Corporate report

Environment Agency response to Bradwell B stage 1 Development Consent Order consultation

Published 8 July 2020

Applies to England

1. Foreword

In responding our primary aim is to ensure that any new nuclear power station at Bradwell, and its associated developments, would be constructed, operated and decommissioned to high environmental standards. We seek continued engagement with you to achieve this.

We consider that many of the areas you will need to take into account have been identified in your stage 1 consultation, although further detail and assessments will follow. We recognise that this information represents your first stage of public consultation and that you plan further public consultation in the future. It is worth clarifying that we are not yet in a position to comment fully on any initial conclusions or statements included in your consultation; once further evidence and assessments are provided we will be in a position to do so.

We, together with Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation – as Defra Group – recognise the complex nature of the proposal and that it is important that we are engaged and involved in providing advice to the Company in a timely way, as it prepares its Development Consent Order application. It is essential that we continue to engage to ensure that the programme reflects our requirements and expectations and so enables us to plan the use of our specialist resources.

This response does not represent our final view in relation to any future Development Consent Order application, or Environmental Permit applications made to us. Our final views will be based on all relevant information included in the applications and the latest guidance available at that time.

We will continue to provide our advice and guidance in response to your project, as your detailed proposals continue to develop.

For further discussions, please contact Niall Pettitt – Bradwell B Project Specialist by emailing BradwellBNNB@environment-agency.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Hawkins Area Director – East Anglia Area

2. Executive summary

The Environment Agency is responding to Bradwell Power Generation Company Limited’s (the Company) stage 1 consultation on proposals for a power station and associated development (the project) in our role as a statutory consultee.

Our response provides advice on the Company’s obligations in providing an Environmental Impact Assessment, Habitats Regulations Assessment, Water Framework Directive Compliance Assessment, Flood Risk Assessments, Environmental Permits and other areas within our remit. This is based on the information available in the consultation document and the prevailing legislation, policy and guidance, in particular the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy and the National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation. Our advice will respond to new information and any successor National Policy Statements and is without prejudice to future applications.

We seek a commitment from the Company to maximise environmental benefits and achieve a net gain in biodiversity. The stated aims of the project, paragraph 2.1.13 seek to “apply the highest standards” to safety, “build positive” relationships with stakeholders and “maximise” social and economic benefits. We suggest that the Company sets an equally ambitious aim for maximising the environmental benefits and makes a commitment to biodiversity net-gain, which would be a rigorous and transparent way of making progress towards this new aim.

We recommend the company contribute to climate change resilience by taking opportunities to reduce flood risk to communities. They should do this as they present themselves at the main development site and associated development sites. And consider how the restoration scheme can contribute to responding to climate change pressures on habitats, species, and the coastline. We also recommend the Company consider the use of innovative low-carbon solutions, for example, low-carbon construction methods and materials with less embedded carbon.

The Company should consider species and habitats, soils, and water as natural resources, and use these as efficiently as possible through implementation of good design principles. Where possible, enhancing air, soil, and water quality and improving or restoring habitats.

Key environmental effects can only be fully determined when informed by good environmental information and therefore a rigorous plan for gathering evidence is necessary. The proposals should be informed by a robust evidence base which considers designated sites and their features; protected and priority habitats and species; the enhancement of soils, water environment; and the reduction of flood risk.

3. Response

3.1 Good design

The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy states that good design should result in sustainable infrastructure, sensitive to place, efficient in the use of natural resources and energy used in their construction and operation, and demonstrates good aesthetic as far as possible and is a means by which many policy objectives can be met (DECC, 2011a, paragraph 4.5.1 – 4.5.2).

The consultation document makes a commitment to good design (Bradwell B, 2020, paragraph 3.3.37). We advise that good design principles apply to the construction of the development as well as the permanent masterplan of the development and that biodiversity, soils, water, and land are natural resources.

The Company should be efficient in their use of biodiversity and land by:

• taking opportunities to enhance habitats and biodiversity where possible
• minimising, as far as practicable, the footprints of both the construction and permanent masterplans
• avoiding as far as possible any impact on protected sites, protected and priority habitats and spaces used by protected and priority species

Ecological surveys should inform this. Taking and committing to a biodiversity net-gain approach will demonstrate to stakeholders and decision-makers that ecological issues are being given sufficient weight in the planning of the proposed project.

The Company should be efficient in their use of water by:

• taking opportunities to enhance water resources and quality where possible
• minimising, as far as practicable, the use of water during any enabling works, construction, and operation periods

The consultation document indicates the Company will continue to optimise the main development site masterplan and it may be possible for the power blocks to share facilities (Bradwell B, 2020, paragraph 3.3.51). We recommend that the Company considers specific natural resources in the optimisation process and takes opportunities to reduce the footprint.

3.2 Environmental statement

The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) (DECC, 2011a) outlines the scope of the Environmental Statement that should accompany the application for development consent. The Company should consider effects that are:

• direct and indirect
• secondary and cumulative
• short, medium, and long-term
• permanent and temporary
• positive and negative

The Company should consider these effects for the following receptors:

• human beings
• fauna and flora
• soil
• water
• air
• climate
• landscape
• material assets and cultural heritage

The Company must assess these for each stage of the project, which the consultation document defines as enabling works, construction, operation, and decommissioning. The Environmental Statement should include an assessment of measures to avoid or mitigate significant adverse effects (DECC, 2011a, paragraph 4.2).

In addition, the Company should specifically address:

• alternatives considered
• biodiversity and geological conservation
• biosecurity and invasive non-native species
• climate change
• coastal change
• cumulative effects
• transport
• waste management
• water resources and quality

Alternatives

The Company has an obligation to include information about the main alternatives that have been considered (DECC, 2011a, paragraph 4.4.2) to describe the reasons for selecting the chosen option, taking into account environmental, social and economic effects and the technical and commercial feasibility, where this is relevant.

Where the consideration of alternatives is a requirement of other legislation or policy, such as Habitats Regulations Assessments, and Water Framework Directive the consideration of alternatives should appear with the relevant assessments.

Recommendations

1. Demonstrate how the Company has achieved enhancement and protection of the environment by considering and using alternative designs and environmental best practice.

Biodiversity and geological conservation

National Policy Statement, EN-1, sets out a general principle that development should aim to avoid significant harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests including through mitigation and consideration of reasonable alternatives (DECC, 2011a, paragraph 5.3.7).

The project’s stated aim “avoid significant adverse environmental effects from the Bradwell B project where practicable, and where these are unavoidable, work to mitigate or compensate them” does not appear to meet this standard (Bradwell B, 2020, paragraph 2.1.13) as it appears to present compensation as equally acceptable. It may also not reflect accurately the Company’s obligations to avoid or mitigate adverse effects under the Habitats Regulations and Water Framework Directive.

The Company appears to propose an aim of merely avoiding significant environmental harm and has not taken the opportunity to be ambitious in protecting and enhancing the environment. This is in contrast to the other stated aims “apply the highest standards of safety…”, “build positive and trusted relationships”, and “maximise the social and economic benefits” – which are more ambitious than the stated aim for the environment – and set to maximise achievement.

The Company should adopt an aim to maximise their contribution to the environment and commit to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. Following the Biodiversity Metric 2.0 as published by Natural England, this would be a rigorous and transparent way of showing the biodiversity losses and gains from your development to stakeholders and decision-makers (Natural England, 2019).

Recommendations

2. Adopt an aim for environmental benefits that is equally as ambitious as the aims for social and economic benefits and reflect the necessity of avoiding or mitigating significant adverse effects.

3. Commit to biodiversity net-gain and use the Biodiversity Metric 2.0 to inform the design.

Designated sites, protected species and priority habitats and species

The Company must set out any effects on international, national, and local designated sites of ecological or geological conservation importance; statutorily protected species and or habitats; and species identified as being of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (DECC, 2011a, paragraph 5.3.3).

The consultation document shows a selection of internationally and nationally designated sites, habitats, and species for consideration in developing proposals (Bradwell B, 2020, paragraphs 3.2.37 – 3.2.52). However, of the internationally and nationally designated sites, the consultation document does not appear to identify the multiple designations of some areas, nor identify the full range of the biological and geological features. The consultation document does not appear to show that the Company has used a systematic approach to identify the full range of locally designated sites, protected species or priority habitats or species.

Without considering the full range of designated sites and their features; protected species; and priority habitats and species, the developer may cause the destruction of unique or valuable biodiversity and be unlikely to identify and make use of opportunities for environmental enhancement.

The Company should set out in the Environmental Statement any effects on the full range of internationally, nationally, and locally designated sites; protected species; and priority habitats and priority species. Ecological surveys will be needed to support this.

This includes:

• Ramsar Sites designated under the Ramsar convention
• Special Areas of Conservation designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
• Special Protection Areas designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
• Marine Conservation Zones designated under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009)
• Sites of Special Scientific Interest notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Access Act 1981
• Local Nature Reserves designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
• Protected species under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, and specific legislation
• Priority habitats and priority species listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

Protected species (for example certain reptiles, breeding birds, water vole, otter, and bats) may also occur outside designated sites. In addition, Section 41 priority species and habitats (for example, skylark, corn bunting, reed bunting, turtle dove), and other wildlife (pollinator species, including rare bees) may be present in the main development site of associated development sites. It is important to assess the potential adverse effects from the project on all aspects of biodiversity, not just those that receive statutory protections.

Recommendations

4. Systematically identify the full range of internationally, nationally, and locally designated sites and their relevant features; protected species; and priority habitats and species.

5. Describe any effects on the full range of internationally, nationally, and locally designated sites; protected species; and priority habitats and species, supported by ecological surveys.

Main development site plan – biodiversity

The project covers a sizeable area that includes habitats of biodiversity value such as intertidal mudflats, saltmarsh, watercourses, and a number of other linear features such as the coastal defences and associated grassland corridors.

The Company should demonstrate how the project will (DECC, 2011a, paragraph 5.3.18):

• minimise the area required for works
• minimise the risk of disturbance or damage to species through use of best practice
• restore habitats where practicable
• enhance or create new habitats where practicable

The consultation document explains that the project avoids encroaching on the coastline and aims to keep the existing coastal defences and borrow dyke (Bradwell B, 2020, paragraph 3.3.48). These efforts could avoid some of the potential for coastal squeeze and protect existing linear features at the proposed site such as the coastal defences, grassland corridors, and borrow dyke, which have significant biodiversity value. However, the Company will need to gather evidence to confirm that these measures avoid and mitigate detrimental environmental effects, or achieve environmental enhancement, successfully.

The existing sea defences support reptile populations (adder, slow worm, and common lizard) and a diverse range of plants that provide shelter and foraging habitat for insects including pollinator species. A corridor of grassland habitat on and next to the Dengie sea walls supports populations of rare bee species including the shrill carder bee and brown-banded carder bee. In addition, the borrow dykes behind the sea wall are likely to have a diversity of invertebrates. Disruption to these structures such as through the installation of marine transport facilities and backfilling of the ditch network has the potential to have adverse effects on the ecology through direct loss of habitat or populations or indirectly through loss of habitat connectivity.

We recommend that the Company undertake detailed surveys of the ecology of the sea wall and the ditch network to understand potential adverse effects and how to avoid or mitigate them. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, then suitable habitat must be created well in advance so there are suitable receptor areas for displaced wildlife.

The proposals include ecological restoration of the site on areas of land not needed for the permanent development. If the project leaves sensitive areas and features intact and the restoration scheme is planned sympathetically, then the restoration scheme could provide significant opportunities to create new areas of semi-natural habitat. This could be achieved by providing more areas of semi-natural grassland on the new flood defences, or new areas of floodplain and coastal grazing marsh on low-lying land behind the flood defences. There could be further opportunities for enhancement by increasing habitat connectivity, improving the water environment, and landscaping with pollinators in mind.

We support efforts to protect and enhance the environment and expect the Company to include comprehensive plans for habitat creation and enhancement within the Environmental Statement.

Recommendations

6. Demonstrate how the project has minimised the area required for works and the risk of disturbance or damage to species through best practice.

7. Supply detailed baseline studies of the habitats and species present at the proposed site and detailed surveys of the ecology of linear features.

8. Use studies and surveys to inform designs which avoid adverse effects or incorporate the necessary mitigation measures.

9. Secure these measures as part of the design and proposals.

10. Demonstrate how the project has taken advantage of opportunities to conserve and enhance biodiversity and geological conservation interests.

11. Demonstrate how the project will restore, enhance, or create habitats, where practicable.

12. Conduct detailed ecological surveys early to understand the potential adverse effects and how these can be avoided or mitigated.

13. Create comprehensive plans for habitat restoration, enhancement, and creation.

Main development site – watercourses

The consultation document proposes culverting a section of the Weymarks Ditch and backfilling the entire network of other watercourses within the main development site (Bradwell B, 2020, paragraph 3.2.35). A full assessment of the ecological value of all effected watercourses will be needed to quantify the impact of this and determine appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures.

We recommend that in the first instance the Company seek to retain and protect watercourses to minimise the environmental harm and use green “buffers” along both banks of watercourses, including Weymarks Ditch to enhance the value of them as wildlife corridors. Where watercourses are backfilled by the development these should be offset by the provision of new watercourses on compensatory land, with the aim of achieving, at a minimum, no net loss of wetland habitat.

Paragraph 3.2.35 of the stage 1 consultation shows temporary culverting of Weymarks Ditch during the construction phase. There is also potential for other watercourses to be affected, in relation to road or other infrastructure improvements carried out as part of the associated development.

Culverts disrupt the free movement of wildlife and can interfere with geomorphological processes including sediment transfer leading to adverse ecological, flood risk, human safety, and aesthetic impacts. Consequently, we do not approve the culverting of watercourses unless there is no reasonable and practical alternative, or the detrimental effects would be so minor that a more costly alternative would not be justified.

Where watercourses need to be crossed, all designs should minimise the length of watercourse affected. Our strong preference is for clear span bridges even for temporary works if these are to be in position for a period of several years. Bridges should span the clear width of watercourse plus a strip of undisturbed land along each bank. This will help minimise the impacts of watercourse crossings on in-channel flows and allow the free passage of wildlife, including water vole and otter, along the watercourse. The aim should be to keep the natural character of the watercourse as much as possible and avoid the use of hard engineering to stabilise the bed or banks of the watercourse.

The Company will need to provide detailed drawings for all watercourse crossings and to be able to justify choices with information on alternative designs and evidence on ecological and flood risk impacts.

Recommendations

14. Conduct a full assessment of the ecological value of all effected watercourses within the main development site to quantify, avoid, and mitigate adverse impacts of backfilling the ditch network.

