridgwater Bay Wildfowling Association (superseded)

E22.1 Signed Statement of Common Ground between EDF Energy and Bridgwater Bay Wildfowling Association

E23 EDF Energy Inquiry Note – Approach for Imposing Restrictions on the Development Authorised by the Harbour Empowerment Order

E24 Opening statement E25 Paper of amendments to the draft Harbour Empowerment Order



shown as CD/1.2.2 and CD/1.2.3 (superseded) E25.1 Paper of amendments to the draft Harbour Empowerment Order

shown as CD/1.2.4 and CD/1.2.5 E26 Paper of amendments to the draft Transport and Works Act shown

as CD/1.18.1 and CD/1.18.2 E27 EDF Energy’s response to the Marine Management Organisation’s

Statement of Matters (ID/2) E28 EDF Energy’s response to the Secretary of State for the Department

of Energy and Climate Change ‘s Statement of Matters (ID/3) E29 Compliance Pack submitted by EDF Energy E30 EDF Energy’s response to written representations by the Royal

Yachting Association E31 Schedule identifying rebuttal responses to issues raised in Proofs of

Evidence E32 Response to Cecily Collingridge Rebuttal 2 (CC6) E33 List of appearances on behalf of EDF Energy (superseded) E33.1 Amended list of appearances on behalf of EDF Energy E34 Extract from Hinkley Point C Supplementary Planning Document

(version adopted by Sedgemoor District Council 12 October 2011) E35 Extract from West Somerset Council Planning Committee 28 July

2011 E36 Statement of Common Ground – Landscape and Visual Amenity

between EDF Energy and Fairfield Estate E37 North West Bund Sections E38 Erratum sheet Figure 6-1 of the ES: Sections of the Jetty, Rock

Extraction Area and Service Road E39 Hinkley Point C Access Form E40 TWAO Opening Statement E41 Requirements for Hedgerow Consent E42 Note on HGV movements E43 Summary of the Site Preparation Section 106 E44 Note on The Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) (Land Acquisition)

Order E45 Site Preparation Works site layout plan (HPCSPW200a REV1) E46 Site Preparation Conditions (version as at 18 November 2011) E47 Proposed Jetty Obligations (working draft 18 November 2011)

(superseded) E47.1 Proposed Jetty Obligations (working draft 21 November 2011)

(superseded by E56) E48 Proposed Marine Licence Conditions (working draft 18 November

2011) (superseded by E50) E49 Letter dated 15 November from EDF to Sedgemoor District Council

regarding the Council’s capacity as harbour authority E50 Proposed Marine Licence Conditions (working draft 22 November

2011) (superseded by E50.3) E50.1 Proposed Marine Licence Conditions (working draft 24 November

2011) (superseded by E50.3) E50.2 Proposed Marine Licence Conditions (working draft 30 November

2011) (superseded by E50.3) E50.3 Proposed Marine Licence Conditions (working draft 1 December

2011)



E51 HEO Conditions Schedule (working draft 21 November 2011) (superseded by E54)

E52 Shelduck Monitoring Strategy (superseded) E52.1 Shelduck Monitoring Strategy (tracked) (superseded) E52.2 Updated Shelduck Monitoring Strategy (tracked) E53 The Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order

– Amendment to meet points of concern of the Environment Agency (Draft)

E54 Amendments converting the Bilateral Agreement with West Somerset Council into HEO restrictions having effect as deemed planning conditions submitted on 24 November 2011 (superseded)

E54.1 Further Amendments converting the Bilateral Agreement with West Somerset Council into HEO restrictions having effect as deemed planning conditions submitted on 30 November 2011 (tracked)

E54.1.1 Further Amendments converting the Bilateral Agreement with West Somerset Council into HEO restrictions having effect as deemed planning conditions submitted on 30 November 2011 (clean version of E54.1)

E54.2 Amendments converting the Bilateral Agreement with West Somerset Council into HEO restrictions having effect as deemed planning conditions submitted 2 December 2011

E55 Finalised itinerary for the Inspector’s site visits E56 Bilateral Agreement (working draft 23 November 2011)

(superseded) E56a Bilateral Agreement (working draft 23 November 2011) - Reports

referred to in E56 E56.1 Bilateral Agreement (working draft 30 November 2011) (tracked)

