Mary Creagh

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) on securing this debate and on his excellent representation of his constituents’ views here today. I begin by saying that this is the subject of a live planning case and I am sure that hon. Members will understand the limits on what I can say. However, I can assure hon. Members that I have listened carefully to the points raised, asked my officials some of the questions that they have asked, and have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the issue. I hope that what I say will be useful to them and their constituents. I will begin by setting out the facts of the case. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 protects special areas of conservation and special protected areas. The regulations require an assessment of whether a plan or project could have an adverse impact on the integrity of a protected site. Any harm must be mitigated unless there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest and no alternative. In those cases, compensatory measures must be secured. In this case, an acoustic fish deterrent was part of the approved mitigation for the impact of Hinckley Point C on the Severn estuary. Hinckley Point C has applied to remove the acoustic fish deterrent. That means that compensation may be needed for the loss of fish within the Severn estuary site. The species of concern are Atlantic cod, sea bass, whiting and herring. In a pre-application consultation earlier this year, Hinckley proposed Pawlett Hams as a suitable compensatory salt marsh habitat. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater has said, Pawlett Hams was designated as part of the Bridgwater bay SSSI in 1989. It is particularly important for its network of freshwater ditches and their associate invertebrate communities—insects. Pawlett Hams is also part of the Severn estuary Ramsar—which is a wetland site—and special protection area, a European designation for bird sites. It has a triple protection. In its response to the pre-application consultation, the Environment Agency was unable to agree with the suitability of the Pawlett Hams sites until further evidence and assessment has been completed. Hinckley approached the Environment Agency; to gently correct the hon. Member for Bridgwater, the Environment Agency did not suggest it. It is my understanding that the applicant makes a request to the regulator. I understand that following the consultation, Hinkley Point C is investigating new locations for salt marsh creation as an alternative to Pawlett Hams. It is holding early conversations with stakeholders ahead of public consultation, as we have heard from colleagues today. Any additional sites being put forward are sites identified and selected by Hinkley Point C, not the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency agrees that the marine measures proposed are an appropriate option within a wider compensation package. It has not agreed on the scale of the measures to off-set the predicted adverse effects. To the question raised by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), flood modelling and flood risk assessments would be required for identified sites.