January 2009

Public Consultation Statement

EDF: Plans for New Nuclear Development at Hinkley Point

© PPS (Local & Regional) Limited 2009 This document is protected by copyright in the UK and in other countries. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced in any form without the prior consent of PPS (Local & Regional) Limited. PPS (Local & Regional) Limited fully reserves all its legal rights and remedies in respect of any infringement of its copyright.

Contents

1. Foreword from EDF...... 1 2. Introduction ...... 3 i Context of the Consultation...... 3 3. Importance of Public Consultation ...... 5 i The Planning Process for New Nuclear Power Stations ...... 5 ii Central Government Guidance...... 5 iii West Somerset Council’s Statement of Community Involvement...... 6 iv Sedgemoor District Council’s Statement of Community Involvement...... 8 v EDF’s Commitment ...... 10 4. Methodology...... 11 i Purpose of Consultation...... 11 ii Geographic Coverage...... 12 iii PPS’s Seven-Point Plan...... 13 iv Co-ordination with British Energy’s Plans ...... 13 5. Consultation Programme ...... 15 i Timetable ...... 15 ii Public Consultation Stakeholder Management...... 15 iii Project Website ...... 16 iv Freephone and Freepost ...... 16 v Newsletters ...... 16 vi Media ...... 18 vii Public Exhibitions...... 18 viii British Energy Public Meetings...... 20 ix Stakeholder Workshops...... 20 x Stakeholder Meetings ...... 22 6. Results of Public Consultation...... 23 i Project Website ...... 23 ii Questionnaires ...... 23 iii Comments/Enquiry Forms...... 28 iv Stakeholder Workshops...... 29 7. Response to Public Consultation ...... 31 8. Conclusion...... 48 Appendix 1 – Key Stakeholders...... 50 Appendix 2 – Sample Media Coverage ...... 51 Appendix 3 – Questionnaire and Enquiry Form ...... 53 Appendix 4 – Workshop Reports...... 58 Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Meeting Reports...... 75

1. Foreword from EDF

EDF acquired land adjacent to the existing power stations at Hinkley Point because it sees the site as a suitable location for the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations to help provide Britain with a future stable source of low carbon electricity.

EDF’s original intention was to pursue plans for a single new European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) on it site at Hinkley Point. However, the site was purchased prior to its acquisition of British Energy, which completed on 5th January 2009.

Adjacent to the land acquired by EDF is the Hinkley Point ‘C’ site, recently proposed by British Energy as a possible site for a new nuclear power station. EDF’s intention, following the acquisition of British Energy, is to build two new EPRs at Hinkley Point on the combined sites if the appropriate consents are received.

EDF already had an extensive customer base and employed around 2,000 people in the South West of England prior to the takeover of British Energy. However, as a newcomer to Hinkley Point, the Company was keen to understand the key issues and concerns that the local community has about the possible provision of new nuclear power at Hinkley Point.

EDF retained PPS, who specialise in organising and managing community consultation on major development proposals, to handle initial public consultation on its plans for Hinkley Point. The PPS team, based in Bristol, managed the public consultation and have produced this report.

The consultation was undertaken during the last quarter of 2008 when EDF and British Energy were separate companies and EDF was proposing a single new power station on its land. PPS’s report deals comprehensively with the methodology and programme of consultation undertaken, the views expressed by the general public and key community stakeholders, and EDF’s preliminary response to the issues that have emerged.

EDF sees this as the first stage of a process of ongoing community engagement throughout the planning and development process. A good start has been made in developing a positive and productive relationship with the local community and key local stakeholders but much work still remains to be done.

1

The integration with British Energy makes it even more important for EDF to build on the relationships developed over the last three months and ensure that the local community is fully engaged with, and regularly consulted on, its plans for new nuclear build at Hinkley Point as these evolve in the coming months and years.

Richard Mayson External Affairs Director, EDF Development Company

2

2. Introduction

i Context of the Consultation

PPS South West, which specialises in community consultation on major planning proposals, was appointed by EDF Development Company Ltd (EDF) to undertake a programme of public consultation. The consultation programme was designed to support both the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping consultation and the Strategic Siting Assessment (SSA) nomination process for development of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, Somerset.

The consultation programme was discussed with officers of West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils at a meeting on 17th September 2008 where the broad principles of the developer’s proposed public consultation strategy and programme were agreed.

As the principal local planning authorities that may be required to consider future proposals for new nuclear provision at Hinkley Point, EDF was keen to ensure that the two Councils were happy that the nature and scope of the consultation was appropriate for this stage in the planning process.

At the September meeting, both Councils made the point that EDF should endeavour to co-ordinate its consultation activities with those of British Energy, which was also planning a new nuclear power station on land it owns at Hinkley Point. The Councils were concerned that two entirely separate public consultation exercises, on broadly the same subject, could lead to public confusion.

The EDF team agreed to speak to British Energy to try to co-ordinate consultation events and ensure that a consistent message was delivered to the general public. Subsequent to this meeting, in September 2008, EDF made a formal offer to acquire British Energy. During the period in which this consultation was carried out, this deal was still subject to shareholder and regulatory approval.

At the time of implementation of the consultation programme, EDF and British Energy remained separate and competing companies. The consultation undertaken was therefore an EDF branded programme, separate from though co-ordinated with, the consultation undertaken by British Energy over the same period.

This Public Consultation Statement provides: relevant background on current national and local policy and advice on developer-led public consultation; the methodology and approach of the consultation programme; the results of the public consultation and EDF’s response to the main issues raised during the consultation.

3

The objectives of the consultation strategy and programme were as follows:

· To meet the condition for the nomination of sites for new nuclear power stations under the Government’s proposed Strategic Site Assessment (SSA) process, which requires the nominator to demonstrate that steps have been taken to engage local communities living in the vicinity of the site and to inform them of the intention to nominate the site in the SSA nomination process.

· To inform the scoping process for the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), which would need to be carried out for the development.

· To devise a programme which met the requirements for developer-led pre application public consultation on major schemes as set out in both West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils’ Statements of Community Involvement (SCIs).

· To ensure, as far as is practicable, that EDF’s consultation programme at Hinkley Point was co-ordinated with any similar activities undertaken by British Energy to minimise any confusion within the local community.

· Where possible, to reflect the views of key stakeholders and the local community in the SSA and EIA scoping consultation.

· To inform the subsequent planning decision-making process in the event that an application for development consent comes forward in due course from EDF for new nuclear build at Hinkley Point.

4

3. Importance of Public Consultation

i The Planning Process for New Nuclear Power Stations

The Planning Act 2008, which recently received Royal Assent, hands responsibility for determining major infrastructure applications in England, such as nuclear power stations, to a new body, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). Development consents will be determined by the IPC in line with National Policy Statements (NPS) prepared by the Government and scrutinised by Parliament. Local planning authorities and relevant statutory agencies will be consulted and developers will also be required to undertake extensive public consultation on their plans.

In the case of the nuclear industry, the Government is proposing a specific Nuclear NPS that will include a list of sites which it considers are strategically suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025. The process of identifying such sites is the Strategic Siting Assessment (SSA) and, in July 2008, the Government issued a consultation document on the SSA process, requesting comments from interested parties by 11th November 2008. 1

If Hinkley Point is included as a suitable site for the deployment of new nuclear power stations in the Government’s SSA, this will clear the way for submission of applications for development consent and their subsequent determination by the IPC. In this event, EDF will follow the new regime in the Planning Act 2008 and submit its application to the IPC.

EDF is now engaging the local community and stakeholders on its decision to nominate a site at Hinkley Point for a new nuclear power station under the SSA process, and on the scoping of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to accompany any subsequent application for this development. ii Central Government Guidance

The Planning Act 2008 imposes a duty on developers of major infrastructure proposals, such as nuclear power stations, to undertake public consultation prior to the submission of applications for development consent.

The Act requires the developer to:

· Prepare a statement setting out how the applicant proposes to consult people living in the vicinity of the site.

1 Towards a Nuclear National Policy Statement: Consultation on the Strategic Siting Assessment Process and Siting Criteria for New Nuclear Power Stations in the UK, Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, July 2008. 5

· Consult the relevant local authorities about what is to be in this statement.

· Have regard to comments from the local authorities and advice given by the Secretary of State or the Commission.

· Publicise the consultation process locally.

· Carry out the consultation in accordance with the proposals set out in the statement.

· Have regard to the responses to the consultation process when submitting final plans.

Although the Act was not in force when EDF’s public consultation programme was carried out, PPS took the view that EDF should undertake public consultation in relation to the SSA and EIA scoping for Hinkley Point broadly in accordance with these provisions.

The Government has made it very clear that increased community involvement in the planning system is one of the key objectives of its recent reforms of the planning system in England. The Planning Act 2008 makes pre-application public consultation by developers of major infrastructure projects mandatory.

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 also made it compulsory for local planning authorities to consult on and adopt a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) explaining how the local authority intends to engage and consult with communities and stakeholders on planning and development. SCIs are required to outline how the local authority expects applicants to consult with local communities on major development proposals prior to the submission of a planning application. Although developer-led pre application consultation on major schemes is not a statutory requirement under this Act, Ministers have made it clear in statements and guidance (including Planning Policy Statements 1 and 12) that such consultation is strongly encouraged and represents ‘best practice’.

Although proposals for new nuclear facilities at Hinkley Point will not be determined under the town and country planning process to which the 2004 Act relates, PPS believed that it was appropriate for EDF to have regard to the SCIs of the relevant local planning authorities in designing its public consultation programme, particularly in view of the provisions set out in the Planning Act 2008. iii West Somerset Council’s Statement of Community Involvement

West Somerset Council’s submission version of its Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), published in July 2006, sets out the Council’s core values in relation to community involvement. These are that community involvement should be:

1. Open - easy to understand.

2. Transparent – with clear reasoning on policy or development proposals.

6

3. Fair – all views and comments are given due consideration.

4. Inclusive – all local community and stakeholders offered consultation.

5. Accessible – available to everyone regardless of ability, age or location.

The SCI encourages developers to undertake pre-application public consultation and explains that:

“…the Council encourages early discussion with developers to consider the benefits of community involvement and potential methods of consultation.” [Paragraph 9.4]

“…once the developer has a firm proposal, consultation with the local community and stakeholders is encouraged.” [Paragraph 9.7]

In terms of types of planning application that the Council considers should be subject to wider community involvement, the SCI defines three categories of applications (levels 1 to 3) and suggests a different scale of consultation in each case. The highest category of application is level 1 and the SCI specifically identifies applications requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment as falling into this category. New power stations are specifically mentioned as an example of a level 1 application and therefore require the most extensive form of pre-application public consultation.

The SCI provides a consultation matrix that recommends different methods of public consultation appropriate to different levels of application. For level 1 applications the SCI lists the following methods of consultation:

· Public meetings

· Public exhibition

· Citizens panels

· Website

· Local architectural or design panel

· Parish councils

· Media

· Surgeries

· Enquiry by Design/Planning for Real

· Planning aid

· Consultation panel

· Development briefs.

However, the SCI also makes it clear that: 7

“Not all of the methods, as identified per tier, need to be undertaken. Discussion between the Council and the developer will help to decide the most appropriate consultation”. [Paragraph 9.15]

Finally, the SCI makes it clear that the developer should ensure that:

“The results of the pre-application consultation should be reported, in the form of a consultation summary, with the planning application. [Paragraph 9.20]

Although EDF is not, at this stage, proposing to submit a planning application for new nuclear facilities at Hinkley Point it was considered appropriate that public consultation in respect of the SSA and EIA scoping should be conducted broadly in accordance with West Somerset Council’s SCI. iv Sedgemoor District Council’s Statement of Community Involvement

The Hinkley Point site lies wholly within the boundaries of West Somerset Council. However, much of the effect of any development in terms of transportation, environmental and socio-economic impacts will fall on the neighbouring district of Sedgemoor. The nearest substantial settlement to Hinkley Point, Cannington, falls within Sedgemoor District as does the nearest large town, Bridgwater.

Furthermore, West Somerset Council and Sedgemoor District Council are working closely together in terms of the future of the Hinkley Point site and wish to ensure that public consultation is undertaken across both local authority areas.

It is therefore also relevant to consider the provisions of Sedgemoor District Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), which was adopted in April 2007. Much of the material and advice in Sedgemoor’s SCI is similar to, or consistent with, that set out in West Somerset’s SCI.

Sedgemoor District Council has a consultation policy statement that states:

“We will work with the people within Sedgemoor to ensure the actions of the Council reflect the needs and wishes of the wider community”. [Paragraph 5.1]

The SCI is clear about the need for developer-led pre application public consultation:

“…applicants will be encouraged to undertake early discussions with the community before major applications that propose significant development proposals are submitted”. [Paragraph 8.5]

As with West Somerset, Sedgemoor’s SCI attempts to define different levels of engagement for different types of application:

8

“Therefore, for very large or controversial applications, as described in Tier Level 1 below, the Council will encourage developers to carry out an extensive consultation exercise with the public.” [Paragraph 8.7]

Level 1 applications include those that require an Environmental Impact Assessment or Transportation Assessment.

Sedgemoor District Council also has a consultation matrix that suggests various methods of consultation for a level 1 application as follows:

· Public meetings

· Public exhibition

· Development briefs

· Workshops

· Enquiry by Design

· Planning for Real

· Town and Parish Councils

· Media

· Website

· Planning Aid.

