Jetty Non Technical Summary - EDF Hinkley Point

Temporary Jetty Applications 

Hinkley Point C - Proposed Nuclear Development 

Non-Technical Summary 

November 2010

[This page is intentionally left blank.]

CONTENTS 

Page 

1 Introduction 1 

2 Project Background 1 

2.1 Hinkley Point C 1 

2.2 Jetty Development 2 

2.3 Site Preparation Works 2 

3 Consenting and EIA Requirements 2 

4 EDF Energy and Nuclear Power 3 

5 Project Description 3 

5.1 The Application Site 3 

5.2 Description of the Jetty Development 5 

6 Environmental Impact Assessment 9 

6.1 Introduction 9 

6.2 Consultation 9 

6.3 EIA Methodology for the Assessment of Impacts 10 

6.4 Consideration of Alternatives 12 

6.5 The Environmental Statement 14 

7 Overview of Predicted Impacts on the Human and Built Environment 15 

7.1 Recreation and Amenity 15 

7.2 Transport 20 

7.3 Air Quality 22 

7.4 Noise and Vibration 24 

7.5 Landscape and Visual Amenity 27 

7.6 Historic Environment 36 

7.7 Socio-economics 38 

7.8 Navigation 41 

8 Overview of Predicted Impacts on the Natural and Physical Environment 44 

8.1 Coastal Hydrodynamics and Geomorphology 44 

8.2 Marine Ecology 46 

8.3 Terrestrial Ecology and Ornithology 48 

8.4 Water Quality 52 

8.5 Hydrology and Drainage 54 

8.6 Groundwater 55 

8.7 Soils and Land Use 57 

8.8 Geology and Contaminated Land 58 

Hinkley Point C Preliminary Works 

Non Technical Summary 

Temporary Jetty Development i November 2010

9 Cumulative Effects 59 

9.1 Introduction 59 

9.2 Cumulative Effects with the Site Preparation Works 59 

9.3 Cumulative Effects with the Hinkley Point C Project 60 

9.4 Cumulative Effects with Other Plans and Projects 61 

10 Conclusion 62 



Temporary Jetty Development ii November 2010

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1.1 NNB Generation Company Limited (part of EDF Energy) is seeking consent from the 

Marine Management Organisation (MMO) for the development of a temporary jetty and 

associated onshore infrastructure at Hinkley Point, Somerset (i.e. the ‘jetty 

development’). These works are proposed as ‘Preliminary Works’ to facilitate the 

construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point – Hinkley Point C. 

1.1.2 Consent will be sought by way of a Harbour Empowerment Order (HEO) under the 

Harbours Act 1964 (as amended) and licences under the Food & Environment Protection 

Act 1985 (i.e. FEPA licences). 

1.1.3 In addition to the jetty development, EDF Energy is proposing site preparation works to 

clear and level the site and provide the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the 

construction of Hinkley Point C. Key features of the site preparation works include site 

clearance, earthworks and drainage, which together with the jetty development form 

Preliminary Works to the construction of Hinkley Point C. EDF Energy is seeking consent 

for the site preparation works by way of grant of planning permission from West 

Somerset Council under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. 

1.1.4 Since the jetty development and site preparation works are both Preliminary Works to the 

Hinkley Point C Project they are being treated as distinct but related projects. 

1.1.5 EDF Energy will separately be seeking a Development Consent Order (DCO) from the 

Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) to construct and operate Hinkley Point C. 

1.1.6 This document provides a Non Technical Summary (NTS) of the Environmental 

Statement (ES) produced in support of the HEO and FEPA licences applications for the 

jetty development (the ES can be found in Volumes 2 to 4 inclusive of the submission). 

The ES is the formal report of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the 

potential impacts of the jetty development’s construction, operation, dismantling and 

restoration phases (i.e. the phases that would occur if the DCO is granted for the Hinkley 

Point C Project). The ES also reports on the potential impacts of the jetty development’s 

removal and reinstatement phase (i.e. the phase that would occur if the DCO is not 

granted for the Hinkley Point C Project). 

2 PROJECT BACKGROUND 

2.1 Hinkley Point C 

2.1.1 The Hinkley Point C site was nominated for new nuclear build by EDF Energy in 2009 

and is identified in the Government’s revised draft National Policy Statement (NPS) for 

Nuclear Power Generation as one of eight sites in England and Wales that are potentially 

suitable for the deployment of nuclear reactors by 2025 (Department for Energy and 

Climate Change, October 2010). The NPS makes it clear that all eight sites are needed, 

and that it is in the public interest to give priority to sites where new nuclear power 

stations can be developed significantly earlier than 2025. Hinkley Point C is the only site 

capable of being developed by 2018, which accords with Government policy on early 

deployment (see paragraphs 2.2.1 and 6.4.2 for further details). 



Temporary Jetty Development 1 November 2010

2.2 Jetty Development 

2.2.1 The jetty development is needed early to provide a means for delivery of bulk 

construction materials (principally stone, sand and cement) to the construction site at 

Hinkley Point. They are necessary as Preliminary Works to the Hinkley Point C Project to 

speed up the construction programme so that the new power station can be operational 

by 2018. This is in line with Government policy that encourages early development of 

new nuclear build to assist in meeting the UK’s carbon reduction targets (to help mitigate 

climate change) and improve the diversity and security of our electricity supplies. 

2.2.2 In addition, early construction of the temporary jetty would mean it would be available to 

serve the whole of the construction phase for Hinkley Point C; thus minimising HGV 

construction traffic on local roads. 

2.3 Site Preparation Works 

2.3.1 The proposed site preparation works involve the following activities: site clearance 

(including erection of fencing, vegetation removal, demolition of existing structures, and 

creation of alternative footpaths); earthworks (including soil stripping and storage, site 

levelling, soil screening / storage for subsequent re-use on site); provision of earth 

retaining structures; deep excavations; provision and relocation of drainage infrastructure 

(including culverts, outfalls, balancing ponds); the provision and operation of plant and 

machinery (including plant for concrete batching); site establishment works (including the 

provision of construction compounds and associated (including layover) facilities, car 

parks, haulage roads, site access points and roundabouts, and laying, replacement 

and/or diversion of utilities); and other associated works. In the event that Hinkley Point C 

is not consented, all structures would be removed and the site reinstated. Collectively 

these works are necessary to enable the earliest possible completion of construction of 

Hinkley Point C following the grant of the DCO. 

2.3.2 Prior to commencing the site preparation works and, where relevant, subject to obtaining 

separate planning permission, a small package of enabling works is also to be initiated in 

2010 to facilitate the site preparation works. These works would include remediation 

works to remove known areas of asbestos contamination within an existing spoil mound 

on site and in other areas of made ground located within the eastern part of the 

application site (see Section 8.8). 

3 CONSENTING AND EIA REQUIREMENTS 

3.1.1 As identified above, EDF Energy is seeking a HEO to authorise the jetty development 

and FEPA licences to authorise discrete aspects of the jetty development’s construction. 

Both of the consent application procedures include provisions for EIA in accordance with 

the requirements of European Community Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended) On the 

Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment 

(herein referred to as the ‘EIA Directive’). In relation to the HEO, the EIA Directive is 

transposed into national law by the Harbour Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) 

Regulations 1999 (as amended in 2000 and 2009). In relation to FEPA licences, the EIA 

Directive is transposed into national law by the Marine Works (Environmental Impact 

Assessment) Regulations 2007. 

3.1.2 Through a ‘screening’ process, the MMO has confirmed that the jetty development is 

subject to EIA under the provisions of the EIA Directive and both of the aforementioned 

Regulations because it, or elements of it, would either qualify as facilitating and relating to 




a nuclear power station development, or qualify in its own right constitute a port 

development. Accordingly, the jetty development is subject to EIA. 

3.1.3 Since the jetty development would be situated within and adjacent to a number of 

internationally important nature conservation sites (i.e. the Severn Estuary Special Area 

of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site), it would need to 

comply with the measures set out in Council Directive (1992/43/EC) On the conservation 

of natural habitats and wild flora and fauna (herein referred to as the ‘Habitats Directive’), 

which is transposed into UK law through the Conservation of Habitats and Species 

Regulations 2010. 

3.1.4 In addition, the jetty development includes a number of activities that would require 

separate legal consents from a number of different regulatory bodies, potentially including 

land drainage consents, discharge consents, waste management exemptions / licences, 

and protected species licences. Prior to commencement of these activities, EDF Energy 

will ensure that it has secured the necessary consents and that any relevant works are 

undertaken in full compliance with legal requirements and best practice. 

4 EDF ENERGY AND NUCLEAR POWER 

4.1.1 Électricité de France (EDF) is one of the world’s largest energy companies and the 

world’s largest operator of nuclear power plants, with 58 operational plants in France and 

a further one under construction at Flamanville in Normandy. EDF has a strong safety 

track record in the operation of nuclear power stations and safety is at the heart of the 

design and operating procedures for all its nuclear plants. Within the UK, EDF operates 

via its UK subsidiary – EDF Energy – and currently owns and operates eight nuclear 

power stations, including Sizewell B in Suffolk. 

4.1.2 EDF Energy has indicated publicly for over three years that it would be interested in 

investing in a new generation of nuclear plants in the UK and that it is confident that new 

plants can be built and run safely and economically, without subsidy. 

5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

5.1 The Application Site 

5.1.1 This section describes the jetty development and the characteristics of the application 

site and surrounding area that it could affect. The application site (see Figure 1) is 

located on the northern coastline of West Somerset, 25km to the east of Minehead and 

12km to the north-west of Bridgwater, and falls within the parish of Stogursey. The 

onshore component of the application site falls within the land under the control of EDF 

Energy, adjacent and to the west of the existing Hinkley Point Power Station Complex. 

The offshore component of the application site extends into Bridgwater Bay, part of the 

Severn Estuary. 

5.1.2 Immediately to the east of the application site are the Hinkley Point A and Hinkley Point B 

nuclear power stations (i.e. the Hinkley Point Power Station Complex). Hinkley Point A 

operated between 1965 and 2000 and is currently undergoing decommissioning by the 

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). Hinkley Point B, owned by EDF Energy, has 

operated since 1976 and is scheduled to continue generating until at least 2016. 




Figure 1 Jetty Development Application Site 

5.1.3 The topography of the application site and the surrounding land is typical of that in the 

wider locality, comprising mostly open, gently rolling, mixed lowland farmland with a 

series of east-west trending ridges. Ground elevations range from approximately 10m to 

35m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The main access road serving Hinkley Point is the 

C182, which is an unclassified road that runs south from Hinkley Point through the village 

of Cannington and then joins the A39 to the south of the village (see Figure 8). The A39 

is a local strategic east-west road with Bridgwater to the east and Minehead to the west. 

Within Bridgwater the A39 joins the A38, which is also a local strategic road that links to 

the M5 motorway north and south of Bridgwater at Junctions 23 and 24 respectively. 

5.1.4 The application site contains a network of public rights of way (PRoW). It includes a 

portion of the West Somerset Coast Path (Footpath WL 23/95), which is a 25km linear 

walk and a resource of national importance. The network of existing PRoW is shown on 

Figure 2. One of the main routes to south of the application site – known as Green Lane 

(Footpath WL 23/110) - is an east-west track that runs along a ridge with significant 

nature conservation, heritage and landscape value. 




Figure 2 Existing Public Rights of Way 

5.2 Description of the Jetty Development 

5.2.1 The jetty development would be constructed and, assuming a DCO is granted for the 

Hinkley Point C Project, operated during construction of Hinkley Point C. It would then be 

dismantled and the site restored where it lies outside of the area of permanent works 

associated with Hinkley Point C. However, if a DCO is not granted for the Hinkley Point 

C Project, the constructed jetty would not be operated, but would be removed and the 

land reinstated back to its current form. 

5.2.2 The jetty is proposed as a two-staged structure that can be constructed in a manner that 

accommodates the emerging transport demands of the Hinkley Point C Project, so that 

the first stage could operate alone without the second stage. However, it is expected that 

the two stages would in fact be built as one structure under one construction programme 

(i.e. stage two would be constructed once stage one is in place without any interval). 

This is reflected in the HEO application, which proposes the jetty development in its 

entirety, and is assessed in the ES. 

5.2.3 The jetty development comprises the following offshore infrastructure, as shown in 

Figures 3 and 4: 

• a jetty bridge constructed from vertical tubular piles supporting the deck; 

• a jetty head constructed from vertical tubular piles supporting horizontal cross-heads 

and a deck, and incorporating mooring infrastructure (e.g. dolphins); 

• a berthing pocket dredged alongside the jetty head to accommodate vessels at 

various states of the tide; 

• materials handling and conveyance equipment on the jetty head and along jetty 

bridge; 




• a roadway along the jetty bridge; and 

• aids to navigation. 

5.2.4 Indicative visual representations of the jetty are shown in Figure 5. 

Figure 3 Plan of Jetty Bridge and Jetty Head 

5.2.5 The jetty development comprises the following onshore infrastructure as shown in Figure 

6: 

• an aggregates storage area comprising stockpile areas for stone and sand, and silos 

for cement and/or cement replacement products, and including a surface water 

drainage system with a water management zone for the treatment and regulation of 

discharges; 

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

onshore components; 

• a service road providing access to the aggregates storage area, the rock extraction 

area and, temporarily for the purposes of construction, to the foreshore; and 

• materials handling and conveyance equipment from the jetty bridge to the 

aggregates storage area. 




Figure 4 Detailed Plan of Jetty Head 

Figure 5 Photomontages of the Jetty - Looking West (top) and Looking East 

(bottom) 




Figure 6 Temporary Jetty Development – Onshore Development 

Hinkley Point C Preliminary Works Non Technical Summary 


6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

6.1 Introduction 

6.1.1 Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a process that must be followed for certain 

types of development before they are granted consent. In this instance, the MMO has 

determined that the jetty development is a project listed under Annex I to the EIA 

Directive, as transposed into national law by the Harbour Works (EIA) Regulations and 

the Marine Works (EIA) Regulations. 

6.1.2 The MMO’s Scoping Opinion (dated 4 June 2010) included a Screening Opinion which 

identified that the jetty development, or elements of it (i.e. regulated activities), would 

either qualify as facilitating and relate to the description of the development of a nuclear 

power station / nuclear reactor, or would in its own right constitute a port development 

itself within Annex I. 

6.2 Consultation 

6.2.1 Consultation for the jetty development has been undertaken during the consultation 

phase for the Hinkley Point C Project. This consultation has been with regulators, 

statutory government agencies, non-governmental organisations and the public 

throughout the EIA process for the Hinkley Point C Project and, also, specifically for the 

Preliminary Works, including the jetty development. EDF Energy has had ongoing 

informal engagement with key statutory consultees and other interested parties, which 

has informed the preparation of its development proposals for the Hinkley Point C 

Project, dating back to 2008. Key milestones include the consultation programme 

coordinated in the autumn and winter of 2008 in support of the EIA scoping process and, 

in early 2009, to assist the Government’s Strategy Siting Assessment process for new 

nuclear power stations. Generic consultation has included the consultation undertaken 

as part of the DCO application process for the Hinkley Point C Project. The primary aim 

of the pre-application consultation is to engage early with local authorities, statutory 

consultees, local communities and the general public in order to: 

• allow members of the local community to influence the way projects are developed 

by providing feedback on potential options, providing them with an opportunity to 

shape the way in which their community develops; 

• assist in a better understanding of the proposed project and the implications at a 

local scale and resolve misunderstandings or concerns at an early stage; 

• obtain important information about the economic, social and environmental impacts 

of a scheme from consultees, to help identify project options which are unsuitable 

and not worth developing further; 

• enable potential mitigating measures to be considered and, in some cases, built into 

the project before an application is submitted; and 

• identify ways in which the project could support wider strategic or local objectives, 

where appropriate. 

6.2.2 EDF Energy undertook the first formal stage of consultation from November 2009 to 

February 2010. The consultation at Stage 1 set out the initial proposals and options for 

the Hinkley Point C Project. These initial proposals were presented in a consultation 

document together with an Environmental Status Report setting out the preliminary 

environmental information relating to the proposed development. Stage 1 consultation 

provided an early opportunity for statutory and non-statutory consultees to comment on 

the scheme whilst development proposals were still being worked up. In addition, it also 




provided a specific opportunity for stakeholders to comment on the proposals for 

Preliminary Works, including the jetty development. 

