Annex F: Site summaries for Dungeness, Druridge Bay, Kingsnorth and Owston Ferry 1. The Government ran the Strategic Siting Assessment (SSA) to identify and assess sites which are potentially suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations by the end of 20251. The sites which the Government believes are potentially suitable are reflected in the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement (NPS). 2. This Annex contains site summaries for sites that the Government does not consider to be potentially suitable, and which are therefore not included in the draft Nuclear NPS - Dungeness (nominated into the SSA), During Bay, Kingsnorth and Owston Ferry (identified by the Alternative Sites Study2). 3. When reading these summaries, please see the consultation on the SSA process and criteria and the Government response to that consultation3 for more details on the SSA criteria. Part 5 of the draft Nuclear NPS also has a summary of the criteria4. Dungeness Description of the site The nominated site is located to the west of Dungeness B nuclear power station on a shingle foreland projecting into the English Channel. The nearest town is Lydd, 6km to the north west. The site is in the civil parish of Lydd within Shipway District and the County of Kent. The grid reference of the approximate centre of the nominated site is 607500, 116850. A map of the site is at the end of this summary. Dungeness B is expected to operate until at least 2018. Further east is Dungeness A, a twin-reactor Magnox power station which operated from 1965 to 2006 and is now undergoing decommissioning. The site lies at the edge of Denge Beach, an area of vegetated shingle ridges to the seaward side of the Romney and Denge marshes. The site includes parts of the Dungeness Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the Dungeness National Nature Reserve (NNR) and the Dungeness Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Further north is the Dungeness Special Protection Area (SPA). Overview 4. Having assessed Dungeness, the Government is not satisfied that Dungeness is potentially suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025. As a consequence the draft Nuclear NPS does not include Dungeness. 5. The range of sources that the Government used in reaching this view can be seen at http://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk This includes comments made by the public during the opportunity for public comments5, Appraisal of Sustainability and Habitats Regulations Assessment reports both on each site and on the NPS as a whole, and advice from specialists including the regulators6. 1 For the purposes of this document, "deployment of new nuclear power stations" means commencing operation of one or more new nuclear power stations on the site. 2 A consideration of alternative sites to those nominated as part of the Government's Strategic Sitting Assessment process for new nuclear power stations, Prepared by Atkins for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, November 2009, www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk 3 BERR, Towards a Nuclear National Policy Statement: Consultation on the Strategic Sitting Assessment Process and Sitting Criteria for New Nuclear Power Stations in the UK, July 2008, URN 08/925, http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file47136.pdf  BERR, Towards a nuclear national policy statement: Government response to the consultation on the Strategic Sitting Assessment process and criteria, January 2009 http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file47136.pdf URN09/581 4 See "The SSA criteria and how they were assessed" in Part 5 of the draft Nuclear NPS. 5 Nominations were published and people were able to provide comments on them against the criteria from 15 April - 14 May 2009. 6 Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Environment Agency, Office of Civil Nuclear Security, Civil Aviation Authority, Ministry of Defence, Department of Transport, Atkins Ltd, MWH Enfusion. Summary 6. The Government is not satisfied that the nominated site at Dungeness is potentially suitable for the deployment of one or more new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025. The nominated site did not meet discretionary criterion D6: Internationally designated sites of ecological importance. 7. In the consultation on the SSA process and criteria the Government set out that the SSA will, through the application of criterion D6, seek to ensure that developers minimise the adverse impact of new nuclear power stations on environmentally sensitive features in the UK that are also considered to be of European and International importance. 8. Dungeness is both a unique coastal system and an internationally important shingle site. The area has a number of internationally designated sites including a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Area (SPA) which are part of the Natura 2000 network. There is also a proposed Ramsar site. The Ramsar Convention is an international treaty that aims to stem the progressive encroachment on, and loss of, wetlands now and in the future. 9. The SSA is conducted at an early stage in the planning process, and does not include an analysis of detailed plans and proposals. However, the Government has concluded that, given the nature of the habitat and the inability to readily mitigate the impacts on the shingle system, it does not believe that a new nuclear power station can be built at Dungeness without causing an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC (i.e. that any impacts could not be avoided or mitigated). 10. The Government also has concerns under criterion D2 (coastal processes), but concluded that at this stage that Dungeness should not be ruled out against this criterion. 11. A summary of the assessment is below. Given that the site has not been found to be potentially suitable this summary does not include guidance for the IPC. 12. In this consultation the Government is seeking views on its preliminary conclusion that Dungeness is not potentially suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025, and that it therefore should not be included in the draft Nuclear NPS. Description of the site 13. The nominated site is located to the west of Dungeness B nuclear power station on a shingle foreland projecting into the English Channel. The nearest town is Lydd, 6km to the north west. The site is in the civil parish of Lydd within Shipway District and the County of Kent. The grid reference of the approximate centre of the nominated site is 607500, 116850. A map of the site is at the end of this summary. 