15. Ensure proposals retain watercourses to the fullest practicable extent.

16. Ensure that new watercourses on compensatory land replace those that are lost with the aim of achieving no net loss of wetland habitat.

17. Use environmental best practice to minimise environmental harm to watercourses.

18. Use green buffers along both banks of watercourses to enhance their biodiversity value.

19. Avoid using culverts where practicable and minimise the length of watercourse affected for all watercourse crossings.

20. Provide detailed drawings for all watercourse crossings and justify choices with comparative information on alternative designs.

Associated development sites

The proposed park and ride facilities outlined in section 4.5, freight management zones outlined in section 4.6 and highway improvements outlined in section 4.7 may have adverse impacts on the local environment, including statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites, as summarised in Table 4.1 of the consultation document.

These impacts can be minimised by a careful choice of sites and comprehensive ecological mitigation before and during the construction phase. We encourage the Company to consider how they can restore and enhance the environment after the facilities are no longer needed. The company should make use of any opportunities to restore these to wildlife-rich habitats and contribute to a net gain in biodiversity for the overall project. Creation of new areas of wildlife habitat will be most beneficial where they link with existing areas of wildlife habitat.

The ability to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts and the potential for restoration and enhancement schemes should inform the choice of sites for freight management and park and ride facilities. The Company should also consider who could best manage restored and enhanced areas over the long term.

We therefore support the stated intention for these sites to have legacy benefits, particularly where these result in a net gain in biodiversity.

In the case of the potential highway improvements there is insufficient information for us to make detailed comments at this stage but from an environmental perspective, routes that minimise impacts on, or enhance statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites and priority species and habitats are preferable to those with greater impacts or no enhancement. As detailed above, where new transport routes cross surface watercourses we would expect open span bridges to be used rather than culverts in order to minimise impacts on flood risk, species movement and habitat continuity.

Recommendations

21. Consider options to avoid, mitigate adverse environmental effects, and opportunities for restoration and enhancement when selecting associated development sites.

22. Provide information in sufficient time to enable full discussions on associated development infrastructure proposals to inform environmental good design.

Biosecurity and invasive non-native species

The consultation document does not refer to invasive non-native species or biosecurity.

Invasive non-native species can have significant adverse effects on habitats and native species and failure to control them can exacerbate their spread within and around development sites. The failure of a landowner to control the spread of certain invasive non-native species is a criminal offence.

The Company will need a biosecurity policy and plan for minimising the spread of invasive and non-native species within the main development and associated development sites. It should identify relevant species within the proposed development, for example Alexanders Smymium olusatrum, plan for the management of invasive species that may be introduced to the site, including through the marine facilities, and align with existing Check-Clean-Dry guidance to minimise the risk of spreading invasive species. It could be included in a Code of Construction Practice.

Recommendations

23.Develop a biosecurity policy that identifies relevant species already present, outlines measures for managing the risk of introducing invasive species and implements check-clean-dry guidance.

Climate change

The Company should set out how the proposal takes account of the projected impacts of climate change including increased likelihood of flooding, drought, heatwaves, intense rainfall events, and rising sea levels (DECC, 2011A, paragraph 4.8.2 and 4.8.5) using the most recent UK Climate Projections available when preparing the Environmental Statement.

The development should be resilient to climate change over its full lifetime by responding to climate change through the sustainable use of water, water management infrastructure that accommodates intense rainfall events. The Company should consider any adaptation measures that may be needed to ensure resilience and consider any potential impacts in relation to the application as a whole (DECC, 2011A, paragraph 4.8.10 – 4.8.12).

There is an opportunity for the Company to enhance the climate resilience of important plant, invertebrate and bird species; intertidal habitats; and natural coastal processes through the restoration and long-term management of the site. We also recommend the Company consider the use of innovative low-carbon solutions, for example, low-carbon construction methods and materials with less embedded carbon.

Natural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Climate Change Adaptation Manual (2019) includes information on habitats and species present at or near the site that may benefit from adaptation interventions.

Coastal Change

The Company should specifically include assessment of the effects on the coast (DECC, 2011a, paragraph 5.5.7).

This includes:

• effects on coastal processes and geomorphology in combination with those of climate change
• implications for strategies for managing the coast such as Shoreline Management Plans, Marine Plans, River Basin Management Plans, maintenance programmes for flood and coastal defences
• effects on integrity and special features of designated sites

Impacts must be minimised, mitigation measures proposed, and restoration plans included for areas of foreshore disturbed by direct works with pre- and post-construction monitoring with defined triggers for intervention and restoration.

The proposals must have regard to the Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan; this identifies current pressures on the existing sea defence line, erosion of the foreshore, and adverse effects on the natural coastal processes. Coastal interventions including marine landing infrastructure, restoration plans, and long-term management should respond to and accommodate these challenges.

Recommendations

24. Avoid and mitigate adverse effects on coastal processes and geomorphology, include restoration plans and defined triggers for interventions.

25. Have regard to the Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan.

Marine infrastructure

The consultation document identifies the need for marine infrastructure at two locations on the coastline to allow for between 2 and 4 deliveries by sea each day during the peak of the construction phase (Bradwell B, 2020, paragraph 3.9.2).

Options 1, 2 and 3 all present hard points on the coastline (Bradwell B, 2020, paragraph 3.9.5 – 3.9.7). The ecological and geomorphological effects of these must be assessed and either avoided or mitigated regarding the geomorphological features of designated sites. Option 4 may avoid some of these effects, but this would need to be substantiated by evidence and consider the terrestrial and water quality effects that are particular to this option.

The footprints, piling requirements and construction durations for each facility have been indicated but further information about the lifetime, construction, shipping movements and consequential effects on biodiversity and geomorphology of the facilities is required.

Point 2.6.14 discusses temporary land uses, including the Beach Landing Facility (BLF). We recommend that the Company be precise with respect to the lifetime of structures. The environmental effects – as assessed for the Habitats Regulations Assessment and Water Framework Directive compliance assessment – will need to consider the duration of environmental effects not the lifetime of the structure, because effects can persist long after structures have been removed.

Table 3.3 states that for a BLF 0-30 piles will be used. The exact amount of piles is important, as this footprint will result in habitat loss of a European site. We encourage the Company to finalise this figure as soon as possible. Table 3.3 also uses low, medium, minimal descriptors but it is unclear what these values represent or how they have been arrived at.

The marine transport strategy will also require inclusion in the Environmental Impact, Habitats Regulations, and Water Framework Directive compliance assessments. The effects of the marine facilities must be considered in combination with their consequential vessel movements. We acknowledge that at this stage it is difficult to predict where materials will be transported from, however, it is known that a significant number of shipping movements will be needed within the estuary.

Measures that avoid or mitigate likely significant effects to sites and features, such as restrictions on routes and timing to avoid impacts on migrating fish and birds should be identified in advance. It will be beneficial to do this early as migration periods for fish and birds could be at separate times of year and present substantial restrictions, for which need to be planned.

Recommendations

26. Provide further information on the environmental effects of the marine infrastructure options to enable an informed assessment of their relative merits.

27. Consider the environmental effects of the proposed marine infrastructure in combination with the environmental effects of the consequential vessel movements.

Waste management

Sustainable waste management is achieved through the waste hierarchy of prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal. Disposal should only be considered where other options are not available, or it is the best overall environmental outcome.

The Company must prepare a Site Waste Management Plan that includes measures to reuse, recycle and recover materials and minimise the volume of waste created and disposed of.