6.2.3 EDF Energy began the second formal stage of consultation in July 2010. This stage is 

consulting on the preferred proposal for the Hinkley Point C Project (and this proposal 

includes the project’s Preliminary Works, including the jetty development). The 

consultation documents include a detailed Environmental Appraisal. The Environmental 

Appraisal was not an ES, but was designed to enable consultees to give an informed 

response to the likely environmental effects of the Hinkley Point C Project based on the 

current information compiled on the project by that stage. The consultation extended into 

October 2010. Further development of the detail of jetty development undertaken since 

July 2010 (when Stage 2 consultation began) has been progressed in consultation with 

key statutory consultees and local residents. 

6.2.4 Consultation has also been undertaken through the Marine Authorities Liaison Group 

(MALG). The MALG was formed in early 2009 and generally met on a monthly basis 

until April 2010. The MALG comprises representatives from regulators and advisory 

agencies with an interest in the Hinkley Point C Project, particularly from a marine and 

coastal perspective, including the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), the Centre 

for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), West Somerset Council, 

Sedgemoor District Council including the Port of Bridgwater, Somerset County Council, 

the Environment Agency, English Heritage, Natural England and the Countryside Council 

for Wales (CCW). The purpose of the MALG meetings is to advise the attendees of the 

latest concepts and developments associated with the Hinkley Point C Project and to 

receive their feedback. Many of the MALG meetings have provided attendees with 

information about the jetty (e.g. alternative options for the jetty’s position at Hinkley Point, 

alternative options for the jetty’s infrastructure design) and its potential impacts on the 

environment (e.g. construction noise, habitat loss, footpath closures). Comments 

received from attendees have been fed into the EIA process for the jetty development 

during scoping and impact assessment. 

6.2.5 Other consultation specifically for the jetty development outside of the MALG has 

included direct consultation with various parties and in relation to specific issues relating 

to the various environmental parameters of interest. 

6.3 EIA Methodology for the Assessment of Impacts 

6.3.1 At the impact assessment stage, the potentially beneficial and adverse impacts of the 

jetty development are identified and assessed with reference to the existing environment. 

Environmental impacts have been predicted with reference to definitive standards and 

legislation where available. Where it has not been possible to quantify impacts, 

qualitative assessments have been carried out based on available knowledge and 

professional judgement. Where uncertainties, limitations or assumptions exist, they have 

been noted in the ES. 

6.3.2 The significance of predicted impacts has been determined by reference to impact 

criteria for each assessment topic. Broadly, the significance of the impact gives 

consideration to the magnitude of the potential impact, the value and sensitivity of the 

receiving environment and the likelihood of the impact occurring. 

Impact Magnitude 

6.3.3 Magnitude refers to the ‘size’ or ‘amount’ of an impact. It is a function of other aspects, 

such as the impact’s extent (i.e. the area over which the impact occurs), duration (i.e. the 




time for which the impact is expected to last prior to recovery or replacement of the 

resource or feature), likelihood (i.e. the chance that the impact will occur) and reversibility 

(i.e. an irreversible (permanent) impact is one from which recovery is not possible within 

a reasonable timescale or for which there is no reasonable chance of action being taken 

to reverse it). Where possible, environmental impacts have been predicted with reference 

to quantified baseline conditions, definitive standards and legislation; where it is not 

possible to quantify impacts, qualitative assessments have been carried out based on 

available knowledge and professional judgement. 

Value and Sensitivity 

6.3.4 This is a composite criterion, where the ‘value’ of the receptor (the individual or feature 

that the impact could affect) will be a function of a variety of factors (e.g. biodiversity 

value, social/community value and economic value) and can be determined within a 

defined geographical context. In some instances, the inherent value of a receptor will 

have been recognised by the expert community and Governmental bodies by means of 

designation. Irrespective of recognised value, all receptors will exhibit a greater or lesser 

degree of ‘sensitivity’ to the changes brought about by the proposed development. The 

precise form which these indicators take in each case will vary according to subject 

matter, but by following the generic methodology adopted, assessors have ensured that 

these factors have been taken into account within their subject areas. 

Impact Assessment Matrix and Impact Significance 

6.3.5 Using the magnitude of the impact together with the value and sensitivity of the 

environmental receptor, the degree of significance of an impact can be determined. To 

assist this process, an impact assessment matrix (IAM) provides a mechanism for initially 

assessing impact significance (see Table 1). 

Table 1 Impact Assessment Matrix 

Magnitude 

Values and Sensitivity of Receptor 

Very low Low Medium High 

Very Low Negligible Negligible Minor Minor 

Low Negligible Minor Minor Moderate 

Medium Minor Minor Moderate Major 

High Minor Moderate Major Major 

6.3.6 It should be noted that while the matrix provides a good framework for the consistent 

assessment of impacts across all parameters, there is still an important role for expert 

judgement and further objective assessment to play in moderating the significance rating 

process. 

6.3.7 Defining the significance rating of the impact is the most important step in the EIA 

process since it is this rating which provides a strong indication as to whether mitigation 

may be required and also whether, following the use of mitigation measures, identified 

impacts may be reduced to environmentally acceptable levels (or not). 




Mitigation 

6.3.8 In this EIA, those impacts assessed as being of potentially greater than minor adverse 

significance (i.e. impacts of moderate and major adverse significance) are the focus of 

mitigation, although every attempt has been taken to avoid, reduce and mitigate impacts 

through design change and adoption of best practice. 

6.3.9 The preferred hierarchy of mitigation is prevention first, then minimisation and, only as a 

last resort, compensation or remediation. The definitions of these are as follows: 

• prevention: avoid, relocate, modify the design and / or do not carry out the 

development; 

• reduction: introduce screens / blinds, modify design, alter technology, reduce size 

and scale of development etc; and 

• compensation or remediation: compensation to provide like-for-like replacement for 

any lost environmental elements (e.g. open green spaces, public facilities, wildlife 

area etc). 

6.3.10 Where possible, mitigation has been built into the jetty development (e.g. through the 

options chosen and through its design) and may be accepted, offset by other benefits of 

the jetty development or managed by the imposition of conditions within the HEO and/or 

on any licences granted. 

Residual Impacts 

6.3.11 The final step in the EIA process is the assessment of the residual impacts (i.e. those 

impacts remaining after the implementation (where necessary) of the proposed mitigation 

measures). Residual impacts are rated in accordance with the definitions of significance 

provided above. In this EIA, residual impacts assessed as minor or negligible are 

considered to be insignificant. More significant impacts may be accepted, offset by other 

benefits of the jetty development, or managed by the imposition of conditions within the 

HEO and / or on any licences granted. 

Cumulative Effects Assessment 

6.3.12 Cumulative effects are the additive and interactive effects that can arise from the jetty 

development cumulatively with other plans and projects. The EIA considers the jetty 

development cumulatively with the site preparation works, the Hinkley Point C Project, 

and other plans and projects which overlap in time and space (as regards those 

receptors that potentially could be affected). 

6.4 Consideration of Alternatives 

6.4.1 In accordance with the EIA Directive, an ES should outline the main alternatives 

considered by the applicant and present the main reasons for selecting the application 

site and design. 

No Development Alternative 

6.4.2 Proposed as Preliminary Works, the jetty development would allow EDF Energy to meet 

the target date of 2018 for the start of nuclear power generation by enabling the 

construction of Hinkley Point C to begin as early as possible after grant of the DCO. The 

2018 target is clearly set out in the draft National Policy Statements related to energy and 




is designed to meet the Government’s objective of early deployment of new nuclear 

power stations to help provide security of electricity supplies in the period post-2015. 

6.4.3 If the jetty development is not undertaken in 2011-2012 as Preliminary Works to the 

Hinkley Point C Project, there would be a delay of approximately one year to the 

programme for construction and operation of Hinkley Point C. EDF Energy estimates, on 

a conservative basis, that the operation of Hinkley Point C would save some 12 million 

tonnes of CO 2 per year (in comparison with efficient fossil fuel based generation plant). 

This saving of CO 2 emissions would be equivalent to taking four million cars off the road. 

6.4.4 Proposed as Preliminary Works, the jetty development would also facilitate construction 

of Hinkley Point C in a way that significantly reduces the use of HGVs to import 

construction materials to site via the local public highway network, including the roads to 

Hinkley Point through Cannington and possibly through Bridgwater. Without the jetty 

development, a total of approximately two million tonnes of bulk construction materials for 

concrete production (i.e. stone, sand and cement) would have to be imported by road (or 

by a combination of rail and road). Based on a 15 tonnes payload, the importation of 

materials by road instead of via the jetty would add a total of approximately 260,000 HGV 

movements on the local highway network over Hinkley Point C’s construction period. 

Depending on the rate of demand for bulk construction materials over the course of 

Hinkley Point C’s construction period, the jetty development would offset between 245 

and 436 HGV movements per day. 

Jetty Location at Hinkley Point 

6.4.5 Compared to the alternatives (i.e. the redevelopment of Combwich Wharf and possible 

use of facilities at Dunball Wharf), the temporary jetty option would be the most 

appropriate option and, therefore, the preferred option for the delivery of bulk materials 

because it would have least effect on local communities (particularly those along the 

route between Combwich Wharf and Hinkley Point). 

Jetty Position at Hinkley Point 

6.4.6 Compared to the alternatives (i.e. an eastern jetty option), the western jetty option is the 

preferred option primarily because it has a smaller footprint and, therefore, a smaller 

scale of impacts on the designated sites (except the Lilstock to Blue Anchor SSSI), 

marine ecological receptors and archaeological receptors. In addition, it is more likely to 

avoid the Corallina turfs present on the foreshore. Unlike the eastern option it would, in 

part, cross – and partially obscure – the exposures in the Lilstock to Blue Anchor SSSI. 

However, the affected exposures are replicated and are accessible elsewhere in the 

SSSI, so there would be no physical loss of geological exposures or damage to the 

resource due to the works. 

Jetty Design 

6.4.7 Compared to the alternative designs, the two-staged jetty option is preferred because it 

offers greater operational flexibility. In terms of its environmental impact it offers the 

‘middle ground’. In the marine environment, its footprint is slightly larger than one option 

and slightly smaller than the other, but its operational flexibility offers more opportunity 

than the one option and a similar opportunity to another for reducing traffic, air quality 

and noise impacts. Overall the two-staged option is preferred on the basis of its 

expected operational performance and environmental impact. 




Disposal of Dredged Material 

6.4.8 Compared to the alternatives (i.e. other offshore disposal options, beneficial use options 

and onshore disposal options), the disposal of dredged material at the Cardiff Grounds is 

the preferred option because the dredged material arising from the berthing pocket is not 

anticipated to be too contaminated for offshore disposal, and given the logistical 

difficulties and associated environmental issues, onshore disposal options were not 

considered viable. 

6.5 The Environmental Statement 

6.5.1 In accordance with the EIA Directive and aforementioned EIA Regulations, the ES 

reports on the potential environmental impacts arising during the construction, operation 

and dismantling / restoration phases of the jetty development. The ES also reports in the 

potential environmental impacts arising during the removal / reinstatement phase of the 

jetty development, should the DCO not be granted and, therefore, removal of the jetty 

development and reinstatement of the land be required. 

6.5.2 The ES that this NTS accompanies contains the following information: 

• a description of the proposed temporary jetty development and an outline of the main 

alternatives considered; 

• a description of the existing (baseline) environment that the jetty development has 

the potential to impact upon (both directly and indirectly); 

• definitions of the relevant study areas for the EIA; 

• prediction of potential impacts (during the jetty development’s various phases) on the 

existing environment and assessment of their significance; 

• a description of any mitigation measures proposed to avoid, reduce or off-set 

potential impacts; and 

• an indication of any difficulties (e.g. uncertainties, assumptions and limitations) 

encountered during the preparation of the ES. 

6.5.3 The ES contains the specific assessment methodologies adopted, the baseline 

environmental conditions, and the technical assessments of the potential impacts 

associated with the jetty development. Assessments have been made for the following 

environmental parameters: 

• recreation and amenity; 

• transport; 

• air quality; 

• noise and vibration; 

• landscape and visual amenity; 

• archaeology and cultural heritage; 

• socio-economics; 

• coastal hydrodynamics and geomorphology; 

• marine ecology; 

• terrestrial ecology and ornithology; 

• water quality; 

• hydrology and drainage; 

• groundwater; 

• soils and land use; and 

• geology and contaminated land. 




6.5.4 The ES also contains an assessment of cumulative effects. 

6.5.5 An overview of the findings of the ES is provided in the subsequent sections of this NTS. 

These are summarised as predicted impacts on the human and built environment (e.g. 

recreation, noise, air quality and traffic) and then impacts on the natural environment 

(e.g. ecology, water quality and soils). A brief description of the existing environmental 

conditions is provided, followed by a summary of the main impacts that would arise from 

the jetty development. The key mitigation measures to avoid, reduce or off-set impacts 

are also summarised and the residual impacts are discussed. Where significant residual 

impacts are predicted, these are summarised in tables at the end of each section. 

7 OVERVIEW OF PREDICTED IMPACTS ON THE HUMAN AND BUILT 

ENVIRONMENT 

7.1 Recreation and Amenity 

Existing Environment 

7.1.1 The site and wider study area is well served by a network of public footpaths, including: 

• a portion of the West Somerset Coast Path, a resource of national importance, which 

links the River Parrett Trail at Steart in Bridgwater Bay with the South West Coast 

Path National Trail at Minehead; 

• a number of smaller, interconnecting footpaths across the site that are generally 

aligned north to south and east to west, with a length of 20km of PRoW within 1km of 

the site and 60km of PRoW within 3km of the site. 

7.1.2 Surveys have been carried out to determine the use of PRoW in and around the 

application site. The West Somerset Coast Path, which runs along the northern 

boundary of the application site, is used most often during the summer months and 

holiday periods. The data provides approximate visitor numbers each month along the 

West Somerset Coast Path between 2006 and 2009, with counts taken from the junction 

of PRoW WL 23/56 and WL 23/95 (see Figure 2). The highest number of users (410) 

was recorded in August 2008 for this stretch of path. 

7.1.3 In terms of the remainder of the site’s PRoW, the survey carried out in 2009 identified 

that the majority of users appear to be local residents (70% of those surveyed lived less 

than 3km from the study area). However, visitors who reside significant distances from 

the area (e.g. live in excess of 25km from the study area) were also recorded using the 

PRoW. 

7.1.4 There are no bridleways within the application site boundary, though a number of 

bridleways are located in the surrounding area. Due to the limited availability of public 

bridleways, the majority of this equestrian activity takes place on private land. 

7.1.5 Within the Severn Estuary and Bristol Channel, there are a large number of sailing, 

cruising, boating and yacht clubs. However, no formal boating and/or sailing activities or 

events are known to occur off Hinkley Point due to the insufficient depth of water at this 

location. 

7.1.6 An Excepted Area is located on the foreshore at Hinkley Point, stretching from Stolford in 

the east, past Hinkley Point, to the boundary of the Bridgwater Bay NNR in the west. The 

Excepted Area can be used for shooting by any member of the British Society for 




Shooting and Conservation (BASC). Consultation with Natural England indicates that the 

Excepted Area is used intermittently by between 5-10 people during the season. 

7.1.7 There are no existing sports and recreation facilities (including playing fields, sports clubs 

and stadiums) within a 1km radius of the application site boundary, although there are 

such facilities within the wider study area. 

7.1.8 In addition, there are no areas of open access land within the application site. Wick Moor 

Common lies to the south-east of the application site and extends eastwards. A search 

of Natural England’s Common Rights of Way (CRoW) database indicates that a further 

series of commons are located over 1km from the application site. 

7.1.9 There are no areas of public open space, such as formal parks and gardens, within the 

application site. The nearest formal areas of public open space are in excess of 4km 

from the application site (i.e. Combwich Village Green and Combwich Common). 

7.1.10 Walking, wildfowling, fishing, bird watching and horse riding are the predominant sporting 

and recreational activities undertaken in close proximity to or within the study area. 

However, given the limited use of the Common Land and foreshore by any formal and 

informal recreational activities, and given the availability of similar recreational resource 

in the surrounding area, local importance is ascribed. 

Main Predicted Impacts 

7.1.11 During the construction of the jetty development, the aggregates storage area would be 

enclosed by a 2.14m high chain link security fence. Hence the first phase of construction 

(the earthworks) would result in the obstruction, for health and safety reasons, of a 

number of PRoW until the works are completed, which is anticipated to be around 3 to 4 

months from commencement (see Figure 7). Following completion of the first phase of 

construction, the access road would again be passable and, consequently, certain PRoW 

would be re-opened while the rest would remain closed for the duration of the works 

(expected to 14 to 15 months). In addition, the elevated jetty would be constructed over 

the route of the West Somerset Coast Path and this would also be obstructed. 

