Two local MPs have this week joined forces to oppose plans for a ‘disaster’ salt marsh in their constituencies.
The proposed salt marshes on the Severn estuary were seen as mitigation measures by EDF to offset its environmental impact at Hinkley Point C.
Ashley Fox, MP for Bridgwater and Burnham-On-Sea, secured and led the Westminster Hall debate in Parliament on Wednesday (October 9th) to scrutinise EDF’s recently withdrawn proposal for an 800-acre salt marsh at Pawlett Hams.
He was joined by Tessa Munt, MP for Wells and Mendip Hills, whose constituency also includes local villages including Brent Knoll, East Huntspill and Mark, who questioned the proposals for a site upstream at Kingston Seymour. Both are Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
Addressing the Minister for Nature, Mary Creagh CBE, Ashley Fox said: “Pawlett Hams is a precious ecosystem. EDF’s plans to flood the area with saltwater would endanger not just the land itself, but the myriad species that call it home.”
He continued: “EDF’s plan was a disaster, and even if it went ahead, it was not clear how it would mitigate the problem of the fish that would be lost.”
Ashley Fox credited the Pawlett Hams Action Group for their persistence in securing a U-turn from EDF over the proposed salt marsh.
He added: “It seems to me that EDF and the Environment Agency are putting together a package of mitigation measures in the hope that the deal will be signed off.”
The deal Ashley Fox references is the controversial use of an acoustic fish deterrent in the Severn Estuary, which emits a loud noise underwater to stop fish approaching intake pipes to the nuclear power station.
The MP claims that, since EDF have also U-turned on deploying this technology, compensatory habitat measures – such as salt marshes – now form part of the mitigation measures.
Speaking about the proposals at Kingston Seymour, Tessa Munt commented: “It is the case that the communities feel that EDF and the Environment Agency may have been a little heavy-handed in their first approaches. They seemed to be rather fierce and not accepting.”
Referencing previous efforts by the community to protect the area, she continued: “We are now proposing to mitigate the mitigation that everyone has provided. It is absolutely bonkers. We will end up mitigating the mitigation of the mitigation of the mitigation if we carry on like this.”
Tessa Munt also elaborated on the acoustic fish deterrent: “We were all told that the acoustic fish deterrent would be the absolute answer to all problems many years ago.”
“Now it appears to be utter fiction, and I do not understand how it is that we can suddenly be looking at creating salt marsh and dismissing the number of fish that are going to be killed when that was a critical factor when Hinkley Point C was being discussed.”
The Minister for Nature responded to both, stating that “salt marshes have had a bad rap in this debate”, and the examples in Somerset are the subject of a live planning case. A decision will be made by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband. The Minister added: “I am confident that he will do so correctly, in line with the requirements of the Planning Act.”
The environmental group Protect Pawlett Hams Action Group and residents campaigned against the plans, calling them an “ecological disaster in the making.” We reported here that the group had welcomed the announcement from EDF it is instead “investigating new locations” for the site.