This list is similar, though not identical, to West Somerset Council’s consultation matrix.

The SCI also stresses that:

“It is important to recognise that the level of consultation for each individual proposal will be deemed appropriate through discussions carried out with the Council and the applicants, and may not always follow the tiered approach set out for guidance above”. [Paragraph 8.8]

The SCI makes specific reference to the need for developers to use a mix of consultation techniques that ensure there are proper opportunities for ‘hard to reach’ groups to participate in the process:

“Consultation methods should be carefully chosen to make sure that people with certain lifestyle factors are able to take part if they want to. Care should be taken so these groups or individuals are not always left out because only a narrow range of consultation methods are used”. [Paragraph 4.21]

As with West Somerset Council, Sedgemoor’s SCI states that:

9

“Where pre-submission consultation has taken place the applicant will be required to prepare a planning statement, to be submitted with the planning application, dealing with how the community have been involved in the proposals. This should include:

o A summary of the consultation response obtained from the community.

o A list of all respondents to pre-submission consultations (to ensure the Council notify all interested parties of the submission of the application).” [Paragraph 8.13]

Sedgemoor District Council’s SCI has been taken into account, alongside West Somerset Council’s own document, in the detailed design of the consultation programme. v EDF’s Commitment

EDF fully recognises the importance of this site to the future of local communities in West Somerset, Sedgemoor and beyond. In a leaflet circulated to all households in the parishes closest to Hinkley Point in August 2008, EDF stated that:

“…we will be consulting a full range of statutory and non-statutory consultees as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping process in autumn 2008. This will be followed by public exhibitions that will provide an opportunity for everyone to contribute to this work.

“Any decision on whether there will be new nuclear build at Hinkley Point will follow a significant period of public consultation, first through the Government’s Strategic Siting Assessment later this year and also as part of the planning applications related to the site.”

Although this public consultation is at a very early stage in the pre-application process for the development of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, both PPS and EDF took the view that the programme should be designed to comply with the advice to developers set out in both West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils SCIs and the provisions set out in the Government’s Planning Act 2008.

10

4. Methodology

i Purpose of Consultation

It was important from the outset to define clearly the purpose of the consultation process, particularly as no planning application has been submitted.

Government documents relating to the Strategic Site Assessment (SSA) process include a condition that EDF must be able to demonstrate it has taken steps to engage the local community as part of the nomination process2.

The SSA consultation document does not lay down any requirements for the form of public engagement to be undertaken and EDF could not delay carrying out the exercise pending further clarification as the final guidance was not due to be published until the SSA nomination process opened. In the absence of detailed guidance, PPS advised that the consultation should be undertaken in accordance with “best practice”.

As EDF is planning to nominate its site at Hinkley Point, it was considered that the consultation should focus on three key questions:

1. What are the key issues that will need to be considered by EDF in its nomination of its Hinkley Point site for a new nuclear power station based around the draft criteria set out by the Government: nuclear safety; environmental protection; societal issues; operational requirements; and key local issues?

2. How can the socio-economic benefits of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point be maximised for the local community?

3. What local and site-specific issues should be considered by an Environmental Impact Assessment to accompany any future planning application?

The consultation was aimed at members of the public likely to be directly and indirectly affected by the development of new nuclear facilities at Hinkley Point. However, it also covered key statutory and non-statutory stakeholders including: elected local representatives; community groups; business organisations; regional agencies; and national agencies. A list of the categories of key stakeholders consulted is included at Appendix 1 of this document.

2 See BERR’s “Consultation on the Strategic Siting Assessment Process and Siting Criteria for New Nuclear Power Stations in the UK, published in July 2008. 11

ii Geographic Coverage

Deciding on the geographic scope of the public consultation on the future of nuclear build at Hinkley Point is not an exact science. At the time this consultation process was designed, no detailed advice was available from either central or local government about the geographic scope of the consultation.

PPS recommended to EDF that there should be three geographic tiers of consultation based on distance from the Hinkley Point site with different degrees of public consultation within each of these areas. These areas were defined, in relation to the site, as follows:

· Immediate proximity: locations within approximately a 5-mile radius of Hinkley Point where the development will have the greatest effect and where public consultation should be extensive. PPS defined this area as covering the following parishes in West Somerset: Holford; Kilve; Stogursey; and Stringston - and in Sedgemoor: Fiddington; Nether Stowey; Otterhampton; and Stockland Bristol. Each household within this area was informed about the consultation process directly via information sent through the post and there were extensive opportunities for people to attend local exhibitions in venues near to their homes. Full stakeholder consultation was also undertaken within this area.

· Close Proximity: areas within a 10 mile radius of Hinkley Point, where issues such as transportation, environmental factors and socio economic effects will be important. These areas include settlements such as: Cannington, Bridgwater, Burnham, Watchet and Williton. Comprehensive public consultation was undertaken in these areas with residents being informed about the process through newsletter distribution via local newspapers, media advertising and with public exhibitions in the major centres. Full stakeholder consultation was also undertaken within this area.

· Further Afield: areas within a 15-mile radius of Hinkley Point where there could be long- distance effects including, for example, visual appearance (n.b. for example, from the South Wales coast and Exmoor National Park) or socio-economic impacts arising from job/training opportunities. The major settlements within this radius include: Minehead; Taunton; Weston-super-Mare; and Barry, South Wales. Predominately stakeholder consultation was undertaken within this wider area with stakeholder/public workshops in all of the key centres referred to above.

12

It is PPS’s understanding that an Environmental Impact Assessment for a new nuclear power station would normally be expected to cover impacts within approximately a 10-mile radius of the site. In the case of new nuclear build at Hinkley Point it was felt prudent to extend the consultation to a maximum 15-mile radius from the site. In PPS’s view, this was justified by the fact that the existing facilities at Hinkley Point already have visual and socio-economic effects on towns within the 15-mile radius. iii PPS’s Seven-Point Plan

The methodology adopted for the consultation was based on PPS’s seven-point plan for effective consultation, which has been employed successfully across the UK on a wide variety of development proposals.

The plan is as follows:

· Notify stakeholders and local people that they are to be consulted.

· Inform them about what they are to be consulted on. In particular they need to know about the constraints – planning, geographical, technical, financial etc.

· Consult people using methods designed to go beyond the “usual suspects”.

· Measure the views received.

· Report the outcomes back to the local community.

· Respond by amending the proposals where appropriate.

· Publish details of amendments that have been made and, where changes are not possible, explain why.

PPS felt that this 7-point methodology would ensure that the consultation programme complied with the consultation criteria outlined by the Government in the Planning Act as well as the SCIs of the two relevant local planning authorities. iv Co-ordination with British Energy’s Plans

West Somerset and Sedgemoor District Councils were concerned about the potential for overlap and confusion between public consultation programmes being undertaken by both EDF and British Energy in relation to potential new nuclear build at Hinkley Point. The potential for confusion was further enhanced by EDF’s proposed takeover of British Energy.

13

As a result, EDF and PPS met with British Energy and its advisers to try to co-ordinate the various public consultation events planned by each party. An agreement was reached that both EDF and British Energy should attend each other’s consultation events and that the number of meetings and exhibitions planned by each side would be reduced to minimise geographic overlaps.

14

5. Consultation Programme

i Timetable

The timing of the public consultation programme was determined by the Government’s current consultation on the Strategic Siting Assessment (SSA) process for new nuclear power stations in the UK and EDF’s own development timetable.

The deadline for responses to this consultation document was 11th November 2008 and the Government is expected to publish the final nomination procedure and invite nominations for potential sites for new nuclear power stations early in 2009.

EDF therefore needed to complete the public consultation on the SSA and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping by the end of 2008 so it would be able to decide, following consultation, whether or not to nominate Hinkley Point for a new nuclear power station. The main public consultation events were therefore planned predominantly during October and November 2008.

The scope of the programme and the various consultation tools that PPS used are described in more detail in this chapter. ii Public Consultation Stakeholder Management

A stakeholder and public consultation management system, known as TractivityÔ, has been used to manage responses to the consultation process.

Tractivity is a web-based system that deals with enquiry management, stakeholder relationship management, data collection, mapping and reporting. Members of the public or stakeholders making enquiries about EDF’s plans or completing a questionnaire to record their views are entered into a database.

The system tracks all enquiries made, responses from the EDF project team, categorises the views of respondents and provides comprehensive reports on the outcome of the public consultation process, for example by quantifying key issues raised and/or the geographical location of respondents and their ages.

The Tractivity system has been used in the preparation of this Public Consultation Statement to document the process and could be used, subsequently, in further consultation at different stages of the planning process.

15

iii Project Website A dedicated website was established –

www.edfconsultation.info - to inform the public

consultation process, enable the public and stakeholders to respond online to the consultation and to provide a repository of information about the project. It is anticipated that this website will be used throughout the

planning and development process if required.

Members of the public participating in the consultation process have had the opportunity to view exhibition material on-line, fill in a questionnaire and return it online as well as email PPS and the EDF project team via the website. iv Freephone and Freepost

PPS is aware of the need to make the public consultation process as inclusive as possible by providing opportunities for ‘hard to reach’ groups to participate and make their views known.

A freephone ‘hotline’ has been made available to answer queries from the general public and record their views, as well as a freepost address. Both the ‘consultation hotline’ and the freepost address are directed to PPS’s office in Bristol so enabling queries from these routes to be recorded, captured and entered into the Tractivity database.

The freephone number used is 0800 169 6507 and the address, ‘Freepost Consultation Response’ (no further address or stamp required). v Newsletters

In order to ensure comprehensive coverage of the consultation programme and its outcomes, two newsletters were circulated widely within the affected local communities.

The newsletters were distributed as follows:

· By post to all households within an approximately 5-mile radius of Hinkley Point covering the relevant parishes in both West Somerset and Sedgemoor (see section 4ii above).

· With free newspapers or via solus distribution in the key centres of population between a 5 and 10-mile radius of Hinkley Point. This included: Bridgwater; Burnham; Cannington; Watchet; and Williton.

16

· To all stakeholders within a 10 to 15-mile radius of Hinkley Point, with additional copies of the first newsletter advertising the public exhibitions also being sent to some of the main public libraries and council offices for public display.

The first newsletter was distributed at the start of the process to inform the public and stakeholders and provided the following information:

· About EDF

· The purpose of the consultation

· Details on the site

· Proposed timeline

· The national position

· Key consultation issues: community; Strategic Site Assessment; national criteria, local criteria and Environmental Impact Assessment.

· Footpaths on site

· Details of the public consultation and how to ‘have your say’

· Update on EDF and British Energy and details of British Energy’s consultation events

· Details of how to contact the project team and comment on EDF’s plans.

The second newsletter, at the end of the consultation process, highlighted the results of the public consultation and provided the following information:

· Details on the results of the consultation

· Information about the office EDF that will open in Bridgwater in 2009

· Analysis of the questionnaire results

· Key issues and EDF’s initial response

· Update on site investigation

· Project timeline

· Update on EDF and British Energy 17

· Details of how to contact the project team and comment on EDF’s plans.

Copies of the newsletters were also available to download from the website. vi Media

The local press played a key role in launching the consultation process and advertising the exhibitions. A press statement was drafted and distributed to regional and local media outlets on 13 October 2008. Arrangements were also made with both BBC and ITV West to visit the site and interview Simon Dunford, EDF’s Hinkley Point project manager, on the 13 and 14 October 2008 and numerous articles appeared in the local and regional press as a result of this initial press release.

Several local journalists attended some of the EDF exhibitions and were given briefings and interviews by Simon Dunford and other members of the EDF team. Once the exhibitions were completed, a press statement was distributed on 19 November 2008 giving details of the initial results and feedback from local people. Copies of key press articles generated throughout the consultation period can be found in Appendix 2.

In addition, the main public consultation events were advertised in local newspapers as follows:

· Bridgwater Mercury, 28 October 2008

· Bridgwater Star, 28 October 2008

· Burnham and Highbridge Weekly News, 29 October 2008

· Somerset County Gazette, 30 October 2008

· Bridgwater Times, 30 October 2008

· West Somerset Free Press, 31 October 2008 vii Public Exhibitions

The centrepiece of the consultation programme was a series of public exhibitions held as follows:

18

Times Date Location

Midday to 8pm Thursday, 6 November 2008 The Princess, Burnham-on-Sea

10am to 4pm Saturday, 8 November 2008 Danesfield Church of England School, Williton

2pm to 8pm Wednesday, 12 November 2008 Victory Hall, Stogursey

10am to 4pm Saturday, 15 November 2008 Bridgwater Town Hall, Bridgwater

Members of the EDF project team, as well as representatives from PPS staffed all exhibitions. Representatives of BE were also present at all events and had their own display and literature at these events.

Approximately 275 people attended the x5 public exhibitions. Members of the public were able to view a series of exhibition boards providing the following information:

· Board One: Meeting our energy challenges

· Board Two: EDF and Hinkley Point

· Board Three: EDF’s Hinkley Point site

· Board Four: Public consultation

· Board Five: What we are consulting on

· Board Six: The technology

· Board Seven: Safety and security

· Board Eight: Managing waste

· Board Nine: Key local issues and benefits

· Board Ten: Proposed timeline

· Board Eleven: Have your say

The exhibition boards were also available to download from the project website from 6 November 2008.

19

A questionnaire and enquiry form was provided to enable visitors to record their views (see Appendix 3). Visitors were able to enter their comments directly into the Tractivity system using a computer terminal available at the exhibition. Alternatively they could fill out a questionnaire by hand at the exhibition and put it in a comment box or take a questionnaire home with them and return it subsequently via the freepost facility. The questionnaire and enquiry form were also available to complete online from the website. viii British Energy Public Meetings

As part of the agreement between EDF and British Energy to co-ordinate their respective consultation events, EDF was represented at each of the five public meetings organised by British Energy to publicise its plans for Hinkley Point. These meetings were held at Nether Stowey; Cannington; Bridgwater; Combwich; and Storgursey.

EDF provided limited exhibition display material (exhibition boards two, three and four – see above) and some written material at these events, which were also staffed by EDF and other members of the project team including representatives from AMEC and PPS. An EDF representative made a brief presentation on the company’s plans for Hinkley Point at each of these meetings. ix Stakeholder Workshops

In addition to the public exhibitions and attendance at the British Energy meetings, a series of EDF stakeholder workshops was organised. EDF representatives and members of the project team from AMEC and PPS attended these events.

The workshops allowed more detailed discussion of some of the key issues of interest to stakeholders, and enabled preliminary results of the public exhibitions to be reported and considered. They also provide a qualitative response to the proposals that supplemented the quantitative response received through the questionnaires.

Each workshop agenda was broadly as follows:

Approximate Timing Activity 6.30pm - 6.35pm Facilitator explained workshop objectives, process and timetable: · EDF/BE and project team members present · EDF/BE proposed takeover & what this means for HP · What the consultation is about? · Public consultation undertaken so far · Purpose and structure of workshop. 6.35pm - 6.45pm Warm up exercise: facilitator asked participants to put on their ‘post it’ notes benefits and problems they felt that the existing Hinkley Point power

20

stations had brought to the local community. They were then asked to come up to the front and stick their ‘post it’s’ onto flip chart page marked “Benefits” and “Problems”.

Facilitator highlighted key themes and invited brief discussion/comment. 6.45pm – 7.00pm Presentation: on EDF’s Hinkley Point site and current plans (including EIA Scoping/SSA nomination) and results of the public consultation process so far. Followed by question and answer session.

7.00pm - 7.45pm Breakout into work groups: attendees divided up randomly to discuss key issues highlighted during the exhibitions –

· Environment to include: visual impact; wildlife; effect on Estuary; emissions; waste management; footpaths; health & safety; security; landscaping, etc.

· Transportation to include: construction traffic; sea; rail; roads; Green Travel Plan; measures to reduce the traffic impact on local communities

· Infrastructure to include: roads; wharves; education & training facilities; accommodation for construction workers; and other community facilities

· Community to include: maximising local job opportunities; maximising spin off economic benefits for local firms; ensuring adequate local skills base; support for community projects/facilities; visitors’ centre; and mechanisms for ongoing community consultation

7.45pm - 8.25pm Work groups report findings: spokesperson from each of the groups reported back briefly on the key findings of their group. After each presentation there was an opportunity for all workshop participants to comment upon and discuss the findings of each of the subject groups.

8.25pm – 8.35pm Workshop summary: facilitator summarised key findings followed by questions and further discussion before workshop closed.

21

Workshops were held in Cannington, Taunton, Weston-super-Mare and Minehead in late November/early December 2008. A workshop was planned for Barry (South Wales) but due to low attendance the format was amended so this event became a briefing and discussion meeting offering local stakeholders the opportunity to give their views on future plans for Hinkley Point. Most of these locations were within the 10 to 15-mile radius of Hinkley Point and so allowed stakeholders from further afield to participate in the consultation process.

The outcome of these workshops is described in chapter 6 below and detailed reports on each is shown in Appendix 4. x Stakeholder Meetings

A programme of meetings with key statutory and non-statutory stakeholders likely to have a detailed interest in the development of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point was undertaken.

The programme started with an invitation to key stakeholders to a visit to the EDF Hinkley Point site in October. Those key stakeholders unable to attend the site visit were subsequently offered the opportunity of meeting separately.

Meetings held from October to December 2008 included:

Date Group/organisation

14 October 2008 Meeting with Stogursey Parish Council

24 October 2008 Site visit for key local stakeholders including local ward members and representative from Stogursey Parish Council, West Somerset Council, Sedgmoor District Council and Somerset County Council

8 November 2008 Meeting with Williton Parish Council

14 November 2008 Meeting with Cannington Parish Council

24 November 2008 Meeting with Bridgwater College, Cannington

1 December 2008 Meeting with West Hinkley Action Group

This is the start of a meeting programme that will continue throughout the consultation process for Hinkley Point and additional dates have already been put in the diary for EDF to meet with Taunton Deane Borough Council, Wembdon Parish Council, Somerset Economic Leaders Group and South West Chambers of Commerce during 2009.

Detailed reports on the stakeholder meetings held to date are shown in Appendix 5. 22

6. Results of Public Consultation

i Project Website

The Hinkley Point consultation website went live on 13 October 2008.

From the 13 October until the 8 December 2008, 325 unique users visited the site, with the average person viewing over five pages and staying online for approximately 4 minutes each visit.

Of those logging onto the site, 63% logged directly onto the Hinkley Point consultation pages, 21% logged on through the consultation portal point and 10% logged on through Google.

The website had been extensively advertised through the newsletters distributed in the local community, via media coverage and advertising, and at the various public exhibitions and meetings. The level of traffic on the website can therefore be considered modest, given the extensive advertising, but probably reflects the relatively low level of public interest in the consultation exercise that was apparent at other events and forums. ii Questionnaires

The main mechanism for local people and stakeholders to comment on EDF’s plans has been via a questionnaire filled out by visitors at the public exhibitions or by post and online through the project website.

130 questionnaires were completed and submitted as part of the pubic consultation. The analysis of questionnaires in this Public Consultation Statement is based on all those received by 4 December 2008. Any questionnaires received after that date will be considered through EDF’s ongoing consultation on Hinkley Point.

The questionnaire asked local people what they thought about the potential impact and benefits to the local community as well as the wider issues of new nuclear build at Hinkley Point. People were asked to rate the importance of different elements, the key results of which are set out below.

23

Question 1: What importance do you attach to the following potential benefits to local communities from the development of a new nuclear station at Hinkley Point?

Very Important Not That Not Important Don’t Important Important At All Know

Permanent jobs at the new plant 65% 25% 5% 3% 2%

Jobs during the construction 49% 31% 12% 5% 3% phase

Increased trade for local 50% 36% 9% 3% 2% businesses

Improvements to local roads 55% 28% 10% 5% 2%

Better public transport 40% 36% 14% 5% 5%

Training in nuclear skills at local 47% 40% 7% 4% 2% colleges

Support for local community 52% 38% 5% 3% 2% facilities

Regeneration schemes in local 49% 37% 7% 3% 5% communities

The following bar chart shows the issues that were highlighted as being “very important” in descending order of priority:

Permanent jobs

Improvements to local roads Support for local community facilities Increased trade for local businesses Jobs during construction Local regeneration schemes Training in nuclear skills Better public transport

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

24

Question 2: To what extent does EDF need to address the following possible impacts on the local community?

Very Great Some Not A Not At All Don’t Extent Extent Great Know Extent

Health & safety of the surrounding 77% 18% 4% - 1% local communities

Visual effect on surrounding villages 41% 42% 13% 1% 3%

Long distance views from the 33% 37% 26% 1% 3% Quantock Hills

Long distance views from South 12% 27% 37% 20% 4% Wales

Local wildlife and ecology in the site 57% 32% 8% 1% 2%

Traffic on local roads 67% 28% 4% - 1%

The construction process 61% 33% 3% - 3%

Pollution/emissions control from the 79% 14% 5% - 2% plant

Re-routing footpaths and bridleways 35% 47% 12% 4% 2%

The following bar chart shows the issues that respondents felt needed to be addressed to a “very great extent” in descending order of priority:

25

Pollution/emissions control

Health & safety of surrounding communities

Traffic on local roads

The construction process

Local wildlife/ecology

Visual effect on surrounding villages

Rerouting footpaths & bridleways on site

Views from Quantocks

Views from South Wales

0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % % % % % % % % %

Question 3: The Government has set out various factors to be considered in deciding where new nuclear power stations can be located. Which of these do you think are relevant to EDF’s Hinkley Point site?

Very Relevant Not Not Don’t Relevant Particularly Relevant Know Relevant

Risk of earthquake 15% 29% 36% 12% 8%

Risk from flooding 47% 30% 13% 5% 5%

Near existing hazardous industrial 19% 25% 38% 13% 5% facilities

Near site of ecological importance 31% 40% 21% 4% 4%

Close to important heritage sites or 34% 35% 22% 5% 4% areas of landscape value

Size of site for construction and 30% 41% 27% 3% 5% operation of a power station

Close to airport or military flight 24% 27% 32% 12% 5% paths

Availability of cooling for a nuclear 61% 26% 5% 5% 3% reactor

Availability of national grid power 66% 22% 5% 2% 5% lines

26

The following were seen as “very relevant” to EDF’s Hinkley Point site in descending order of priority:

Availability of National Grid power lines

Availability of cooling for nuclear reactor

Risk from flooding

Close to heritage sites/landscape value

Near sites of ecological importance

Size of site for construction and operation

Close to airport/military flight paths

Near existing hazardous industrial facilities

Risk of earthquake

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

In addition to specific questions, people had the opportunity to elaborate on issues of particular interest to them. The key unprompted responses most frequently mentioned by respondents to the questionnaires, in descending order of the number of times mentioned, were as follows:

Issue Number of comments There is a national need for this type of facility 21 It will boost the local economy 13 Section 106 benefits 13 Safety and security 11 Environmental issues 11 Transport 10 Comments on the public consultation 10 Footpaths 9 Education and skills 9 Potential issues relating to the construction process 8 Plant design 8 Nuclear waste 7 Amenity concerns 5 27

Alternative/renewable energy sources 5 It would provide an excellent marketing opportunity for area 4 Infrastructure considerations 4 Will need to be considered in relation to the Severn Barrage 4 Alternative energy sources 4 Coastline/sea level 3 Financial considerations 2 Housing for construction workers 1 Noise 1

As can be seen from these comments, the highest number of general comments on the questionnaires was in support of the need for new nuclear power stations in the UK. There were, however, a number of issues raised which will need to be carefully considered by EDF during the planning process including environmental issues, footpaths, transport etc. iii Comments/Enquiry Forms

In addition to the questionnaire, there was also an online comments/enquiry form that people could fill in to record their views and queries in relations to EDF’s plans for Hinkley Point. Some people also wrote in using the freepost address. 47 additional comments were received in this way.

The key issues most frequently mentioned through the comments/enquiry form and through the freepost address, in descending order of the number of times mentioned, was as follows:

Issue Number of comments Transport 10 Nuclear waste 6 Potential Issues relating to the construction process 5 Section 106 benefits 4 Safety and security 4 Job/work experience queries 4 Financial considerations 3 Information requests 3 Plant design and amenity 3 Comments on the public consultation 3 Recruitment 3 Visitor centre should be re-opened 2 Heat energy produced should be used 2 Footpaths 2 Uranium source 1

28

Special interest group specific 1 There is a national need for this type of facility 1 What grid connection is needed? 1 Alternative energy sources should be considered instead 1 Concerns over a monopoly of EDF in UK 1 Concern over the expertise of decision-makers 1 Flooding risk 1

Similar issues arose through the comments/enquiries form and letters written in to the freepost address but there were also enquires about jobs/work experience and suggestions about the visitor centre. These will also be considered as EDF develops its plans for the Hinkley Point site. iv Stakeholder Workshops

In order to obtain qualitative feedback from stakeholders, a series of workshops were held in Cannington, Taunton, Weston-super-Mare, the Vale of Glamorgan and Minehead. The venues were chosen to allow stakeholders from the wider area the opportunity to view and comment on EDF’s proposals.

Each workshop followed the same format with a warm up exercise, a presentation from EDF on the proposals, feedback on the consultation so far from PPS, breakout groups and presentations back from the participants. The exception was the Vale of Glamorgan, where due to numbers a more general discussion-type meeting was held.

Overall, the attendees at the workshops, welcomed the plans for nuclear new build at Hinkley Point highlighting the following issues as having a real local benefit:

· Creation of new jobs

· Investment in local facilities and infrastructure

· Training opportunities

· Opportunity to become a ‘Centre of Nuclear Excellence’

Whilst all groups felt that improvements to the local infrastructure, particularly during the construction phase, were the single most important issue, opinion was divided on how best this could be achieved.

Unlike people living closer to Hinkley Point, a new road network was not seen to be the only answer to solving this problem. On balance attendees from the groups were more inclined to see a maritime solution as being a more acceptable way of dealing with the construction process.

29

It should be noted however that there were strong views expressed about the need to improve the road network, not just around the site but also in areas to the West and South West of Hinkley Point.

EDF were asked to look at the wider consequences of nuclear new build rather than focus on the five-mile radius around Hinkley Point as expressed at other meetings and exhibitions.

It was also clear however that some of the key issues for communities close to Hinkley Point did not have the same level of importance for those living and working further away from the site.

For example the issue of safety and security was far more of concern for those attending the more distant groups than those who lived closer to the site. Assurance was sought about the level of safety in the event of a possible terrorist attack and more questions were asked about the storage and disposal of waste than had been highlighted at the public exhibitions.

Detailed meeting reports from all five stakeholder workshops are appended to this report and can be viewed in Appendix 4.

30

7. Response to Public Consultation

All the comments received during the public consultation have been reviewed and broken down into key issues. Specific comments/queries under each issue are set out in the table below, along with EDF’s initial response:

Category Comments/Issues EDF’s Initial Response

Traffic/transport Can Combwich Wharf be used EDF is currently undertaking feasibility during the construction phase to studies into using Combwich Wharf. reduce the need to use local roads?

A jetty at Hinkley Point itself EDF is currently considering the feasibility should be considered with of this option and will look in detail at the adequate environmental environmental impacts of any such safeguards. This could be a development. temporary, modular structure.

As much of the construction EDF is concerned to address and ease materials as possible should be the impact on local roads during the brought in by sea. construction phase and is therefore undertaking detailed feasibility studies to consider whether construction materials can be brought in from the sea by marine transport.

Can construction workers be This is also being investigated by EDF, brought in by sea from centres although there are important practical such as Burnham and considerations to be taken into account – Minehead? such as health and safety and how workers could be brought to the site by sea in stormy weather.

Rail should also be used to EDF is investigating the option of bringing bring in construction materials in construction materials by sea. A rail and the possibility of a rail extension from Bridgwater to Hinkley Point extension from Bridgwater to is unlikely to be viable but is being studied Hinkley Point considered. as a potential option.

31

Consider non-car users on road This point will be considered in detail in to Hinkley Point – eg pavement, the Transportation Assessment that will cycle path. form part of the environmental impact assessment studies.

Concern about the amount of EDF is concerned to address and ease traffic on local roads during the the impact of construction traffic on local construction process. roads. This point will therefore be considered in detail in the Transportation Assessment that will form part of the environmental impact assessment studies.

Consideration should be given EDF contractors will be looking specifically to providing buses for workers at the possibility of providing buses for during both the construction workers during construction. Appropriate and operation of the measures to encourage staff to car share, development. use public transport and cycle to work will be considered in the Transportation Assessment.

Footpath access via Benholme EDF is aware of local concerns about the Lane to the sea – if at all footpaths that cross the site. Every effort possible this footpath should be will be made to keep existing footpaths maintained along the boundary open for as long as possible. If and when of the proposed site. development takes place, several footpaths that cross the site will need to close or be diverted. However, the intention is, where possible, to maintain footpaths along the boundaries of the site including a footpath providing access to the coast and the coast path.

32

Footpaths need to be reinstated EDF is aware of local concerns about the and available for the public to footpaths that cross the site. Every effort continue using in the same way will be made to keep existing footpaths they currently do. open for as long as possible. If and when development takes place, several footpaths that cross the site will need to close or be diverted. However, the intention is, where possible, to maintain footpaths along the boundaries of the site including a footpath providing access to the coast and the coast path.

Local roads should be improved EDF is currently undertaking detailed particularly the road from investigations into the amount of Cannington to Hinkley Point operational and construction traffic that is which is subject to flooding in likely to be generated by the development. parts It is possible that some improvements to local roads will be required and this is being considered in detail in the Transportation Assessment. EDF is aware of the existing flooding problem on the Hinkley Point road close to the existing power stations.

There should be a new road link EDF is currently undertaking detailed from Junction 23 of the M5 to investigations into the amount of Cannington to bypass operational and construction traffic that is Bridgwater, which is already likely to be generated by the development. heavily congested. It is possible that some improvements to local roads will be required and this is being considered in detail in the Transportation Assessment.

33

The bypass of Cannington must EDF is aware of the specific concerns of be completed to keep residents in Cannington about existing and construction and operational future traffic travelling to and from Hinkley traffic out of the village. Point. Detailed investigations into the amount of operational and construction traffic that is likely to be generated by the development are currently being undertaken. This will help to determine whether new infrastructure is required in Cannington as a result of the development.

Improvements will be required This is a particular point of concern for to minor roads around residents living close to Hinkley Point in Stogursey and Nether Stowey, the surrounding villages. It is possible which will be used by traffic that some improvements to local roads will travelling from Williton, be required and this is being considered in Minehead and other areas to detail in the Transportation Assessment. the west along the A39 to Hinkley Point.

Prevent construction traffic This is a particular point of concern for using narrow country roads in residents living close to Hinkley Point in the area. the surrounding villages. It is possible that some improvements to local roads will be required and this is being considered in detail in the Transportation Assessment.

A green travel plan should be EDF and its contractors will consider considered. whether a Green Travel Plan is needed.

A detailed transportation The results of detailed transportation assessment will be required, studies will be set out in an environmental particularly for the construction statement to accompany the development period. consent application.

Safety and security What level of site security will During construction and operation site there be? security will be paramount. EDF and its contractors will be supported by the Civil Nuclear Police.

34

Will staff be screened for All those employed on the project will be security during the construction subject to pre-employment checks process? required by law, and additionally as set out by the regulators, all of which is seen as good practice within the industry.

A secure plan is needed for the The Government requires that any new disposal of waste. nuclear power station constructed must have sufficient space to safely store all the higher level wastes generated during the station’s lifetime. The Government is planning a national repository for high level nuclear waste and, once this becomes operational, higher level wastes generated by the plant will be stored at this repository. Lower level waste will be disposed of securely at licensed disposal sites.

What measures will be taken to These cannot be described in detail in protect the new facility from public for obvious reasons. However, the terrorist attack? EPR proposed for Hinkley Point will be designed to withstand a major terrorist incident – for example an airliner being deliberately flown into the reactor building. Many other specific and detailed security measures will be in place.

The possibility of terrorist attack This point will obviously be considered in from the sea should be protecting the new plant from terrorist considered attack.

35

Public health could be at risk if Public health is safeguarded by the a new nuclear plant was built at independent Health & Safety Executive Hinkley Point. (HSE). The safety of the EPR design is being reviewed in detail under the generic design assessment by the HSE and EDF will only be allowed to operate a new power station if it is granted a safety licence from the relevant authorities.

Where will the uranium come At current usage levels, there are known from? How secure is the long- reserves of uranium sufficient to last for term supply of uranium – will it more than two hundred years. run out? Approximately half of the reserves are in Canada and Australia. The cost of uranium is a relatively small proportion of the cost of generating electricity from nuclear power.

Will the new facility use It is not expected to use MOx fuel at reprocessed fuel or MOx? Hinkley Point.

How will the waste be disposed Higher level wastes will be retained on-site of? initially. The design of the EPR allows for all the higher level wastes generated during the lifetime of the plant to be stored safely on site but the Government does have plans for a national repository that will store higher level wastes in future.

Concern that there won’t be The Government requires new nuclear sufficient space for storage of power stations to be built with sufficient waste on site. capacity for the storage on site of all the higher level wastes generated during the lifetime of the plant.

36

Will higher level wastes be Once the Government’s proposed national transported from Hinkley Point? repository for higher level wastes is created, then this type of waste from Hinkley Point will be stored on-site before being transported to the national facility for permanent storage.

How can you ensure there EDF has a track record in running 58 won’t be an accident? nuclear reactors, with the equivalent of 1,350 years of PWR operation, and has never experienced a significant incident affecting people or the environment.

In the UK the industry is governed by independent regulators who ensure nuclear plants are built and operated to high safety levels.

The latest generation of nuclear reactors, including the EPR, build on the safety performance of the existing plants.

They use a twin approach to safety:

· First a number of safety systems and design features make the likelihood of an accident extremely remote and,

· Second, the consequences in the highly unlikely event an accident occurs are minimised.

They are designed to be safe even in extreme circumstances such as an earthquake or commercial airplane crash.

37

Will the new facility be used to There is no intention to do this. store nuclear waste from other locations?

Environment and What will be the effect further Detailed flood risk assessments are being ecology down the coastline if the sea undertaken by EDF at present. This will levels rise as scientists consider the effect of rises in sea level forecast? caused by global warming. Initial indications confirm that it is feasible to construct a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point well above predicted rises in sea level, even using worst case scenarios.

This part of Somerset is EDF is aware of this historical incident and believed to have suffered from the modelling work being undertaken will a tsunami in the 16th century – take this type of extreme event into what protection will there be account in designing the new nuclear from a similar event? power station.

What measures will be taken to Modelling work is being undertaken so protect the new development extreme flood events can be taken into from flooding? account in designing the new nuclear power station.

An area close to Hinkley Point EDF is aware that an area to the east of is to be flooded as part of a Hinkley Point will be allowed to flood as package of mitigation measures part of a mitigation plan associated with relating to a proposed development at Portbury Docks. Detailed development at Portbury Docks. investigations are being undertaken but, at Will this affect development at present, it doesn’t appear that this will Hinkley Point? impact adversely on EDF’s plans for Hinkley Point.

Concern about noise levels – This issue will be considered in detail as during construction and part of the Environmental Impact operation. Assessment and appropriate mitigation measures proposed if required.

38

How would the Severn Barrage Provided that the barrage is constructed to impact EDF’s proposals? the east of Hinkley Point – and the most credible options are all to the east – there will be no major constraint on plans for new nuclear build as tide levels to the west of the barrage will be largely unaffected. There will therefore be no impact on the power station’s requirements for cooling water from the Bristol Channel.

Impact on marine life, especially This will be considered in detail in the below low water spring tidal Environmental Statement supporting the level. application for development consent. Appropriate mitigation measures will be proposed to deal with any significant effects.

A natural habitat should be EDF will be considering the creation of encouraged for wildlife. wildlife habitats on parts of the site used during construction but not required in the longer term.

The visual impact should be Detailed landscaping and screening minimised as much as possible proposals will be included in the – including the need for Environmental Statement. The visual landscaping and screening. impact of the proposals will also be considered in detail in environmental studies.

The visual impact of the new This point will also be considered as part power station should be of the detailed architectural, landscaping minimised by painting it so it and screening proposals. blends into the landscape.

39

Additional drainage may be The issue of drainage will be considered in needed. detail by supporting engineering studies, while effects of the development on surface water drainage and hydrology will be considered as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment.

The SSA should also consider The issue of a national repository for distance and logistics relating to higher level nuclear wastes is being any planned waste storage considered by the Nuclear sites. Decommissioning Authority on behalf of the Government.

Employment, The local area should become a EDF agrees that there is a great training and local centre for nuclear excellence opportunity for the area surrounding business and skills. Hinkley Point to become a national centre for excellence in nuclear skills. Hinkley Point could well be the first site developed for a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK. The Company intends to work closely with Bridgwater College, the National Skills Academy, and other local educational establishments to help secure this objective.

It’s important to provide suitable Detailed feasibility studies are currently accommodation and facilities being undertaken into where construction for the construction workforce. workers should be accommodated, and Will these be on-site or off-site these will consider whether living quarters in the local community? Could could be provided on a ship. Both off-site workers be given and on-site solutions will be considered, accommodation on a ship in the along with past experience of EDF Estuary? construction of nuclear plants in France. There are advantages and disadvantages to both options and it may well be that a mixed approach is the most sustainable solution.

40

Will construction and EDF believes that there is no choice to be operational staff come from made between UK skills and international France and overseas? skills and that a successful nuclear new build programme will require both. EDF plans to build four EPRs in the UK and it therefore intends to try to develop nuclear skills from within local communities.

The recent history of EDF in the UK has shown a commitment to building local skills. This is reflected in the Company’s decision (in contrast to some competitors in the industry) to retain call centres in the UK and a public commitment to continue to do so.

Alongside considerable input from UK, EDF’s experience of safely operating 58 plants in France will play a key role in developing new nuclear in this country.

Will local people be trained to Yes - EDF plans to build four EPRs in the work on the site during UK and it therefore intends to try to construction and operation? develop nuclear skills from within local communities.

Can existing staff at Hinkley B EDF is well aware that there are be used during the operation of significant numbers of skilled staff within the power station? the local area at present with experience of operation at Hinkley Point. Although the EPR technology is different from the existing Hinkley Point B station, EDF is confident that many of these skills will be transferable to the new facility.

Will local businesses benefit EDF intends to work closely with local from the development of a new authorities and the local business nuclear power station at Hinkley community to ensure that opportunities for Point? local businesses arising from the construction and operation of a new nuclear power station are maximised.

41

Can there be some new Development adjacent or close to a new development in the vicinity of nuclear power station is unlikely to be Hinkley Point – employment appropriate, largely for security reasons. and housing? There are also specific planning controls in this respect. However, EDF would expect development to take place in surrounding towns and villages.

Will EDF support local colleges The Company is already in discussions and educational centres to with Bridgwater College, the National ensure that local people are Skills Academy and other local trained to work on the educational establishments to develop construction and operation of a ways that local people could be trained in new nuclear power station at these skills. Hinkley Point?

Visible support for the local EDF will consider, as part of the economy (eg a commitment to Environmental Impact Assessment, how employing local businesses) is the socio-economic benefits of providing a vital. new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point can be maximised for the local community in both the short and the long term.

Will EDF reopen or create a EDF is aware of a strong view in the local new visitor centre. community that such a facility should be provided. It is normal practice to provide a visitor and educational centre at most of EDF’s nuclear plants in France and the Company will therefore give careful consideration to providing such a facility at Hinkley Point.

42

Community How will the local community The local community will benefit from the infrastructure and benefit from EDF’s proposals? number of jobs that will be created both benefits during the construction and operational phases and the knock on economic benefits of such significant local investment.

Further, EDF will work closely with the local community and local authorities during the planning process to reach agreement on a package of community and infrastructure benefits that should be provided as part of the development. There may be a detailed legal agreement accompanying any development consent to ensure delivery of these agreed benefits.

Heat produced should be one of The possibility of productively using the the socio-economic benefits to waste heat from the new nuclear plant will the local community. be considered by EDF although the remoteness of the site means that it is unlikely that waste heat can be exported for domestic use.

Concerns about overcrowding This issue will be considered fully in the of medical and other local Environmental Impact Assessment and services – especially during appropriate mitigation measures proposed construction phase. as required.

Concern about the capacity of This issue will also be considered in the local schools to accommodate Environmental Impact Assessment. the children of people working However, as existing Hinkley Point B at Hinkley Point. station is likely to be closed by the time any new power station opens, long term staffing levels may not be significantly different than at present. This is largely an issue for the construction phase of the project.

43

Additional housing may be This issue will also be considered in the required for construction and Environmental Impact Assessment. operational staff. However, as existing Hinkley Point B station is likely to be closed by the time any new power station opens, long term staffing levels may not be significantly different than at present. This is largely an issue for the construction phase of the project.

EDF should liaise closely with EDF will be liaising very closely with West the local authorities currently Somerset Council, Sedgemoor District preparing their Local Council and Somerset County Council on Development Frameworks so spatial planning issues as its plans that development at Hinkley progress. Point can be taken into account in spatial planning policies.

Amenity and leisure facilities for EDF will work closely with the local the local community should community, the local authorities and the form part of the Section 106 IPC during the planning process to reach agreement. agreement on a package of community and infrastructure benefits that should be provided as part of the development. There may be a detailed legal agreement accompanying any development consent to ensure delivery of these agreed benefits.

A fund should be provided to This will be considered as part of the contribute towards community discussion with the local authorities and facilities. the IPC during the planning process to reach agreement on a package of community and infrastructure benefits that should be provided as part of the development. .

44

Contributions should be made Any development consent will also set out towards road improvements what road and public transport and new roads, as well as improvements EDF will be required to public transportation. provide before or when development takes place.

Public consultation It is important to keep people EDF is committed to continuous informed at all stages community involvement during the planning and development process. As part of this commitment, the Company will be opening offices in Bridgwater during 2009 with space available for the public to come and find out more about the proposals and/or discuss their issues with the EDF team.

Will EDF continue to consult EDF is committed to continuous with key local stakeholders community involvement during the during the planning process? planning and development process. As part of this commitment, the Company will be opening offices in Bridgwater during 2009 with space available for the public to come and find out more about the proposals and/or discuss their issues with the EDF team.

45

Why didn’t the consultation The Government consulted on the provide a debate on nuclear principle of whether nuclear power should and other renewable energy play a role, alongside renewables, in options? supplying low carbon energy to the UK in 2007 and there will be an opportunity for further consultation when it draws up its National Planning Statement on Nuclear Power, which will also be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

EDF has been consulting on its decision to nominate the Hinkley Point site under the Government’s Strategic Siting Assessment, the scoping of an Environmental Impact Assessment and the impact of the development on the local community.

EDF Concerned about the fact EDF Although EDF is headquartered in France, is a French company, not the company has had a strong presence in British run. the UK for many years.

EDF Energy is one of the UK’s largest energy companies providing power to one quarter of the UK’s population. It currently employs 2,000 people across the South West in offices in Exeter and Plymouth and over 11,000 in the UK.

EDF will shortly be operating a new office in Kings Square in Bridgwater.

46

What are EDF’s intentions in No final decisions have yet been taken respect of the current planning about the planning application for a wind application for a wind farm on farm on part of the EDF site, which is the site? currently held in abeyance by West Somerset Council. EDF will be discussing its options with the Council during the early part of 2009. However, the Company’s priority is new nuclear build at Hinkley Point.

If EDF gets permission for a No final decisions have been taken. new nuclear powers station, will However, of EDF’s 58 nuclear plants in it also consider building a wind France there is only one where wind farm on the surplus land? turbines have been located in the vicinity of the plant.

Is EDF considering the Yes, the company is considering the purchase of additional land near purchase of additional land to use for Hinkley Point? landscaping for the new power station.

47

8. Conclusion

The public consultation undertaken by PPS on EDF’s behalf was extensively publicised with widespread editorial coverage in local media, advertising in the local press, newsletters distributed both by post and through local free newspapers, a project website and numerous meetings with community stakeholders. Extensive opportunities were provided for the general public to engage in the consultation process at EDF’s public exhibitions, through the website and by using the freepost and freephone facilities.

Despite this the level of public response, in terms of attendance at the exhibitions and responses to the questionnaire and enquiry forms, was modest. Some might regard this as surprising given the scale and nature of EDF’s plans for Hinkley Point.

By contrast, there has been extensive engagement with key local community stakeholders during the consultation process. The workshops were generally well attended by enthusiastic and constructive participants and local parish councils, community groups and district/county councillors were keen to meet with EDF and engage fully in the consultation process.

In PPS’s view, the scale of public response suggests that most people are unconcerned about the prospect of new nuclear development at Hinkley Point. Nuclear power stations have existed at Hinkley Point for many years and EDF’s plans would simply allow this activity to continue for the foreseeable future. Community leaders and other local stakeholders are, however, concerned to ensure that the benefits of new nuclear development are maximised and the potential impacts during construction and operation on the community minimised.

PPS has concluded from the consultation process that there is strong support from within the local community for the principle of new nuclear build at Hinkley Point. A limited number of people who engaged in the consultation process were strongly opposed to nuclear power in principle and concerned about potential health effects from existing nuclear facilities at Hinkley Point. However, the vast majority of those who participated appeared to take the view that nuclear power had a lengthy and safe track record of operation at Hinkley Point and that new nuclear build would provide important potential economic benefits to local people and businesses.

The principal concerns expressed by local people and community stakeholders were related to: the ability of local infrastructure, particularly roads, to cope with the construction and operation of a new nuclear plant; ensuring that local people and businesses benefit from the jobs and investment in the community; environmental impacts from the development; and support for community facilities.

48

EDF’s response to all the detailed points raised during the consultation process is set out in this report. Inevitably, many of these responses are ‘holding’ responses because EDF and its project team are still undertaking detailed feasibility studies in order to advance plans to the next stage.

EDF remains committed to continuing the public and stakeholder consultation process in relation to its plans as they develop and prior to submitting an application for development consent for new nuclear build at Hinkley Point.

49

Appendix 1 – Key Stakeholders

Key stakeholders included:

§ National Government – eg MPs, MEPs and AMs

§ Regional government bodies and key personnel – eg GOSW, SWRDA, SWRA

§ Leading councillors and officers from local authorities – eg Sedgemoor, West Somerset, Somerset County Council, North Somerset Council, Vale of Glamorgan

§ Parish, Town and Community Councils within a 15 miles radius – eg Cannington, Minehead, Weston-super-Mare, Barry

§ Local and national anti-nuclear groups – eg Stop Hinkley

§ Political parties – eg the Green Party

§ Local and national pro-nuclear groups

§ Hinkley Point Stakeholders Group

§ Education organisations – such as Bridgewater College

§ Business groups – such as local Chambers of Trade

§ Staff working at Hinkley Point

50

Appendix 2 – Sample Media Coverage

Burnham and Highbridge Weekly News: 15 October 2009

Burnham and Highbridge Times: 17 October 2009

51

West Somerset Free Press: 14 November 2009

Bridgewater Mercury: 9 December 2009

52

Appendix 3 – Questionnaire and Enquiry Form

Questionnaire

53

54

55

56

Enquiry Form

57

Appendix 4 – Workshop Reports

Stakeholder Workshop: Cannington (24 November 2009)

Cannington Stakeholder Workshop 24th November 2008 Clifford Hall, Bridgwater College, Cannington

Meeting began at 18.30

Attendees Project Team: Simon Dunford EDF Simon Ashworth EDF Jeremy Short AMEC Charles St George PPS Richard Evans PPS Rebecca Charlton PPS

Stakeholders: William Sutton Cannington Parish Council Robin Child Cannington Parish Council Lynda Laird Cannington Parish Council Colin Allen Cannington Parish Council Brian Slade Stogursey Parish Council Derek Skeats Stogursey Parish Council Sue Jones Stogursey Parish Council Peter Lacey Somerset Association of Local Councils Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for North Somerset Lizzie Bird Energy Project Officer, Somerset County Council Group Manager of Scientific Services, Somerset County Council Doug Bamsey Development Director, Sedgmoor District Council Susan Goss West Hinkley Action Group John Lucas West Hinkley Action Group Charlie Bray National Skills Academy c/o Bridgwater College Hinkley Site Stakeholder Group (Deputy Chair) and Stockland-Bristol Parish Council (Chair) Councillor Alan Ham Somerset County Council Councillor John Edney Somerset County Council

Warm up exercise

A warm up exercise in which attendees were asked to compile a list of the benefits the nuclear plant would bring and a list of issues it would throw up took place. All attendees had to list three separate points in each section, and stick them to the board at the front.

58

The comments were broken down and are listed below in descending order:

Benefits Problems 1 Job creation for local people 13 Traffic problems - congestion 2 Keeping the lights on - reliable energy supply 12 Future waste problem 5 Housing requirements for Benefit to the local economy 10 Cannington for staff/workers 5 Expertise and Skills increased 4 Blot on the landscape 3 Improved highway and traffic Loss of amenity - footpaths and management in area 4 access 3 Stimulating delivery of local General disturbance associated infrastructure needs 3 with major development 3 Overwhelming local Wider Community Benefits 3 infrastructure/facilities needed 2 Access through Cannington on Section 106 benefits 1 vehicles to station 2 Social benefit to local communities 1 Major influx of temporary workforce 2 Job security 1 Safety 2 Low carbon 1 Time delay in building a new station 1 House prices (maintain/increase values) 1 Stigma/negative perception 1 Ensuring local economic advantage 1 Site needs to be landscaped 1 Crime increase 1 Skills shortage 1 Pollution and noise from traffic 1 Disposal of spoil from construction 1 Coordination needed between decommissioning of A & B and further plant construction 1

59

A presentation was then given by Simon Dunford and Charles St George. A question and answer session followed, with Richard Evans facilitating:

§ Concerned about the contractor traffic which will cause problems at peak traffic times.

§ Also concerned about the location of housing for construction workers, which if poorly situated would exacerbate the problem. § From previous experience moving large items to Hinkley Point through Cannington could result in major problems as this could necessitate moving Cannington’s War Memorial or knocking down walls due to the tight alignment through the village. There was concern about this would not be taken into account as Cannington is in Sedgemoor and Hinkley Point is in West Somerset.

§ Construction traffic will increase congestion, and the only route they are currently able to take is through Cannington. § Coming out onto Hinkley Road, traffic is a serious concern.

§ There have been several incidents along the road at the Stogursey turning, this will need to be considered. § We already have two blots on the landscape (Hinkley Point A and B Station). The building design needs to be improved, to ensure that it fits in better with the landscape. § Sizewell is an attractive plant, why can’t EDF aspire to make the proposed plant look better? § As soon as the construction period ends, so does the boom in the local economy and jobs. § What is the design life of the plant? § Have sea level rises been factored into the design? § Where will the high level waste go? § What about the Severn Barrage? Has this been factored in? § You say is has apart from the possibility of a barrage to the western side of the estuary; why not factor that in too? § Public transport is a key feature regarding transport for the proposals, we must not forget it. § The bus timetables never relate to the shift patterns at the plants; this is a problem § Showed surprise that housing was not featured as an issue in the analysis of questionnaires in the presentation.

The attendees were then broken up into 3 groups to discuss specific topics of interest: Community and Infrastructure, Transport and Environment. After 45 minutes of discussion amongst themselves, a representative from each group gave a small summary to the rest of the workshop to outline issues and solutions they had come up with.

Environment Group

Flooding · Flooding is a concern; if we consider the current flood projections, power lines nearby will be under water. Have you considered potential flooding at the proposed new harbour at Bristol Docks?

60

Visual Impact · Could visual screening be used? Maybe Bund/Trees/Improved design · A visitor centre is needed, could a wildlife/habitat aspect be included?

Waste · We have questions regarding how the medium level waste will be dealt with; what are the arrangements regarding storage and warehouse design? · Will this be decided at government level? · We are worried that the level of waste stored on site could get too big – will the storage area need to be extended more and more?

Severn Barrage · Will a jetty be built on site? · The potential problem of the Severn Barrage should be considered · Will the jetty be permanent or temporary?

Security · Now a national, not local concern.

Health and Safety · NII and HSE will be regulating the site; the group is confident that all measures necessary will be taken. · Simon Dunford asked why they felt confident; group members responded that they are confident of safety measures, but more education needs to be given to people who don’t live so close to the site. The further away the consultee, the bigger the issue health is. · A visitor centre needs to be opened so that education on nuclear issues is available.

Transport Group

Access to Site · Two access points, but both get congested at peak times. The grain store north of Cannington is an issue as this produces congestion when at certain points in its operation. · Improvements to the road are advised; a bypass to the east of Cannington to avoid traffic passing through the centre is preferable. · The roads are not currently wide enough or substantial enough to cope with heavy loads such as construction traffic. · The proposed jetty would not solve this issue entirely.

Staff · The staff for the site and the construction workers would have to be accommodated with traffic in mind. The staff will be a part of the long term traffic issue, firms will want staff to move to the area. · An evening transport plan would need to be considered, with a view to organised transport for staff to and from shifts. · A dedicated bus service will be needed rather than reliance on public transport.

