EDF Energy agrees £94million Hinkley C package

Bridgwater Mercury: EDF Energy agrees £94million Hinkley C package EDF Energy agrees £94million Hinkley C package

EDF ENERGY has agreed a £94million cashpot to compensate people living near the site of the proposed Hinkley C nuclear power station.

Somerset County Council and Sedgemoor and West Somerset district councils have spent the past two years urging EDF to cough up more cash for roads, homes and education, should a third nuclear power station at Hinkley Point be approved.

At a meeting this week, the three councils okayed a legal document, known as a section 106 agreement, which will commit EDF to spending £64million on education, training, transport and housing to mitigate against the impacts of Hinkley C.

The section 106 is expected to be signed off this month, and is in addition to £30million EDF has already pledged in relation to site preparation works.

Sedgemoor District Council leader, Duncan McGinty, told the Mercury that while EDF's offer fell short of what the councils had hoped for, it still represented “significant progress and a balanced compromise”.

He said: “EDF's start offer was £1million, so we have come a long way.”

Cllr McGinty also revealed that the Planning Inspectorate, which will make the final decision on whether to allow Hinkley C to go ahead, had warned the councils that if an agreement with EDF was not signed by the end of August, the Inspectorate would not be able to ensure EDF stuck to it.

Cllr McGinty added that the agreement includes contingencies should extra costs or infrastructure work arise.

David Hall, Somerset County Council's deputy leader, said the councils were extremely pleased with the progress made and had done their best to ensure negative impacts of Hinkley C would be minimised.

Richard Mayson, EDF Energy's director of planning and external affairs, said the firm was delighted a deal had been reached.

He added: “This agreement also establishes a financial blueprint to deliver sustainable educational, employment and economic opportunities for local people and businesses.”

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:01pm Sat 18 Aug 12

PCAH says...

How much money are EDF going to contribute to compensate all those new victims of cancer and sudden deaths which even the government admits will follow the increase in poisonous radioactive gases emitted from the proposed two new EPR nuclear reactors and the storage of spent fuel on the Hinkley site for 160 years? Hinkley is the next Fukushima, yet another result of nuclear regulation failures and political indifference.
How much money are EDF going to contribute to compensate all those new victims of cancer and sudden deaths which even the government admits will follow the increase in poisonous radioactive gases emitted from the proposed two new EPR nuclear reactors and the storage of spent fuel on the Hinkley site for 160 years? Hinkley is the next Fukushima, yet another result of nuclear regulation failures and political indifference. PCAH
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Sat 18 Aug 12

Samej1 says...

PCAH wrote:
How much money are EDF going to contribute to compensate all those new victims of cancer and sudden deaths which even the government admits will follow the increase in poisonous radioactive gases emitted from the proposed two new EPR nuclear reactors and the storage of spent fuel on the Hinkley site for 160 years? Hinkley is the next Fukushima, yet another result of nuclear regulation failures and political indifference.
Interesting - government cite please?
[quote][p][bold]PCAH[/bold] wrote: How much money are EDF going to contribute to compensate all those new victims of cancer and sudden deaths which even the government admits will follow the increase in poisonous radioactive gases emitted from the proposed two new EPR nuclear reactors and the storage of spent fuel on the Hinkley site for 160 years? Hinkley is the next Fukushima, yet another result of nuclear regulation failures and political indifference.[/p][/quote]Interesting - government cite please? Samej1
  • Score: 0

11:00am Sun 19 Aug 12

Only me 123! says...

So PCAH, when exactly did this or any other government make these admissions. It would be incredibly brave or very stupid if any government did. As you appear so concerned about sudden deaths & cancer perhaps you should take a look at the number of “victims" who have died as a result of road traffic collisions worldwide or smoking related deaths. About 1.3 million people die each year as a result of road traffic accidents. Approximately 25 million more people suffer non-fatal injuries, each year; an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to other people’s cigarette smoke. Something to think about perhaps.
So PCAH, when exactly did this or any other government make these admissions. It would be incredibly brave or very stupid if any government did. As you appear so concerned about sudden deaths & cancer perhaps you should take a look at the number of “victims" who have died as a result of road traffic collisions worldwide or smoking related deaths. About 1.3 million people die each year as a result of road traffic accidents. Approximately 25 million more people suffer non-fatal injuries, each year; an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to other people’s cigarette smoke. Something to think about perhaps. Only me 123!
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Mon 20 Aug 12

PCAH says...

The government admitted that there was 'public health detriment' from nuclear power in its consultation on the Nuclear National Policy Statement. Following this consultation the Secretary of State, Chris Huhne, announced his decision that nuclear health detriment was justified.
The government admitted that there was 'public health detriment' from nuclear power in its consultation on the Nuclear National Policy Statement. Following this consultation the Secretary of State, Chris Huhne, announced his decision that nuclear health detriment was justified. PCAH
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Mon 20 Aug 12

Only me 123! says...

