Nether Parish Council

MINUTES OF PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY 24 SEPTEMBER 2010 AT 7.00pm IN THE VILLAGE HALL

Present: Parish Councillors Tony Rich (Chairman) Robert Booth (from minute 3876) Peter Greig Malcolm Hogg Margaret Hogg Pat Pardoe John Roberts

In attendance: District / County Cllr John Edney Chairman of CANS Mary Roberts Parish Clerk Ainslie Ensor 4 Parishioners

3872 Apologies Apologies were also received from Cllr Corbett (on holiday) and Cllr Youe (family commitment). The absences were approved. Apologies were also received from District Cllrs Dyer and Joslin.

3873 Minutes of Previous Meetings The Minutes of the Annual Parish Meeting held on 12 July 2010 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

3874 District / County Council Liaison Cllr Edney commented on the District Council response to the C Stage 2 Consultation. He stated that Cllr David Huxtable would be speaking about the review of the 62 county farms at a public meeting, arranged by PCC, on 29 September.

3875 Committee Meeting Minutes The minutes, of the following committee meetings (copies of which are appended to these minutes) were noted: (i) Planning Committee: 27 July 2010 (approved), 26 August 2010 (approved), 20 September 2010 (draft). (ii) Finance & Audit Committee: 13 September 2010 (draft), 20 September 2010 (draft) (iii) Major Projects (Hinkley Point) Committee: 20 September 2010 (draft)

3876 Parish Council Vacancy Robert Booth was elected to fill the vacancy for a parish councillor and signed the Declaration of Acceptance of Office and joined the meeting.

24 September 2010 Page 1 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

3877 Proposed Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station The Clerk outlined the issues that could be included in the Parish Council’s response to the Stage 2 consultation. Following discussion it was agreed that the drafting of the Parish Council response to the Stage 2 Consultation be delegated to the Clerk to the Parish Council, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Council and the Chairman of the Major Projects (Hinkley Point) Committee.

3878 Reports The Clerk read a report from PCSO Karen Evans who was unable to attend the meeting. PC Rob Jacobs was still on sick leave. In his absence the beat was being covered by PC Anthony (Tex) Freeman. The beat had been fairly quiet over the summer but with the darker evenings usually comes an increase in non dwelling burglaries. All residents were urged to make the beat team aware of any suspicious activity in the area. Crime Statistics for the period 1 August to 24 September: Concern for safety 1, Suspicious Circumstances 2, Highway Disruption 2 (sheep on Banneson Road, chickens on A39).

3879 Correspondence Correspondence received included: DC: Notification that the revised LDF Core Strategy would be published on 28 September for an 8 week consultation ending on 22 November 2010. A report would be made to the next Parish Council meeting Sedgemoor DC: Letter on Joint Funding of Local Services stating that there would be no SDC funds for Christmas lighting, installation and emptying of dog bins, public halls, floral decorations and public conveniences. There is no immediate impact for NSPC. A draft policy for the funding of local services was included. The Clerk was authorised to respond positively to the draft policy. Sedgemoor DC: Letter from Nick Garnett, Enforcement Officer Environment & Clean Surroundings, outlining his role and the law with regards to fly posting. It was agreed that the Clerk should write to all voluntary organisations in the village making them aware of the legal position regarding signage for events. CC: Reply from David Huxtable to Parish Council letters of 21 July regarding County Farms. Over Stowey PCC: Letter regarding the open meeting about County Farms to be held in Nether Stowey Church Centre on 29 September. External Auditor: Approval of Annual Return for 2009/10. The auditor had made a “non qualification” comment about the level of reserves. The Clerk reported that the Government was proposing legislation which could prevent parish councils from making large increases in their precept after 2011/12. A full report would be made to the Finance & Audit Committee

3880 Forthcoming Meetings and Events Saturday 25 September SALC AGM, , 10am Monday 27 September Quantock Cluster Meeting, 6.45pm Tuesday 28 September Planning Training, House, 6.45pm Tuesday 28 September Library Focus Group meeting, Williton 2.30pm (Cllrs Greig and Pardoe to attend) Wednesday 29 September Open Meeting Re County Farms, Church Centre, 7.30pm Tuesday 12 October Finance & Audit Committee, time TBA Tuesday 12 October Sort It Plus Roadshow, Village Hall 10.30am to 12.30pm

24 September 2010 Page 2 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

Tuesday 12 October LDF Information Evening, , 7.15pm (Chairman and Clerk to attend) Wednesday 13 October Village Maintenance Committee, time TBA Wednesday 20 October SALC Training, Staff Appraisals/Grievance Procedures, Burnham on Sea 7.00- 9.00pm Friday 22 October Oral History Project, Church Centre 7.00pm Monday 25 October CANS, Church Centre 7.30pm

3881 Date of Next Meeting The next meeting of the Parish Council will be in the Village Hall on Monday 8th November 2010 at 7pm.

The meeting closed at 9.10pm

24 September 2010 Page 3 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD ON TUESDAY 27th JULY 2010 AT 11.00am IN THE PARISH COUNCIL OFFICE

Present: Parish Councillors: Malcolm Hogg (Chairman) Rita Corbett Peter Greig Margaret Hogg Pat Pardoe Tony Rich

In attendance: Assistant Parish Council Clerk Jean Falla

P-0001 Apologies Apologies were received from: John Roberts The absence was approved.

P-0002 Election of Chairman Cllr Malcolm Hogg was elected Chairman of the Committee for the remainder of the Council year.

P-0003Committee Terms of Reference The Committee’s terms of reference approved by the Parish Council on 12 July 2010 were noted.

P-0004Planning Application

(i) Application Ref: 36/10/0012/DRT Address: 6 Five Lords Proposal: Erection of single storey extension to front elevation Applicant: Mrs Faris Response: No objection

The above response was approved.

P-0005Date and Times of Next Meeting - TBA

The meeting closed at 11.50am

24 September 2010 Page 4 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD ON THURSDAY 26 AUGUST 2010 AT 11.00am IN THE PARISH COUNCIL OFFICE

Present: Parish Councillors: Malcolm Hogg (Chairman) Rita Corbett Peter Greig Margaret Hogg Pat Pardoe

In attendance: Assistant Parish Council Clerk Jean Falla

P-0006 Apologies Apologies were received from: John Roberts, Tony Rich The absence was approved.

P-0007 Planning Applications (i) Application Ref: 36/10/0013/CJA Address: 38 Castle Street Proposal: Erection of single storey side extension Applicant: Mr B Hunt Response: No objection

(ii) Application Ref: 36/10/00015/LE Address: 18 Coleridge Road Proposal: Erection of two storey extension to rear elevation, partly on site of conservatory (to be demolished) and revised parking to rear Applicant: Mrs C Dobson Response: No objection

(iii) Application Ref: 36/10/00016/LE Address: 18 Coleridge Road Proposal: Erection of two storey side attached dwelling Applicant: Mrs C Dobson Response: No objection

(iv) Application Ref: 36/10/00017/CJA Address: 86 Castle Hill Proposal: Installation of an external unit for an air source heat pump in the back garden Applicant: Rev Attwood Response: No objection The above responses were approved P-0008 A39 Traffic issues It was decided that the Asst. Clerk would contact EDF’s traffic consultant to request copies (large scale) of the Ordnance Survey maps covering the A39.

24 September 2010 Page 5 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

P-0009Hinkley Point Power Station – Planning application: 3/32/10/25 It was decided that Councillor Greig would respond in writing to an invitation by Environment Management Group to make observations on the application.

P-0010 Date and Times of Next Meeting - TBA

The meeting closed at 12.15pm

24 September 2010 Page 6 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD ON MONDAY 20th SEPTEMBER 2010 AT 11.00am IN THE PARISH COUNCIL OFFICE

Present: Parish Councillors: Malcolm Hogg (Chairman) Peter Greig Margaret Hogg Pat Pardoe

In attendance: Parish Council Clerk Ainslie Ensor

P-0011 Apologies Apologies were received from Cllrs Rita Corbett (on holiday), Tony Rich (at another meeting), John Roberts (business), and Teresa Youe (business). The absences were approved.

P-0012 Minutes of Previous Meetings The minutes of the Committee meetings held on 27 July 2010 and 26 August 2010 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

P-0013 Planning Applications The following responses were approved.

(i) Application Ref: 36/10/0018/RM Address: & Gardens, Lime Street Proposal: Change of use of existing garage to use as welfare facilities for community use. Applicant: The National Trust Response: Support The application relates to the restoration of the gardens of the property, which is being carried out by the Parish Council in partnership with The National Trust. This is an important part of the overall vision to improve the experience of visitors to this important listed building. The garage in question has not been used for vehicles for some time and will provide essential on-site storage and facilities for local volunteers working in the garden. There remains land to the west side of the property for off road parking.

(ii) Application Ref: 36/10/00019/RM Address: Coleridge Cottage & Gardens, Lime Street Proposal: Carry out internal repairs, improvements and alterations. Open up former fireplaces, improve ventilation and improvements to rear garden courtyard area with the relaying of paths, boundary walls, gates and fences and garage building. Applicant: The National Trust Response: Support The Parish Council welcomes and fully supports the proposed works to Coleridge Cottage. The works will provide visitors with

24 September 2010 Page 7 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

an enhanced understanding of this important historic building and will help to preserve the building for the future.

P-0014 Date and Times of Next Meeting To be arranged.

The meeting closed at 11.35am

24 September 2010 Page 8 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FINANCE & AUDIT COMMITTEE HELD ON MONDAY 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 AT 3.00PM IN THE PARISH COUNCIL OFFICE

Present: Parish Councillors: Rita Corbett Malcolm Hogg

In attendance: Parish Council Clerk Ainslie Ensor 1 Parishioner

FA-0001 Apologies Apologies were received from Cllr Greig who was unwell

FA-0002 Quorum The Clerk stated that as only two members of the Committee were present the meeting was not quorate and could not make any decisions. The meeting would be rescheduled as soon as possible.

The meeting closed at 3.10pm

24 September 2010 Page 9 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FINANCE & AUDIT COMMITTEE HELD ON MONDAY 20th SEPTEMBER 2010 AT 11.35PM IN THE PARISH COUNCIL OFFICE

Present: Parish Councillors: Peter Greig Malcolm Hogg

In attendance: Parish Council Clerk Ainslie Ensor

FA-0003 Apologies Apologies were received from Cllr Corbett (on holiday) and Cllr Rich (at another meeting).l

FA-0004 Quorum The Clerk stated that as only two members of the Committee were present the meeting was not quorate and could not make any decisions. The meeting would be rescheduled as soon as possible.

The meeting closed at 11.40am

24 September 2010 Page 10 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MAJOR PROJECTS (HINKLEY POINT) COMMITTEE HELD ON MONDAY 20th SEPTEMBER 2010 AT 7.00PM IN THE VILLAGE HALL

Present: Parish Councillors: Malcolm Hogg (Chairman) Peter Greig Tony Rich

In attendance: EDF Energy David Eccles PPS Group Deb Campbell Somerset C Council Neil Pack Parish Council Clerk Ainslie Ensor 4 Parishioners

MP-0001 Apologies Apologies were received from Cllr Roberts (business) and Cllr Youe (family commitment. The absences were approved. Apologies were also received from Cllrs Rita Corbett, Margaret Hogg and Pat Pardoe).l

MP-0002 Election of Chairman Cllr Malcolm Hogg was elected chairman of the committee for the remained of the current council year.

MP-0003 Terms of Reference The committee’s terms of reference, as approved by the Parish Council on 12 July 2010 were noted. The Clerk explained that whilst this Committee would undertake all the detailed work in connection with Hinkley Point (A, B and the proposed C Station) the full Council would approve the Parish Council’s formal response to the Stage 2 consultation at its meeting on 24 September 2010.

MP-0004 Proposed Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station – Stage 2 Consultation The Chairman invited David Eccles (EDF Energy) to respond to comments and questions from members of the committee and the parishioners present. The following is of a summary of the points made by Mr Eccles: EDF is listening to local people – for example they have moved the development boundary north in response to comments from Shurton/Burton residents. They are aware of the supportive and positive approach taken by Nether Stowey EDF are offering finance to the County Council for additional teachers for schools that have pressure from incoming workers at the site. They had received complaints that they had issued too little and too much information – he noted that the Stage 2 consultation documents contained 8840 pages The voice of the various communities will be heard both through the consultation and existing local authority structures They needed part of the workforce to be resident on site (approximately 700) to for safety and security (e.g. to safeguard the site from deliberate blockade of the access road)

24 September 2010 Page 11 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

They were proposing to operate a drug/alcohol testing regime – anyone testing positive would lose their site credentials. EDF were offering Avon & Somerset Police funding for additional officers to police the workforce They had opted for the Bridgwater campus because the town needs investment and the Innovia site was available. They were also taking part of the Rugby Club (2nd pitch) for accommodation which would then go to the College. They needed to build flexibility into the accommodation strategy so they can react as the development proceeds and they see how many people are employed locally. They had a team led by a person involved in Terminal 5 and London 2012 to deal with personnel relations re race, religion etc He accepted that the information in the outline transport plan was deficient and stated that a lot more detailed work was being carried out and that the County Council officers and EDF’s transport consultants were now working together It was not EDF’s job to solve pre-existing problems – they could only apply for infrastructure that was directly needed for the development. The Bridgwater northern bypass would take 4 years to build, would be technically challenging and could be objected to on environmental grounds – new road building was against government policy. If built EDF’s figures indicated that only 1625 vehicles a day would use the road He acknowledged that at present the Local Authorities were taking a negative stance as regard Stage 2 and felt it be difficult for the application to be made to the IPC whilst this situation prevailed. He felt it was a case of EDF saw the glass half full and the local authorities saw it as half empty. As regards the proposed Community Fund he acknowledged that the District Council had referred to EDF’s initial offer of £1 million as “wholly inadequate”. He stated that EDF had a responsibility to mitigate the direct impacts of the project by direct action. The proposed Community Fund was intended to deal with the intangible pressures and impacts experienced by local communities. EDF had been deliberately vague as regards the operation and mechanism of the Community Fund as they believed it was for local people to decide on how it scope and operation. He stated that historically on large projects (e.g. Terminal 5) the main contractors also established charitable funds. He referred to the Proposed Planning Requirements and Obligations document published as part of the Stage 2 consultation.

MP-005 Reports It was noted that a number of councillors had attended themed meetings (Environment, Housing, Transport, Wellbeing) arranged by the Community Council (on behalf of the District Council) and it was agreed that the notes of those meeting be appended to the minutes of this meeting for reference.

MP-006 Date of Next Meeting 7.00pm on Monday 15 November 2010 in the Village Hall The meeting closed at 8.45pm

24 September 2010 Page 12 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

APPENDIX 1

Hinkley Point Community Support Programme: Associated development for Proposed New Hinkley Point C Power Station

Draft Report of Environment Theme Meeting, in West Somerset District Council Offices, Williton, on 7th September

Attendance:

Those attending the support meeting - what is your nearest town or village? • Nether Stowey – 2 • - 2 • - 1 • - 1 • Over Stowey - 1

Comments noted during discussions at the meeting

Environment

• Concern whether WSC is capable of assessing the preliminary works application? Answer – Resource capacity is being managed through a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) with EDF and the technical responses are being drafted with support from Arup as technical consultants and in consultation with other relevant bodies and public relating the environment (WSC & Sedgemoor, SCC Highways, EA, HSE, Natural , English Heritage etc.)

• Emissions from construction site and traffic; Concern about the dust emissions; Answer; Dust emissions are considered by Arup (RH / EVZ) to be potentially significant impact; changes in concentration of small particles (or PM10) are thought to give linear response to human health (DA) therefore it is very important to accurately quantify baseline and any modeled impacts. There are recognised limitations to the traffic and air quality modeling contained in the Stage II consultation documents such as;

• Impacts from operational traffic is still not available and has not been assessed as part of the assessment to date Answer: The assessment of traffic also does not include non-work related trips by construction workers (DC)

• The preliminary works application could give rise to unmitigatable and non-reversible impacts i.e. if the IPC did not grant DCO for the scheme it would not be possible to reinstate the existing wildlife or archaeology. Would EDF would plant additional hedgerows. Answer: These effects would have to be considered in an Environmental Statement for the preliminary works. EDF have referred to replacing hedgerows but no confirmed commitments to additional hedgerows are made.

• Concerns were raised regarding the long term storage of waste on the site. This made the Hinkley C proposals very different from previous proposals. The storage system for spent fuel is based on a Swedish method for storage that has currently not received authorisation from the Swedish Government. Associated concerns were the question of decommissioning and the length of storage of radioactive waste on site.

24 September 2010 Page 13 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

• Has adequate provision been provided with storage of radioactive waste in absence of decision to manage high level radioactive waste? Answer: Other UK i.e. national policy determines storage of high-level nuclear waste.

• Concern over health issues from nuclear plants. Studies in Germany had identified clusters of leukemia around nuclear power stations.

• EDFs time pressures in delivering a power station were immaterial since this was a self imposed programme. The impacts on residents had to be considered and appropriately mitigated if the proposals were to proceed.

• Monitoring of health in the wider community by EDF, including baseline for monitoring, and risk of alleged cancer cluster. This would be difficult without baseline data. EDF should be required to prepare a health baseline for the site. Answer: Radiological impacts must follow agreed protocols and the accepted view of Government explains that impacts are considered very small. Background radiation monitoring in air, following the Chernobyl incident, has been carried out by local authorities between 1986 and 2004. Note: this work entailed carrying out assessments using a Type 6-80 gamma-ray dose rate meter. The results are reported by Somerset CC (μGy per hour). The dominant radiation source determined from this monitoring was terrestrial gamma radiation arising directly from radionuclides in the ground, for example from radon. No further monitoring is planned. Copy of Radiation report - Food and Environment - was handed over for reference (await return). The technical response requested that EDF consider a broader scope for the health assessment including local profiling.

• Concern about the race/religion and the concentration of workforce into proposed areas. How will EDF control workforce behaviour? Answer: EDF suggest 40% of workforce will be local i.e. within 90mins catchment; however it was noted that this was an area of uncertainty in the proposals. The need for consideration of other leisure and recreation uses had been flagged by the councils to EDF and was picked up in the technical responses.

• Traffic Impacts on environment. The rationale behind the siting of the park and ride in Williton. Has Butlins i.e. peak flows been assessed? How will EDF guarantee that staff used the P&R sites rather than driving direct to Hinkley. The impact of traffic on congestion, emergencies and Washford Cross Junction were also highlighted. Answer: The provision of park and ride is to reduce traffic i.e. emissions/noise impacts. The position is just off A39 meaning it will be positioned to catch more of traffic from A39. Travel plans and permits should address parking issues and therefore help reduce impacts. Traffic assessment & ensuring data is fit for purpose subject to separate themed meeting, although impacts of traffic could be more extensive if slippage of development occurs. EDF staff will be contractually required to use the P&R and would be turned away from the main site.

• Concern over the haste of preparation of the submission, the poor quality of the submission at Stage 2 and the perceived speed of the application. Answer: This is one of the first DCO applications to the Infrastructure Planning Commission and therefore EDF are going through a new process, which may explain some of the quality issues. EDF have signed up to a very tight programme of delivery (i.e. to have the first station operational by 2018. EDF still have a number of months to progress the application and that this is not the final standard of information that would be submitted to the IPC

• What is the likelihood of the development taking place, is it a fore-gone conclusion? Answer: Assessments are still pending on the discharges from the proposed development and HSE are still seeking further assessment on the design / safety of the proposed development.

24 September 2010 Page 14 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

EDF must follow due process in preparing the application in accordance with the IPC guidelines and the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. If the material is not of a sufficient depth or technical quality the IPC may chose not to validate the application or it may not be granted consent therefore it is not a foregone conclusion. The government’s national strategy / policy is currently being redrafted but is supportive of nuclear energy at Hinkley Point.

• Concern over traffic impacts on the environment e.g. noise and emissions & degradation on the environment - hedgerows/trees/biodiversity Answer: Arup and the local authorities have identified these as important issues. Points noted in relation to restoration of hedgerows / ecological impacts / gain.

• Would the EIA prepared by EDF take into account the fact that for some elderly residents the last decade of their lives might be marred by the construction works? Answer: the report collated by Arup has identified need for more thorough health needs impact assessment including impacts on vulnerable groups.