Points made: ‘A’ Station did have a fleet of buses, but the scheme didn’t work long term. Goodwill for the proposals will disappear if transport issues aren’t addressed. Transport is the key issue for us. A rail link would only be useful during the construction phase. Can’t we provide social housing for the workers? If we had large areas of social housing, we could end up with estates. It must be understood that large housing settlements could easily create more traffic issues. The local plan is due out this month, this must be considered.

61

Community and Infrastructure Group

Job Creation - Issues · Need to maximise local job creation during construction and operation · This will provide jobs for a generation – job for life · Accessibility of workforce · Green Travel Plan · Skills plan needed · Retention of the workforce is essential

Job Creation – Solutions · Joined up approach needed with schools/further education/skills academy · Re-skilling existing workforce · Involvement of government agencies: Job Centre Plus, LSC, SWRDA · Engaging with socially deprived areas · Job fairs · Job quotas

Housing, Infrastructure and Traffic - Issues · Accommodation for contractors · Need to learn from A & B Stations · Heavy burden on GPs, schools, social facilities and entertainment · Housing will be a major issue, the attention should be on the type of housing; Station A and B had very different standards for the building of further housing. · Impact on house prices – will the demand mean prices go up?

Housing, Infrastructure and Traffic – Solutions · Cannot operate in silos, need to look at the whole picture · Are Schools for the Future considering the potential impact of an influx of children? · We must be able to find existing sites ready for development where housing can be sited for workers – could this cause more traffic issues, however? · Transport by sea · New roads (Dunball/Junction 23) · A socio-economic plan should be produced · The proposals must be linked to existing community strategy and plans

The discussion came to an end, and the workshop finished at 20:35

62

Stakeholder Workshop: Taunton (28 November 2009)

Taunton Stakeholder Workshop 28th November 2008 Albermarle Centre, Taunton

Meeting began at 18.30

Attendees Project Team: Simon Dunford EDF Victoria MacGregor EDF Giles Bishop AMEC Richard Evans PPS Jo Hatton Jones PPS

Stakeholders: Paul Partington Norton Fitzwarren Parish Council Nick Stevens Parrett Drainage Board Alyn Jones Somerset County Council Nick Booth Somerset PCT David Nankivell South Western Ambulance Service Cllr Tony Beaven Taunton Deane Borough Council Cllr Nigel Stuart-Thorn Taunton Deane Borough Council Cllr Terry Hall Taunton Deane Borough Council Cllr Joanna Lewin-Harris Taunton Deane Borough Council

i Warm up exercise

A warm up exercise was undertaken in which attendees were asked to think of one major benefit of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point and one potential problem. Attendees were invited to put their issues on a ‘post-it’ note and stick them on a flip chart at the front of the meetings.

The points made are listed below:

Benefits Problems Economic benefit (2) Transport/increased traffic in area Power stations all in the same area Security of site - terrorist risk Increased employment opportunity Toxic waste Increased fuel security - less reliance on Catastrophe results of accidents - supplies from overseas eg Chernobyl Protests Possible increased community Cheaper fuel clean sustainable energy resistance Cheap renewable fuel - stop inroads on fossil fuel I whole of west country from Visual impact Interference from Hinkley people who don't bother to find out 63

Impacts on local communities from Improved local infrastructure? transient workers

A presentation was then given by Simon Dunford and Richard Evans. A question and answer session followed. The issues were raised:

· Point made on the presentation that footpaths, although open at the moment, some will need to be closed during construction work and site operation. · Queries regarding the type and amount of waste produced. · Queries about waste management and storage. · Queries about the amount of energy produced. · Queries about National Grid and whether the existing connections were enough for two new nuclear power stations. · Queries about British Energy and the ‘c’ site. · Queries about timing and how the two stations could be phrased if the British Energy deal went ahead. · Queries about the safety/security of the proposed new facility.

The attendees were then broken up into two groups to discuss specific topics of interest: Community and Infrastructure; Transport and Environment. After 45 minutes of discussion amongst themselves, a representative from each group gave a brief summary to the rest of the workshop to outline issues and solutions they had come up with.

Transport and Environment Group

Transport/Roads · Concerns over increased traffic movement. · It was suggested that a (temporary) modular construction of a wharf at Hinkley Point would be easier than road (M5). · Suggestion that a bypass would go from Junction 24 and round the back to the A39. · With regard to the Severn Barrage, the group explained they were not sure of the situation or if this is going to go ahead but that it needs to be considered.

Visual Impact · The group did not think visibility was a major issue as the site cannot be seen from the South West due to the topography of the surrounding countryside. · However, it was suggested that a bank be put around the site with trees on.

Safety and Security · The group did not think that security should be a problem and asked if site security would be provided by EDF or the police. · There were questions about the waste produced and how it is managed coming into the site. They asked how safety could be ensured against hijacking or a traffic accident · The importance of constant security on site once the power station is operational was stressed – scanning badges and making sure everyone goes through the same checks.

64

Other issues · Accommodation requirements of 2,500 people in the construction phase · The importance of local training – Bridgwater College

Community and Infrastructure Group

The group started its feedback by explaining the importance of leaving a legacy that ensured the local community would get benefits that would continue beyond the life of the project, such as skills, education, training, community facilities etc.

Roads · Minimise impact on the roads with sea transportation. · Suggested bypass (no specific route proposed) · The group also suggested a dedicated sea route so that roads would not need to be upgraded.

Accommodation · Concentrate workers on site or put them through the area so that housing can later be used as affordable housing.

Education · The group explained the need to upgrade the local workforce. They understand the skill base in Sedgemoor is quite low at present. · They suggested a centre of excellence in the nuclear industry be established at Bridgwater College. · One of the participants also made a point about trying to engage with local schools to educate and inform them about nuclear and about the possible career opportunities that new nuclear at Hinkley Point could bring. This could be a way to provide opportunities for local young people to stay in the area and have good jobs.

Community: · The group was concerned about the general impact on local people. · They felt it was important that the impact of construction workers on local services should not be too great. · They believe the money and spending power brought into the area would be beneficial to the local economy. · Were concerned about the knock on problem of affordability of homes to local people if people with larger salaries were going to be moving into the area.

A general discussion followed about the local economy and how it could be managed so that it does not crash after the construction phase is over. EDF were asked about experience in France, issues that arose and how they have been addressed.

There was also a discussion about who negotiates the Section 106 on a project of this type/scale and whether it would be done at a national or local level.

The discussion came to an end, and the workshop finished at approximately 21:00.

65

Stakeholder Workshop: Weston-super-Mare (1 December 2009)

Weston Stakeholder Workshop 1st December 2008 Healthy Living Centre, 68 Lonsdale Avenue, Weston-super-Mare

Meeting began at 18.30

Attendees Project Team: Simon Dunford EDF Claude Jeandron EDF Dan Pritchard EDF Jeremy Short AMEC Charles St George PPS Richard Evans PPS

Stakeholders: Rosemary Dowie The Environmental Network of North Somerset Peter Hardaway North Somerset Liberal Democrats Stuart Laurie Mendip Society Nick Michael North Somerset Council Muluh Nkem The Environmental Network of North Somerset Graham Quick North Somerset Council Chris Spencer Port of Bridgwater Liz Summers GVA Grimley (on behalf of the Highways Agency)

i Warm up exercise

A warm up exercise was undertaken in which attendees were asked to think of one major benefit of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point and one potential problem. Attendees were invited to put their issues on a ‘post-it’ note and stick them on a flip chart at the front of the meetings.

The points made are listed below in descending order:

Benefits Problems Health & safety (including potential terrorist attack, spillage and magnetic Energy security 4 radiation from power lines 3 Local employment 2 Environmental impact 2 Cheap and clean energy 1 Traffic impact 2

A presentation was then given by Simon Dunford and Charles St George. A question and answer session followed, with Richard Evans facilitating. The following points were recorded and questions asked:

66

· How big is the proposed new power station? · What will happen to the waste and how will it be transported? · What will be the impact on local roads? · Is the new power station compatible with plans for the Severn Barrage? · How safe will the new facility be in terms of public health and the impact on fishing and the Severn Estuary generally? · The impact of the development on wildlife and ecology in the Estuary would need to be carefully assessed and appropriate mitigation measures put in place to deal with impacts. · There were many examples of nuclear power stations operating safely and efficiently, including in the South West, and this meant that the “fear” factor was no longer such a relevant consideration. · Local people would, however, expect a lot more information than had been given in the past about issues such as traffic impact. · Nuclear power is a good way of improving energy security and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. If the technology was safe, the development was to be welcomed. · Nuclear power is an important part of the future energy mix that the country would require. · Will the replacement of some of the cabling on the existing power lines require the closure of the River Parrett? If so, how long would this take?

The attendees were then broken up into 2 groups to discuss specific topics of interest: Community and Infrastructure, Transport and Environment. After 45 minutes of discussion amongst themselves, a representative from each group gave a brief summary to the rest of the workshop to outline issues and solutions they had come up with.

Transport and Environment Group Roads § The Group looked at the impact on roads during construction and operation of the power station. § Traffic in Bridgwater was considered to be a problem as well as the capacity of local roads leading to the site from the M5. § A thorough traffic impact assessment would be required, particularly for the construction period. Transportation § As many materials as possible during construction should be brought in by sea. Dunball Wharf and a jetty in the Bristol Channel near Hinkley Point were discussed as options. Existing wharves might need upgrading. § The possibility of extending the rail link from Bridgwater to the site was discussed although it was acknowledged that this might be difficult because of timescales and cost.

67

§ A new link road from the M5 to the site was not necessary and could not be justified simply for the construction period. The better solution was to bring materials in from the sea. Employment § The Group wanted to know whether employment would be available to local people and what sort of training would be provided to skill local workers. § Accommodation for those working on site during the construction process was discussed with specific reference made to the possibility of bringing construction workers in by boat, providing accommodation on site and in local towns. Section 106 Benefits

§ The Group suggested that section 106 contributions should be targeted to:

§ Public transport § Road improvements/new roads § A fund to contribute to improved community facilities Severn Barrage § The Group saw this as complementing new nuclear build at Hinkley Point, rather than being an alternative. Security

§ Concern was expressed about the extent of knowledge required by terrorists to do damage to the new nuclear plant. § Staff should be screened during the construction process. Other Matters

§ The more waste that could be stored on-site without being transported the better. § Good landscaping of the site was required. In the discussion that followed one participant asked what the anticipated cost was of the construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.

Community and Infrastructure Group Roads § The issues identified were: existing transport problems in Bridgwater; the capacity of the M5; and construction and operational traffic. § Solutions discussed including using the sea to bring in construction traffic and even workers – although this might be restricted by the weather. Dunball and Combwich wharves were considered suitable for construction materials. § A travel plan should be put in place for both the construction and operational phases to try to minimise the impact on roads. 68

§ Other sustainable transport solutions should be considered, including possibly rail and buses. § The countryside shouldn’t be desecrated with a new road from the M5 simply to deal with a 5-year period for construction traffic. Employment § The issues were: whether local people could be trained to do the work; what skills would need to be brought in from outside; and whether there was any cross-over of skills from people currently working at Hinkley Point B. § Training for local people was considered a priority. § The importance of liaison with Bridgwater College and other local educational establishments was emphasised. Construction § Construction workers should be recruited locally wherever possible. It was suggested that some might be accommodated on a ship moored in the Bristol Channel. § There were social implications arising from having a large number of construction workers in the area. They might need to be dotted around local communities with some on-site as well as off-site. Environment § The site was adjacent to the Estuary, which had numerous protected designations. The impact of the development on wildlife and ecology would have to be carefully measured and appropriate mitigation provided. § Visual impact needed to be considered, although the new power station would be set against the background of the existing power stations. § Green roofs should be considered where possible to reduce visual impact and increase biodiversity. § As much spoil as possible should be re-used on the site. Other Matters

§ Wharves would need improving to deal with construction materials. § Storage would be required near the wharves so materials could be off-loaded and brought in at the correct times.

§ Levels of silt in the channel and the River Parrett were constantly changing. § The Severn Barrage was considered as another option but it was not a case of either Hinkley Point or the barrage – both were required. § Security from terrorist attack was an important consideration. The discussion came to an end, and the workshop finished at approximately 20:30.

69

Stakeholder Meeting: Vale of Glamorgan (2 December 2009) Vale of Glamorgan Stakeholder Meeting, 2 December 2008 Civic Offices, Vale of Glamorgan

Meeting began at 18.30

Attendees Project Team: Simon Dunford EDF Jo Hatton Jones PPS

Stakeholders: Representative of Jane Hutt AM Cllr Ken Lloyd Penarth Town Council Ian Robinson Vale of Glamorgan Planning Department Derek Woolfe Barry Town Council Cllr Rob Curtis Vale of Glamorgan Council

Due to the limited number of attendees it was agreed that the workshop format would not be appropriate. As such, following a presentation on EDF’s plans for its Hinkley Point site and feedback on the consultation results to date, attendees had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss their key issues.

The main points of discussion were:

· Decommissioning of the existing power stations and how the new power plants are designed for future decommissioning and produce lower levels of waste.

· The amount of space that would be restored following the construction period and whether it would go back to agriculture or be used for local wildlife.

· Waste storage and disposal.

· Security and safety – in particular, possible terrorist attack and in case of tsunami or flooding. Concerns of accident after Chernobyl.