Yes, I also read the consultation statement, but having "public health detriment" doesn't mean everyone in the area will become victims of cancer(unlike thousands of smokers) or become victims of sudden death (unlike thousands of drivers & their passengers).Perhaps we should all campaign against smoking & driving, and who needs a reliable supply of electricity anyway.
Yes, I also read the consultation statement, but having "public health detriment" doesn't mean everyone in the area will become victims of cancer(unlike thousands of smokers) or become victims of sudden death (unlike thousands of drivers & their passengers).Perhaps we should all campaign against smoking & driving, and who needs a reliable supply of electricity anyway. Only me 123!
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Mon 20 Aug 12

sheldoncooper says...

Only me 123! wrote:
Yes, I also read the consultation statement, but having "public health detriment" doesn't mean everyone in the area will become victims of cancer(unlike thousands of smokers) or become victims of sudden death (unlike thousands of drivers & their passengers).Perhaps we should all campaign against smoking & driving, and who needs a reliable supply of electricity anyway.
people have been campaigning against smoking for years ! About time they started on the drinkers with the same intensity. Drink kills directly and indirectly through accidents etc and the costs of dealing with the effects of drink, through policing, hospital etc runs into billions !
[quote][p][bold]Only me 123![/bold] wrote: Yes, I also read the consultation statement, but having "public health detriment" doesn't mean everyone in the area will become victims of cancer(unlike thousands of smokers) or become victims of sudden death (unlike thousands of drivers & their passengers).Perhaps we should all campaign against smoking & driving, and who needs a reliable supply of electricity anyway.[/p][/quote]people have been campaigning against smoking for years ! About time they started on the drinkers with the same intensity. Drink kills directly and indirectly through accidents etc and the costs of dealing with the effects of drink, through policing, hospital etc runs into billions ! sheldoncooper
  • Score: 0

8:09am Tue 21 Aug 12

Makes I laugh says...

PCAH wrote:
How much money are EDF going to contribute to compensate all those new victims of cancer and sudden deaths which even the government admits will follow the increase in poisonous radioactive gases emitted from the proposed two new EPR nuclear reactors and the storage of spent fuel on the Hinkley site for 160 years? Hinkley is the next Fukushima, yet another result of nuclear regulation failures and political indifference.
'The Next Fukushima' do me a Favour that was caused by a massive Earth Quake and Tsunami.
[quote][p][bold]PCAH[/bold] wrote: How much money are EDF going to contribute to compensate all those new victims of cancer and sudden deaths which even the government admits will follow the increase in poisonous radioactive gases emitted from the proposed two new EPR nuclear reactors and the storage of spent fuel on the Hinkley site for 160 years? Hinkley is the next Fukushima, yet another result of nuclear regulation failures and political indifference.[/p][/quote]'The Next Fukushima' do me a Favour that was caused by a massive Earth Quake and Tsunami. Makes I laugh
  • Score: 0

8:59am Tue 21 Aug 12

PCAH says...

Corporate Manslaughter became UK law in 1998. How does the government reconcile this with their admission that nuclear power causes premature deaths? Why were Magnox South not prosecuted for the death of the Winfrith nuclear decommissioning worker who had leukaemia followed by a fatal stroke? Why did the coroner return a verdict of death from natural causes when his employers were guilty of gross negligence leading to corporate manslaughter?
Corporate Manslaughter became UK law in 1998. How does the government reconcile this with their admission that nuclear power causes premature deaths? Why were Magnox South not prosecuted for the death of the Winfrith nuclear decommissioning worker who had leukaemia followed by a fatal stroke? Why did the coroner return a verdict of death from natural causes when his employers were guilty of gross negligence leading to corporate manslaughter? PCAH
  • Score: 0

8:04am Wed 22 Aug 12

Hombre says...

What has all the above got to do with the money EDF will be providing?
If you don't like living next to a nuclear power station - move! I hear the Falklands is quite a healthy place to live.
What has all the above got to do with the money EDF will be providing? If you don't like living next to a nuclear power station - move! I hear the Falklands is quite a healthy place to live. Hombre
  • Score: 0

9:32am Wed 22 Aug 12

Only me 123! says...

Yes I agree, It's not as if there's never been anything similar in the area is it.It doesn't matter which form of electrical generation is proposed someone, somewhere will object.
Yes I agree, It's not as if there's never been anything similar in the area is it.It doesn't matter which form of electrical generation is proposed someone, somewhere will object. Only me 123!
  • Score: 0

10:40am Wed 22 Aug 12

PCAH says...

If the nuclear regulators do not enforce decommissioning safety rules at Hinkley,everyone living on the Somerset coast will be at risk unless they move away. Unlike smokers and drinkers, victims of radiation emissions from Hinkley do not have a choice about what they inhale or ingest. Perhaps EDF's £94million should be used to compensate them for having to move; there is a compensation scheme funded by the taxpayer because no insurer will touch nuclear power.
If the nuclear regulators do not enforce decommissioning safety rules at Hinkley,everyone living on the Somerset coast will be at risk unless they move away. Unlike smokers and drinkers, victims of radiation emissions from Hinkley do not have a choice about what they inhale or ingest. Perhaps EDF's £94million should be used to compensate them for having to move; there is a compensation scheme funded by the taxpayer because no insurer will touch nuclear power. PCAH
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Wed 22 Aug 12

Hombre says...