• Concern that the character of the area would be changed irrevocably by the construction works and the traffic and that this may make people decide to leave the area. The quiet rural character of the area was what made it an attractive area in which to live. The point was noted.

24 September 2010 Page 15 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

APPENDIX 2

Hinkley Point C Notes of Theme Meeting: Housing 31 August 2010

Key points: very serious concern regarding the accuracy of the estimate of the proportion of local workers and what the implication will be for the accommodation sites questioned definition of ‘temporary’ and ‘legacy’. His view is that what EDF Energy is proposing at Hinkley in terms of accommodation is not temporary due to the length of time proposed and neither is the net replacement of a Greenfield site considered a proper legacy proposal concerns about the loss of sports facilities at the Innovia site and lack of clear proposals to provide an alternative query on how long remediation works will take General query – why can’t the EDF layout be improved to reflect the Hallam masterplan? questioned red line boundaries on BRI-A and BRI-C where they cover public and private roads including a road held by the Rugby Club. This has not been discussed with the Rugby Club requested clarification regarding access to BRI-C via the Rugby Club access have the implications of impacts on benefits services been considered where European workers will come to the area in search of work and will be entitled to benefits whilst they are here is EDF’s assumption about existing accommodation and a spare 15% capacity a reasonable assumption? has been adequately consulted – or does it need to be? serious concern about concentration of workers in one part of Bridgwater concern about lack of evidence to support the decision to have 700 workers on site at Hinkley Point C at Flammenville EDF guaranteed house builders loans and offered long term guaranteed rental (14yrs) therefore enabling housing to be built. Why is this not being proposed for Somerset?

General notes questions were asked about the long term use of housing noted that EDF is still not talking to land owners why hasn’t the old Ordnance Factory site been considered – this already has sports facilities in place what is the worker profile? Has EDF factored this into their proposals? question about legacy: Stogursey is getting 2 nuclear power stations – some affordable housing is not an adequate response – not a ‘sufficient legacy’ impression is that EDF Energy is working to what they want to do and not open to any change. noted no-one who has written to EDF has received a written response. need to have layout at Innovia site that reflects what has been agreed in outline planning consent Fiddington could have a bigger camp site, is EDF considering this? better to leave a legacy of a small cluster of 2 and 3 bed houses per parish, en-route to Hinkley rather than one campus

24 September 2010 Page 16 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

quite a number of 1 and 2 bed single accommodation premises already built in Bridgwater in the last five years, can’t EDF use these too

24 September 2010 Page 17 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

APPENDIX 3

Hinkley Point C Theme Meeting: Transport 1 September 2010

1. Introduction Hannah Reynolds – introduced the aims and objectives of the session run by the Community Council for Somerset with support from Arup (technical consultants to the Sedgemoor District and West Somerset). Hannah also set out the timescales for parishes to respond back to the districts (10th September deadline)

2. Keith Walker Provided a short presentation on the key themes of the transport proposals. The parish councillors collectively requested the presentation material to be released to clerks. HR said that this should be fine but would need confirmation from the authorities.

3. General feedback session Burnham & Highbridge (B&H) – want small P&R on J21 taking staff from the towns to site.

Support for low level Dunball Bridge and bypass, which would also help transfer of traffic from /Street to Minehead.

Keith Walker stated that the appendices to the transport documents reference Pontins for accommodation of 13% of workers in appendix and similar for Minehead Butlins. B&H noted that they had explicitly stated to EDF that use of Pontins was not wanted.

Bridgwater Town Council (BTC) stated that EDF had explicitly told them that there were no plans to use tourist accommodation to house workers.

Cannington representative stated that the 10th September deadline does not work for them as they have issued questionnaires to the parish which are not due back until Saturday week. Also made reference to the holiday period being a bad time to organise consultation event.

The source of workers for the Cannington P&R was queried and Keith confirmed that it would be for the rural catchment to the south, for workers from west Bridgwater and for visitors to site.

A comment was made that the bypass should be in the preliminary works application not the main application.