14. Dungeness B is expected to operate until at least 2018. Further east is Dungeness A, a twin-reactor Magnox power station which operated from 1965 to 2006 and is now undergoing decommissioning. 15. The site lies at the edge of Denge Beach, an area of vegetated shingle ridges to the seaward side of the Romney and Denge marshes. The site includes parts of the Dungeness Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the Dungeness National Nature Reserve (NNR) and the Dungeness Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Further north is the Dungeness Special Protection Area (SPA). Deployability by the end of 2025 16. The SSA is limited to considering sites which are deployable by the end of 2025. This is because it is important to focus on sites which can come on stream in good time to contribute to the Government's objectives on climate change and energy security. 17. Deployment means commencing operation of one or more new nuclear power stations on the site. At Dungeness, the Government in particular notes that there is already a great deal of knowledge of the site developed through the construction and operation of the adjacent power station and the ongoing detailed work on the nominated site. 18. Government also notes that a grid connection agreement for a transmission capacity of 1650 MW is in place with National Grid, with a connection date of 2016 (although this does not mean that a site will be deployed by that date). 19. The Government is satisfied from the information provided by nominators and an independent assessment that the Dungeness site is deployable by the end of 2025, notwithstanding the issues highlighted under criterion D6, in particular, below. Assessment of suitability against SSA criteria C1 : Demographics Analysis 20. The Health and Safety Executive has advised that no area of the site exceeds the semi-urban criterion. Assessment 21. This site therefore passes the demographics criterion. C2 and D5: Proximity to military activities Analysis 22. The Ministry of Defence has advised that the site identified does not occupy any Ministry of Defence statutory safeguarding zones protecting aerodromes, explosive storage sites, technical sites or ranges. There are no military explosive or nuclear facilities within 1000 metres of the site identified. The site is 800 metres from the nearest Ministry of Defence Danger Area, which is Lydd Training Area. 23. Within this Danger Area training exercises and firing are conducted, and responses to the period for public comments raised this as a potential concern. The Ministry of Defence has advised that all firing activities at the Lydd Training Area are contained within the Danger Area and as such there is not a direct hazard to a new nuclear facility at this location. 24. The Ministry of Defence has found that it is reasonable to conclude, at a strategic level, that any likely power station development within the site boundary can be protected against the risk of external hazards created by neighbouring military activities, throughout its lifetime. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has agreed with this advice. 25. The Restricted Area that encompasses the existing Dungeness nuclear power station (EG R063) overlaps with the Ministry of Defence Danger Area Air Exclusion Area that contains the Lydd Training Area (EG D044). The site identified for a new nuclear power station is west of the existing facility and as such a new Restricted Area (or expansion of EG R063) would extend further across EG D044. Whilst EG D044 is not used by aircraft for firing activities there is a designated helicopter landing site within the range. The Ministry of Defence has advised that accordingly an appropriate exemption to the Restricted Area may be appropriate. Such an exemption would need to satisfy the regulators as not compromising the safety of the site. 26. Given this potential for mitigation, the Ministry of Defence has advised that it is reasonable to conclude, at a strategic level, that any likely power station development within the nominated site boundary will not adversely affect the capabilities of the armed forces to carry out essential training and operations, throughout its lifetime. Assessment 27. Based on the advice of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Ministry of Defence outlined above it is reasonable to conclude that: " the site does not occupy any Ministry of Defence areas which would give rise to the site being excluded in whole or in part from the assessment; " the site is not in proximity to or may affect any Ministry of Defence assets or activities to an extent that would suggest that it should be ruled out; " the development of a new nuclear power station at the site will not affect the capabilities of the armed forces to carry out essential training and operations throughout its lifetime; " any likely power station development within the site boundary can be protected against the risk of external hazards created by neighbouring military activities, throughout its lifetime. 28. This site therefore passes these criteria. D1: Flooding, tsunami and storm surge Analysis 29. The majority of the site is in flood zone 1 (low probability). Small parts of the site are in flood zones 2 (medium probability) and 3 (high probability)7. 30. The Environment Agency has advised that based on current understanding of the flood risk in this area and the potential for mitigation it is potentially reasonable to conclude, at the strategic level, that the site can be protected from flood risk throughout its operational lifetime8. However, it has cautioned that there could be significant difficulties in doing so because of risks posed both by climate change and by the sustainability of maintaining the current standard of protection pose challenges for the site. This is linked to the issues discussed in more detail under "coastal processes" as current protection for both flooding and coastal processes is given by the shingle embankment discussed against criterion D2. 