· The impact of a Severn Barrage at the possible locations and whether this would reduce the tidal range at Hinkley Point.

· Thermal energy and whether it could be used to benefit the local population.

· The type and quantity of waste being produced and how it is stored and transported.

· Possibility of linking to the European grid

· Different types of radiation and the need to differentiate between them.

· The possibility of economic spin off in South Wales.

· Wildlife and the environment – in particular, the potential impact on marine life. · Health issues – including work with local health authorities and universities. Issues raised about poor condition of Oldbury and issues raised by John Large. 70

· Current European and international standards.

· Use of sea routes rather than local roads. Participants debated the issues until approximately 8.30pm and asked to be kept informed of plans for the site and future consultation events.

71

Stakeholder Workshop: Minehead (9 December 2009)

Minehead Stakeholder Workshop 9th December 2008 Minehead Church Institute and Hall, Bancks Street, Minehead

Meeting began at 18.30

Attendees Project Team: Simon Dunford EDF Giles Bishop AMEC Charles St George PPS Richard Evans PPS

Stakeholders: Cllr Michael Downes West Somerset Council Adrian Dyer West Somerset Council Barry James Somerset County Council Brenda Maitland-Walker Representing Ian Liddell-Grainger MP Cllr Eddie May West Somerset Council Cllr Ian Melluish West Somerset Council Cllr Chris Morgan West Somerset Council Cllr Angela Palmer West Somerset Council Graham Sizer Minehead and District Chamber of Commerce Alan Weir Stogumber Parish Council Loretta Whetlor West Somerset Strategic Partnership

Warm up exercise

A warm up exercise was undertaken in which attendees were asked to think of one major benefit of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point and one potential problem. Attendees were invited to put their issues on a ‘post-it’ note and stick them on a flip chart at the front of the meetings.

The points made are listed below in descending order:

Benefits Problems Jobs and local employment 4 Traffic and local road infrastructure 4 Environmental impact during Security of energy supply 3 construction 3 In vestment in local area 2 Health problems 1 Combats climate change 1 Visual 1 Environmental issues generally 1

72

A presentation was then given by Simon Dunford and Charles St George. A question and answer session followed, with Richard Evans facilitating. The following points were recorded and questions asked:

· How long will construction take? · There are rumours that EDF is looking to buy more land near the site – is this correct and if so why? SD responded that EDF was looking at purchasing more land for spoil/landscaping. · Any preparatory work undertaken by EDF would be subject to planning consent under normal Town & Country Planning Act procedures. · Had EDF any knowledge of what was in the large mound on the BE ‘C’ point because this would need to be flattened if and when development took place? · Uranium is in short supply – where were the reserves and were there any alternative fuels? · Would the design of the new nuclear reactor really stand up to a 747 being flown into it? · Will EDF be using reprocessed fuel? · The levels of attendance at EDF’s public events were generally low – was this is a sign that there was relatively little public concern about the proposals?

The attendees were then broken up into 2 groups to discuss specific topics of interest: Community and Infrastructure, Transport and Environment. After 45 minutes of discussion amongst themselves, a representative from each group gave a brief summary to the rest of the workshop to outline issues and solutions they had come up with.

Transport and Environment Group

Transportation · The Group spent most of its time discussing transportation issues, particularly roads. · Movements of goods and people to the site should be undertaken wherever possible by sea. · The road system in the area was not up to bringing in everything that way, and there was only limited scope for road improvements. · Having a jetty at Hinkley Point in the Estuary was the best option for bringing materials in via the sea but the environmental impact would need to be very carefully considered because of the sensitivity of the rocky outcrops around HP. · People might be brought to the site by sea from Burnham and Minehead. The jetties needed to be big enough for ferries to carry people. Parking was an issue at Minehead. EDF should make contact with Severn Sea Ferries who had plans for a ferry service connecting Minehead to Wales. · Combwich was an option for bringing in construction materials but it would probably need expanding.

Environment · The development at Portbury Docks meant that there was going to be a flooded compensation area near Hinkley Point, which will come close to the existing power lines and could cause a problem for the development. · The new power stations would need careful landscaping to minimise the impact on views.

73

Security · EDF would need to consider the potential for terrorist attack from the sea.

Community and Infrastructure Group Transportation · This Group also stressed the need to make the maximum use of transportation by sea for both materials and workers. · Jetties could be used at Hinkley, Burnham and Minehead. One of the attendees advised that car parking at Minehead would not be a problem if a jetty was built as Butlins has agreed to help on that front, to facilitate the setting up of a cross channel tourist ferry in 2011. · There was, however, a need to upgrade the road links between Bridgwater and Hinkley Point. This was important as a lot of workers and materials were likely to come from Bridgwater. · Consideration should be given to bringing in workers by bus as well.

Employment & Training · The Group emphasised the importance of ensuring the local workforce had the skills necessary to help with both construction and operation. · This part of Somerset could become a centre for the nuclear industry, which would also be of benefit to the country as a whole. · The Group was interested in the employment and business that would be derived from the development of new nuclear power at Hinkley Point. · Would it be possible to have other forms of development close to the power station? The Government had traditionally restricted nuclear power to sparsely populated areas but it was important to be positive about allowing some form of development. · However, it was also pointed out that civil contingency planning in the event of a radiation leak meant that people might have to be evacuated from the area, in which case it didn’t make sense to put too many facilities and people close to the site. · In terms of investment in education, EDF should be aware that there was an outpost of Bridgwater College in Minehead and there could be some benefit for the local community if the College became a centre for training in nuclear skills.

Construction · The issue of permanent accommodation for construction workers had to be considered. Some accommodation might be provided in local villages and towns, perhaps in the form of small, eco-friendly housing that could be used subsequently for locals. · There would be intense pressure on local facilities during the construction process with up to 2,000 construction workers in the area. · Could the waste heat from the plant be used for some form of local heating?

Other Matters · The Group emphasised that EDF should maintain consultation with stakeholders and the local communities. It needed to be a continuous process, working with the Council and through their Local Development Framework. · EDF were asked how long it would be before the proposed takeover of British Energy was agreed and implemented.

The discussion came to an end, and the workshop finished at approximately 20:30.

74

Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Meeting Reports

Meeting Report: Stogursey Parish Council (14 October 2008)

Attending: Alan Serle Chair, Parish Council Chris Morgan Parish and District Councillor Brian Slade Parish Councillor Paul Tipney Parish and District Councillor Sue Jones Parish Councillor Simon Dunford EDF Kaa Holmes EDF Charles St George PPS

Item Action 1. Introduction and Presentation CM explained that the purpose of the meeting from the Parish Council’s point of view was to find out what EDF’s plans and aspirations were for Hinkley Point, to get a general feeling about what is happening on the site and to explain to EDF the key issues of concern to the Parish Council.

Following introductions, the EDF/PPS team gave a brief presentation on the background to EDF, plans for the Hinkley Point site and the forthcoming public consultation programme.

2. Questions During the subsequent discussion the following questions were raised by members of the Parish Council:

· How did the design of the proposed reactor compare with the Sizewell B development?

· What was the timescale for the possible acquisition of British Energy by EDF?

75

Item Action · What is happening on the site at present?

· What is EDF’s position on the wind farm that had previously been proposed on the site?

· How many nuclear power stations is EDF proposing and which will be the first to be built?

· Is this part of the consultation process for the planning application?

· Are there any other sites, apart from Hinkley Point, being considered for new nuclear power stations?

· Will the footpaths need to be closed in the future?

· Will construction workers be housed on the site?

· If the acquisition of British Energy goes ahead, how will this affect the consultation process going forward?

· What will happen to the nuclear waste from the proposed plant?

· Where will the intermediate nuclear waste go?

· Has EDF factored the cost of decommissioning into its plans for the site?

· Will the buildings be left standing after decommissioning?

The EDF/PPS team addressed all of these questions.

3. Key Issues During the discussion the following key issues and points for follow up were raised by members of the Parish Council:

· Reference was made to clause 151 of the current Planning Bill, which one member of the Council had heard proposed that local EDF to investigate and

76

Item Action authorities would no longer have any control over the conditions report back to the attached to planning permission for major infrastructure projects Council determined by the IPC. Could EDF confirm whether or not this was correct?

· It was made clear that Stogursey Parish Council would strongly oppose any closure of the coastal path alongside the EDF site at Hinkley Point.

· One local resident had told a member of the Parish Council that EDF to investigate and the contractors working on the feasibility studies on the site had respond to the Council broken a water main that morning.

· The Parish Council’s main concern was about traffic. Members referred specifically to ‘Clayland Corner’ on the main site access road which they felt was extremely dangerous and needed to be improved.

· There were also worries that increased traffic from Williton to the site (i.e. contractors, employees, suppliers, etc.) would use the lanes through the village to gain access to Hinkley Point. Councillors didn’t really want to see the lanes widened but, instead, made safer through traffic calming measures.

· Stogursey, Churton, Burton and the other immediately surrounding villages/hamlets would potentially suffer up to 10 years of upheaval and alteration to the countryside as the new nuclear plants were built. This should be taken into account when EDF considered the local economic benefits of the development.

· Some members were concerned that Stogursey had not been chosen for the initial meeting in the public consultation process and the Parish Council had written formally to British Energy to make this point.

77

4. Conclusion It was agreed that EDF and the Parish Council should maintain close liaison as the plans for Hinkley Point developed.

SD made the point that EDF was committed to consulting with the local community and would be opening an office in Bridgwater by early 2009.

78

Meeting Report: Williton Parish Council (8 November 2008)

Attending: Cllr Rosemary Woods Williton Parish Council Cllr Paul Morse Williton Parish Council Cllr Elizabeth Peeks Williton Parish Council Simon Dunford EDF Victoria MacGregor EDF Charles St George PPS

Item Action 1. Introduction Following the introductions, members of the Parish Council suggested that a sign should be placed in the centre of Williton vi llage to remind Completed people about the public exhibition and encourage attendance during the afternoon session.

Councillors also suggested that a sign should be place in Nether Stowey PPS to arrange for the same purpose when EDF holds its Stogursey exhibition next week.

2. Questions and Discussion The following key questions and points were raised by members of the Parish Council:

· The Parish Council and community wish to be reassured about the safety issues as the project proceeds.

· Would EDF be required to issue potassium tablets to the local community?

· Where would construction materials come from and what effect could the transportation have on Williton? Will there be any

materials coming through the village?

· Will there be any improvements to the road infrastructure

leading to Bridgwater and M5, which help the village?

79

Item Action · Concern was expressed about the standard of the A39 connecting Williton to Cannington/Bridgwater. Residents could be stuck behind heavy good vehicles accessing Hinkley Point.

· Could the West Somerset Rail link be used for construction materials, perhaps bringing material in via the sea through the port of Watchet? What was the potential for using other rail links to transport construction material?

· Where would the construction workers live? Would they be temporarily housed on site or within the community? There were caravan sites, pubs, bed & breakfast accommodation and other facilities in the Williton area that might be utilised.

· Specific reference was made to a caravan site at Moor House Farm in Holford close to the A39, the Coombe House Hotel in the same village that had planning permission for units, and the possibility of EDF acquiring new housing (for example the Strong Vox development in Stogursey) which housebuilders were currently having difficulty selling locally.

· There is a strong feeling within the local community that

opportunities should be provided for local children to progress

and find skilled work locally. The development of new nuclear

power at Hinkley Point had this potential and the Parish Council

wanted to see extensive training in local schools and colleges to

give youngsters the skills to work at Hinkley Point in the future.

· Danesfield Church of England school in Williton, a specialist

science school, and West Somerset College could be important

to EDF in helping to train up the next generation of youngsters

to help with the development of nuclear power at Hinkley Point.

· How long would it take to secure the planning and other

permissions required to develop new nuclear at Hinkley Point?

80

Item Action · What is happening about the wind farm? Does EDF own the land where the wind farm was originally proposed? One of the councillors, who works in the Planning Department at West Somerset Council pointed out that there was still technically a live planning application for the wind farm with the Council.

· What about the impact of the proposed Severn Barrage on the development? Was EDF proposing any development of tidal power in the area?

· What benefits would EDF be proposing for Williton given that the development at Hinkley Point would affect, in particular, Williton PC local roads in the area? It was agreed in discussion that the Parish Council should be put forward their ideas by writing to CStG outlining their priorities in terms of possible community benefits for the village from the development of Hinkley Point.

· Is there a possibility of EDF providing cheap electricity to the local communities surrounding Hinkley Point?

· Could there be a use for the waste heat from the new power plant? Councillors pointed out that the last public swimming pool in West Somerset, in Minehead, had recently closed.

· Where is the cooling water for the power station coming from? If water is going to be taken from the Severn Estuary, will this affect the protected status of the Estuary?

· What will be the short-term and permanent effects of the development on footpaths crossing the site, especially the coastal path? Councillors pointed out that fishing was popular near the existing power stations and that the footpaths to the coast were well used.

· How would EDF’s potential ownership of Hinkley Point and the development of new nuclear power stations there affect Britain’s energy security? Would this give the French control over the

81

Item Action supply of electricity in this country?

· Will EDF own Hinkley A as well as Hinkley B if the takeover of British Energy proceeds?

· What will happen to the waste from the new power plant? How will this be transported through the local area?

· What is the lifespan of the EPR and how will it be decommissioned?

· When will EDF start skills training within the local community?

· What is the height of the proposed new buildings in comparison with the existing Hinkley Point A and B?