(superseded) E56.1.1 Bilateral Agreement (working draft 30 November 2011) (clean

version of E56.1) (superseded) E56.2 Bilateral Agreement (Completed 2 December 2011) (tracked) E56.2.1 Bilateral Agreement (Completed 2 December 2011) (clean version

of E56.2) E57 Amendments to conditions in Schedule 1 of the Bilateral Agreement

(E56) E58 Amendments proposed by EDF Energy to the HEO since the start of

the Inquiry 15 November 2011 E59 Site visit: Temporary Jetty Development Site E60 NOT USED E60.1 Construction Noise Limits – Conditions E61 Proposed Article to be inserted in the Harbour Empowerment Order

relating to the Shelduck Obligation E62 Additional condition restricting duration of Marine Licence

authorising Construction Activities (Marine Licence CD/1.16) E63 Financial security for Jetty removal and reinstatement E64 Unilateral Undertaking offered by EDF Energy to the Fairfield Estate E65 Revised Second Schedule of the Bilateral Agreement (E56) The

Second Schedule – Public Rights of Way- Part 1 E66 Note on Footpath Distances E67 Discussion note – Shelduck Mitigation E68 Cannington – Noise and Air Quality



E69 EDF Energy’s response to comments on the Fairfield Estate[FE6.1] E70 EDF Energy correspondence with Trinity House (CR15 & CR35) and

the Maritime and Coastguard Agency E71 Noise Inquiry Note E72 Cliff Protection Measures E73 Mitigation Measures set out in Paragraph 6.2.98 of the HRA

Information [CD/1.1] E74 Erratum Slip for E56.1 – Noise Conditions Tables E75 Principles for an adaptive Shelduck monitoring strategy (NE9) with

tracked comments from EDF E76 Noise conditions table – Condition 9 and 49 E77 Closing submissions

NATURAL ENGLAND NE1 Statement of Case of Natural England NE2 Opening statement NE3a Proof of Evidence of Richard Covey on Marine Ecology NE3b Summary Proof of Evidence of Richard Covey on Marine Ecology NE3c Appendices to Proof of Evidence of Richard Covey on Marine

Ecology NE4a Proof of Evidence of Richard Saunders on Ornithology NE4b Summary Proof of Evidence of Richard Saunders on Ornithology NE5 Letter dated 11 November 2011 setting out Natural England’s

position NE6 Letter dated 27 September 2011 in response to the email dated12

September from the Planning Inspectorate (ID4) NE7 Comments in relation to E47 and E52, 23 November 2011 NE8 Natural England’s comments in relation to E56 (Bilateral

Agreement), E50.1 (Proposed Marine Licence Conditions) and E52.1 (Shelduck Mitigation Strategy)

NE9 Principles for an adaptive Shelduck monitoring strategy NE9.1 Amended Principles for an adaptive Shelduck monitoring strategy NE9.2 Amended Principles for an adaptive Shelduck monitoring strategy

(tracked) NE10 Closing submissions (in writing) by Natural England

WEST SOMERSET & SEDGEMOOR COUNCILS WSSC1 Statement of Case of West Somerset Council and Sedgemoor

District Council WSSC2 Letter dated 25 October 2011 from Sedgemoor District Council,

setting out the position on behalf of the Councils WSSC3 Email dated 17 November 2011 to the Programme Officer setting

out the position of West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils in relation to their objections to the TWAO and HEO

WSSC4 Letter dated 18 November 2011 from Sedgemoor District Council to EDF confirming the withdrawal of their objections to the HEO and TWAO

WSSC5 Working draft of the proposed bi-lateral agreement (E56.1) WSSC6 Comments from West Somerset concerning the amendment to

Article 28A of the HEO, proposed by Fairfield Estates in paragraph 9 of FE10



WSSC6.1 Amended comments from West Somerset concerning the amendment to Article 28A of the HEO, proposed by Fairfield Estates in paragraph 9 of FE10

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY EA1 Statement of Case of The Environment Agency EA2 NOT USED EA3 NOT USED EA4 Proof of Evidence on Land Requirement and Operations &

Regulation of the Jetty by Geoff Boyd EA5 Appendices to Proof of Evidence on Land Requirement and

Operations & Regulation of the Jetty by Geoff Boyd EA6 NOT USED EA7 NOT USED EA8 Proof of Evidence on Land Requirement and Operations &