7.1.12 Without mitigation, the obstruction of the affected PRoW is considered to represent a 

high magnitude disturbance because the right of passage would be removed. The 

affected PRoW network (excluding the section of the West Somerset Coast Path) is a 

resource of local importance and, consequently, an impact of moderate adverse 

significance is predicted. 

7.1.13 The obstruction of the West Somerset Coast Path (WL 23/95) is considered to represent 

a high magnitude effect given the loss of right of access along the coast, albeit for a 

reasonably short period of time. Given the national importance of this asset, without 

mitigation, a short- to medium-term impact of major adverse significance is assessed. 

7.1.14 The jetty development would also result in an increase in noise, dust and visual 

disturbance due to the movement and activities of construction personnel, plant and 

equipment; all of which could have an adverse impact on the amenity value of the PRoW 

close to the location of such activities and equipment for the duration of works. These 

impacts are considered in relevant sections on air quality, noise and vibration, and 

landscape and visual amenity herein. 

7.1.15 Impacts to other sports and recreation facilities, open access land, or public open space 

are not expected to be significant during the jetty development. 




7.1.16 Although the foreshore is an Excepted Area where wildfowling can and does take place, 

its use is very low in frequency and by a small number of people, representing a locally 

important resource. The scale of the area obstructed in the foreshore (which would be 

limited to temporary obstructions to small areas) is very small (a minimum of 1.4ha to a 

maximum of 6ha) in comparison to the available area (the Excepted Area covers 314ha, 

and consequently no more than 2% would be obstructed). Consequently, a minor 

adverse impact is predicted. 

7.1.17 During any interim period between completion of the construction phase and operation of 

the jetty, there would be no activities on site that would result in emissions of dust or 

other air quality deterioration. Therefore, there would be no change in the background air 

quality environment and, hence, no impact is predicted to occur to users of the PRoW. 

7.1.18 With respect to the jetty development alone, those PRoW that would be obstructed 

during the latter phase of construction (i.e. following the earthworks) would continue to be 

obstructed during the operational phase and a moderate adverse impact would arise in 

the medium-term (the combined impact of the site preparation works and the jetty 

development is considered in Section 9 below). However, PRoW access would be 

available under the jetty and there would be no obstruction to the West Somerset Coast 

Path. 

7.1.19 The dismantling and restoration phases of the jetty development would result in the 

obstruction of the same PRoW affected during construction until the structures are taken 

off site. Following the dismantling and restoration works, the PRoW located within the 

jetty development’s application site would be re-opened. 

7.1.20 The removal and reinstatement of the jetty development, if required (i.e. if the DCO for 

the Hinkley Point C Project is not granted) would have similar impacts to those predicted 

for the jetty development’s dismantling and restoration phase. 

Mitigation 

7.1.21 Following discussions with local residents, equestrians and Somerset County Council 

regarding the Preliminary Works, it was agreed that alternative PRoW would be provided 

during the works to maintain the connectivity and routes of those PRoW that would be 

obstructed; thus maintaining a linked network of routes around the site. The alternative 

routes are shown in Figure 7 and would be used by those following the West Somerset 

Coast Path. Where alternative PRoW cross field boundaries, gates (including selfclosing 

pedestrian gates) would be constructed and appropriate access for disabled 

persons would be catered for as far as practicable. 

7.1.22 Mitigation measures would also be put in place to avoid or reduce the magnitude and 

probability of dust, noise and visual disturbance (as identified in the relevant sections on 

air quality, noise and vibration, and landscape and visual). 

7.1.23 Should the DCO not be granted for the Hinkley Point C Project, all PRoW routes 

disrupted by the jetty development would be reinstated and upgraded where practicable 

through reinstatement of the landform and landscape. 




Figure 7 Public Rights of Way Closures and Alternative Routes 


7.1.24 The magnitude of impacts on PRoW would be significantly reduced by providing users 

with alternative routes, thereby maintaining a right of passage as well as connectivity 

within the surrounding PRoW network. Specifically, the impact associated with 

obstruction to PRoW would be reduced to a minor level for all affected routes. Table 2 

below represents a summary of the potentially significant impacts on recreation and 

amenity that would remain after the mitigation measures discussed above have been put 

into practice. 




Table 2 Summary Significant Impacts on Recreation and Amenity 

Description of Impact Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Impact 

Construction Phase 

Disturbance to 

users of public 

rights of way 

Minor adverse to 

moderate adverse 

(noise) temporary 

Negligible adverse 

to major adverse 

(visual) 

Adherence to best 

practice noise 

minimisation 

Landscaping and 

planting 


to moderate 

adverse (noise) 

temporary 

Negligible to major 

adverse (visual) 


adverse (visual – 

during interim 

period) 


adverse (visual – 


period) 


sports and 

recreation facilities, 

open access land, 

and public open 

space 

Minor adverse 


Major adverse on 

foreshore (visual) 


foreshore (visual – 


period) 



minimisation 


planting 


to minor adverse 





foreshore (visual – 


period) 

Operation Phase 



rights of way 






minimisation 






(visual) 


planting 



(visual) 


sports and 




space 




planting 



Dismantling and Restoration Phase 



rights of way 






minimisation 








Removal and Reinstatement Phase 



rights of way 






minimisation 






(visual) 

Reinstatement of 

features and 

planting 



(visual) 


sports and 




space 



Reinstatement of 

features and 

planting 



7.2 Transport 


7.2.1 The transportation network surrounding the site is set in a rural location with a network of 

country lanes linking scattered residences; farmhouses and a number of small hamlets 

(see Figure 8). The settlement of Shurton lies to the south of the site; the village of 

Combwich lies 5km south-east on the western side of the River Parrett; and the village of 

Cannington lies approximately 7km to the south-east of the site. 

7.2.2 The main access road serving the existing Hinkley Point Power Station Complex is the 

C182, which is a single carriageway road passing from Hinkley Point south-east to the 

village of Cannington. The C182 routes to the east of Shurton and to the west of 

Combwich and passes through the centre of Cannington to join the A39 to the south of 

the village. 


7.2.3 The jetty development’s construction is programmed in two consecutive and overlapping 

stages totalling seven quarters, spanning Quarter 2 2011 to Quarter 4 2012. The first 

stage would take place between Quarter 2 2011 and Quarter 2 2012, potentially running 

concurrently with the site preparation works which are due to be completed in Quarter 1 

2012. The second stage of would follow on directly from the first stage and is 

programmed to take place between Quarter 2 2012 and Quarter 4 2012. 

7.2.4 The jetty development’s design seeks to minimise the amount of road traffic generated. 

For example, rather than being imported by road, construction materials would be 

imported by sea where they are needed for the jetty’s offshore components and fill 

material for the aggregates storage area’s development platform would be sourced on 

site. Table 3 details the transport demand for the jetty construction works. 

7.2.5 For the jetty, offshore construction work would be carried out in two weekday shifts to be 

influenced by the tidal patterns. Onshore construction work would be carried out on 

weekdays (07:00 to 18:00) and Saturdays (07:00-13:00), but not on Sundays, bank 

holidays or public holidays. 




Figure 8 Main Traffic Routes to Hinkley Point 

7.2.6 During the jetty development’s construction phase, the peak daily staff numbers equates 

to 120 vehicle trips. Daily HGV traffic associated with the jetty development is estimated 

at 8 HGV trips per day. Base flows on Rodway for 2012 are forecast at 7672, which 

means that the jetty development changes flows by 1.6% over the baseline. Closer to 

the application site, Wick Moor Drove registered an average daily two-way flow of 1,950 

vehicles for a five day average during March 2010, which means that the jetty 

development changes flows by. 6.4% over the baseline. 

Table 3 Jetty Construction Material Quantities and Personnel 

Movements 2011 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 

a Daily HGV Deliveries 

(quantities) 

b Daily HGV Deliveries 

(contingency) 

0 2 2 2 2 

0 2 2 2 2 

c Personnel 0 60 60 60 60 

d Daily Two Way Trips 

(a+b+c)x2 

0 128 128 128 128 

7.2.7 Overall, the traffic arising from the jetty development’s construction phase is small and 

not significant and it is within 10% of daily traffic fluctuations. Therefore, it has been 

concluded that the traffic will have no discernable impact on the highway network and no 

further assessment of environmental impacts of the jetty development need be 

undertaken. The other phases of the jetty development have also been predicted to 




generate no discernable change, and impacts on transport are, therefore, assessed as 

being not significant. 

Mitigation 

7.2.8 Since the impacts are not significant, no mitigation measures are required. 


7.2.9 Given that the original impacts are not significant, the residual impacts are also not 

significant. 

7.3 Air Quality 


7.3.1 In terms of air quality, the jetty development’s application site at Hinkley Point is located 

in a rural setting on the coastline of the Severn Estuary. This provides favourable 

conditions for pollutant dilution and dispersion, with an on-shore breeze dominating from 

the west-north-west. The topography of the region is also conducive to good pollutant 

dispersion, with the immediate area surrounding the site being rolling countryside. 

7.3.2 Within the district of West Somerset, industrial pollution sources are limited to two 

Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Part-A processes (Hinkley Point B and 

Wansbrough Paper Mill) and seven Part-B2 processes. The Wansbrough Paper Mill is 

located approximately 7km from the application site and is thus not expected to 

significantly impact the air quality in the locality. There are emissions to air arising from 

the operation of Hinkley Point B, although these are minimal and principally limited to 

emissions released during the periodic testing of backup diesel generators. 

Consequently, industrial pollutant sources to air in the site locality are few. 

7.3.3 West Somerset Council has identified the A39 as the most significant source of vehicle 

emissions to air in the West Somerset district. Within the district of Sedgemoor, 

Sedgemoor District Council has acknowledged that the steady increase of traffic volume 

on the Northern Distributor Road since it opened in 2003 is of concern with regards to air 

quality. The highest vehicle flows within Sedgemoor, however, result from traffic on the 

M5, which has Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of approximately 80,000 vehicles per 

day. 

7.3.4 The baseline air quality monitoring campaign confirmed that the air quality in the 

immediate vicinity to Hinkley Point can be generally categorised as good, with pollutant 

concentrations well below the annual mean UK Air Quality Objective limits. 


7.3.5 The extent to which dust and particle generation and nuisance arising from the jetty 

development’s construction works might occur depends upon various factors, including 

the precise nature of work being undertaken, wind direction, wind speed, precipitation, 

type and quantity of material being handled, particle size distribution of the material being 

handled and moisture content of the material being handled. 

7.3.6 Airborne dust levels are more likely to increase during periods of prolonged warm, dry 

weather. During periods of wetter weather, precipitation not only minimises the amount 

of dust that becomes airborne, but also removes existing airborne dust from the 

atmosphere. 




7.3.7 The distance from the source of the dust to the sensitive receptor (e.g. residential 

properties) is also critical. Both airborne dust and particle concentrations, and dust 

deposition rates, fall off rapidly on moving away from the source, due to dispersion and 

dilution. Large particles usually only travel 10 to 20m before being deposited where as 

smaller particles (e.g. PM 10 particles) are not readily deposited and can travel for longer 

distances, although the vast majority of small particles are deposited within 100m of the 

source. Hence, it is in the 100m zone where the risk from dust and particles is greatest. 

7.3.8 Thirty of the 32 identified human receptors are greater than 1km from the jetty 

development’s application site boundary. The separation distance between all human 

receptors and potential dust/PM 10 generating activities is greater than 750m. The nearest 

receptor is Doggets, located at a distance of approximately 786m from the closest point 

of relevant site activity. 

7.3.9 Given that the majority of the dust would be deposited within 100m of the source, human 

receptors are expected to be sufficiently far enough away from the closest point of 

construction activity to allow for substantial dispersion, dilution and deposition of 

dust/PM 10 . It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that dust would be a problem at any human 

receptors and the significance of this impact is assessed as minor. 

7.3.10 Given the relatively low numbers of diesel powered off-road construction plant and 

machinery required for the jetty development’s construction works, site exhaust 

emissions to air are predicted to be of imperceptible or small magnitude, and thus 

negligible in terms of their impact. Similarly, exhaust emissions from marine vessel 

movements associated with the jetty construction activities are also predicted to be of 

imperceptible, and thus negligible in terms of their impact. 

7.3.11 Construction of the jetty would lead to a negligible increase in the volume of road traffic. 

Therefore, the impact of all vehicular emissions to air (NO 2 , PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) associated 

with traffic generated by the jetty development is not considered to be significant. 

Mitigation 

7.3.12 All potential air quality impacts have been assessed as minor or not significant before 

any mitigation has been applied. 

7.3.13 Nevertheless, mitigation measures are proposed to control dust and particulate 

emissions during the jetty development works and to ensure dust nuisance is prevented 

in areas around the site. These measures would be included within the Dust 

Management Plan (DMP) which forms part of the Environmental Management and 

Monitoring Plan (EMMP) for the jetty development. 

7.3.14 In addition, a Dust Monitoring Scheme (DMS) would detail any associated monitoring 

responsibilities required to ensure that the DMP is being implemented successfully. 

Precise details of the DMP will be determined through consultation (e.g. with West 

Somerset Council), but should make reference to current best practice guidance and 

other supporting documentation. 

7.3.15 A comprehensive Travel Plan would also be implemented to minimise off-site vehicular 

movements during the jetty development’s construction works, to mitigate the associated 

impacts from vehicular exhaust emissions to air. Such measures would include, but by 

no means limited to, car sharing schemes and provision of bus transport for the 

workforce. 




7.3.16 Given that the potential impacts during jetty development’s operation, 

dismantling/restoration and, if required, removal/reinstatement phases are similar to or 

less than those during jetty development’s construction phase, the mitigation measures 

for the jetty development’s construction phase could be implemented during the jetty 

development’s other phases. 


7.3.17 No significant residual impacts are predicted to occur. Nevertheless, as detailed above, 

measures would be put in place in accordance with current good practice for construction 

management. 

7.4 Noise and Vibration 


7.4.1 Baseline noise surveys were undertaken to obtain a measure of the existing noise 

environment, in accordance with the relevant guidance documents. The dominant noise 

sources identified during the baseline noise survey included local road traffic, birdsong 

and surf movement (at a coastal monitoring location). The determined ambient noise 

levels are typical of a rural environment, dropping to low levels during the night time. 


7.4.2 Assessments of the jetty development’s construction noise impacts were undertaken for 

three distinct activity scenarios (i.e. points in time when multiple construction activities 

are expected to be ongoing). These were identified primarily to provide an assessment 

of the worst-case situation at each of the identified sensitive receptor locations. It is 

predicted that the recognised proposed noise threshold criteria would not be exceeded at 

any residential receptor location during the jetty development’s construction. Hence the 

significance of the impact is assessed as minor adverse (see Figure 9). 

7.4.3 At the assessed public amenity receptor location on Benhole Lane, high noise levels are 

predicted during specific activities associated with the jetty development’s construction 

works close to the site boundary. The significance of the noise impact to this location 

during these periods is assessed as moderate adverse (in the short term). Noise impacts 

on other public amenity locations (e.g. the Coast Path, Wick Moor / Pixies’ Mound) are 

assessed as minor adverse. 

7.4.4 The nature of the jetty development’s construction means that the worst-case situation 

would be short term and may only exist for a matter of days. There would also be regular 

periods, even during the course of a single day, when the assumed noise plant would not 

be in operation (i.e. during breaks or changes of working routine). 

7.4.5 The potential vibration impacts resulting from the jetty development’s construction have 

been assessed. Given the significant distance between areas where construction 

activities may cause ground borne vibration and residential properties, it is not expected 

that any perceptible vibration would occur within those properties and impacts are 

assessed as minor adverse. 

7.4.6 Assessments of the jetty development’s operational noise impacts were undertaken for 

four aggregates import scenarios (covering both day and night-time working). It is 

predicted that the recognised proposed noise threshold criteria would not be exceeded at 




any residential receptor location during the jetty development’s operation. Hence the 

significance of the impact is assessed as minor adverse. 

7.4.7 At the assessed public amenity receptor location on the West Somerset Coast Path at its 

closest point to the jetty, receptors (i.e. users of the public footpath) would be exposed to 

high noise levels during specific activities associated with the jetty development’s 

operation. However, the receptors are not considered to be permanently exposed to the 

operational noise (unlike a receptor living at a residential property), so the potential noise 

impact of cargo operations to users of the public footpath is assessed as being of minor 

significance. 