WSC asked a number of questions about the proposals: When is transport survey to be made available? Existing speed limit on certain stretches of A39 is 60mph according to EDF but is in fact 50mph Where is the transport strategy? Why change size/scale of jetty meaning greater impact on Combwich Wharf. Where would traffic be routed in the event of accidents – certain sections have no diversionary capability.

Bridgwater representatives queried where the underpinning transport strategy is that underpins assumptions for models.

Keith Walker stated that the EDF have chosen not to publish baseline data but that traffic

24 September 2010 Page 18 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council models must have been used to generate 24 hour flows. Keith stated that some of the assumptions used to generate data were potentially open to challenge e.g. 1.6 workers per car is based on Sizewell B from 20 years ago.

Bridgwater Forward representative raised three main questions: Will EDF/Hallam traffic surveys (currently ongoing be made available) How is it possible for the Bridgwater main campus site to have an access point if there is no planning permission Is the Rugby Club a willing seller Is 1075 workers appropriate in the centre of Bridgwater.

Keith responded that the traffic surveys are outside our control and therefore we cannot comment. Regarding access EDF can propose any plans that they wish but that these would be considered through the planning process. Richard Hunt stated that the council has raised concerns with the 1075 workers and that previous proposals had a dispersed campus arrangement. There was general support for dispersed campuses expressed by Bridgwater representatives.

Bridgwater TC stated that they would be disappointed if the presentation slides were not made available to the attendees.

Cannington group has put forward a document about the bypass including reference to the 1988 enquiry, which came down in favour of a bypass. Keith was asked how much weight the findings of the original inquiry would have with the IPC.

Keith responded that the original proposals did not have the sustainable transport strategy put forward by EDF and that the context of the two applications was therefore different.

Otterhampton Parish stated that it was concerned about EDF traffic combining with traffic for peninsular project and the New Hay Grave School.

Reference was made to EDF ignoring the impact of workers families.

Nether Stowey/Bridgwater and Williton have a working group in County Hall – the representative stated that they would welcome any suggestions on transport strategies.

Bridgwater stated that they had met with EDF on a number of occasions and that they were set on not having a northern bypass.

Bridgwater stated that if adequate amelioration was provided in town, then not having a Dunball Bypass might not a deal breaker, however the Town Council are not prepared to negotiate on the need for a bypass.

Bridgwater added that there is a need to get a northern relief road for Bridgwater, that the proposed £1m over 10 years was an inadequate contribution for the scale of impact and that would die without the bypass.

Watchet Town Council said that they were now aware of plans for a Williton P&R and raised a range of issues that already affect Williton –Minehead route e.g. accident results in diversions along unsuitable back roads if they are even available. Watchet stated that Washford Cross was a very dangerous junction.

He also raised the issue of impacts on Watchet museum, and concerns that visitors already suffer long delays from M5 and that visitors may not come if tourist traffic is impacted by

24 September 2010 Page 19 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council construction traffic. A comment agreed that an alternative solution was needed but that a Bridgwater bypass is not necessarily the answer, also that the County or government could part fund the route to ensure that it was suitable for tourist traffic.

The point was made that a Dunball Bypass might worsen traffic impacts for Combwich if access to and from the bypass was not adequately provided for.

Keith noted that with cuts of 40% in transport budgets and Bridgwater Bypass not in the Bridgwater Strategy that council part funding was unlikely.

Bridgwater Forward questioned whether villages in the were aware of the proposals. A further comment was made about providing an additional public meeting for these communities.

Hannah stated that she was attending a Polden Cluster meeting.

Otterhampton Parish pointed out that there was a substantial change from Stage 1 to Stage 2 therefore would a Stage 3 be happening.

RH stated that EDF position was for no Stage 3.

The emergency route from Hinkley C – Nether Stowey was questioned. Nether Stowey also queried why a community outreach meeting had not been held at Nether Stowey.

BTC – at meeting with EDF proposed links to make an eastern relief road. Requested that Arup highlight the lack of detail in the EDF transport proposals.

Other issues - Hallam proposals involving reworking of a junction were discussed. Various pinch points were highlighted e.g. A39 issue. Cannington to Bridgwater, Cannington to Nether Stowey. The detail of any A39 improvements was queried. Cumulative effects from the development at Cockerhurst of 300-500 dwellings was not recognised in EDF plans.