Regulation of the Jetty by Charles Cox EA9 Appendices to Proof of Evidence on Land Requirement and

Operations & Regulation of the Jetty by Charles Cox EA10 Rebuttal Proof of Evidence to E3.2 by Charles Cox EA11 NOT USED EA12 Proof of Evidence on Land Requirement and Operations &

Regulation of the Jetty by Dr Norman Cox EA13 Appendices to Proof of Evidence on Land Requirement and

Operations & Regulation of the Jetty by Dr Norman Cox EA14 Rebuttal Proof of Evidence to E1.1.2 by Dr Norman Cox EA15 Letter dated 15 November 2011 to the Programme Officer setting

out the position of the Environment Agency EA16 Copy correspondence from EDF dated 12 October 2011 to the

Environment Agency concerning its representations to the MMO of the 28th July 2011

EA17 Further response from the Environment Agency to EDF dated 18 October 2011

EA18 Letter dated 11 November 2011 from the Environment Agency to EDF Energy regarding bi-lateral agreement

EA19 Email dated 17 November 2011 from the Environment Agency to the Programme Officer confirming withdrawal of their objections to the TWAO and the HEO

EA20 Letter dated 18 November 2011 from the Environment Agency to EDF setting out their position with regard to conditions

EA21 Draft Hinkley Point (Temporary Jetty) Harbour Empowerment Order, with the Environment Agency’s suggested tracked changes

EA22 Note from the Environment Agency on the HEO EA23 Letter dated 1 December 2011 from the Environment Agency to the

Programme Officer, confirming that they had no comments on Document E73 – mitigation measures set out in paragraph 6.2.98 of the HRA information

FAIRFIELD ESTATE FE1 Statement of Case of the Fairfield Estate FE2.1 Proof of Evidence on Landscape and Visual Impacts by Katie Lewis FE2.2 Appendices to Proof of Evidence on Landscape and Visual Impacts



by Katie Lewis FE3.1 Proof of Evidence on Cliff Stability and Geological Preservation by

Adrian Dolecki FE3.2 Appendices to Proof of Evidence on Cliff Stability and Geological

Preservation by Adrian Dolecki FE4 Opening statement FE5 The Port of Bristol (Deep Sea Container Terminal) Harbour Revision

Order 2010 FE6 Comments on behalf of Fairfield Estate in respect of E47 – Proposed

Jetty Obligations as at 21 November 2011 FE6.1 Comments on behalf of Fairfield Estate in respect of E56 – Bilateral

Agreement as at 23 November 2011 FE7 Comments on behalf of Fairfield Estate in respect of Draft HEO as at

22 November 2011 FE8 OS plan of the viewpoints for the Inspector’s site visit FE9 Extracts from The Associated British Ports (Hull) Harbour Revision

Order 2006 FE10 Additional comments from Fairfield Estate regarding Marine Licence,

Harbour Empowerment Order and requested clarification of FE6.1 FE11 Comments on E56.2 FE12 Closing submissions

STOGURSEY PARISH COUNCIL SPC1 Statement of Case of Stogursey Parish Council SPC2 Proof of Evidence of Stogursey Parish Council SPC3 Opening statement SPC4 Evidence in chief of Stogursey Parish Council SPC5 Comments on Obligations by Stogursey Parish Council SPC6 Email from Peter Malim, Stogursey Parish Council to the Programme

Officer dated 25 November 2011 commenting on E56, as modified by E57

SPC7 Email from Peter Malim, Stogursey Parish Council to the Programme Officer dated 25 November 2011 commenting on E50.1

SPC8 Closing submissions (submitted as SPC6)

STOP HINKLEY CAMPAIGN SHC1 Statement of Case of Stop Hinkley Campaign SHC2 Proof of Evidence of Stop Hinkley Campaign SHC3 Summary Proof of Evidence of Stop Hinkley Campaign SHC4 Closing submissions

ALLAN JEFFERY AJ1 Statement of Case of Allan Jeffrey AJ2 Proof of Evidence of Allan Jeffrey AJ3 Newspaper article from the Bridgwater Mercury, 8 November 2011

CECILY COLLINGRIDGE CC1 Statement of Case of Cecily Collingridge CC2 Proof of Evidence of Cecily Collingridge CC3 Summary Proof of Evidence of Cecily Collingridge