Figure 9 Noise Contour Plot (Scenario 1) 

7.4.8 The dismantling of the jetty development and restoration of the site is likely to involve 

similar activities to construction, except with reduced intensity. Therefore, it is assessed 

that the overall noise and vibration impacts during this phase would be minor adverse. 

7.4.9 The removal and reinstatement of the site is also likely to involve similar activities to 

construction, except with reduced intensity. Therefore, it is assessed that the overall 

noise impacts and vibration impacts during this phase would be minor adverse. 




Mitigation 

7.4.10 The main mitigation to be implemented would include good construction practice and 

management tools for minimising nuisance from noise and vibration. For example, 

British Standard BS 5228: Part 1:2009 gives detailed advice on standard good 

construction practice for minimising nuisance from construction noise. This includes the 

use of electrical items of plant instead of diesel plant in especially sensitive locations, 

keeping internal haul roads well maintained and avoiding steep gradients where possible, 

avoiding unnecessary revving of engines and switching of equipment when it is not in 

use. 

7.4.11 Measures to be incorporated would be included within the EMMP for the project. As 

appropriate, these would include: 

• use of white-noise spectrum reversing alarms and/or in-cab radar systems; 

• soft-start piling operations; and 

• prior notice for noisy short-term onshore activities that are expected to exceed the 

respective construction noise limit (48 hours in advance). 

7.4.12 A formal system would be put in place which identifies the roles and responsibilities of 

site staff regarding the noise complaint action procedure. Site logs would be maintained, 

detailing all complaints received relating to noise nuisance impacts, and the 

corresponding response made to each complainant. 

7.4.13 The assessment of potential hourly road traffic noise impacts includes an assumed 2.24 

car share rate. This would be managed by through a Travel Plan and minimising the 

number of car parking spaces on site. 


7.4.14 Table 4 presents a summary of the significant noise impacts that would remain after the 

measures discussed above have been put into practice. It should be noted that 

measures built into the jetty development’s design to minimise adverse impacts (e.g. best 

practice) is not considered to be mitigation. 

Table 4 Summary of Significant Impacts on Noise and Vibration 


Construction Phase 

Onshore construction 

works 

Moderate adverse 

(Benhole Lane 

PRoW) 

Implementation of 

best practice 

measures 

Moderate adverse 

Receptors are 

transient 

Dismantling and Restoration Phase 


works 

Minor to major 

adverse (public 

footpaths and other 

outdoor amenities) 


best practice 

measures 

Negligible to 






Removal and Reinstatement Phase 


works 

Negligible to 


(public footpaths 

and other outdoor 

amenities) 


best practice 

measures 

Negligible to 


7.5 Landscape and Visual Amenity 


7.5.1 For the purposes of the EIA, the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) study 

area was determined through computer modelling, desk studies and consultation, and 

detailed landscape analysis was undertaken up to around 5km from the application site. 

7.5.2 There are no international, national, regional or local landscape designations within the 

application site. Exmoor National Park is located 14km to the west of the application site. 

Two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) are located within the study area, 

namely Quantock Hills AONB (4km south-west of the site) and Mendip Hills AONB (18km 

north-east of the site). 

7.5.3 No county and local landscape designations exist within the application site. However, 

several county and local designations of relevance to the LVIA are present within the 

study area. They include Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, County Wildlife Sites and 

local council landscape policies designating an area as a Green Wedge. 

7.5.4 The application site lies within the ‘Vale of Taunton and Quantock Fringes’ National 

Landscape Character Area and ‘Quantock Vale’ County Landscape Character Area. Five 

seascape character areas have also been identified within the study area using existing 

local landscape character area assessments. 

7.5.5 The application site is situated within an area of rolling farmland and does not contain 

any landscape elements and features of high national, regional, county or district 

importance. The ridge of Green Lane situated to the south of the application site is a 

feature of local importance. Historic field patterns, a few hedgerows and watercourses 

with adjacent riparian vegetation are other locally important elements and features within 

the application site. In the wider context, the application site lies within an intrinsically 

dark area; however the adjacent Hinkley Point Power Station Complex is a significant 

source of existing light pollution. 

7.5.6 The visibility of the application site varies within the study area. Open views into the 

application site exist from the areas of farmland up to 3km to the west of the site and 

from elevated viewpoints situated within the north-eastern fringes of the Quantock Hills 

AONB. The application site is predominantly screened from the south by the local ridge 

of Green Lane. No views into the application site exist from Knighton, Shurton or Burton 

and glimpsed views into the application site exist from elevated areas of farmland up to 

5km away. The existing Hinkley Point Power Station Complex screens the application 

site from the east. A few long distance views into the application site exist from the most 

elevated viewpoints within the study area. The visibility of the application site has been 

identified through a selection of 23 representative panoramic views. 





Landscape Impacts 

7.5.7 This assessment takes account of the main design features of the development, such as 

development footprint adjustments to avoid important landscape features or minimising 

the size of the proposed structures, but not the advanced planting or adoption of 

appropriate lighting controls, which are considered mitigation. 

7.5.8 Before the implementation of the mitigation measures, the landscape impacts on the 

national, regional, county and district landscape character would be short-term, adverse 

and of minor significance during construction, operation, dismantling (but not restoration) 

and, if required, removal (but not reinstatement) of the jetty development; and long-term, 

neutral and of negligible significance following restoration and, if required, reinstatement. 

7.5.9 The local and site-specific impacts on landscape character, impacts on seascape 

character as well as on local and site-specific landform would be short-term, adverse and 

of moderate significance during construction, operation, dismantling (but not restoration) 

and, if required, removal (but not reinstatement) of the jetty development; and long-term, 

neutral and of negligible significance following restoration and, if required, reinstatement. 

7.5.10 The local and site-specific impacts on land use and land cover, would be short-term, 

adverse and of minor significance during construction, operation, dismantling (but not 

restoration) and, if required, removal (but not reinstatement) of the jetty development; 

and long-term, neutral and of negligible significance following restoration and 

reinstatement. 

Visual Impacts 

7.5.11 The visibility of the unmitigated jetty development would vary depending on the 

separation distance and elevation of viewpoints from the site. Visual impact would also 

be caused by the potential light pollution of the jetty development’s lighting scheme 

before mitigation. 

7.5.12 Impacts associated with construction, dismantling (but not restoration) and, if required, 

removal (but not reinstatement) would be short-term (0-5 years), operational impacts 

would be short-term to medium-term (0-15 years), and impacts associated with the 

restored and, if required, reinstated landscape would be long-term (over 15 years). 

7.5.13 It is assessed that during construction and operation of the jetty development there would 

be visual impacts of major adverse significance in the local area where local PRoW have 

views of the application site and, therefore, where the medium magnitude of visual 

change is combined with high sensitivity receptors. The main adverse visual impacts 

would occur within the Coastal Eastern Lowlands (receptors represented by PRoW WL 

23/95 and PRoW no. WL 24/9; see Figure 2) up to 3km to the west of the application 

site. All these locations would receive views of the jetty development, as well as 

changed topography. 

7.5.14 Adverse impacts of major significance would also occur on the locally important ridge to 

the south of the site (PRoW no. WL 23/110) (see Figure 10), which due to its elevation 

would receive views of the majority of the site, and at Pixies Mound (Wick Barrow). From 

Pixies Mound the jetty development would not be visible; however, the proximity of the 

eastern part of the application site would cause a medium magnitude of visual change. 




7.5.15 Due to the screening provided by the Green Lane ridge and undulating topography there 

would be no visual impact on views from Shurton, Burton or Knighton. 

Figure 10 Existing View and Photomontage of the Jetty Development from 

Principal Viewpoint 1 (PRoW number WL 23/110, Benhole Lane) 




7.5.16 Impacts on views from the east, including farms located within the Wick Moor landscape 

character area would be of minor to moderate adverse significance depending on the 

sensitivity of the receptor. These views would be potentially affected by the light pollution 

associated with the (unmitigated) jetty development. The majority of views, however, 

would not be affected due to screening provided by the existing Hinkley Point Power 

Station Complex, topography and vegetation. The only visual impact of major adverse 

significance would occur at Pixies Mound due to the very short distance from the site and 

medium magnitude of impact on this highly sensitive receptor. 

7.5.17 The impact of the unmitigated jetty development and associated lighting on the elevated 

areas of the Quantock Hills AONB or Mendip Hills AONB would be of moderate adverse 

significance. The main source of this impact would be light pollution. A similar adverse 

impact could be also experienced from Brean Down, Fairfield House, Stockland Bristol 

and other local viewpoints up to 3km from the application site. Although the majority of 

these viewpoints would have limited views of the jetty development’s construction and 

operation, adverse impacts would occur due to potential light pollution. 

7.5.18 The unmitigated dismantling and restoration phase of the jetty development or, if 

required, removal and reinstatement phase, would include the dismantling or removal of 

all built elements created during the construction phase and restoration or reinstatement 

of the existing landform and vegetation. 

7.5.19 The short-term visual impacts associated with the dismantling or, if required, removal of 

the jetty development would be largely the same as the impacts associated with 

construction and operation. The impact caused by the dismantling or, if required, removal 

of built form, earthworks and lighting, as well as activities associated with the replanting 

of the vegetation lost during construction within the site, would cause the same 

magnitude of visual impacts and remain adverse in nature. 

7.5.20 Following the short-term impact associated with the dismantling or, if required, removal of 

the jetty, long-term impacts would occur due to the restoration or, if required, 

reinstatement of the existing landscape features within the application site, including 

topography and vegetation. The impact on all visual receptors following restoration or, if 

required reinstatement would be of negligible significance in the long-term. 

Mitigation 

7.5.21 Following the identification of the potential landscape and visual impacts on the receptors 

identified in the baseline study, measures have been proposed to mitigate these effects 

during construction, operation, dismantling and restoration and, if required, removal and 

reinstatement phases of the jetty development. 

7.5.22 The mitigation measures are proposed within the site boundary and, where possible, 

within the wider Hinkley Point C development site. To mitigate adverse impacts on the 

Coastal Eastern Lowlands area and Fairfield House, and to protect land on the estate 

(which is of outstanding scenic interest) from landscape and visual impacts during all 

phases of the jetty development, Fairfield Estate (supported by EDF Energy and in 

consultation with English Heritage and Natural England) is in the process of preparing 

proposals for off site planting to augment the on site mitigation (see Figure 11). 




Figure 11 Construction Mitigation Landscape Plan 

7.5.23 To minimise landscape and visual impact of the jetty development, the design of the silos 

(which are a design feature, not mitigation) was also considered. The preferred option 

was selected during the following process. The original engineering design included silos 

at 40m high located on the development platform for the aggregates storage area. 

Sensitivity of the location was recognised and the impacts considered unacceptable in 

the context of the Preliminary Works. Design options were explored to lower the height of 

the silos whilst still achieving the project’s storage requirements. These options included 

laying the silos on their sides which would result in the silos being at least 20m high due 

to operational requirements, and also developing the option of a storage building instead 

of silos. This structure would also have to be of considerable size. The preferred option is 

to provide a number of smaller silos at 20m high which would achieve the minimum 

engineering requirements. The top of the silos is comparable to the height of Green Lane 

which ensures that visual impacts on the land to the south of Green Lane, including the 

settlements of Shurton, Burton Knighton and Wick, are limited. 

7.5.24 The main mitigation measures proposed for construction and operation of the jetty 

development include seeding 8.66ha of land within the application with grass to soften 

views, retaining 0.03ha of broad leaved woodland and 0.31ha of improved grassland 

within the application site, planting 550m native species rich hedgerow along the western 




oundary to contribute to biodiversity and provide visual screening from the PRoW 

located on low topography to the west of the application site, and protecting boundary 

vegetation by appropriate fencing during construction. 

7.5.25 The impact of lighting during construction would be mitigated by the implementation of 

appropriate lighting mitigation measures. The proposed limits on intrusive light aimed at 

minimising problems for neighbouring areas are designed to protect the most sensitive 

landscapes, such as AONB, from light pollution. Other lighting mitigation objectives and 

measures include minimising the use of light (i.e. only in areas being actively worked), 

directing light downwards to minimise light pollution, avoidance of ‘over-lighting’ of the 

area (using correct illumination levels), avoidance of lighting close to the application site 

boundary, avoidance of unnecessary night time lighting and reduction of the heights of 

light columns to an acceptable minimum. 

7.5.26 The landscape proposals during the dismantling and restoration phase would be limited 

to the western part of the application site, to the west of the proposed Hinkley Point C 

Power Station. The remaining part of the application site would be occupied by the 

Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. The key change to the site would be the 

remodelled, gently undulating landform providing screening to the remaining part of the 

site from the adjacent landscape. The landform would be formed as a slope rather than a 

bund, in line with the existing local landscape character. The screening proposals would 

be reinforced by a narrow strip of broad-leaved woodland stretching from the coastline to 

the southern boundary of the application site, adjacent to the proposed Hinkley Point C. 

The remaining landscape would comprise restored agricultural field, including arable land 

and fields of semi-improved grassland divided by species-rich hedgerows on field 

boundaries and arable conservation headlands. All proposed planting would be of native 

species, selected to complement and enhance existing local landscape character and to 

suit site conditions. Other landscape features proposed within the western part of the 

application site would include a narrow strip of calcareous grassland on top of the coastal 

cliff and dense scrub (see Figure 12). The access would be improved by additional 

public footpaths to be located within the restored site. 

7.5.27 Should it be required, the landscape mitigation for the short period of removal (but not 

reinstatement) activities would be the same as for the construction phase, due to the 

similar nature of works and their predicted visual impact. The landscape and ecological 

features identified for retention and/or protection during the jetty’s construction would be 

also retained and/or protected during the removal and reinstatement works. It is 

proposed that during the removal and reinstatement phase the landscape features within 

the application site would be reinstated to the existing condition, including the 

reinstatement of the landform to resemble the existing condition (including the removal of 

the development platform for the aggregates storage area), and reinstatement of 

agricultural land and existing landscape features with no net gain or loss in biodiversity. 

During the reinstatement phase, the PRoW closed during the construction phase of the 

jetty development would be reinstated, including the coastal footpath. The reinstated 

footpaths would be clearly defined and signposted. 




Figure 12 Landscape Restoration Plan 


Landscape Impacts 

7.5.28 Following the implementation of mitigation measures, residual landscape impacts on 

national and regional landscape character would be of negligible significance during all 

phases of the jetty development. 

7.5.29 Residual impacts on county and district landscape character would be adverse and of 

minor significance during the construction, operation, dismantling (but not restoration) or, 

if required, removal (but not reinstatement), and of negligible neutral significance 

following restoration or reinstatement. 

7.5.30 Residual impacts on seascape character would be adverse and of moderate significance 

during the construction, operation, dismantling (but not restoration) or, if required, 

removal (but not reinstatement), and long-term, neutral and of negligible significance 

following restoration or reinstatement. 

7.5.31 During construction, operation, dismantling (but not restoration) or, if required, removal 

(but not reinstatement), residual impacts on local and site-specific landscape character 




and landform would be adverse and of moderate significance and impacts on local and 

site-specific land use and land cover would be adverse and of minor significance. 

7.5.32 Following restoration, the residual landscape impacts on local landscape character as 

well as local and site-specific land use and land cover would be long-term beneficial and 

of minor significance. The residual impact on local and site-specific landform during 

restoration would be adverse and of minor significance. 

7.5.33 Following reinstatement, the residual impact on local and site-specific landscape 

character, landform, land-use and land cover would be long-term, neutral and of 

negligible significance. 

Visual Impacts 

7.5.34 Following the implementation of the mitigation measures, some residual visual impact of 

the jetty development would be reduced in comparison to the unmitigated construction 

phase. The residual visual impacts on elevated viewpoints located in the vicinity of the 

application site (predominantly up to 3km to the west of the site) would be largely the 

same as during the unmitigated construction however, all visual impacts on more distant 

receptors would be reduced by the proposed mitigation measures, which are primarily 

targeted to mitigate the lighting impacts (potential light pollution) on the surrounding 

AONB. The additional hedgerow planting to the west of the application site would help 

reduce visual impacts from some PRoW located immediately to the west of the 

application site (see Figure 11). 