· EDF should consider very carefully how the new power stations could be screened from surrounding areas. The existing power stations were visible from Quantocks and the A39. Colour was particularly important and it might be necessary to paint the new facilities in different colours to ensure that they blended into the landscape from both landside and seaside views.

· How many full-time, permanent jobs would be created through the development of new power stations?

· Will EDF have a Visitors’ Centre on the site?

· The Council pointed out that public transport provision between Williton and Bridgwater was particularly poor in comparison to the connections between the village and Taunton. At present, buses to Bridgwater ran only once an hour and the journey time was approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes. The Council would like to see this service improved as a priority.

82

Item Action · Councillors asked whether EDF would have a green travel plan for the development and whether the company would run its own bus services for construction workers?

· Finally, Parish Council members commented that they were not aware of significant opposition to plans for a new nuclear power station in Williton.

3. Next Steps CStG confirmed that the Parish Council clerk would be kept in touch by EDF with developments and that the project website, www.edfconsultation.info would be regularly updated with news of the project.

83

Meeting Report: Cannington Parish Council (14 November 2008)

Attending:

Maurice Locke (Chair) Cannington Parish Council Colin Allen (Vice Chair, Hinkley Point Liaison) Cannington Parish Council Robin Child (Development Control) Cannington Parish Council Alan Davey Cannington Parish Council Ron Allen Cannington Parish Council Sheila Allen Cannington Parish Council Lynda Laird Cannington Parish Council Bill Sutton Cannington Parish Council David Hatherley Clerk to Parish Council Simon Dunford EDF Charles St George PPS

Item Action 1. Introduction & Public Consultation ML introduced the members of the Parish Council and pointed out that the Vice Chair, Colin Allen, was the Council’s link to Hinkley Point who also served on the stakeholders’ group. Robin Child led on development control issues for the Council.

Apologies had been received from x2 members of the Parish Council. The Clerk, David Hatherley took a note of the meeting on behalf of the Council.

CStG outlined the public consultation process being undertaken by EDF and drew the attention of Parish Council members to the series of workshops planned, the first of which would be held in Cannington on th 24 November.

The Chair and Clerk to the Council confirmed that they had received

invitations. CStG said that the workshops were open to all members of PPS (completed) the Parish Council to attend and it was therefore agreed that the Clerk would send through a full list of Council members so that PPS could send out invitations to everyone.

84

Item Action

2. Questions and Discussion ML stated that the Parish Council was keen to see the development of Hinkley C & D power stations take place but the key issue for the village was the provision of a by-pass so that construction and operational traffic didn’t have to travel through the centre of the village. Planning permission originally granted for Hinkley Point C had envisaged a by- pass and the Parish Council was keen to see this promise honoured in relation to any new nuclear build.

ML also made the point that the Council expected to see the by-pass completed before the power station became operational, as it was likely to be needed during the construction process.

He said that providing a longer connection via Dunball to junction 23 of the M5 was problematic as it would be difficult to get there without avoiding the docks. A more likely route would be a connection to the A38 just south of junction 23 of the M5 with an access via the recently developed Express Park and then across the river towards Cannington. If this longer route was provided, it would be important to consider whether all Hinkley Point traffic could by-pass the village including traffic coming from junction 24 of the M5 to the south via Bridgwater.

CA said that 90% of possible objections to new nuclear development at

Hinkley Point would disappear if a by-pass was provided.

The following further points and questions were raised during the

discussion:

· Is the EPR the chosen design for the new reactors at Hinkley

Point?

· Will EDF apply for planning permission for both new reactors at the same time in the event of the BE deal proceeding?

· When will the offices in Kings Square, Bridgwater open and how

85

Item Action many people with staff these?

· There was a discussion about naming the office in Bridgwater PPS to investigate th and it was suggested that it could be named after the 19 (completed) century local man from Fyne Court near Broomfield who experimented with electricity. [Subsequently identified as Andrew Crosse]

· Concern that the Hinkley Point site is in West Somerset but the main access to the site is through Sedgemoor – not all the benefits should go to West Somerset and it was Sedgemoor residents who had to live with most of the consequences.

· Cannington is the most affected village by traffic and there should be recognition that there is an existing problem with Hinkley Point traffic. The by-pass would need to be constructed very early in the process of development of the power station.

· Improvements would also be necessary to the approach road to Hinkley Point from Cannington.

· Existing traffic problems are also exacerbated by the fact that there are 3 educational facilities in Cannington and a quarry to the west with all the traffic for these coming through the village.

· If materials are going to come in by sea does this mean via Combwich?

· When does EDF expect to receive planning permission and a licence to operate the new nuclear power station? When would the power be turned on?

· What about flooding of the area of land earmarked for a possible new road connection to the M5?

· What about the effects of global warming in terms of flooding on the site? There was a tsunami affecting the Bristol Channel

86

Item Action and this part of Somerset in the 15th century (see http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/1607-flood.shtml)

· How relevant to EDF’s plans for Hinkley Point were the disasters at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island?

· When the last power station was built at Hinkley Point some housing for workers was provided in Cannington. Would this be the case again? EDF needed to liaise closely with Sedgemoor District Council on this point.

· Sedgemoor’s LDF core strategy was due to be published this month and Cannington was likely to get an allocation for new housing. The Council was looking to the land between the existing village and the part of the by-pass previously constructed for further housing development.

· A new Community Centre would be an important priority for Cannington.

· Will EDF built a site village for construction workers? Will foreign workers be brought into build the new power station?

· What about training for local skills? A shortage of skills had been a problem when the last power station had been built.

· Will the waste be stored on site and/or transported elsewhere? Is there a possibility of Hinkley Point receiving waste from other nuclear power stations?

87

3. Next Steps ML said that it was important that this meeting with the Parish Council should be the start of a dialogue rather than the end of the process. He hoped that there would be an opportunity for regular meetings as the project progressed. A long-term relationship with regular contact was important to the Parish Council.

88

Meeting Report: West Hinkley Action Group (1 December 2008)

Attending:

Dick Jones WHAG (Chair) Sue Jones WHAG (Secretary) John Lucas WHAG (Treasurer) Sue Goss WHAG Davina Lewis WHAG Julian Lewis WHAG Peter Watts WHAG Mike Laver WHAG Davina Williams WHAG Sarah Cooksley WHAG David Cooksley WHAG Mike Casewell WHAG & Stockland Bristol PC Simon Dunford EDF Claude Jeandron EDF Arthur Dalton EDF Dan Pritchard EDF Charles St George PPS

Item Action 1. Introduction Following the introductions it was agreed that the meeting would focus first on the wind farm issue and then discuss footpaths. Other matters would be discussed at the end.

In response to a question from WHAG, the EDF team clarified that EDF Group was the international holding company and EDF Energy the British operating company.

2. Wind Farm AD outlined EDF position in relation to the wind farm. The wind farm company had been acquired by EDF Energy in May 2007. It had been purchased to try to prevent it being used as a block on the development of new nuclear power on the site. EDF’s priority for the site is nuclear development.

89

Item Action EDF does have a commercial wind farm operation. It does not wish to dismiss this as an option but nuclear is the clear priority. EDF Energies Nouvelles is in a joint venture with EDF Energy on the development of wind farms.

During the discussion, WHAG representatives made various points and posed a number of questions. The issues raised are summarised below:

· In response to a question about the status of the current planning application for a wind farm lodged with West Somerset District Council, AD said that EDF would meet with Council officers in the New Year to understand the options available to the company in respect of the application.

· WHAG representatives said that most people in the local area supported new nuclear development but there was overwhelming opposition from the public, Sedgemoor District Council, the RSPB, British Energy and others to the wind farm. The Parish Council public meeting called to discuss the wind farm was standing room only, and no one spoke in favour.

· WHAG handed over to the EDF team a copy of their letter of objection to the wind farm planning application and a petition with 1,117 signatures opposing the plans.

· The Chair of WHAG commented that he had hoped to wind up the campaign group but it now it will have to carry on. They had assumed that the wind farm proposal had gone out of the window.

· CJ said that only one of EDF’s nuclear power stations in France had wind turbines on it, and there were only two turbines. EDF usually built wind farms with large numbers of turbines and he didn’t think the area of land available would be big enough.

· The Chair of WHAG pointed out that EDF owned a large site not all of which would be required for a nuclear power station so it

90

Item Action might be feasible to have both. Would it be viable to build both?

· SD explained that EDFs intention was to build x2 EPRs at Hinkley Point in the event that the BE acquisition progressed. There would be a surplus of land available but in his view it would not be economically viable to build a relatively small number of turbines on this surplus land.

· A WHAG representative expressed suspicion about the space available on the site and the possibility of EDF’s construction land being used for a wind farm.

· EDF were asked what they had told the local MP, Ian Liddell- Grainger, in respect of the wind farm. He had been given the same information as WHAG.

· Another WHAG member referred to the safety concerns expressed by the Health & Safety Executive, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and others about having a wind farm close to a nuclear power station. AD confirmed that EDF would not consider a wind farm if there were any safety implications.

· Clarification was sought on the timetable for building new nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point and which parcels of land would be used. SD explained that EDF was completing feasibility studies on its land. It had no knowledge of what feasibility work had been done on BE’s land as the companies were currently competitors. If the BE acquisition progressed, he thought it was likely that the first power station would be built on EDF’s land, unless the BE feasibility work was much further advanced than EDF’s.

· A WHAG member pointed out that the previous planning permission for the ‘C’ station would have had much of this information. However, it was pointed out that the permission had lapsed and most of the information would be out-of-date.

91

Item Action · EDF was pressed on the options for the future of the wind farm that it was expecting to discuss with West Somerset District Council in the New Year. Were there any legal reasons for not withdrawing the application? Are there any other parties involved?

· AD reiterated that EDF Energy owned the wind farm company outright. There were no other parties involved in the ownership. All the rights and obligations of the company had also been transferred to EDF and these included a contract in relation to the land. These were commercially confidential matters that he could not discuss with third parties.

· In response to a question about when EDF would know whether the site would be suitable for a new nuclear power station, SD said that the preliminary feasibility studies were encouraging and he hoped to get the final results within weeks, probably in January.

· A WHAG member commented that with Sedgemoor District Council opposed to the wind farm, along with all the local parishes, the community was looking to EDF to provide some leadership and a categoric statement on this matter. Another member said it would engender local goodwill if the wind farm application were withdrawn. The area was pro-nuclear but anti- wind farm.

· AD said that EDF would seek to be as transparent as possible on this matter and that as soon as the company was able to provide clarification it would do so. He undertook to continue to communicate with WHAG.

3. Footpaths The position in relation to the existing footpaths over the EDF site was discussed and the following points made:

· JL from WHAG highlighted the fact that there were x9 well-used footpaths crossing the site and the concern in the community 92

Item Action that most of these would end up behind a security fence once the new power plants had been built. If Natural England were given a major say in the surplus land then it would probably be excluded to dog walkers.

· SD said Phase 1 site investigations were now winding down and equipment would be leaving. He apologised for the muddy state of some footpaths at present. No significant change to the footpaths was expected in the next few months, although there might be some investigation work on BE’s land if the acquisition progressed.

· During phase 2 – the construction process – EDF would probably need to fence off most of the land, closing off the footpaths that cross the site. However, a footpath route would still be provided to the coast.

· In phase 3, once construction was complete, EDF would be

looking at the possibility of opening up the land to public access

with new footpaths. He noted the point about the risk of Natural

England potentially seeking to exclude dog walkers, which he

had not been aware of previously and would now take into

account.

· SD asked whom EDF should deal with in relation to the detailed

planning of footpaths. The Secretary of WHAG suggested AMEC/EDF to note Dave Bluck of Stogursey Parish Council and Glenn Martin at Somerset County Council, both of whom were responsible for footpaths.

· John Lucas from WHAG said that the community understood that the footpaths couldn’t stay as they are at present but wanted reasonable access to key areas both during and after construction. A footpath on the southern boundary of the site would be important. SD said that footpaths providing access to the beach, along the coastal path and across the southern boundary should be possible.

93

Item Action · A WHAG representative asked if a fence could be provided along the coastal path to prevent dogs going over the edge of the cliff. SD indicated this would not be possible for visual and landscape reasons, as the coast was a protected area.

4. Other Issues Other points discussed included the following:

· Did EDF have any plans for a large office block on the site and how much of the land would it need once the power stations had been completed? SD said there were no plans for an office development and that approximately half the site would go back to agriculture or other agreed uses – e.g. Nature Reserve.

· In response to a question about road access to the site during construction, SD indicated that this was likely to be via a junction near the entrance on the current road.

· A question was raised about on-site accommodation for construction workers and SD indicated that no decisions had yet been made although EDF were keen to train people already living in the area to do much of the work.

· One WHAG member expressed concern that Sedgemoor could end up taking the lion’s share of the benefits from the development, particularly as they were effectively running West Somerset’s Planning Department. SD indicated that this point had been made previously to EDF who were aware of the concern.

· Have EDF yet met with the Somerset Nuclear Energy Group? SD explained that the company had offered to speak to NEG but had not yet had an invitation to attend one of their meetings.

· Would EDF’s construction process be coming over the ridgeline to the south of the site? SD indicated this was possible during construction but the area would need to be fenced and should

94

Item Action be restored afterwards.

· It was agreed that draft notes of the meeting would be exchanged between WHAG and PPS and that each would provide the other with a contact list for their respective teams.

95