Parliament to discuss Pawlett Hams – an empowered community that is a beacon for other communities
On Oct 9th, there will be a Parliamentary debate about the environmental impact related to EDF and Hinkley Point C’s wish to make a change to their Development Consent Order (DCO).
EDF Energy secured planning consent for the power station back in 2013, with construction beginning three years later.
EDF is now seeking to make changes to agreed measures, which will require the approval of the Planning Inspectorate – and result in a new public inquiry in early 2025.
To change the DCO, EDF must implement environmental mitigation measures (driven by the Environment Agency). This is the first new nuclear power plant in over 20 years, after all, purported to cost up to £35bn and it must be switched on. The proportionality of the mitigation, however, is a dark tunnel, with no light – just ask the people in those areas now under the spotlight of potential devastating changes to their lives, homes, businesses and local wildlife, as EDF looks to convert areas to salt marshes.
In the press release about the Parliamentary debate, sent by Bridgwater MP Sir Ashley Fox, he says he wants to “highlight the effective advocacy of the [Pawlett Hams] action group at the highest level.” Disappointedly, he didn’t ask this community group to the debate or even tell them about the debate before his press release was published. They contacted Sir Ashley to find out more, he asked what their names were. He hasn’t met them or attended any of their campaign events, despite being invited.
EDF’s mitigation proposals included a nature reserve next to Hinkley C: Pawlett Hams being flooded and turned into a salt marsh at a reported cost of £50m to compensate for fish being sucked into Hinkley C’s cooling pipes. The salt marsh proposal was as big as 313 hectares (773 acres) along the River Parrett. The Guardian reported this as the “Odd Hinkley Point C salt marsh plan“. It would have destroyed aquatic eco-systems and natural habitat, wildlife homes, as well as ancient farmland, businesses and valued community space for local people and school children. There would have needed to be other mitigation to compensate for the damage done to Pawlett Hams. EDF changed their minds about Pawlett Hams, they are now seeking new locations for the creation of salt marsh as an alternative, and causing further anguish.
When I first became aware of EDF salt marsh proposals I was deeply moved by the powerful quotes (and emotions) from a local Pawlett Hams resident, Rachel, in an article published in The Guardian. I went to find Rachel. After coming across her daughter, Molly, and asked if I could meet Rachel to offer my support. Molly asked when I wanted to meet, and I said “asap, tomorrow?!” Molly said she would get a few others to join us. My next step was to get the Pawlett Hams voice to EDF, to work with EDF, in a constructive manner. I arranged for an initial meeting between the Pawlett Action Group and with EDF’s Andrew Cockcroft, who is Head of Stakeholder Relations and Social Impact. He encouraged our approach of constructive dialogue and understanding from both sides.
My involvement was meant to act like a spark, that enabled a small group of villagers to become a shining light of representation, a powerful voice, to stand up for their community and have a say in its future. Ultimately, as an empowered community this helped to influence EDF to reverse their salt marsh plans at Pawlett Hams. But what of the other areas now? I truly hope the spotlight can go back on the Environment Agency and this question of what is proportional mitigation.
I welcome the Parliamentary debate as an opportunity to tell the story of the Pawlett Hams Action Group and to pass on the legacy of what an empowered community can achieve.
Claire Sully is a Unitary Councillor, Deputy Chair of Lib Dem ruling group at Somerset Council, Vice Chair Adults & Health Scrutiny Committee, 2024 MP Candidate, Campaigner & Community Champion.
https://clairesully.com/