7.5.35 The residual visual impacts of major adverse significance would not change in 

comparison to the unmitigated scheme and would include PRoW no. WL 23/95, PRoW 

no. WL 24/9 to the west of the application site, PRoW no. WL23/110 West of Benhole 

Lane (see Figure 2), and at Pixies Mound (Wick Barrow). An impact of moderate 

adverse significance would occur at Viewpoints 8 and 9 within the Quantock Hills AONB 

(Beacon Hill and footpath between Woodland Hill and Dowsborough), which represent 

the north-eastern parts of the Quantock Hills AONB located on high topography that 

would receive limited views of the jetty development’s construction. The residual visual 

impact on the remaining viewpoints, including a number of AONB viewpoints, would be 

reduced to either minor adverse or negligible. 

7.5.36 The visibility of the mitigated jetty development during operation, dismantling (but not 

restoration) or, if required, removal (but not reinstatement) would be the same as the 

visibility during the mitigated construction phase (same visual receptors would be 

affected). Hence the magnitude of change and the resulting significance of impact would 

be the same as during construction. The nature of visual impacts during operation would 

change from short-term to medium-term, although the impacts would remain temporary. 

7.5.37 The significance of the residual visual impact of the restored landscape within the site 

would be largely negligible, as there would be no change in views from the majority of 

visual receptors. The only visual receptors which would experience visible change due to 

the implementation of a Landscape Restoration Plan would be Principal Viewpoints 1, 2 

and 3, where permanent beneficial impacts would occur due to the mitigation measures. 

7.5.38 Following the reinstatement phase, if required, and the maturation of landscape 

proposals, the significance of residual impact for all visual receptors is assessed as 

negligible in the long-term (15 years and beyond). 




7.5.39 Table 5 below presents a summary of the significant landscape and visual impacts that 

would remain after the mitigation measures discussed above have been put into practice. 

Table 5 Summary of Significant Residual Impacts on Landscape and Visual 

Amenity 

Receptor Impact Mitigation 

Measures 

Residual Impact 

Construction, Operation, Dismantling (but not Restoration) and Removal (but not 

Reinstatement) Phases 

Seascape character units 

Moderate, 

adverse, 

temporary 

Landscape and 

lighting mitigation 

Moderate, 

adverse, 

temporary 

Local and site-specific 

landscape character 

Moderate, 

adverse, 

temporary 

Landscape and 


Moderate, 

adverse, 

temporary 

Local and site-specific 

landform 

Moderate, 

adverse, 

temporary 

N/A 

Moderate, 

adverse, 

temporary 

Principal Viewpoint 1: 

PRoW no. WL23/110 West 

of Benhole Lane 

Major, adverse, 

temporary 

Landscape and 



temporary 


Coastal Footpath PRoW 

no. WL 23/95 


temporary 

Landscape and 



temporary 


Lilstock - PRoW no. WL 

24/9 


temporary 

Lighting mitigation 


temporary 


Pixies Mound (Wick 

Barrow) 


temporary 

Landscape and 



temporary 


Quantock Hills AONB, 

Beacon Hill 

Moderate, 

adverse, 

temporary 


Moderate, 

adverse, 

temporary 


Quantock Hills AONB, 

Footpath between 

Woodland Hill and 

Dowsborough 

Moderate, 

adverse, 

temporary 


Moderate, 

adverse, 

temporary 




Receptor Impact Mitigation 

Measures 

Residual Impact 

Restoration Phase 


PRoW no. WL23/110 West 

of Benhole Lane 

Negligible, neutral, 

permanent 

Landscape 

Restoration Plan 

Moderate, 

beneficial, 

permanent 


Coastal Footpath PRoW 

no. WL 23/95 

Negligible, neutral, 

permanent 

Landscape 

Restoration Plan 

Moderate, 

beneficial, 

permanent 

7.6 Historic Environment 


7.6.1 There are no Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas or Registered 

Parks and Gardens or Registered Battlefields within the application site. The closest 

Scheduled Monument to the application site is Wick Barrow (also known as Pixies’ 

Mound) (see Figure 13). It is located 50m to the east of Wick Moor Drove. Wick Barrow 

dates from the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods and was partially excavated in 1907. 

Figure 13 Locations of Historic Environment Features 

7.6.2 Geophysical survey and trial trenching confirmed that there are no buried archaeological 

remains within the application site. There are, however, a number of hedgerows within 

the application site that meet the archaeological and historical criteria of Important 

Hedgerows as defined in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. There is one historic building, 

Benhole Barn, which dates from the late 18 th or early 19 th century. The barn has been 

extensively altered and is in a derelict state. 

7.6.3 Undesignated heritage assets dating from the Mesolithic (10,000–3,500 BC), Neolithic 

(3,500-2,000 BC), Bronze Age (2,000-700BC), Iron Age (700BC-AD43), Roman (AD43- 




AD450), Early-medieval (AD 450-AD1066), Medieval (AD1066-AD1540) and Postmedieval 

(AD1540 onwards) periods have been identified within the 500m study area 

around the application site (see Figure 13). 

7.6.4 A foreshore survey undertaken in June 2010 confirmed that there are no surviving 

archaeological remains above the Mean High Water Mark. 

7.6.5 Offshore, the UKHO wreck record for the study area contains 14 wreck sites. No 

protected wrecks were identified within the application site boundary. One apparent 

wreck site, located ~750m east of the application site boundary, reflected a ‘diffuser’ 

associated with the existing Hinkley Point Power Station Complex. Another potential 

wreck, identified from sidescan anomalies, lies 116m north-west of the edge of the 

application site boundary. It is not possible to offer a definitive interpretation of the type 

of wreck or wreckage that this may represent. No confirmed submerged archaeological 

remains have been identified in the area of the jetty development. 

7.6.6 Lithological and stratigraphic modelling of deposits based on survey data from core logs 

collected in 2009 revealed a relatively consistent sequence across the survey area; ~1- 

3m of surficial sands, gravels or clays, overlying a more consistent clay layer (0.5-5m 

thick) before reaching claystone bedrock. The discovery of peat deposits underlying the 

uppermost superficial deposits in 39 out of 63 vibrocores, and organic rich clays in a 

further 13 vibrocores, confirms the widespread presence of buried peats and other 

palaeo-landsurfaces, first identified in the western part of the survey area. These layers 

thin to the south-west of the survey area and only limited organic material has been 

identified in the core logs from the area of the jetty development. 


7.6.7 During the jetty development it is considered that there is potential for a number of 

significant impacts to the historic environment. 

7.6.8 The Scheduled Monument, Wick Barrow, is located to the east of the site and its setting 

would be partially altered during the construction phase as the area to the west would 

become a construction site. This would result in a moderate adverse impact. 

7.6.9 The historic hedgerows would experience a high magnitude of impact during 

construction, which is assessed to be a moderate adverse impact. 

7.6.10 Construction of the aggregates storage area would result in the complete removal of 

Benhole Barn, which would result in an overall adverse impact of moderate significance. 

7.6.11 The buried peat and organic horizons below the soft sediments offshore are believed to 

be a relict Mesolithic landscape. The peat deposits may contain palaeo-environmental 

data such as pollen, macrofossil, insect remains and radiocarbon datable organics. 

Disturbance and removal of these horizons during construction works could cause a loss 

of research potential, and a moderate adverse impact. 

7.6.12 The buried peat and organic horizons below the soft sediments offshore are believed to 

be a relict Mesolithic landscape. The peat deposits may contain palaeo-environmental 

data such as pollen, macrofossil, insect remains and radiocarbon datable organics. 

Disturbance and removal of these horizons during construction works could cause a loss 

of research potential, and a moderate adverse impact. 




Mitigation 

7.6.13 It is proposed that a Monument Management Plan should be prepared to ensure the 

long-term preservation, and enhancement, of Wick Barrow (Pixies Mound) and its 

immediate setting. 

7.6.14 Due to the nature of the jetty development, the preservation in-situ of the historic 

hedgerows within the application site boundary would not be an option, so suitable 

mitigation would entail preservation by record. 

7.6.15 Due to the low importance of Benhole Barn, suitable mitigation would entail preservation 

by record. 

7.6.16 Preservation by record of onshore heritage assets would comprise archaeological 

investigation and recording in advance of construction. All investigation works would be 

carried out in accordance with the relevant Institute for Archaeologists standards and 

guidance. 

7.6.17 Although no heritage assets have been identified within the offshore part of the 

application site, the area proposed for dredging of the berthing pocket contains deposits 

comparable to those containing archaeological material further east. Therefore a 

watching brief would be undertaken during this phase. 


7.6.18 No significant residual impacts are predicted to occur. 

7.7 Socio-economics 


7.7.1 Baseline data has been collected for Somerset and the key districts of Sedgemoor, West 

Somerset and Taunton Deane. The overall picture revealed by the baseline assessment 

is one of, until recently, a relatively prosperous local area, as indicated by above-average 

rates of population and employment growth, and relatively low levels of unemployment. 

However, there are other indicators, including migration flows, economic structure, skills 

and earnings levels, which indicate a much less resilient local economy, and with 

particular problem pockets of deprivation and considerable variations between the three 

districts. 

7.7.2 The combined population in the three immediate districts of West Somerset, Sedgemoor 

and Taunton Deane is almost 256,000 (mid-2007 population estimates). West Somerset 

and Sedgemoor are predominantly rural districts, with relatively low population densities. 

Taunton Deane is also significantly rural in nature, but has a higher proportion of its 

population in larger urban settlements. 

7.7.3 The districts do display some important socio-economic issues. Sedgemoor, for example, 

has overall low levels of skills in the workforce, below average educational attainment, 

some severe pockets of multiple deprivation and worklessness. Recent studies have 

highlighted weaknesses in the district’s economic resilience, linked to workforce skills 

issues, plus, for example, a sectoral mix limited in knowledge intensive industries. 

Taunton Deane is heavily dependent on public sector employment, which may face cuts 

in the current context of public sector activity review. West Somerset has a number of 

significant deprivation issues, for example in relation to affordable housing and access to 

services. 




7.7.4 The rate of job growth, between 2001-2007, in the immediate districts (West Somerset, 

Sedgemoor and Taunton Deane) was broadly similar to the average for Somerset (6- 

7%), but slightly above the South West (5.5-5.6%) and national averages (4.6%). 

Tourism is a particularly important local industry. Annual Business Inquiry data show that 

tourism-related sectors accounted for an estimated 11,100 employee jobs in the three 

immediate districts. This represents approximately 10.5% of all employee jobs in the 

immediate districts, and compares with a national average of only 8.2%. 


7.7.5 Socio-economic impacts are the people effects of major projects. Of primary focus are 

the employment and expenditure associated with the works. These can result in a range 

of knock-on effects in the local economy, including impacts on population, local 

employment and unemployment levels, the local accommodation markets, and demand 

for local services. 

7.7.6 EDF Energy would seek as far as possible to provide positive socio-economic benefits to 

the local community; for example, through opportunities for training, employment and 

participation in the supply chain. More specific socio-economic objectives, which would 

be trialled during the jetty development (i.e. prior to the anticipated Hinkley Point C 

Project), would include, for example: 

• promote the training and recruitment of local people and support the provision of 

training courses and facilities in the local area (data demonstrate that the structure of 

the local economies in Sedgemoor and West Somerset already have a strong base 

in construction and skilled trades); 

• encourage and facilitate the involvement of local businesses in the supply chain; 

• make use of existing accommodation in the local area and support local businesses 

(e.g. owners of B&Bs and caravan parks) but without displacing the local tourist 

industry; 

• ensure that non-local workers, in all forms of accommodation, are well supported 

and maintain high standards of conduct, especially in their interaction with the local 

community; and 

• ensure that the impacts of the development on local communities are assessed and 

appropriate mitigation measures are put in place (e.g. support for local health and 

education facilities). 

7.7.7 The proposed jetty development would generate the following levels of employment: 

• construction phase: up to 60 jobs for up to 21 months; 

• operation phase: approximately 10 jobs for up to 8 years; 

• dismantling / restoration phase: approximately 25 jobs for approximately 1 year (for 

dismantling); and 

• removal / reinstatement phase (if required): approximately 25 jobs for approximately 

1 year (for removal). 

7.7.8 Average earnings levels on site, especially during construction, are likely to be 

significantly above the existing local economy average. The employment impact would 

be minor but generally positive even though there may be some local leakage of 

employment benefits because of labour supply / skills limitations and the nature / policies 

of contractors. 

7.7.9 It is anticipated that approximately 45% of the workforce might be non-local / non-home 

based, and would move into the area for the duration of the construction phase, thus 




equiring temporary accommodation. Since there is a very substantial supply of such 

accommodation within a 45 minutes commute of Hinkley Point, there is unlikely to be any 

significant pressure from such numbers on the capacity of the tourism accommodation to 

satisfy the ongoing tourism market. The demand during off-peak periods may be of 

some benefit to suppliers of local tourism accommodation. As such, this could provide a 

small scale but nevertheless useful boost to the tourist accommodation sector and the 

Somerset tourism industry. 

7.7.10 Impacts on other socio-economic parameters (i.e. other services, quality of life and the 

wider economy) are also predicted to not be significant. 

Mitigation 

7.7.11 A series of mitigation measures would be introduced. For example, the estimated levels 

of local recruitment may be boosted through a proactive recruitment and training policy. 

Such an approach is important to meet the objectives of both the local and regional 

authorities and of EDF Energy, and would utilise initiatives being developed for the 

Hinkley Point C Project more generally through a Construction Workforce Development 

Strategy. These initiatives include a range of education, training and access initiatives. 

The programme for the jetty development (along side that for the site preparation works) 

provides an important opportunity to pilot, develop and fine-tune such initiatives. 

7.7.12 The Construction Workforce Development Strategy would include a range of measures to 

create a clear pathway to local employment, and would be put in place by early 2011. 

These measures are described in the following paragraphs. 

7.7.13 A Preliminary Works Skills’ Charter would be established to maximise opportunities for 

local people to be employed. Furthermore, EDF Energy has indicated that it is keen to 

support businesses in the local area 

7.7.14 An Employment Brokerage would provide a local one-stop shop facility, including on-line 

access, dedicated for the development. The brokerage would provide access for local 

people to job opportunities and a place where contractors would advertise their 

vacancies. The facility would include resourcing, job shops, and workplace managers 

engaging with the growing supply chain. The provision of such a facility adjacent to the 

site at Sizewell B helped to place 5,500 job applicants, many of whom had been 

unemployed. 

7.7.15 A Construction Skills Centre to be brought forward by Bridgwater College would be 

supported by EDF Energy for the provision of early entry level skills training. The 

contribution would be used to establish the physical development of the Centre, at a 

location which is practicable for the training required to support the Preliminary Works 

and the main Hinkley Point C Project. 

7.7.16 In addition, EDF Energy would encourage contractors to support and promote local 

recruitment, including targeting training for and recruitment from the unemployed and 

others in disadvantaged groups, to bring people back into the workforce. Furthermore, 

there should be potential for job transition supported through the Construction Workforce 

Development Strategy. 

7.7.17 EDF Energy would also monitor and publish, on a regular basis, information on the 

development’s performance on recruitment and training. The contractor for the site 

preparation enabling works has already committed to use at least two-thirds Somerset 

based workers to manage, supervise and carry out the work. 





7.7.18 No significant residual impacts are predicted to occur. 

7.8 Navigation 


7.8.1 The Severn Estuary is an important shipping route, with commercial vessels navigating 

through the deep water approaches to several ports and harbours. Apart from the Port of 

Bridgwater, these ports are situated distant away from Hinkley Point, either on the south 

coast of Wales or at and upstream of Bristol. Databases of commercial shipping 

movements indicate that shipping in Bridgwater Bay is very low. As shown by two 

months of data from 2009, most commercial shipping movements occur on the opposite 

side of the Bristol Channel (see Figure 14; Note: this figure shows the proposed 

alignments of the cooling water structures associated with Hinkley Point C - intake in blue 

and outfalls in red). 

7.8.2 The Port of Bridgwater’s limits cover approximately 25 square nautical miles and include 

Combwich Wharf and Dunball Wharf on the River Parrett, but do not extend west as far 

as the proposed jetty development. Bridgwater Harbour Authority (part of Sedgemoor 

District Council) is responsible for navigation and mooring, safety, rights of access, 

pilotage, maintenance of channels and navigation aids oil spill contingency and port 

waste management. Port operations, oil spill contingency and port waste management 

plans are in place. Commercial vessel movements at the Port of Bridgwater totalled 41 

in 2007 and 37 in 2008. Most vessels were carrying aggregates and general cargo. 

Recreational moorings within the port limits are located mainly in the River Brue Estuary 

and Combwich Pill, although recreational activity tends to be focused around Burnhamon-Sea. 

7.8.3 As indicated on Figure 14, vessels inbound for the River Parrett and the Port of 

Bridgwater pass to the west and south of the Bell Gore Buoy, having due regard for the 

Cobblers Patch Shoal of -1.8m CD, which is located 2.5 cables south-south-west of Bell 

Gore. This route means vessels would pass directly north of the proposed jetty 

development’s location at Hinkley Point. 

7.8.4 The Bridgwater Bay Danger Area (D119) establishes the air space allocated for military 

activities and covers a circular area over land in West Somerset and sea in Bridgwater 

Bay. Its extent over the sea is marked on Admiralty Charts (as “Firing Practice Area 

D119”) and covers a partial circular area offshore that could be defined by an arc 

extending from Hinkley Point to beyond the 10m bathymetric contour towards Culver 

Sands and returning to land at Watchet. The Danger Area is a delineation of the air 

space above the water and does not place any restrictions on navigation and vessels 

have the right to transit it at any time. 

7.8.5 The Lilstock Range Firing Area is smaller than and is situated within D119 but only 

extends over the sea in Bridgwater Bay. Similar to D119, the firing area covers a partial 

circular area offshore that could be defined by an arc extending from east of Hinkley 

Point and returning to land to the west of Watchet. The firing area delineates the water 

surface template for air to surface gunnery activities and is marked by buoys. The firing 

area is used primarily for military helicopter gunnery training and is operated under a 

clear range procedure so that exercises and training only take place when the area is 

clear of vessels. 




Figure 14 Commercial Shipping Movements in the Bristol Channel 

7.8.6 According to the Port of Bridgwater’s Marine Operations Plan (2009), no commercial 

fishing vessels are registered at the port or on the River Parrett, although there is one 

vessel that can be chartered for angling. Vessel tracking and sighting by the Marine and 

Fisheries Agency (MFA); now part of the MMO) indicates that fishing activity in 

Bridgwater Bay is very limited since fishing with vessels of 15m and more is confined 

mainly to the west of a north to south line between Bideford (north Devon) and Swansea 

(south Wales), and fishing activity to the east of this line is much reduced, particularly 

east of a north to south line through Lynmouth (north Devon). 

7.8.7 Data derived from the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) and Cruising Association 

indicate that the water area surrounding Hinkley Point and the inner Bristol Channel as a 

whole is a designated sailing area for recreational craft, and the water area 

approximately 3.5nm to the west of Hinkley Point is used for racing. According to the 

Port of Bridgwater’s Marine Operations Plan (2009), there are three sailing clubs within 

the Port of Bridgwater. Combwich Cruising Club is based at Combwich and the Burnham 

Motor Boat & Sailing Club is based on the River Brue. Both clubs have afloat moorings. 

The Burnham Boat Owners’ Sea Angling Association has a substantial membership but 

only small boats, which members launch from Burnham Slipway when required. Some 

visiting yachts call each year. The inbound route to Burnham Motor Boat & Sailing Club 

passes to the north of the proposed jetty development site in a similar manner to 

commercial shipping. 


7.8.8 Impacts on navigation are assessed on the basis of risks of hazards to navigation. 

Hazards were identified during a specialist workshop with key stakeholders. Risk 

assessments are based on the potential consequences and likelihoods of the hazards 

identified on navigation receptors (i.e. commercial vessels, military vessels, fishing 

vessels, recreational vessels and the Port of Bridgwater’s interests). 

7.8.9 For the risk assessments, the potential consequences are considered to be severe for 

commercial vessels and the Port of Bridgwater’s interests, and minor for military, fishing 

and recreational vessels. The potential likelihoods are considered to be medium for 




commercial vessels and the Port of Bridgwater’s interests and very low for military, 

fishing and recreational vessels. The application of these hazard components means 

that risks to commercial vessels and the Port of Bridgwater’s interests are assessed as 

high and, therefore, unacceptable, and that risks to military, fishing and recreational 

vessels are assessed as low and, therefore, acceptable. 

7.8.10 The jetty development (including the presence and movement of construction plant and 

materials) would be constructed within Danger Area D119 and within or close to the 

Lilstock Range Firing Area. Although there are no restrictions on navigation within these 

areas, the firing range is only used when it is clear of vessels. Therefore, depending on 

the presence of the jetty development and construction plant in the firing area and / or the 

proximity of the jetty development and construction plant to the firing area, the jetty 

development’s construction activities could preclude the use and/or the safe use of the 

firing area for military training and exercises. Based on informal consultation with the 

MoD, it is anticipated that interference to military activities would be high / unacceptable if 

the jetty and/or construction plant were to be present within or directly adjacent to the 

firing area during construction activities. 

Mitigation 

7.8.11 A number of control measures are proposed as mitigation to reduce risks such that they 

are acceptable. During the jetty development’s construction, dismantling / restoration 

and (if required) removal / reinstatement phases, an exclusion zone of some 500m would 

be in place around the jetty head (see Figure 15) and it may be prudent to implement a 

standby vessel (small patrol vessel) during working hours. 

7.8.12 Control measures are also recommended to reduce the risk to navigation associated with 

the passage of dredging plant between the jetty and the Cardiff Grounds offshore 

disposal site. Dredging plant should not cross vessels that may be restricted by their 

draught or restricted by their ability to manoeuvre, and should, at all times, pass to the 

west of Bell Gore and Cobbler Patch, with due regard given to the shoal patch of 18m. 

7.8.13 Once constructed, the jetty would have to be marked (e.g. lights on the jetty head) for 

safety (e.g. to reduce the risk of passing vessels colliding with it). To reduce the risk to 

navigation associated with the presence and movement of the vessels using the jetty, it is 

recommend that navigation information be clearly documented in a Safety Management 

System (SMS). 

7.8.14 On the basis of consultation with the MoD, the following measures are proposed in 

relation to the Lilstock Range Firing Area: 

• the buoys delineating the firing area are to be moved westwards within Danger Area 

D119’s boundary such that the firing area is temporarily re-positioned away from the 

jetty development; 

• operational and maintenance plant, vessels and other marine equipment associated 

with the jetty development’s operation activities including maintenance works are to 

be instructed to avoid entering the firing area (even if, for example, transiting the 

firing area offers a more direct route to and from the jetty) by means of Notices to 

Mariners and other instructions from the Harbour Master; and 

• the proposed HEO (which is part of the application) will include provisions that will 

only allow the jetty development’s harbour authority (i.e. the authority that would be 

established by the HEO) to make by-laws affecting navigation in the authority's limits 

of jurisdiction around the jetty and to give general directions to vessels navigating 

within those limits subject in both cases to prior consultation with the MoD. 




Figure 15 Proposed Exclusion Zone 


7.8.15 With the controls in place, the residual risks to commercial vessels, the Port of 

Bridgwater’s interests and the MoD’s military activities are assessed as moderate and, 

therefore, as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), and the residual risks to military, 

fishing and recreational vessels are assessed as low and, therefore, acceptable (subject 

to negotiation). 

8 OVERVIEW OF PREDICTED IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL AND PHYSICAL 

ENVIRONMENT 

8.1 Coastal Hydrodynamics and Geomorphology 


8.1.1 The wave cut platform at Hinkley Point comprises the cliff units that extend from the cliff 

towards the north. The units are shallow dipping and are aligned approximately parallel 

with the cliff. Shingle / boulders collect in the troughs behind the limestone scarp 

surfaces. The boulders are predominantly limestone, originating from the erosion of the 

limestone within the vicinity of their deposition on the foreshore. Where the shale is 

thicker, the ridges are larger and are often characterised by a veneer of mud and 

seaweed. Nearing low tide the limestone becomes increasingly heavily weathered and 

individual units are more difficult to trace. 

8.1.2 Erosion of the cliff line is influenced by storm events, and therefore the rate of recession 

may not be consistent from year to year. In addition to wave undercutting, it is likely that 

the cliffs also fail due to excess groundwater pressures behind the face of the cliff. The 




cliff at the location of the proposed jetty development contains evidence to indicate that 

the inter-bedded limestones and shales of the Blue Lias cliff top have retreated at around 

0.13m/yr since 1888, and mean high water mark by around 0.04m/yr. 

8.1.3 Sediment transport within the inter-tidal area comprises mud moving as suspended 

sediment, sand moving in suspension and as bed load, and gravel and coarser particles 

moving on the upper part of the rock platform as bedload. The most obvious evidence of 

coastal sediment transport at Hinkley Point (coarse grained sediment) is shown by the 

ridge of shingle and coarser particles at the crest of the beach immediately west of the 

existing seawall protecting the current Hinkley Point Power Station Complex. The 

seawall projects out approximately 10 to 20m from the cliff line further west and it is likely 

that, due to the longshore drift of this coarse beach sediment, the accumulation of a 

wider shingle beach here compared to elsewhere has occurred. The existing seawall at 

Hinkley Point is not considered to be acting as a barrier to hinder shingle transport 

around Hinkley Point. 

8.1.4 Further offshore in Bridgwater Bay, there is a large variation in the type and distribution of 

seabed sediment along the coastline in front of Hinkley Point. Sediments generally range 

from finer sediment in the east (around Bridgwater Bay) to coarser material in the west. 

The seabed sediments immediately offshore of Hinkley Point are described as a thin 

muddy veneer overlaying the bedrock. 

8.1.5 The suspended sediment concentrations in the Severn Estuary result from the strong 

tidal currents and are generally exceptionally high, creating a turbid environment. A field 

campaign by Ravensrodd Consultants found suspended sediment concentrations within 

the Bristol Channel within the range of less than 100mg/l to approaching 200,000mg/l 

(fluid mud). This range of suspended sediment concentrations was also reported around 

Hinkley Point following four monitoring campaigns over the winter of 2008/2009. This 

monitoring recorded a maximum suspended sediment concentration of 1,795mg/l, a 

mean concentration of 264mg/l, and a minimum concentration of 33mg/l. Although some 

increase with depth was observed, the water column was well mixed. Both the values 

and distribution of suspended sediment concentrations show differences between spring 

and neap tides. 

8.1.6 Monitoring found tidal currents of Hinkley Point to be generally orientated along the main 

axis of the estuary (i.e. shore-parallel), with currents reaching a maximum velocity of 

1.7m/s on spring tides and 1.4m/s on neap tides at an offshore monitoring location. The 

inshore monitoring site showed peak currents to attain only 1.5m/s on spring tides and 

1.0m/s on neap tides. At all locations ebb currents were stronger than flood currents. 


8.1.7 During the jetty development’s construction, piling could disturb sediment so the chosen 

piling technique to be employed (specific methodologies would be confirmed by 

contractors) would minimise the degree of sediment disturbance, through the choice of 

access method and type of piling. 

8.1.8 In addition, the dredged berthing pocket could be subject to sediment deposition. 

However, the proposed design of the berthing pocket (i.e. its specific alignment relative to 

the tidal flows) has been chosen in order to encourage hydrodynamic conditions that 

promote self-scouring of this dredged area and, therefore, to reduce the requirement for 

frequent maintenance dredging during the jetty development’s operational phase. 




8.1.9 The overall design of the jetty structure and other design elements, such as the exact 

positioning of the jetty, the orientation of the berthing pocket and the number of piles and 

uprights have been chosen to minimise environmental impacts. Nevertheless, during its 

operational phase, the presence of the jetty would have an effect on local hydrodynamic 

and sediment transport processes. The piles associated with the jetty would cause local 

hydraulic changes in the tidal flow around each support which have been assessed to be 

of negligible significance and do not require specific mitigation. 

8.1.10 Overall, all potential impacts on coastal hydrodynamic and geomorphology receptors 

during the jetty development’s construction, operation and dismantling and restoration 

phases and, if required, its removal and reinstatement phase have been assessed to be 

of minor or negligible significance prior to implementation of mitigation measures. This is 

primarily due to the very low or low magnitude of change predicted to occur on 

hydrodynamic and sediment transport processes as a result of the jetty development. 

Mitigation 

8.1.11 The overall design of the jetty’s structure and other design elements (e.g. the exact 

positioning of the jetty, the orientation of the berthing pocket and the number of piles and 

uprights0 have been chosen to minimise environmental impacts. 

8.1.12 Mitigation measures identified may be viewed as best practice, rather than as necessarily 

required. Where best practice mitigation measures can be implemented, this would 

further reduce the potential impact on hydrodynamic processes, sediment transport 

processes and geomorphological receptors. 

8.1.13 Where possible, the chosen piling technique to be employed (specific methodologies 

would be confirmed by contractors) would minimise the degree of sediment disturbance, 

through the choice of access method and type of piling. 


8.1.14 No significant impacts are predicted after mitigation. 

8.2 Marine Ecology 


8.2.1 The application site is fronted by the rocky foreshore of the Severn Estuary. To the east 

are large areas of inter-tidal mudflats and saltmarsh in Bridgwater Bay and bordering the 

estuary of the River Parrett. 

8.2.2 The Severn Estuary is an important nature conservation area and supports a number of 

international, national and local designations for wetland habitats, bird populations and 

the presence of other habitats and species of conservation interest. The extreme natural 

environmental conditions in the estuary strongly influence the species and habitats that 

are present in the inter-tidal and sub-tidal zones. While these species and habitats are 

characteristic of other UK estuaries, they are less abundant in the Severn Estuary due to 

sediment surface instability and extremely high turbidity levels. The high turbidity levels 

also limit the densities of phytoplankton and zooplankton (i.e. micro-organisms in the 

water column). 

8.2.3 The foreshore in front of, and either side of, Hinkley Point B is dominated by a shelving 

rocky shore which supports relatively few marine species. The turf areas formed by the 




ed alga Corallina is the main habitat of importance. The honeycomb worm Sabellaria is 

also present. Aggregations of Sabellaria, forming reefs, are of importance as these 

provide habitat for many other organisms. In its reef form, Sabellaria is protected under 

the EC Habitats Directive, and some areas of reef exist approximately 200m and 300m 

offshore. 

8.2.4 The sub-tidal habitats, which are either always submerged or only briefly exposed at 

extremely low tides, consist of extensive areas of muddy sediments, and are dominated 

by a few species including bivalve molluscs, polychaete worms and crustaceans. The 

brown shrimp is abundant and provides an important food source for a number of fish 

species and birds. 

8.2.5 A variety of fish species live permanently within or migrate through the estuary, including 

some that are protected under European Directives and/or national legislation (e.g. 

Atlantic salmon, twaite shad, allis shad, river lamprey, sea lamprey, sea trout and eel). 

Bridgwater Bay is considered to be an important nursery area for juvenile fish and a 

number of fish species utilise the inter-tidal areas. 

8.2.6 There are no resident populations of marine mammals within the estuary although a 

number of species may feed there at different times of the year. The harbour porpoise is 

the most commonly recorded marine mammal species. 


8.2.7 The following potential impacts on marine ecological receptors could arise during the jetty 

development’s construction phase: 

• temporary and permanent loss of sensitive marine receptors; 

• physical disturbance of marine receptors due to piling activities at each jetty upright 

and to provide access for vehicle and plant, the delivery of materials and the 

workforce; 

• changes in cross-shore and longshore, inter-tidal drainage patterns and associated 

effects on Corallina; 

• physical disturbance due to dredging around the seaward end of the jetty (including 

impacts associated with the re-suspension within the water column of bottom 

sediments such as smothering etc.); 

• other water quality impacts due to run-off during construction and potentially 

associated with other accidents and incidents (particularly spillage and leaks of fuels 

and oils and possibly other chemicals, including cement and concrete if it is used in 

the jetty construction); 

• noise and vibration; and 

• artificial light disturbance during 24 hour construction works. 

8.2.8 One potentially significant adverse impact has been indentified in relation to physical 

disturbance caused during the jetty development’s construction phase. Piling, dredging 

and the use of construction plant and materials could disturb the physical environment 

(and its species and habitats) and drainage characteristics of the inter-tidal area in and 

around the site of these works. While most species of invertebrates, fish and marine 

mammals would not be significantly affected, the red alga species Corallina could be 

significantly affected by physical disturbance (i.e. interruptions) to the inter-tidal crossshore 

drainage channels where it is present (see Figure 16); although the jetty’s location 

has been chosen such that it avoids key areas of Corallina habitat (i.e. the turf areas) that 

occur more regularly to the east. An impact of moderate significance is predicted as a 

result of the medium sensitivity of Corallina and the medium magnitude of the impact. 




Figure 16 Distribution of Corallina in relation to the Jetty Development 

8.2.9 During the jetty development’s operational phase, impacts on marine ecology could arise 

as a result of maintenance dredging (if required), noise and vibration, artificial light and 

water quality effects. No significant impacts have been identified on marine ecological 

receptors during this phase. 