Excavated material should be re-used as much as possible. Adoption and implementation of the CL:AIRE protocol may facilitate the re-use of uncontaminated material and so reduce the amount of waste produced (CL:AIRE, 2011). This should be reflected in the Code of Construction Practice.

The consultation document (paragraph 3.8.5) suggests that, “should excess material be generated during construction that cannot sustainably be re-used on-site, it would need to be re-used offs site”. It goes on to suggest schemes such as Wallasea Island may provide opportunities for using the material or to “develop” a borrow pit.

We advise the Company that the use of waste would need to displace the use of other materials for it to be considered recovery. There may be opportunities for the recovery of waste; however, schemes like Wallasea Island are waste disposal and not waste recovery.

We also advise the Company that the use of borrow pits must be for the primary purpose of sourcing material and not for the disposal of excess excavation material. The Company will need to show the primary purpose of borrow pits is to source material; otherwise the operation would be considered disposal to landfill and would not be permitted.

Any material leaving the site would be considered waste and be subject to waste controls, this includes the off-site disposal of sediment (paragraph 3.3.71) from the cooling system. Duty of care will apply where excess material leaves site and measures should be taken to ensure that material is re-used and not disposed to landfill.

Recommendations

28. Prepare a site waste management plan.

29. Adopt CL:AIRE protocol and reflect this in the Code of Construction Practice.

Water resources and quality

The project implies a significant increase in water use, particularly associated with tunnelling, concrete use, dust suppression, and supporting up to 10,600 workers over the construction period, plus 60-years of operational water requirements. This commits to increased water use to approximately 2090, 30 years beyond the existing planning period of 2060 in the Water Resource Management Plan.

The consultation document states there is “sufficient” planned water resources available but does not provide information on the volumes and rates of water required to substantiate this assertion (Bradwell B, 2020 paragraph 3.2.36). Water resource management is about balancing the abstraction of water for people to use against the requirements of the natural environment. The long-term sustainability of water resources in South Essex over the lifetime of this proposed development is a key area; and the abstractions associated with this project must not compromise, or lead to a deterioration, in the Water Framework Directive status of waterbodies. We recommend the Company consider opportunities to improve water resources and quality.

It is vital that the Company provides information on the water resource demands of this project and engages in discussions with the both Water Companies and the Environment Agency, as a Regulator of the Water Industry.

The Company must minimise the use of water and consider how to achieve the sustainable use of water through good design, informed by:

• the existing and new abstraction rates
• the peak daily demand, annual average demands, and demand profile
• quantities of water segmented by use and where these must be from potable sources or can be displaced to non-potable sources
• how it contributes to, or compromises, objectives in relevant strategies and plans

The Company must show where this water will be obtained from and demonstrate that it will be sustainable for the full lifetime of the development.

The Company should describe in the Environmental Statement (EN-1 5.15.3):

• existing quality of waters affected by the proposed project and impacts of the project on the water quality
• existing water resources affected by the proposed project and the impacts of the project on water resources
• existing physical characteristics of the water environment affected by the project and the impacts of physical modifications to these characteristics
• impacts of the proposed project on water bodies or protected areas under the Water Framework Directive

The measures necessary to avoid or minimise water use or maintain or improve water quality should inform the Construction Environmental Management Plan in the Code of Construction Practice. These measures may also be included as conditions for any approved environmental permits or proposed as requirements for development consent.

The increased volume of foul water will need careful consideration to prevent adverse effects on the water quality in the environment. The Company will need to develop a Foul Drainage Strategy that addresses the construction and operational phases of development for the main development site and any associated development sites. The Company will need to consider early on the disposal of foul water for the different phases of the development. There may be different treatment options available that will need to be fully explored, supported by evidence, to determine the most appropriate, taking account of the receiving environment.

Recommendations

30. Minimise the volume of water required in the construction and operation phases.

31. Identify the peak daily demand, average annual demand and demand profile for water resources for the lifetime of the development.

32. Identify the sources of water and demonstrate the sustainability of these sources over the lifetime of the development.

33. Consider environmental opportunities for improving water resources and water quality.

34. Develop a foul drainage strategy that addresses the drainage needs through each phase of the development and responds to environmental risks.

Water management zones and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS)

The Company has shown in the construction and permanent masterplans the need for Water Management Zones. The development should use pollution prevention measures and we encourage the use of SuDS constructed following good practice.

The company should consider separating roof drainage systems from the rest of the site as only clean water from roofs could be reused or discharged directly to any soakaway or watercourse.

Systems discharging surface water from hardstanding, roads or impermeable vehicle parking areas will need to incorporate pollution prevention measures and SuDS treatment train components appropriate to the environmental sensitivity of the receiving waters. They should control solids, trap floating materials such as oils, and have sufficient space to work effectively. The washing and parking facilities for freight will need careful consideration and management due to their greater potential as a source of pollution to the water environment.

Infiltration SuDS such as soakaways, unsealed porous pavement systems, or infiltration basins can create a pathway for pollutants and must not be constructed in contaminated ground. They should only be used where site investigations have shown no presence of significant contamination and it can be demonstrated they will not present a risk to the water environment. The maximum acceptable depth for infiltration systems is 2m below ground level with a minimum of 1.2m clearance between the base of the infiltration system and the peak seasonal groundwater level.

SuDS require consideration early in the design process; the Company should engage promptly with Essex County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority; and with the Environment Agency when our technical input is needed.

Guidance is available from the SuDS Manual (Woods Ballard, et al., 2015) and the susDrain website (susDrain, 2020). Our groundwater protection position statements, specifically G1 and G9-G13, provide further information on our requirements for sustainable drainage systems (Environment Agency, 2018).

Recommendations

35. Use Sustainable Drainage Systems where possible and follow good practice.

Piling and foundations

The consultation document suggests that the London Clay will be the founding strata; however, if the underlying aquifer is penetrated with piling then preferential pathways could be created, potentially leading to adverse effects to groundwater quality.

The Company will need to conduct a significant foundation works risk assessment. A shallow foundation solution could avoid this risk and would be our preferred solution.

We recommend that you confirm a preferred foundation solution and engage with us on this at an early stage. The selected method, including environmental mitigation measures, should be presented in a Foundation Works Risk Assessment Report, guidance for which can be found in Piling into Contaminated Sites (Environment Agency, 2002).

Investigations and assessments of ground conditions and risk to the water environment will also be necessary for the accommodation areas and associated development sites such as the proposed highways improvements, park and ride, and freight management facilities. Given the length of time that remediation measures can require it may be prudent to give a strong weighting to this factor when selecting a site location and we encourage you to engage with us early specifically on these matters, particularly as these facilities will be required early on in the project.

It will be important to include in the Code of Construction Practice those techniques needed to protect surface and groundwater quality during the construction phase. This should be risk based to ensure sensitive receptors are appropriately protected.

More information and guidance:

• [BS 5930:1999 A2:2010 Code of practice for site investigations, superseded] BS 5920:2015+A1:2020 Code of practice for ground investigations (BSI, 2015)
• [BS 10175:2011 A1:2013, superseded] BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites. Code of practice. (BSI, 2011)
• Land Contamination Technical Guidance (Environment Agency, 2014)
• CL:AIRE Water and Land Library, including the risk management framework provided in CLR11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination and Guiding Principles for Land Contamination (CL:AIRE, n.d.) (Environment Agency, 2004) (Environment Agency, 2010)
• Good Practice for Decommissioning Boreholes and Wells (Environment Agency, 2012)
• Groundwater Protection (Environment Agency, 2017)
• Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention (Westcott, et al., 2001)

Recommendations

36. Prepare a foundation works risk assessment report presenting preferred foundation solution and mitigation measures.

37. Conduct assessments into ground conditions and risks to the water environment for the main development site, accommodation areas and associated development areas.