CC4 Appendices to Proof of Evidence of Cecily Collingridge (included within CC3)

CC5 Rebuttal Proof of Evidence to E13.1, Commentary on Wider Radiological issues raised; by Richard Wakeford

CC6 Rebuttal Proof of Evidence to E13, Proof of Evidence on Radiological Inspections and Impacts by Jeremy Western

CC7 Letter dated 16 September from Cecily Collingridge to the Inspector CC8 Email dated 21 November from Cecily Collingridge regarding the

Inspector’s site visit to Burnham-on-Sea CC9.1 EDF convicted on spying charges, 14 November 2011 CC9.2 Extracts from Safegrounds Good practice guidance for site

characterisation CIRIA W30 2009 CC9.3 Radiological Aspects of Uranium Contamination by Fertilizing CC9.4 French nuclear firm admits uranium leaks at two plants CC9.5 IPPNW Germany Press Release, November 11 2011 CC9.6 Extracts from IAEA Report 2003, Spent Fuel Performance

Assessment and Research

BRIDGWATER BAY WILDFOWLERS ASSOCIATION BBWA1 Copy of email from Natural England to Stuart Hill dated 3 October

2011 BBWA2 Proof of evidence and closing submissions of the Bridgwater Bay

Wildfowlers Association

LOCAL RESIDENTS ATT1 Statement by Katy Attwater FLA1 Statement by Lesley Flash OAT1 Statement by Barbara Oates SCAG1 Statement by Alex Reed for Save Cannington Action Group

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS CR08.1 Written representation by Dr John White RYAW Written representation by the Royal Yachting Association

GLOSSARY

AOD Above Ordnance Datum

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

AOSI Area of Outstanding Scenic Interest

BA Bilateral Agreement

BDAE Built Development Area East

BDAW Built Development Area West

COMARE Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment

DCO Development Consent Order



Dentition a physical barrier to halt the preferential weathering of softer rock strata, whilst offering support to overlying rock to resist toppling failure (FE10 p11)

DU Depleted Uranium

EA Environment Agency

EDF EDF Energy

ES Environmental Statement

ESA Environmental Statement Addendum

EU Enriched Uranium

FE Fairfield Estate

FEPA Food and Environment Protection Act 1985

Fn Footnote

HEO Harbour Empowerment Order

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle (defined in condition 45 in E54.2 and E56.2.1)

HPA Hinkley Point nuclear power station A (next to the proposed HPC)

HPB Hinkley Point nuclear power station B, east of HPA

HPC Hinkley Point “C” proposed nuclear power station

HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment

HRO Harbour Revision Order

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

IPC Infrastructure Planning Commission

IROPI Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest test, Habitats Regs

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging

LIR Local Impact Report

LPA Local Planning Authority

LVA Landscape and Visual Amenity

LVIA Landscape and visual impact assesment

MHWS Mean High Water Spring

MMO Marine Management Organisation

mm/s millimetres per second (ppv)

mSv/y millisieverts (10-3 Sv) per year. A Sievert is a unit of equivalent dose, which is an overall measure of the risk of cancer and of hereditary



effects for germ cells developing in the human tissue in which the radiation energy is deposited.

mt million tonnes

NE Natural England

NLCA National Landscape Character Area

NNR National Nature Reserve

NPS National Policy Statement

NSIP Nationally significant infrastructure project

p paragraph

pg page

ppv peak particle velocity

PRoW Public Right(s) of Way

RCLEA Radioactively Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment

RYA Royal Yachting Association

SAC Special Area of Conservation under the European Habitats Directive

SCC Somerset County Council

SDC Sedgemoor District Council

SHC Stop Hinkley Campaign

SoCG Statement of Common Ground

SPA Special Protection Area under the Birds Directive

SPC Stogursey Parish Council

SPD Supplementary Planning Document

SPW Site Preparation Works

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

Stochastic Stochastic health effects are the result of a loss of proper control of the cell caused by DNA damage and an alteration of the normal functioning of the cell that is not detected and dealt with by the body’s defence mechanisms.

TCPA Town and Country Planning Act 1990

TWAO Transport and Works Act Order

WSC West Somerset Council

1964 Act Harbours Act 1964