8.2.10 During the jetty development’s dismantling / restoration phase, or removal / reinstatement 

phase (if required), impacts on marine ecology could arise from loss of and disturbance 

to inter-tidal and sub-tidal habitat (e.g. due to removal of each jetty upright, access for 

construction vehicles and plant) and water quality effects. No significant impacts have 

been identified on marine ecological receptors during this phase. 

Mitigation 

8.2.11 Specific mitigation measures are proposed to protect Corallina habitat and the species 

associated with it from physical disturbance during the construction and dismantling / 

restoration phases, or the removal / reinstatement phase (if required). These include 

establishment of a narrow working corridor across the inter-tidal area to avoid areas of 

Corallina where possible, and measures to ensure that the drainage environment of 

Corallina is not compromised by piling activities. 

8.2.12 All other impacts on marine ecological receptors have been assessed as being of minor 

or negligible significance, and hence no further specific mitigation is required. However, 




in recognition of the importance and protected status of the nearby marine environment, 

a number of good practice and precautionary measures are proposed to provide 

additional safeguards. These include the designation of “no-go” areas and associated 

buffer zones around all identified sensitive locations; buffer zones around construction 

and access sites in foreshore areas; provision of training for the construction workforce; 

specific accident and incident response and cleanup procedures; and implementation of 

a monitoring programme. 



8.3 Terrestrial Ecology and Ornithology 


8.3.1 The application site has been subject to extensive vegetation survey work, together with 

surveys of a wide range of animal species including bats, otter, badger, reptiles, 

amphibians, birds and invertebrates. In addition, extensive bird survey work has been 

carried out on the coastal area that forms part of the Severn Estuary Special Protection 

Area (SPA), which is protected at the European level because of the importance of its 

bird populations. This coastal area is also part of the Severn Estuary Special Area of 

Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site, as well as being part of several Sites of Special 

Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (see Figure 17). 

8.3.2 The land in and around the application site comprises open, gently rolling mixed lowland 

farmland with hedgerows, small scrubby woodlands and occasional standard trees. 

Although much of the area is intensively managed, small areas of species-rich limestone 

grassland occur along the cliff edge and the immediate vicinity of the Hinkley Point Power 

Station Complex. The northern site boundary lies adjacent to the Bristol Channel from 

which it is separated by a low cliff. The application site also includes seven hedgerows, 

five of which are species-rich, support at least five woody species, and are ecologically 

‘important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations, 1997. 

8.3.3 Fifteen species of wetland birds were recorded feeding or roosting in the intertidal area in 

the vicinity of the application site, with five of these also being recorded feeding or 

roosting in the fields within the site. A total of 18 species of breeding bird have been 

recorded on the site. 

8.3.4 A minimum of seven bat species have been recorded using the application site and one 

small roost is present in a derelict barn. Badgers are present within the application site 

and there is potential for otter to make very occasional use of the Hinkley Point C 

Drainage Ditch. 


8.3.5 Drawing upon the results of the surveys and other data gathering, and informed by 

consultation with Natural England, the RSPB, Somerset County Council, Somerset 

Wildlife Trust and West Somerset Council, the jetty development’s design has been 

progressively refined to minimise the adverse impacts on wildlife and, where possible, to 

deliver benefits. The changes to the scheme include: 

• avoidance of mature woodland and use of existing field accesses to avoid impacts on 

hedgerows; 

• changes to Hinkley Point C Drainage Ditch being restricted to one culvert extension; 




• production of an updated Hinkley Integrated Land Management Plan (ILMP) detailing 

the protection and management of retained habitat features; 

• vegetation clearance would, where possible, take place in the period January - March 

(inclusive), which is outside of the core breeding season for all of the bird species that 

have been recorded breeding within the site - where this is not possible, clearance 

would only be undertaken once surveys have shown that either no active nests are 

present or that any breeding birds have fledged from the areas to be cleared; 

• implementation of best practice measures to minimise emissions and dust deposition; 

and 

• a simple jetty design that is likely to reduce the potential for bird collisions. 

8.3.6 Other measures are put forward as proposed mitigation. These are described and the 

residual impacts are assessed below. 

8.3.7 During the construction phase, there is the potential for birds using the inter-tidal areas 

close to the jetty and foreshore access location to be adversely affected by noise 

generated by the jetty development, changes in inter-tidal plant / animal communities 

caused by discharges from the site, visual disturbance caused by the workforce that 

undertakes the jetty development and their machinery, and lighting. However, these 

effects are predicted to have a very low magnitude impact on birds using inter-tidal areas 

and not be significant, despite the high value populations associated with the Severn 

Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site and the Bridgwater Bay SSSI. 

8.3.8 Terrestrial vegetation removal during the jetty development’s construction phase would 

mean that the cleared areas would no longer be likely to support any of the bird species 

that currently breed on the site, including skylark (eight pairs), linnet (three pairs), 

dunnock (five pairs) and song thrush (one pair). However, the loss of habitat for breeding 

birds would not have an adverse impact on the conservation status of the species 

concerned. On this basis, the loss of habitat and breeding birds would be a minor 

adverse impact. 

8.3.9 The jetty development’s construction phase would result in the loss of one ephemeral 

common pipistrelle roost located in a disused, derelict barn. Given the low status of the 

roost and the common species recorded using the barn, its loss is unlikely to affect the 

conservation status of the local bat population. 

8.3.10 The stripping of topsoil and the removal of hedgerows across the application site would 

result in the loss or reduction in size of the territories of up to three badger social groups 

and the destruction of one sett. In the absence of mitigation, this would result in the 

contravention of the law pertaining to badgers, which would cause a major adverse 

impact. 

8.3.11 No significant impacts are predicted to arise in relation to otters, reptiles and 

invertebrates using habitats within the study area during the jetty development. 

8.3.12 Losses of grassland, pond and hedgerow habitat, loss of 10% of the Hinkley County 

Wildlife Site and disturbance to the Hinkley Point C Drainage Ditch and a small area of 

limestone grassland are also predicted to occur. However, none of these effects are 

predicted to be significant. 




Figure 17 Designated Nature Conservation Areas in relation to the Jetty Development’s Application Site 

Hinkley Point C Preliminary Works Non Technical Summary 


8.3.13 Fewer potential impacts are predicted to arise during the jetty development’s operation 

and dismantling and restoration phases or, if required, its removal and reinstatement 

phase, namely: 

• adverse impacts on intertidal birds resulting from disturbance caused by ships 

docking to unload cargo, and from human activity, light and noise along and on route 

to the jetty; 

• disturbance to bats as a result of site lighting; and 

• restoration (or, if required, reinstatement) of the site, resulting in the creation of 

habitats which would subsequently be available for colonisation by wildlife. 

8.3.14 Similarly, none of these potential impacts are predicted to be significant. 

Mitigation 

8.3.15 Construction of the jetty development would be undertaken and, as appropriate, 

scheduled in such a way as to avoid or reduce impacts on birds using the inter-tidal 

areas (e.g. piling on the foreshore would be scheduled to take place over the summer 

period from July to September as far as possible). In addition, the construction works on 

the inter-tidal area would be constantly rather than intermittently lit each night through the 

use of directional lighting so that light spill is limited and birds can habituate to the light. 

8.3.16 To ensure compliance with the legal protection afforded to bats, destruction of the barn 

with confirmed bat interest would be undertaken in accordance with a method statement 

that is agreed with Natural England, in the context of a derogation licence. In addition, a 

strategy would be implemented to ensure that lighting is designed to have minimal 

impacts on bats, whilst being compliant with safety and security criteria. 



8.4 Water Quality 


8.4.1 A review of literature has been used to derive an overview of the marine surface water 

quality conditions. In addition, the results of surface water sampling campaigns carried 

out in 2009 have been used to inform the baseline conditions. The two key receptors 

identified for potential impacts arising from the jetty development are the freshwater 

quality status of the Hinkley Point C Drainage Ditch and the marine water quality status of 

the Severn Estuary. 

8.4.2 Onshore, the jetty development’s application site includes a series of interconnecting 

agricultural drainage ditches that drain the land and discharge to the Hinkley Point 

foreshore. The primary watercourse of relevance to the jetty development is known as 

the Hinkley Point C Drainage Ditch. This watercourse is supplied with water from surface 

drainage running off from surrounding agricultural land. Its water quality status is 

characterised by highly variable water quality conditions, including elevated 

concentrations of suspended solids. In addition, it is known to dry out during prolonged 

periods without rainfall. 

8.4.3 Offshore, the water quality status of the inter-tidal area at Hinkley Point is variable 

according to tidal conditions. Under high tide conditions the inter-tidal area is inundated 

with water that is characterised by high concentrations of suspended solids. Given the 




high tidal range, there is a large dilution capacity available to buffer other suspended 

solids and other potential water quality impacts during high tide periods and the overall 

water quality status sensitivity is low. The sensitivity of the inter-tidal water quality status 

is increased during low tide periods when water is retained in pools and foreshore 

channels that support marine ecology. During these periods there is reduced dilution 

capacity to potential impacts from foreshore discharges and an increased sensitivity. 

8.4.4 The sub-tidal areas off Hinkley Point are characterised by high suspended solids 

concentrations due to sediment mobilisation under high tidal flows. The tidal disturbance 

of the sediments would also lead to mobilisation of any associated sediment 

contaminants into the well-mixed water column. It has been shown that disturbance of 

the superficial sediments in the area around Hinkley Point has a low influence on 

chemical water quality status. 

8.4.5 In terms of sediment quality, survey data indicate the presence of elevated metal and 

hydrocarbon concentrations, but very few of the metal concentrations recorded would be 

considered to be significantly contaminated. It is suggested that elevated metal 

contamination in surface sediment may be representative of wider baseline 

concentrations and the result of contaminant redistribution from elsewhere in the Bristol 

Channel. Concentrations of other organic substances were found to be generally present 

at low concentrations. 


8.4.6 The impact assessment found that there is the potential for water quality status to be 

adversely affected as a result of a range of activities associated with the jetty 

development. The impacts that have been identified during the construction of the jetty 

may be broadly divided into: 

• disturbance of marine sediment and mobilisation of associated contaminants into the 

Severn Estuary (e.g. due to dredging of the berthing pocket or scouring around the 

jetty’s piles); 

• discharge of water containing sediment, hydrocarbons and/or concrete leachates into 

the Hinkley Point C Drainage Ditch and the Severn Estuary (e.g. surface water run-off 

from the onshore storage area); 

• discharge of freshwater onto the foreshore where Corallina is present in drainage 

channels; and 

• accidents and incidents. 

8.4.7 During construction of the jetty no significant impacts are predicted to arise in relation to 

water quality due to the measures that would be put in place to control the quality and 

volume of discharges into the surface drainage (i.e. the Hinkley Point C Drainage Ditch) 

and onto the foreshore and the waters of the Severn Estuary. In addition, the sensitivity 

of the local marine water quality conditions to increases in suspended solids is low given 

the existing high background concentrations. 

8.4.8 The impacts associated with the operation of the jetty are likely to arise from 

maintenance dredging of the berthing pocket, scouring of sediment from the seabed 

around the jetty’s infrastructure (e.g. piles and berthing pocket), and freshwater 

discharges into the marine environment from the onshore storage area. However, the 

impacts assessed would be of negligible or minor significance. 




8.4.9 Impacts associated with dismantling and restoration phase and, if required, the removal / 

reinstatement phase would be in similar to those described for the construction phase, 

with no significant impact predicted. 

Mitigation 

8.4.10 Due in part to the design measures associated with the jetty development (e.g. oil water 

separator and a water management zone for the aggregates storage area), all of the 

identified impacts on water quality were found to be not significant (i.e. minor and 

negligible impacts) prior to implementation of mitigation measures. Nevertheless, 

mitigation measures will be adopted on the basis of a precautionary approach to 

protection of the environment. Mitigation measures include: 

• the application and accordance with discharge consent conditions for discharges to 

the Hinkley Point C Drainage Ditch and the Severn Estuary; 

• the adoption of the best practice guidance for works in and adjacent to 

watercourses, as provided in the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention 

Guidelines (PPGs); 

• the implementation of a surface drainage strategy for the onshore areas including 

measures to minimising generation of sediment-laden surface drainage water and 

potential impacts on the Hinkley Point C Drainage Ditch (e.g. settlement ponds to 

reduce suspended solids and oil interceptors to recover hydrocarbons); and 

• the implementation of a wide range of environmental protection measures and 

monitoring detailed in the Water and Sediment Management Plan which forms part 

of the EMMP. 



8.5 Hydrology and Drainage 


8.5.1 There are a number of controlled waters in the Hinkley Point area; however, the only 

fluvial watercourse of relevance to the jetty development is the Hinkley Point C Drainage 

Ditch. The ditch is designated as an Ordinary Watercourse (i.e. it is not a Main River). 

The Hinkley Point C Drainage Ditch’s contributing catchment (78.3ha) is undulating with 

generally shallow slopes. It runs from west to east with its source at 14.5m AOD until its 

alignment is rotated through 90° such that it flows from south to north where it discharges 

onto the foreshore. Flow in the ditch is intermittent / ephemeral (i.e. it does not flow all 

year round). 

8.5.2 There is no fluvial flooding indicated on the Environment Agency’s Flood Map; however, 

flooding from catchments of less than 3km 2 is not shown so it is possible that some fluvial 

flooding could occur along the ditch’s margins. 

8.5.3 A Flood Risk Assessment has been carried out in accordance with PPS25. It can be 

found in Appendix 13-1 in Volume 4. On the basis of the information presented in this 

FRA, and subject to its recommendations being implemented, it is concluded that the 

jetty development at Hinkley Point is appropriate on the grounds that all flooding risks 

and residual risks have been given due consideration and are found to be acceptable. 




8.5.4 The Hinkley Point C Drainage Ditch discharges to the foreshore and drains into the 

Severn Estuary except during very high tides when it will discharge directly into the 

Severn Estuary. 


8.5.5 The key impact would occur as a result of elevated surface water run-off from the jetty 

development’s onshore components, and particularly from the aggregates storage area 

and service road. It is proposed that this water would be discharged to the Hinkley Point 

C Drainage Ditch and eventually to the foreshore and the Severn Estuary. Common 

types of potential hydrological and drainage impacts extend across a range of 

construction activities and have been grouped accordingly and include: 

• elevated surface water run-off; 

• elevated sediment delivery and deposition in watercourses; and 

• flooding of land off-site of the application site resulting from various sources, such as 

flooding as a result of elevated surface water run-off and flooding as a result of 

elevated sediment deposition in channels resulting in a reduced channel capacity. 

8.5.6 Onshore, the jetty development would have a surface water drainage system in place to 

control and manage surface water and sediment discharges associated with the 

aggregates storage area. This system would be designed to basic compliance criteria 

and, therefore, is not considered to be mitigation measure. 

8.5.7 No significant potential impacts (i.e. moderate or major impacts) were identified in 

relation to hydrology and drainage for the jetty development’s construction, operation and 

dismantling and restoration phases and, if required, its removal and reinstatement. 

Mitigation 

8.5.8 The impact assessment is based on the assumption of regulatory compliance and thus 

measures would be implemented to ensure regulatory compliance. These measures are 

presented within the Water and Sediment Management Plan, which forms part of the 

EMMP, and would be applied during the jetty development’s dismantling and restoration 

phase or, if required, its removal and reinstatement phase. 

8.5.9 Although the onshore aggregates storage area’s design includes for an operational 

drainage system, monitoring and maintenance and controls would be put in place for 

unusual conditions (contingency discharges and provision for emergency run-off). 



8.6 Groundwater 


8.6.1 The groundwater regime at the jetty development’s application site is described as a 

Secondary A (Minor) aquifer (a rock formation that can bear or transmit water). Such 

aquifers can be “fractured or potentially fractured rocks, which do not have a high primary 

permeability, or other formations of variable permeability including unconsolidated 

deposits. Although these aquifers will seldom produce large quantities for abstraction, 

they are important both for local supplies and in supplying base flow to rivers”. The lower 




oundary on the active groundwater regime in the area may be the base of the Lilstock 

Formation of the Penarth Group, possibly less than 4m below the base of the Lower Lias. 

8.6.2 The groundwater is considered to be compartmentalised between the Green Lane area 

and the shoreline by an upfaulted inlier of low permeability Mercia Mudstones. 