38. Include surface and groundwater protection measures in a Code of Construction Practice.

3.3 Habitats regulations assessment

The Environment Agency is a competent authority for Habitats Regulations Assessments for the permits, consents, and licences that we regulate. We will also be consulted by, and make representations to, the Planning Inspectorate regarding the Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Development Consent Order.

The Habitats Regulations Assessment has prescribed steps and requires:

• screening, through the identification of likely significant effects on the features of internationally designated sites from the project, or in-combination with other projects – if likely significant effects are identified then:
• an appropriate assessment of the implications on the sites’ conservation objectives must be made, in combination with other projects – if it cannot be shown that the project will not have adverse effects then:
• an assessment of measures that would avoid or mitigate adverse effects must be made. If there are no measures available then:
• the derogation process must be followed, including an assessment of alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest and compensation provided

As a matter of legislation or policy, internationally designated sites include:

• Ramsar sites
• Special Areas of Conservation
• Special Protection Areas
• and sites identified or required as compensatory measures for adverse effects on any of those sites (The Planning Inspectorate, 2017).

The Habitats Regulations Assessment Site Report for Bradwell (DECC, 2010) identifies the potential for water resources and quality impacts, habitat and species loss, habitat fragmentation, coastal squeeze, disturbance effects. Whilst the assumptions used differ from the development proposed and there is still a need for a more detailed project level assessment, it makes recommendations on avoidance and mitigation measures that may be relevant.

Project aims

The consultation document describes one aim of the project as, “work to mitigate or compensate [adverse environmental effects]”. The Company needs to ensure this is completely consistent with the assessment stages as prescribed in the Habitats Regulations.

Compensation measures may only be considered as part of the Article 6(4) derogation process where permitting conditions or planning requirements have not enabled a conclusion of no adverse effect on site integrity.

In this case, the competent authority must be satisfied that there are no alternatives to the proposal, that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest and that adequate compensation is available. The Company must provide the evidence to justify the derogation. The decision whether compensation measures are acceptable is for the relevant competent authority for Habitats Regulations Assessment, not the Company.

Environmental designations

The consultation document identifies the following internationally designated sites within or close to the main development site (Bradwell B, 2020, paragraph 41):

• Blackwater Estuary SSSI
• Dengie SSSI
• Dengie NNR
• Blackwater, Crouch, Roach and Colne Estuaries MCZ
• Blackwater Estuary Ramsar
• Dengie Ramsar
• Essex Estuaries SAC
• Mid Essex Coast SPA Complex
• Outer Thames Estuary SPA
• Southern North Sea SAC

Whilst these are relevant sites, some locations have multiple or overlapping designations each of which may have different qualifying features. All the relevant designations and features must be considered for the assessment.

The consultation document identifies the need to consider sites outside of the 20km radius from the site, a need to identify functionally linked habitat and ensure all potential impact pathways are assessed (Bradwell B, 2020, paragraph 3.2.52). We support the creation of an evidence plan to agree impact pathways and this should include impact pathways created by the main development sites, any associated development sites, and include vessel traffic in the construction and operational phases.

This will contribute towards the Habitat Regulations requirement to consider all likely significant effects on internationally designated sites, including those sites designated by other countries. For example, migratory fish species of conservation importance may be present (river lamprey, twaite shad) and sea birds that have large foraging ranges.

Cumulative and in-combination effects

A key requirement of the Habitats Directive is to undertake an in-combination assessment to determine the sum of influences acting on a feature. An assessment is required to understand the cumulative impacts from all aspects within the Bradwell B project (main site and associated development sites); and use this information to assess the in-combination effects of the whole Bradwell B project and other relevant plans and projects.

Alongside the designated sites, it would be instructive to for the Company to identify:

• the full suite of permits, permissions, and consents that the project is dependent on
• other plans or projects in existence, or for which permission has been sought or granted that could have in-combination effects

The identification of other development projects should be within an agreed screening distance of the development.

Information requirements for screening and appropriate assessments

The Company must supply the information required for screening and any subsequent appropriate assessments. Guidance is provided in Advice Note 10: Habitats Regulations Assessment relevant to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, from the Planning Inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate, 2017).

Nationally and locally designated sites

The Environment Agency will assess proposals and applications for environmental permits, consents, and licences – for those activities that we regulate – for their potential to cause damage to Marine Conservation Zones and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. We also have general duties towards furthering the interests of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and locally designated sites such as local nature reserves or local wildlife sites. We will seek advice from, or defer to, the relevant body for each of these sites.

The Company should consider the effects of their proposals on nationally and locally designated sites and supply sufficient evidence in their proposals and applications for the relevant assessments.

Recommendations

39. The Company’s Habitats Regulations Assessment report and supporting technical documents should be consistent with the published guidance, best practice, and recent case law.

40. Prepare the Habitats Regulations Assessment Report in consultation with the Environment Agency, other competent authorities, and statutory nature conservation bodies.

41. Identify and resolve any evidence gaps that could prevent the Habitats Regulations Assessment from being carried out effectively, agree these with the competent authorities.

42. Agree the scope of the evidence to be collected with competent authorities and key stakeholders.

43. Agree the specifications of studies and surveys with competent authorities and key stakeholders in advance to ensure they will meet requirements for assessment and inform the ecological mitigation strategy for national and international sites.

44. Continue identifying internationally designated sites through impact pathways, including those sites designated by other countries subject to trans-boundary effects.

45. Consider all qualifying features of designations for inclusion in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Report.

46. Include Special Sites of Scientific Interest in an assessment for Countryside and Rights of Way Act requirements.

47. Include Marine Conservation Zones in an assessment for Marine and Coastal Access Act requirements.

48. Consider the full range of available mitigation to ensure best available techniques are used and good design is followed.

49. Provide a full assessment of alternatives where adverse effects cannot be ruled out, as this will be required before considering imperative reasons of overriding public interest and compensation measures as part of the prescribed derogation process.

50. Ensure that any effects from Associated Development are included within the Habitats Regulations Assessment.

51. Include all permissions required for the project at each phase in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Report to determine in-combination effects.

52. Other projects that may act in-combination with this project must be included in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Report.

3.4 Water Framework Directive assessment

The Environment Agency is the competent authority for the Water Framework Directive and are required to exercise our functions to secure compliance with the Water Framework Directive requirements set out in the River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) (Environment Agency, 2016). The existing RBMPs were published in 2015 and will be updated in 2021.

The Company will need to provide a Water Framework Directive compliance assessment to assess the impact that proposed activities may have on the immediate water body and any linked water bodies, and whether these activities comply with the RBMP. The Water Framework Directive aim is for all water bodies to be at good status. We would expect the Company to seek opportunities to improve water bodies.

The current RBMP identifies significant water management issues. These include physical modifications to watercourses, pollution from wastewater, pollution from towns, cities and transport, changes to natural flow and level of water, invasive non-native species, and pollution from rural areas. The Company may find they can improve upon these through the design and development of the highways interventions, park and ride facilities, freight management zones, accommodation areas, and the main development site and restoration scheme.

Any permits or development consent cannot be granted if they may cause a deterioration in status or prevent the achievement of good status unless a derogation is authorised under Article 4.7 of the Water Framework Directive.

The consultation document identifies development or activities that may cause a deterioration in status or prevent the achievement of good status in nearby waterbodies. Specifically:

• discharges to the estuary could exacerbate macroalgae and phytoplankton growth
• abstractions from the estuary leading to reduction in fish populations
• beach landing facilities causing changes to morphological conditions to intertidal zone structure
• culvert crossing over the Weymarks Ditch
• potential for watercourse crossings for highways or other infrastructure
• backfilling of the ditch network within main development site
• invasive non-native species introduced or exacerbated
• in-combination effects with other development

In the consultation document, there are no references to the Water Framework Directive, the River Basin Management Plans or the Company’s obligations or responsibilities to the Water Framework Directive.

We advise that the Company should have regard to the RBMP (DECC, 2011a, paragraph 5.15.6). The Company should accommodate any updates to the plans in 2021 to meet this requirement, and we will work constructively with the Company to achieve this.

The Environmental Statement should identify (DECC, 2011a, paragraph 5.15.3):

• the existing quality of waters affected by the proposed project and the impacts of the proposed project on the water quality
• existing water resources affected by the proposed project and the impacts of the proposed project on water resources
• existing physical characteristics of the water environment affected by the proposed project and the impacts of physical modifications to these characteristics
• impacts of the proposed project on water bodies or protected areas under the Water Framework Directive, including physical, biological, and chemical elements

In order to meet satisfactorily the requirement to describe impacts on water bodies or protected areas under the Water Framework Directive, we would expect the Company to complete a WFD compliance assessment for environmental permits and the Development Consent Order, separately and in-combination. This should be consistent with the guidance Water Framework Directive: estuarine and coastal waters (Environment Agency, 2016) and include freshwater waterbodies and transitional waters along the coast.

The Planning Inspectorate supports the preparation and submission, in consultation with the Environment Agency, of a separate assessment demonstrating compliance with the Water Framework Directive and notes that it will contribute to the Environmental Statement accompanying the application (The Planning Inspectorate, 2017).

The compliance assessment should be conducted in stages: screening, scoping, and impact assessment. We would expect to be involved in each of these stages and believe it would be beneficial for us to come to agreements about the waterbodies screened and scoped in or out, prior to conducting your impact assessment.

The impact assessment may require an assessment for deterioration in status, and if so, the existing status must first be determined. We do not believe the baseline information required to assess existing status is available for some quality elements, in particular fish populations within the Blackwater, Colne, and Crouch estuaries. The baseline data would need to be obtained using rigorous methods over a period of time. Due to the desired timescales of the project, it may be prudent for the Company to plan to meet these requirements even if the waterbodies or elements have not yet been screened or scoped into an assessment.

The mitigation relied on to demonstrate compliance with any part or stage of the assessment – or to be consistent with requirements in the RBMP – must be defined and secured within any applications for environmental permits or licences and development consent. These should feature as an agreed matter in any Statement of Common Ground ahead of formal submissions; and if granted, the Company should expect mitigation measures to be included as conditions on environmental permits or requirements for development consent.

Recommendations

53. Complete a Water Framework Directive compliance assessment that is consistent with the published guidance.

54. Consult with the Environment Agency, and other stakeholders, at each stage in the preparation of the Water Framework Directive compliance assessment.

55. Identify and resolve any evidence gaps that prevent assessing status of Water Framework Directive elements and may therefore prevent an assessment of deterioration in status.

56. Seek opportunities to improve water bodies.

57. Prepare for an update to River Basin Management Plans in 2021 and have regard to the Water Framework Directive requirements.

58. Define and secure any mitigation measures identified in a compliance assessment that are required to avoid deterioration in status of quality elements or avoid preventing the achievement of good status of quality elements.

3.5 Flood Risk Assessment

Environmental enhancement

We would like to collaborate with the Company to find opportunities for environmental enhancement and measures that could help to reduce flood risk. These may be on the main development site or as part of the park and ride facilities or highways interventions in areas where these works cross floodplains close to communities where there are currently properties at risk of flooding.

Scope and sequential approach

The project will need a comprehensive flood risk assessment that informs each phase of the project: enabling works, construction, operation, and decommissioning phases. Failure to address properly the flood risk to, or arising from, these works is likely to lead to objections from us or other Flood Management Authorities such as the Lead Local Flood Authority. We advise the company to undertake scoping in consultation with the Flood Management Authorities to agree approaches to the assessment, identify all activities and locations where flood risk assessments will be required, and identify and obtain information to inform Development Consent Order applications or flood risk activity permits.

The Company must take a sequential approach at a project level to the location and land uses that are vulnerable to flood hazards. In particular, the project should locate workers’ accommodation in the areas of lowest flood risk, preferably Flood Zone 1. This should be demonstrated and agreed based on a suitable evidence base. Potential site campus locations 2 and 3 are the preferable options when considering flood risk. A sequential approach that locates the workers living accommodation in the areas of lowest risk and leisure facilities in areas of highest risk could be a suitable mitigation for location 1. Temporary worker accommodation should be located outside of flood risk areas, caravans for residential occupation throughout the year are not appropriate within flood zone 3.

This advice is based on the current National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation that is currently in review. Successor policy may change these obligations and the Company may need to provide further information to confirm the site still conforms to policy requirements.

Change of use and residual risk

The Company proposes to use land east of the power station for temporary construction purposes. Clay sea defence embankments provide portions of this land with some flood defence; however, these defences provide a standard of protection commensurate with protecting the current land use that is largely arable and grazing marshes. They do not wholly remove the risk of tidal or fluvial flooding to this land and the area could be inundated rapidly should flood defences fail during a tidal surge.

The Environment Agency does not own the flood defences or the land that they sit on but we currently choose to apply our permissive powers to maintain these, on a cost-benefit basis and as funds allow. The proposals imply that the Company is or will become the owner for the land and the riparian owner of the flood defences that sit upon it.

The change in land use for construction purposes will introduce receptors that are more vulnerable to flood risk than the existing land. The flood defences will be relied on to provide a safe working environment over the duration of the construction phase and the consequence of failure will be greater with significant numbers of people, plant, equipment, and materials in the flood compartment behind the defences. The bulk storage of materials may also reduce the capacity of the flood plain and increase the flood risk. These increases in risk necessitate a reciprocal response.

The flood risk assessments for the site need to consider the performance and condition of the existing flood defences and ensure that these are satisfactory for the new proposed land use. The Company should identify measures through the flood risk assessment to keep the risk of flooding low, ensure that the residual risk of flooding through defence failure can be reduced and managed, and create adequate plans for the receipt of, and response to, flood warnings to keep the workforce safe from flood hazards. This may include emergency response and evacuation plans.

The flood risk assessment will need to fully explore the likely inundation characteristics and risk from both overtopping and breaching of existing flood defences. This must include an evaluation of any change in flooding characteristics as a result of loss in floodplain capacity from earthworks, re-profiling, and stockpiling or storage of materials, in comparison to the existing baseline flood risks and with the relevant changes to the digital terrain model to reflect the proposed landform modifications. The project must mitigate any significant impacts to prevent an increase in flood risk to third parties and compensatory flood plain storage should be considered.

We recommend that the Company undertake a structural survey of the flood defence embankments to identify any major repairs that are required to provide the standard of protection commensurate with the increased vulnerability to flooding of the new proposed land use. The Company should sustain this standard of protection with enhanced inspection, maintenance and repair regimes during the enabling and construction phases and create emergency response plans to manage the risk of flooding to the workforce, working areas, plant, and equipment.

Coastal defences, adaptive management, and sequencing

It is not clear from the consultation document when land raising and flood defence construction will take place or the ability by design for the platform, site, and flood defences to be adapted to respond to high-impact, low-probability events.

There must be clear sequencing and timescales for the land raising, flood defence construction, and adaptive management measures. This sequencing must address extreme flooding scenarios and the projections and uncertainty for climate change and sea level rise through the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases.

The Company must indicate when land raising will take place, flood defences will be built, and when adaptive management measures will be implemented, and these must be secured in the design. The Company must consider H++ scenarios in flood risk modelling and assessment to inform their sequencing and demonstrate the viability of any adaptive measurements in responding to high-impact, low-probability events. Masterplanning of the site and the design of the coastal defences must secure these measurements.

The design of the proposed coastal defences must include freeboard in the design crest level to allow for any modelling uncertainties and ground settlement over time. Details of the defences including geotechnical calculations derived from site or ground investigations should be provided and support the proposed gradient for the front and back slopes of the defences. A maintenance regime for the defences should accompany this.

If land between the raised site platform and the drainage ditch behind the proposed defences is designed to be an adaptive management measure then flood modelling should demonstrate the effectiveness of this to maintain a dry platform. Inundation rates and volumes should support that the attenuation capacity is sufficient to safeguard the platform from flood risk.

Weymarks Ditch and drainage

Weymarks Ditch is the primary drainage feature for the site, runs through the construction areas and discharges by gravity to the sea. The consultation document indicates a new culvert crossing, which the Environment Agency strongly discourages due to potentially negative effects on the water environment.

The flood risk assessment should fully investigate the flood risk from Weymarks Ditch and the interruption of gravity sluice discharge by the tide. It should include scenarios where the drainage is fully functioning, less efficient, increased siltation, blocked. It should also include an assessment of the development’s dependency on Weymarks Ditch for drainage over the developments lifetime. All should include relevant climate change uplifts to river flows and sea level rises. It should consider and identify what measures can be implemented to maintain the required drainage.

The Company either use an alternative to culverting, such as clear span bridges or demonstrate that there are no other viable alternative means for crossing the watercourse other than via a culvert. Should a culvert be used, there must be agreed environmental and flood risk mitigations in the design. Without this, we may refuse applications for flood risk activity permits.

Emergency plans and access and egress routes

Emergency plans must include measures to protect the workforce from environmental hazards such as flooding during the construction and operation phases. The contractor production area and parts of the construction zone are within an area that could rapidly inundate if flood defences are overtopped or fail. Hazards to workforce, working areas, plant and material storage is likely to be significant in such circumstances.

The Flood Risk Assessment should demonstrate the potential impact of both overtopping and breaching of defences. Breaches should be modelled for a number of individual locations along the frontage of the flood compartment. Flood extents, time of inundation, rates of rise and flood hazard transition information should be determined from the modelling and described in the flood risk assessment. It should also identify measures the Company will take to minimise the risk associated with these events.

A secondary site access route crosses an area of floodplain adjacent to the Weymarks Ditch and outside the influence of the developments proposed flood defences. The access route may depend on the effectiveness of the existing flood defences remaining functional over the lifetime of the development. The flood risk assessment should address the risks to this feature in the event that the existing flood defences fail and identify what measures will be required to keep the access route operational in this scenario. If the route is critical then the flood risk assessment will need to consider the suitability of the current flood defence performance and the measures needed to maintain the defences to a standard appropriate to the vulnerability of the access route.

Interactions with existing defences and Flood Risk Activity permits

The consultation document identifies new infrastructure and activities near the existing flood coastal defences. This includes the marine transport options, cooling infrastructure, and discharge pipelines crossing the defence line. It also identifies main development site and associated development works near main river watercourses.

Geotechnical and structural calculations must be available to demonstrate that the trestle bridge, jetties, offloading facilities or aggregate pipelines and their supporting structures will not impose any loadings on the flood defence embankments that they cross. The construction of pipelines near flood defences must include measures to prevent any impact on the structural integrity of the flood defences. The flood risk assessment should consider the risks of defence failure in the locations where pipelines pass under defences. The flood risk assessment and the protective measures will need to be agreed based on a suitable evidence base.

We encourage the Company to discuss with us the environmental permitting (flood risk) requirements for development and activities proposed to take place near the existing defences, for both main development and associated development sites. Pre-application discussions will help identify the requirements of an evidence base and potential environmental or flood risk enhancements opportunities.

Associated development

Proposals for associated development are likely to need accompanying flood risk assessments and we advise the Company to undertake scoping workshops with the relevant Flood Management Authorities.

Assessment work for each of these associated developments should use the most up to date flood risk mapping information. We have recently updated fluvial flood modelling for a number of watercourses in the Latchingdon, Mayland, Mundon and South Maldon area, all discharge to the southern shore of the Blackwater estuary. This could help the Company identify areas near park and ride facilities or highway interventions that could be affected by fluvial flood risk and other environmental constraints opportunities for flood risk reduction or alleviation measures. This modelling is available from the Environment Agency on request and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss environmental and flood risk enhancements with the Company.

Modelling

All proposals and flood risk assessments will require a robust evidence base.

The coastal aspects of the flood risk assessments must include suitable coastal and inundation modelling to support the design. They should comply with the relevant Environment Agency standards and guidance including Standards for modelling and forecasting flooding on open coasts v1.2 (Environment Agency, 2006a) and Standards for modelling and forecasting flooding in large estuaries v1.0 (Environment Agency, 2006b). The fluvial aspects of the flood risk assessments must include appropriate hydraulic modelling and hydrological assessment using up to date methods. Whilst the Flood Map for Planning is a suitable starting point, it is based on strategic level modelling and does not show flood risk for watercourses that drain catchments less than three square-kilometres in area.

All models, results and supporting reports, data, and topographic survey should be submitted for review.

Recommendations

59. Provide a comprehensive flood risk assessment that informs each phase of the project for the main development site and any associated development sites.

60. Consider the performance and condition of the existing flood defences and ensure these are satisfactory for the new proposed land use, including identifying the need for repairs and maintenance regime to provide the necessary standard of protection.

61. Detail the sequencing of flood defence construction and adaptive management, which responds to climate change and sea level rise projections and secure the measures in the design.

62. Include comprehensive assessment of the drainage needs of the site over the developments full lifetime and the dependency on Weymarks Ditch to provide this.

63. Use an alternative to culverting, such as clear span bridges, or demonstrate that there are no other viable alternative means for crossing the watercourse.

64. Ensure that there are comprehensive emergency plans detailing how flood warnings will be received and responded to and that emergency access and egress routes needed will be operational.

65. Discuss the need for environmental (flood risk) permits with us early on in your planning.

66. Ensure that all proposals, plans, and assessments are based on a robust evidence base, using the most up to date information available.

3.6 Environmental Permitting Regulations

The Environment Agency is the environmental regulator for nuclear sites in England. This means that we make decisions under the environmental permitting regulations about whether relevant environmental permits should be issued to potential and existing operators of nuclear sites. And also what conditions the permits should contain so as to protect people and the environment. We enforce the conditions of the permits to ensure that operators comply with the requirements of their permits and can take action including prosecution if they do not.

A number of environmental permits are required for operation of a nuclear power station, including disposals and discharge of radioactive wastes, the discharge of cooling and process water, and the operation of standby generation plant. The project will also require a number of construction activity related permits such as de-watering and discharge of surface waters and effluents. Prospective operators must apply for and obtain relevant permits from the Environment Agency before Bradwell B can be constructed, or operated.

The Planning Inspectorate provides information in Advice Note Eleven: Working with public bodies in the infrastructure planning process, and Annex D – Environment Agency, which accompanies this (The Planning Inspectorate, 2017) (The Planning Inspectorate, 2017). Our publication Guidance for developments requiring planning permission and environmental permits sets out how we respond to planning consultations that require environmental permits under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 (Environment Agency, 2012).

The Company should have a strong programme to engage with us for pre-application advice. Due to the complexity of this development and because of the potential to affect Habitats Regulations designated sites, we strongly recommend that you do not “parallel track” permitting and development consent. We would expect to use the assessments we make, when determining operational and relevant construction permit applications for Bradwell B, to inform our advice to the Planning Inspectorate when examining the Development Consent Order application. We recommend that the timing of your environmental permit applications in relation to the Development Consent Order – in line with the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note Eleven – are submitted at least 6 months in advance of a Development Consent Order application.

3.7 Eels Regulations

The Environment Agency is the competent authority for the Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009. The Company must undertake an Eels Regulations compliance assessment to support a development consent order and water discharge activity permit. This is required to demonstrate that onshore and offshore construction and operational activities from the proposed development will not affect eel populations and their downstream migration. This will need to consider the main development site and associated development sites. Failure to comply with the Eel Regulations 2009 is an offence.

3.8 Cooling water strategy

The consultation document includes effects on fish populations, including migratory fish, as key considerations to the design of cooling infrastructure. We agree with the importance of considering fish populations. We expect concentrations of fish, particularly juveniles, to be higher in the estuary compared to an open coast location. However, the current limited information on fish populations using the estuary means the Company will need to supply sufficient evidence for assessment.

Blackwater herring are recorded as spawning at Eagle Bank at the estuary mouth and at Osea Island within the estuary. As a result, herring and larvae will need to pass the cooling water intake and the thermal, saline, and chemical plumes from the outfall. These fish are important prey species and effects on them require inclusion in Environmental Impact Assessments, Habitats Regulations Assessment and Water Framework Directive compliance assessments.

Eutrophication of the estuary could be exacerbated through discharges of dead biota from the cooling water system and appropriate design of the intake would help avoid and mitigate some these effects. This will need inclusion in the Environmental Impact Assessment, Habitats Regulations Assessment, and Water Framework Directive compliance assessment.

Preliminary thermal plumes have been shown for the indirect cooling system. The Company will need to present detailed modelling for thermal, saline, and chemical plumes and the effects of dead biota and we recommend that the methodology be agreed in advance of undertaking modelling.

The National Policy Statements for Energy and Nuclear Power Generation require developments to incorporate environmental best practice (DECC 2011b). On this basis, the cooling water strategy will need to use environmental best practice to minimise environmental effects, model these effects, and then demonstrate that the environmental effects are acceptable. We would need to be confident that all cooling water system mitigation measures have been considered including, and not restricted to, fish recovery and return systems, acoustic fish deterrent and low velocity side entry intakes.

The consultation document identifies that indirect cooling is predicted to abstract 9 cubic metres per second and discharge 7 cubic metres per second and compares favourably to direct cooling. Whilst the volume of water for the indirect cooling system is considerably smaller than a direct cooling system, these are still significant volumes of water compared to the freshwater flows into the estuary. The Company must still demonstrate that the environmental effects of an indirect cooling system are acceptable on their own terms.

We note that paragraphs 3.3.70 – 3.3.71 anticipate that the abstraction and discharge rates of the cooling infrastructure is likely to have local impacts only. These conclusions can only be drawn from robust evidence, which we do not consider to be available yet.

Recommendations

67. Consider loss of Blackwater herring as an indirect affect within the Habitats Regulations Assessment Report.

68. Consider loss of Blackwater herring as a direct effect within the Environmental Impact Assessment.

69. Consider eutrophication of the estuary in relevant assessments and in the design of the cooling water system intake.

70. Present detailed modelling for thermal, saline, and chemical plumes and the effects of dead biota using agreed methodologies.

71. Use environmental best practices to minimise environmental effects.

72. Do not rely on comparisons of relative environmental effects between direct and indirect cooling to justify the design. The design must use environmental best practice and be shown to have acceptable environmental effects on its own terms, noting the sensitive sites and features locally.

4. References

Bradwell B, 2020. Bradwell B Stage One – Consultation Document, s.l.: Bradwell Power Generation Company.

BSI, 2011. Investigation of potentially contaminated sites. Code of Practice, s.l.: BSI.

BSI, 2015. Code of practice for ground investigations, s.l.: BSI.

CL:AIRE, 2011. The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice, London: Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments.

CL:AIRE, n.d. Water and Land Library

DECC, 2010. Habitats Regulations Assessment Site Report for Bradwell, London: Office for Nuclear Development, DECC.

DECC, 2011Aa. Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), London: The Stationery Office.

DECC, 2011Ab. National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6), London: The Stationery Office.

Environment Agency, 2002. Piling into contaminated sites, Solihull: Environment Agency National Groundwater and Contaminated Land Centre.

Environment Agency, 2004. Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, Bristol: Environment Agency.

Environment Agency, 2006a. Standards for modelling and forecasting flooding on open coasts v1.2. Bristol: Environment Agency

Environment Agency, 2006b. Standards for modelling and forecasting flooding in large estuaries v1.0. Bristol: Environment Agency

Environment Agency, 2010. Guiding principles for land contamination, Bristol: Environment Agency.

Environment Agency, 2012. Good practice for decommissioning redundant boreholes and wells, Bristol: Environment Agency.

Environment Agency, 2012. Guidance for developments requiring planning permission and environmental permits, Bristol: Environment Agency.

Environment Agency, 2014. Land contamination: technical guidance

Environment Agency, 2016. River basin management plans: 2015

Environment Agency, 2016. Water Framework Directive assessment: estuarine and coastal waters

Environment Agency, 2017. Groundwater protection

Environment Agency, 2018. The Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection, Bristol: Environment Agency.

Natural England and RSPB, 2019. Climate Change Adaptation Manual – Evidence to support nature conservation in a changing climate. 2nd Edition ed. York, UK: Natural England.

Natural England, 2019. The Biodiversity Metric 2.0

susDrain, 2020. susDrain

The Planning Inspectorate, 2017. Annex D – Environment Agency, Bristol: The Planning Inspectorate.

The Planning Inspectorate, 2017. Habitats Regulation Assessment, Bristol: The Planning Inspectorate.

The Planning Inspectorate, 2017. The Water Framework Directive, Bristol: The Planning Inspectorate.

The Planning Inspectorate, 2017. Working with public bodies, Bristol: The Planning Inspectorate.

Westcott, F. J., Lean, C. M. B. & Cunningham, M. L., 2001. Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention, Solihull: Environment Agency National Groundwater & Contaminated Land Centre.

Woods Ballard, B. et al., 2015. The SuDS Manual (C753F), s.l.: CIRIA.