Keith stated that detailed reports had been submitted to the County and Highways Agency subsequent to Stage 2 proposals but that no future predictions of traffic were available in models. Also no info on outages / operations.

Combwich stated that they believe that the consultation is failed.

The potential impact of Hinkley B decommissioning was raised.

1 page summary of what applications were going where and how the public will be able to comment on them was requested. Also a query on whether recent letters written by authorities and discussed at SNEG would be available to parishes.

24 September 2010 Page 20 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

Appendix 4

Hinkley Point Community Support Programme: Associated development for Proposed New Hinkley Point C Power Station

Draft Report of Community Wellbeing Theme Meeting, in West Somerset District Council Offices, Williton, on 8th September

Attendance: Those attending the support meeting - what is your nearest town or village? • Nether Stowey – 3 • Withycombe - 1 • Watchet - 1 • Stogursey - 1 • Watchet – 1 • Shurton – 1 • Old Cleeve – 1 • Williton – 1 • West Somerset District Council - 2

Comments noted during discussions at the meeting • Concerns raised over lack of information regarding helicopter movements and flight paths despite a Hellipad being shown at Hinkley as part of the development proposals for Hinkley C;

• Concern as to where any Accident & Emergency casualties from Hinkley (such as occurred during construction period but also subsequently) would be taken to since Hospital is already running at full capacity and so would seem unlikely to be able to cope with additional casualties;

• EDF’s figures should not be relied upon as their methods of calculation often seemed dubious, such as their use of incorrect or inappropriate baselines. There were also instances of contradictions of their own calculations in different parts of the proposal documentation;

• How had EDF calculated that there will be 300 children living in the area as a result of the proposals and that this will create undue pressure on local pre-schools and children centres; • Where there are any unanswered questions or lack of information on any issue there should be a legal requirement on EDF to monitor these issues and to pay the cost of doing so;

• Concern that the additional pressure on traffic as a result of leisure facilities provided on any of the sites associated with the Hinkley C development proposals has not been properly considered or taken into account;

• Leisure facilities on site should be made smaller;

• Concern that since facilities will not be built until much later that, at that point, EDF may change their mind on the detail of those.

• Many local communities will need additional local investment in assisting with local integration issues due to nature of large ‘campus’ style accommodation;

24 September 2010 Page 21 of 22

Nether Stowey Parish Council

• Attendee who had stayed one night in the on-site accommodation provided at Hinkley B felt confident that it would be highly unlikely that many workers would want to voluntarily stay in a camp with that number of people and would look to stay in local accommodation instead; • Joint local accommodation costs could also work out much cheaper for groups of workers and this would have an impact on local rents;

• Concern that construction workers would earn more than local workers and that this may cause dissatisfaction;

• West Somerset District Council would like to know how 400 local people will be trained and “upskilled”;

• The Council would like to see a local fund for micro-generation schemes since the N.I. on CO2 emissions will increase;

• What compensation local people will have from EDF. Free electricity?

• EDF say that they may offer compensation after one year but that no details have been provided;

• A £1 million pound community fund for the whole of Somerset is woefully insufficient compared wth Drigg where local communities got one lump sum up front and then annual payments for the duration of the plant’s life;

• West Somerset District Council is surprised that it has not seen a list of wants and wishes from local Parishes regarding Community Legacy;

• There is concern that any acceptance of payment or offer from EDF will be seen as agreeing to, or having accepted payment for; the unwanted associated development for that parish;

• View expressed parishes would rather not have the associated development at all than a token payment…that is their “list of wants and wishes”;

• Establishing a fund would enable communities to react to local needs over time instead of having to predict now, upfront, exactly what is and will be required for future needs;

• At Flamenville they have a community benefit ‘cascade’ and yet with the Hinkley C proposals there is no framework for debate with EDF about Community benefit;

• The Business rates of Hinkley C could generate a considerable funding stream;

• Where the Community Legacy Fund come from and how it will be paid for. Point being that concern that it will actually come from EDF customers’ own increased electricity bills. Would people from other parts of the country be willing to accept increased electricity costs to enable payments to Somerset residents living close to Hinkley?

24 September 2010 Page 22 of 22