Groundwater flow is essentially south-south-west to north-north-east discharging at some 

point at the foreshore or underwater up to several hundred metres offshore. 

8.6.3 Surveys show that the water tables rise in response to sustained rainfall during the winter 

months and then fall away again as recharge declines. Rainfall between spring and early 

autumn does not show a groundwater response, probably because available recharge is 

taken up by the growing soil moisture deficit and does not reach the unsaturated zone or 

the water table. 

8.6.4 It is apparent that groundwater in the application site is controlled by local rainwater 

recharge and topography as the groundwater contours reflect the topography. The 

Hinkley Point C Drainage Ditch, which flows west to east then turns north to discharge to 

the shoreline, receives groundwater baseflow and exerts significant control on 

groundwater levels. 

8.6.5 At high water table levels, groundwater ranges from around 20m AOD to 11m AOD from 

south to north across the western part of the application site. At low water table levels at 

the end of summer, groundwater ranges from around 14m AOD to 8m AOD in the same 

boreholes. 

8.6.6 There are no potable water abstractions and no associated Source Protection Zones 

within the application site. There are 17 licensed groundwater abstractions within several 

kilometres of the application site. All these wells and boreholes are for general farming 

and domestic purposes. The nearest abstraction is more than 0.5km from the western 

part of the application site. All the other abstractions are more than 2km from the 

western part of the application site. 


8.6.7 The principal activities associated with the jetty development that could affect 

groundwater are associated with the onshore works and particularly construction of the 

aggregates storage area, the soil storage areas and the rock extraction area. The 

anticipated impacts on groundwater receptors such as groundwater levels and resources 

during all phases of the jetty development have been assessed to be of negligible or 

minor significance. 

Mitigation 

8.6.8 Mitigation would be provided through implementation of the EMMP, which would ensure 

that best practice construction methods are adopted to minimise spillages and 

contamination. Monitoring programmes would be implemented as part of the EMMP to 

verify the behaviour and any movement of groundwater, in order to confirm the 

anticipated non-impacts. 






8.7 Soils and Land Use 


8.7.1 The topography of the application site is typical of that in the wider locality comprising 

mostly open, gently rolling, mixed lowland farmland with a series of east-west ridges of 

land. Improved grassland areas within the site are grazed annually as part of the 

management of the Hinkley Point County Wildlife Site, with other areas maintained in 

Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC). 

8.7.2 The main soil type present (Evesham Soil Series) comprises soils which are slow 

draining and vulnerable to structural damage if worked when waterlogged. The 

application site and much of the surrounding area is covered by agri-environment 

schemes (Countryside or Environmental Stewardship Agreements). 

8.7.3 The application site is classified as Grade 3b (moderate quality) agricultural land, with the 

rock extraction area classified as non-agricultural land due to previous development 

associated with the Hinkley Point Power Station Complex. The surrounding land is also 

predominantly Grade 3b with some Grade 3a (classified as best and most versatile land 

(BMVL) and some Grade 4 (poor quality agricultural land). 


8.7.4 Only the onshore elements of the jetty development are considered to have the potential 

to impact on soil and land use and, therefore, no assessment of the jetty’s offshore 

components has been made. 

8.7.5 Soil and land use impacts arising from the jetty development’s construction phase would 

primarily be associated with topsoil stripping, storage and handling, including the 

potential for damage to soil structure and profiles, loss of agricultural potential, loss of 

land for livestock and loss of land currently managed under agri-environment schemes. 

Since the affected soils are mainly heavy clays with relatively poor structure, soil 

compaction, and loss of soil structure could occur as soils are excavated, handled and 

stored for later re-use. 

8.7.6 Other jetty development activities, including construction of site access, site compound, 

service road to the foreshore and rock extraction would take place after topsoil stripping 

has occurred and, therefore, there would be no adverse impacts on soils and land use 

related to these activities. 

8.7.7 The anticipated impacts on soil quality and agricultural land use during all phases of the 

jetty development have been assessed to be of minor adverse significance. 

Mitigation 

8.7.8 Mitigation would be provided through implementation of the EMMP, which would ensure 

that best practice construction methods are adopted. As part of this, a Soil Management 

Plan (SMP) would be set in place to address all phases of the jetty development, 

containing measures for soil protection ahead of stripping, segregation and storage to 

protect soil quality and prevent loss of soil structure. 

8.7.9 These measures would also ensure appropriate biosecurity (disease and pest control), 

weed control, management of site run-off, erosion and dust generation to protect both on 

site soils and adjacent land holdings. As part of the landscape restoration and, if 

required, reinstatement, stockpiled soils and subsoils would be re-used to create suitable 




conditions for agricultural land and habitat creation. Appropriate reinstatement techniques 

would be set out in the SMP to ensure that well-managed and viable soil materials are 

available. 


8.7.10 All potential impacts on soils and land use have been rated as minor before any 

mitigation has been applied. Nevertheless, mitigation measures are proposed to protect 

soil quality and prevent loss of soil structure. 

8.8 Geology and Contaminated Land 


8.8.1 The majority of the application site is not overlain by significant drift deposits. Intrusive 

investigations, have revealed that where drift deposits are present within the application 

site they are classified typically as slightly gravelly locally sandy silty clay to a sandy silt / 

clay and slightly sandy slightly gravely clay respectively. The solid geology in the locality 

of the application site predominantly comprises the Lower Lias of the Lias Group (Lower 

Jurassic) and the Triassic Penarth and Mercia Mudstone Groups. 

8.8.2 The Blue Anchor to Lilstock SSSI (see yellow outlined area on Figure 17) is designated 

for its geological and geomorphological interest. The exposed stratigraphic units along 

the cliff face are considered to be amongst the best examples of the Blue Lias outcrop in 

Europe and the SSSI’s geomorphological designation is for the exposed limestone rock 

pavement on the foreshore. The application site includes a small portion of the 

designated cliff and foreshore. 

8.8.3 In terms of contaminated land, while the application site has been and remains 

predominantly agricultural, some of its eastern part has been affected by development. 

Key features and potential pollution sources include the presence of historically infilled 

ponds, former sewage treatment works, a double mounded feature in the centre of the 

site containing surplus spoil from the construction of the Hinkley Point Power Station 

Complex, a former licensed waste management facility and the former fabrication / 

construction and accommodation areas with associated electrical substations and 

possible fuel oil storage tanks and boiler house. 

8.8.4 Contaminant concentrations found by intrusive investigations of shallow and deeper soils 

within the application site are considered to be consistent with natural background 

concentrations in the locality and typical UK background soil concentrations. The 

majority of the soils within the eastern part of the application site are considered to be 

suitable for the proposed end use given the incorporation of standard design mitigation 

measures where necessary (such as sulphate resistant concrete) and appropriate 

materials management and placement (e.g. not within top metre in some cases) during 

earthworks. The exceptions to this are the presence of asbestos containing materials 

(ACM) which have been identified at several locations on the eastern part of the 

application site. These materials have in almost all cases been identified as discrete 

pieces and fragments of ACM with very little evidence of any diffuse or free fibres 

identified in the site soils or associated with the ACM. The current risk from these ACM 

is considered to be low. In addition, all known areas of asbestos contamination would be 

removed during the enabling works prior to the commencement of the jetty development. 




8.8.5 Gas monitoring data indicate that there are no significant sources of ground gas on the 

application site and, therefore, there is no significant risk posed to human health or 

buildings by ground gas given its current land use. 


8.8.6 The anticipated impacts on geological receptors have been assessed to be of negligible 

to minor adverse significance for all phases of the jetty development. A key impact on 

geology was considered in relation to the jetty development’s potential to affect the 

features (i.e. exposures) of the Blue Anchor to Lilstock SSSI. Only a small portion of the 

jetty would affect the SSSI and a geological mapping exercise has identified that the 

features affected by the jetty development can be observed and accessed elsewhere 

within the SSSI, such that there is no loss of the unique geology. 

8.8.7 The anticipated Impacts on contaminated land receptors (including soil, water, vegetation 

and human health) have been assessed to be negligible to minor adverse for all phases 

of the jetty development. 

Mitigation 

8.8.8 Despite no significant adverse impacts, the EMMP will include measures relating to the 

control of the release of potentially contaminated materials into the environment from 

their original source location. Certain standard control measures which are typically 

applied on construction sites are also effective at controlling the dispersion and creation 

of contamination. Typical measures will include standard measures to prevent 

contamination occurring from construction operations (e.g. appropriate use and storage 

of fuel oils and other chemicals and measures to control dust and surface run-off, etc.). 

8.8.9 No significant impacts to geology are predicted, however the foreshore is fossiliferous 

and, therefore, a pre-construction survey to identify any palaeontological finds of 

scientific importance would be undertaken on the area of the foreshore to be impacted by 

the jetty development (access road and piling). 



9 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

9.1 Introduction 

9.1.1 The potential for cumulative impacts to occur as a result of the implementation of the jetty 

development with other projects is largely determined by the spatial and temporal 

characteristics of the works themselves and the nature of the environmental receptors 

that may be affected by the works. Relevant projects in this instance include the site 

preparation works, the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station and several other 

plans and projects that have been scoped into the assessment process. 

9.2 Cumulative Effects with the Site Preparation Works 

9.2.1 The inclusion of the ground works for the onshore elements of the jetty development 

within the site preparation works effectively means that potential cumulative effects on 

onshore / terrestrial environmental receptors (e.g. soils and land use, terrestrial ecology, 

geology and contaminated land) would be, in most instances, no greater than for the site 

preparation works alone. With regard to the potential impact of noise generated during 




construction and changes in air quality, given the separation distance of the jetty 

construction works from the nearest residential properties, the cumulative effect would be 

no greater than that assessed solely for the site preparation works. 

9.2.2 For landscape and heritage issues, the addition of the land-based components of the 

jetty storage infrastructure and the jetty structure itself to the site preparation works has 

the potential to cause a cumulative effect. These structures are predicted to marginally 

increase the overall magnitude of change with respect to effects on local landscape 

character and visual sensitivity from some viewpoints. With respect to the setting of Wick 

Barrow, however, the combined impact magnitude is predicted to be no greater than that 

assessed for the site preparation works alone. 

9.2.3 From a recreation and amenity perspective, the coastal footpath would be obstructed and 

alternative routes put in place around the combined works. There would be a temporary 

increase in the visual impact to users of the coastal section to the west of the site as a 

result of the combined effect. However, views from the footpath would be limited to those 

that could be gained away from the immediate vicinity of the development site. 

9.3 Cumulative Effects with the Hinkley Point C Project 

During Construction of the Jetty 

9.3.1 During construction there is only a very limited temporal overlap of approximately nine 

months between the jetty development’s construction phase and the Hinkley Point C 

construction works. This small overlap between the works effectively limits the potential 

for many cumulative impacts to occur. The negligible traffic volume and relevant air 

quality and noise effects associated with the jetty development would not be expected to 

represent a discernable difference from those associated with Hinkley Point C alone. 

9.3.2 For some receptors, such as landscape, heritage and amenity, there is the potential for 

the continuation or further modification of an impact due to the commencement of the 

Hinkley Point C construction works. However, given the short temporal overlap, the 

scope for any significant change is extremely limited and in reality the additional effect 

during this overlap period would be unlikely to lead to any greater impacts than those that 

could be attributed to the jetty development alone. 

9.3.3 For receptors within the footprint of the onshore components of the jetty development, 

such as terrestrial ecological interest, soils and landuse, buried archaeology, etc., there 

would be no cumulative impact with the commencement of the Hinkley Point C 

construction works. This is because these interests would be lost as a result of the jetty 

development’s construction and the site preparation works. 

During Operation of the Jetty 

9.3.4 The overlap in time between the operational phase of the jetty and continued 

construction of Hinkley Point C would last approximately 7 years. The potential for 

cumulative impacts to arise with the jetty is significant due to the scale and complexity of 

the construction work for Hinkley Point C that would be undertaken during this period. 

However, these cumulative impacts would be temporary and would cease once the jetty 

had been dismantled, meaning that beyond this period the impacts would revert to those 

of the Hinkley Point C Project alone. 

9.3.5 These impacts would relate to the additive effects of the Hinkley Point C Project with 

regard to those environmental aspects that would either be affected outside of the 




footprint of the jetty development as this area would not be altered during by the Hinkley 

Point C works during this phase of the jetty development, or which continue on from 

construction. The main aspects that fall into these categories are, in the first instance, 

landscape, heritage (setting) and amenity and with regard to the second category air and 

noise impacts. 

9.3.6 The building work for Hinkley Point C would significantly alter the local landscape and 

have wider visual impact. During the operational period for the jetty the visual impact of 

the jetty structure would combine with the Hinkley Point C reactor buildings to generate a 

greater visual impact than that of the jetty structure alone. While it could be argued that 

the visual and landscape impact would be due to the Hinkley Point C construction works, 

it would be difficult to separate out the combined elements of the jetty development and 

the new buildings such that specific impacts could be attributed to each. The total effect 

therefore has to be considered and in this context the cumulative impact would be 

greater than that attributable to the jetty development alone. This conclusion also applies 

to the setting of heritage interests where the jetty would form a significant component of 

the visible built form. 

9.3.7 Assessment of noise and air impacts for the jetty development indicates that they would 

be of limited significance during operation. Consequently, no greater cumulative impact is 

predicted with respect to these aspects during the overlap period with construction of 

Hinkley Point C. 

9.4 Cumulative Effects with Other Plans and Projects 

9.4.1 There are only a few projects in the wider environment that have could interact with the 

jetty development and potentially lead to cumulative impacts. 

9.4.2 At a regional level, the proposed Bristol Port Deep Sea Container Terminal project at 

Avonmouth is spatially so distant that cumulative effects would be confined to those that 

could only operate at a regional level. Apart from a negligible potential traffic / transport 

interaction between the jetty development / site preparation works and this project, no 

such effects have been identified. In proximity to the jetty development the 

decommissioning works for Hinkley Point A are of most relevance, while the continued 

operation of Hinkley Point B effectively forms part of the baseline against which impacts 

have been assessed for the jetty development. 

9.4.3 Available information for the Hinkley Point A decommissioning works shows that the 

majority of impacts would be confined to the footprint of the Hinkley Point A site and 

therefore outwith any spatial interaction with the jetty development. The cumulative 

socio-economic effects are considered to be no greater than the effects of jetty 

development / site preparation works alone since the contribution of Hinkley Point A is 

already included in the baseline. 

9.4.4 During operation of the jetty, there are a number of projects which temporally overlap. Of 

these, the proposed new nuclear power station at Oldbury is located at such a distance 

from Hinkley Point that the potential for any spatial interaction with the effects of the jetty 

is either non-existent or negligible. Potential overlap with the Steart Coastal Management 

Project would occur, but the lack of any significant spatial interaction and low magnitude 

effects associated with the jetty indicate that any cumulative effects would be negligible. 

For the transmission line upgrade into Hinkley Point C, there could be some interaction 

with regard to landscape and visual sensitivities however, the overall effect is unlikely to 

be significant. This is largely due to the fact that the combined landscape impact of the 

jetty and the transmission line upgrade would be significantly subsumed by the much 




greater landscape impact of the Hinkley Point C Project itself combined with the 

transmission line upgrade (i.e. in reality the transmission line upgrade is associated with 

the construction of Hinkley Point C). 

9.4.5 This assessment, therefore, concludes that any cumulative impacts with the potential to 

arise between the jetty development and other relevant projects would be negligible. 

10 CONCLUSION 

10.1.1 The majority of the impacts predicted to arise due to the jetty development are assessed 

to be of minor and negligible significance, particularly following mitigation. However, a 

few impacts are assessed to be significant (i.e. moderate or major adverse impacts). 

10.1.2 The key human and built environment impacts associated with the proposals for the jetty 

development at Hinkley Point are anticipated to arise from disturbance to users of public 

rights of way, changes to seascape and local and site landscape features, visual impacts 

along public rights of way, and effects on the setting of designated sites and features of 

cultural importance. These impacts are summarised in Section 7. 

10.1.3 The key impacts on the natural and physical environment, prior to mitigation, are 

summarised in Section 8, with the most significant adverse impact likely to arise from the 

disturbance to Corallina habitat and to badger habitat. Potential impacts on birds using 

inter-tidal areas are not predicted to be significant. 

10.1.4 As discussed in Sections 7 and 8, potentially significant effects could arise locally from 

the proposed development. However, care has been taken to avoid, reduce and mitigate 

potential adverse environmental effects as far as possible.

Jetty Non Technical Summary - EDF Hinkley Point

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?