Blimey, I'm not going to walk along the road anymore, because of unenforced decommissioning of exhaust gases.
Why does PCAH think that decommissioning will not be within safety rules, or even go beyond the minimum rules. Perhaps he has inside knowledge, but I can say that when I have worked at nuclear sites, the workforce agree they are the safest places to work.
Blimey, I'm not going to walk along the road anymore, because of unenforced decommissioning of exhaust gases. Why does PCAH think that decommissioning will not be within safety rules, or even go beyond the minimum rules. Perhaps he has inside knowledge, but I can say that when I have worked at nuclear sites, the workforce agree they are the safest places to work. Hombre
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Wed 22 Aug 12

Only me 123! says...

Perhaps if those now living near Hinckley Point had asked what the large buildings were on the skyline when they were about to purchase their properties they may have been told it was a nuclear power station.
Perhaps if those now living near Hinckley Point had asked what the large buildings were on the skyline when they were about to purchase their properties they may have been told it was a nuclear power station. Only me 123!
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Wed 22 Aug 12

PCAH says...

The 2006 installation of vents into the two Magnox reactors is in breach of the 80-year period when defuelled reactors must remain sealed. The Environment Agency RIFE 16 reports shows Hinkley marine discharges doubled between 2002 and 2008. SW Public Health Authority shows Perinatal Mortality doubled after 2006. If the ONR does not stop them, the decommissioning contractors will open up the Intermediate Level Waste vaults which will release large amounts of tritium into the atmosphere which will cause even higher infant and perinatal mortality. Scientific evidence takes precedence over personal beliefs on radiation safety.
The 2006 installation of vents into the two Magnox reactors is in breach of the 80-year period when defuelled reactors must remain sealed. The Environment Agency RIFE 16 reports shows Hinkley marine discharges doubled between 2002 and 2008. SW Public Health Authority shows Perinatal Mortality doubled after 2006. If the ONR does not stop them, the decommissioning contractors will open up the Intermediate Level Waste vaults which will release large amounts of tritium into the atmosphere which will cause even higher infant and perinatal mortality. Scientific evidence takes precedence over personal beliefs on radiation safety. PCAH
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Wed 22 Aug 12

sheldoncooper says...

My Auntie & Uncle live with 1/4 of a mile of Hinkley and have done for years. They are in fine fettle. Auntie is a fantastic embroiderer and those two extra fingers on each hand are a definite benefit. Uncle Toms brothers and sisters are illiterate and cannot count beyond 10 - he's head and shoulders above them utilising all of his 26 fingers and toes. And on top of that they save a fortune in electricity of an evening, they glow brightly enough to light the whole house up.. So stop stirring it....there's nothing wrong with a bit of radiation.
My Auntie & Uncle live with 1/4 of a mile of Hinkley and have done for years. They are in fine fettle. Auntie is a fantastic embroiderer and those two extra fingers on each hand are a definite benefit. Uncle Toms brothers and sisters are illiterate and cannot count beyond 10 - he's head and shoulders above them utilising all of his 26 fingers and toes. And on top of that they save a fortune in electricity of an evening, they glow brightly enough to light the whole house up.. So stop stirring it....there's nothing wrong with a bit of radiation. sheldoncooper
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Wed 22 Aug 12

Only me 123! says...

After reading your latest comments I’d be surprised to hear that anyone is still alive within a 100 mile radius of any nuclear facility worldwide. Still, so long as the scientific evidence tells us we're all going to die, it must be true.
After reading your latest comments I’d be surprised to hear that anyone is still alive within a 100 mile radius of any nuclear facility worldwide. Still, so long as the scientific evidence tells us we're all going to die, it must be true. Only me 123!
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Thu 23 Aug 12

PCAH says...

I suggest checking the Stop Hinkley website to access evidence of worldwide health damage from exposure to man-made radiation from nuclear sites.
I suggest checking the Stop Hinkley website to access evidence of worldwide health damage from exposure to man-made radiation from nuclear sites. PCAH
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Thu 23 Aug 12

Hombre says...

Pehaps I am rading something into it, that's not there, but a Stop Hinkley website sounds a tad biased.
Perhaps PCAH has insider knowledge of the workings of Hinkley, or is it all just mear speculation.
Pehaps I am rading something into it, that's not there, but a Stop Hinkley website sounds a tad biased. Perhaps PCAH has insider knowledge of the workings of Hinkley, or is it all just mear speculation. Hombre
  • Score: 0

9:49am Fri 24 Aug 12

PCAH says...

PCAH has belonged to the Hinkley Point Site Stakeholder Group since 1995. We therefore attend SSG meetings and receive regular reports from the site licensees, ie the nuclear plant operators. We also receive reports from the Environment Agency and other nuclear regulators.
PCAH has belonged to the Hinkley Point Site Stakeholder Group since 1995. We therefore attend SSG meetings and receive regular reports from the site licensees, ie the nuclear plant operators. We also receive reports from the Environment Agency and other nuclear regulators. PCAH
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree