Most importantly, every voice counts and weight of numbers can make a very real difference.

It is important that you make a written objection to the proposals directly using the details below. Closing date is 29th February after which it will be too late, so please act now.

Every single valid objection adds weight to our case, so please don’t assume someone else’s objection will cover it. It is partially an issue of raw numbers, so your input WILL make a difference to whether our landscape is destroyed.

Make your voice count, object at:

edfenergy@hpcenquiries.com

or comment online at

EDF DCO consultation

If you can object in your own words it helps even more, just be polite!

Possible grounds for objection:

• This well-loved, biodiverse site has been chosen to offset non-related issues for Hinkley Point C. For EDF to be granted a compulsory purchase order they have to show that this is the only and best site that can meet their requirement. The evidence of that is extremely weak.

• There are alternative technical solutions to safety issues for the existing proposal for an active fish deterrent system.

• There are alternative technical solutions to the fish kill issues related to the requirements

  to take cooling water for their reactors.

• The science behind the proposal appear deeply questionable, mainly on the topic of how many fish would actually be offset by these measures.

• The proposal will cause destruction of an established habitat, which is home to many endangered

  species, including Lapwings, Brown Hares, voles and newts to name a few.

• The site currently is also an area which encourages a large population of very rare invertebrates.

• The loss of Whitehouse Lane / Pilgrims way. A historic track which dates back to Saxon times.

  A small settlement of six households was recorded as Pavelet in the 1086 Domesday Book. In the

  12th century the Pawlett Hams, running west of the village, were known as being the richest 2,000 acres (8 km 2 ) in England.

• Vehicular access to the Hams is less than ideal for such a large project, or for visitors once the works have been completed.

• The local area is likely to suffer from excessively high numbers of mosquito’s.

• Part of the Hams has already been used to offset habitat loss elsewhere, this proposal would reuse that same land - or “double count” the habitat created - possibly in breach of international law.

• The Pawlett Hams form part of the Bridgwater Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest, and is protected by law specifically for the rare freshwater wildlife there.

• Bridgwater Bay has been  designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest since 1989 and is designated as a wetland of international importance.

• It is also a Nature Conservation Review Grade 1* site with many species of rare or endangered freshwater species wildlife calling the Pawlett Hams their home. These will all be lost if the proposals are consented

• The scheme will significantly reduce the amount of rain water storage in the ditches, which during high tides will directly increase the flood risk of neighbouring houses.

• Should the proposal go ahead we would like to see a traffic management scheme implemented during the construction phase, and carried through in to the visitor phase.

• Surrounding land will become more expensive due the lack of supply and heightened demand and unless appropriately resourced, this scheme will devastate local farming families and businesses.

• There appear to be several other more suitable sites that are being overlooked, many without the high biodiversity or protections of Pawlett Hams.

• The shear volume of land to be consumed by this proposal seems excessive when compared to the net gain for fish in the Severn Estuary and not in the public interest.