CREATING saltmarshes to offset the impact of Somerset’s new nuclear power station would be “a disaster”, according to local MPs.

EDF Energy held a public consultation in January and February over its proposals for new saltmarshes on the Pawlett Hams, which lie on the right bank of the River Parrett near the villages of Combwich and Pawlett.

The company U-turned in early-September following a successful campaign by local residents, and is currently exploring four additional sites in Somerset and Gloucestershire which could offset the construction of Hinkley Point C.

But local MPs have warned that saltmarshes will not address the underlying environmental issues and could harm existing flood defences.

Sir Ashley Fox, the Conservative MP for Bridgwater, secured a parliamentary debate on this issue, which took place in Westminster Hall on Wednesday, October 9.

He said: “The Pawlett Hams proposal was highly unpopular.

“In fact, it was difficult to find anyone who thought it was a good idea. When I met representatives from EDF, even they seemed a little half-hearted about it.”

When EDF Energy secured planning permission to build Hinkley Point C, it set out three separate proposals to prevent the loss of fish stocks in the Bristol Channel, from which water will be sourced to cool the power station’s reactor:

EDF said it was “unable” to install the acoustic fish deterrent, citing “engineering difficulties and health and safety risks to the divers who would need to maintain the system.”

Mr Fox said that some of EDF’s alternative proposals “seem sensible and beneficial to the natural ecosystem” – such as the creation of new kelp forest and seagrass within the Severn estuary.

But he added that the saltmarsh proposals would turn the Pawlett Hams into a “barren, species-poor” wasteland, leading to the loss of native species and vital farmland.

He elaborated: “There is a lush, biodiverse habitat for many animals in the Hams, including lapwings, redshanks, otters, water voles, water beetles, great crested newts and yellow wagtails.

“Those species would be driven out if the area was turned into a salt marsh. The Hams provide valuable grazing for local farmers.

“EDF’s plan was a disaster, and even if it went ahead it was not clear how it would mitigate the problem of the fish that would be lost.

“Turning the Hams into a salt marsh is not a mitigation. It would be an intentional decision to cause environmental harm.

“It is a completely illogical and extraordinary choice by the Environment Agency (EA).

“The view of many of my constituents is that the EA chose Pawlett Hams so that it could flood the land and save money on maintaining flood defences.

“If an acoustic fish deterrent is truly impractical, I would like to see the money saved, which would be tens of millions of pounds, and put at the disposal of the local community to fund genuine environmental improvements.

“I want to see those decisions taken by democratically accountable bodies, such as Somerset Council and the local town and parish councils.

“In my view, they are more likely to spend the money wisely than the agency that thought that turning Pawlett Hams into a salt marsh was a good idea.”

Following its September U-turn, EDF has confirmed it is considering four other potential sites for saltmarshes on the Severn estuary – Kingston Seymour (between Clevedon and Weston-super-Mare), Littleton-upon-Severn (north of Bristol), Arlingham and Rodley (both near Gloucester).

Tessa Munt, the Liberal Democrat MP for Wells and Mendip Hills, praised her fellow Lib Dem councillor Claire Sully and local residents who had “campaigned ferociously” against the saltmarsh plans.

She went on to argue that delivering saltmarshes on the River Severn would prove impractical due to the strong tides, with any structure being quickly eroded and rendered useless.

She said: “Some expert evidence was offered in 2011 by Dr Robert Kirby, a coastal geomorphologist and scientist. He advised that any salt marsh would eventually wash away or be eroded.

“If the EA intends to breach the Kingston Seymour seawall, that will increase the level of flooding. If it intends to build up the seawall, it will not create any more saltmarsh, so I am really very unsure about this.

“I do not understand how it is that we can suddenly be looking at creating saltmarsh and dismissing the number of fish that are going to be killed, when that was a critical factor when Hinkley Point C was being discussed.”

Mary Creagh MP, the parliamentary under-secretary for the environment, food and rural affairs, said she was not able to comment in detail on EDF’s ongoing consultations for fear of prejudicing the outcome of a live planning case.

She added, however, that the government would ensure that EDF provides “compensation” for the loss of fish within the Bristol Channel if the removal of the acoustic fish deterrent was agreed.

She said: “Any additional saltmarsh sites being put forward are sites identified and selected by EDF, not the EA.

“The EA 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.

“The EA and Natural England will be able to provide valuable information on environmental impacts. That will include the sufficiency of the compensation package and its ability to compensate for the impact on protected fish species.

“We must deliver our infrastructure goals in a way that is positive for our natural world and for our wider landscapes.”

EDF Energy will formally submit an application for any new saltmarshes or other mitigation in the coming months, with the Planning Inspectorate expected to hold the resulting public inquiry in the autumn of 2025.