31. The Environment Agency has noted that protecting the site from flood risk now and in the future prevents the coastline and estuary from changing and adapting naturally. The Environment Agency has noted that any defences constructed to protect the power station are likely to affect the natural morphology of the Dungeness Peninsula over time, preventing natural processes from prevailing. The impacts are likely to be quite different depending upon whether "soft" or "hard" defences are proposed. For soft defences, there could be long term sustainability issues regarding the availability of shingle. Any hard defences at this location could have detrimental effects on the adjacent frontages, which could indirectly impact on flooding elsewhere. 32. The Appraisal of Sustainability identified potential adverse effects relating to flood risk due to predicted rising sea levels caused by climate change, especially during the later stages of operation and decommissioning. Possible impacts on coastal processes, hydrodynamics and sediment transport from any necessary new or upgraded coastal 7 The flood zones refer to the probability of flooding from rivers, the sea and tidal sources and ignore the presence of existing defences. For a definition of each of the flood zones see Planning Policy Statement 25 : Development and Flood risk, CLG, December 2006, Annex D pp22-25: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/planningpolicystatement25.pdf Please see entry D1 in the table "The SSA criteria and how the sites were assessed" in Part 5 of the draft Nuclear NPS for details on the potential lifetime of the site and the period this assessment covered defences have also been identified, although mitigation may be possible through appropriate design and construction of defences, taking account of coastal processes, hydrodynamics and sediment transport. 33. The Environment Agency has also advised that flooding could impede access and egress to the site, although it believes that this could be mitigated for in the design of routes to ensure that access remains open. The Environment Agency does not think that the proposals would increase the impact of flooding elsewhere. Assessment 34. The Government has some concerns over whether it is reasonable to conclude that this site can be protected from flood risk throughout its operational lifetime, including the potential effects of climate change, storm surge and tsunami. This is because the Government has some concerns about both the difficulty of instituting adequate protection, the impact of coastal processes on the site and the consequential flood risk that could emerge. However, the Environment Agency has advised that there is potential to protect the site, although with significant difficulties. This site therefore has the potential to pass this criterion. However, at Dungeness, the issues of coastal processes and flooding are particularly closely linked, and the ability to protect the site from coastal processes is discussed in more detail below. D2: Coastal processes Analysis 35. This and associated flood risk was the subject of a number of comments during the period for public comments, particularly around the dynamic nature of the coastline and its perceived ability to withstand storms and climate change. 36. The nominator of the site states in the nomination that "the existing nuclear power station site is protected against coastal erosion and flooding by a shingle embankment…This structure is fronted by a relatively steep shingle beach and was designed to provide protection against a 1 in 10,000 year flood event associated with a tsunami wave. The shingle structure in front of the site erodes, but this is artificially replenished using shingle from Lydd-on-Sea. This shingle recycling process will continue in order to defend the existing power stations and this operation will therefore also defend the nominated site." 37. The nomination also states that "an integrated approach would be applied to the design of new nuclear development incorporating land raising, flood defence improvements and coastal protection measures to protect the site from flooding over the full lifetime of the power plant"9. 9 For the nomination documentation see http://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk 38. The Government also acknowledges that protection measures would be in place into the future to protect the existing Dungeness nuclear power station for its lifetime, including any waste stored on the site. 39. Whilst the Environment Agency has advised that it is potentially reasonable to conclude that development at the site could avoid or mitigate the effects of coastal erosion or other landscape change scenarios throughout its operational lifetime10, including the potential effects of climate change, the Environment Agency notes that to do so could present a significant challenge, particularly as the current shingle defence is complex to maintain and climate change could bring increased wave heights and more wave energy impacting upon the shingle defence. Assessment 40. The Government acknowledges that protection measures would be in place into the future to protect the existing Dungeness nuclear power station for its lifetime, including any waste stored on the site. However, given the difficulties highlighted during the assessment, the Government has concerns about the practicality of increasing the area that needs to be protected by adding the new site, which is also within an area which has been designated for its European nature conservation importance. However, given that the Environment Agency has said that there is potential to protect the site from the impacts of flooding and coastal processes, the Government has not ruled the site out on this criterion at this stage. This is clearly a challenge that would need further exploration should plans have progressed for Dungeness. D3: Proximity to hazardous industrial facilities Analysis 41. Based on Health and Safety Executive records the nominated site is not in the vicinity of any COMAH establishments. These are establishments subject to the Control of Major Accidents and Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 1999 (which is determined by chemical type and inventory). Please see the consultation on the SSA process and criteria for more detail11). Assessment 42. This site passes this criterion. Given that the site is not in proximity to any hazardous facilities it is reasonable to conclude that a new nuclear power station at the nominated site could be protected against risk arising from proximity to hazardous facilities throughout its lifetime. D4: Proximity to civil aircraft movements Analysis 43. The Civil Aviation Authority has advised that it is potentially reasonable to conclude that any likely power station development within the nominated site boundary can be protected against risks from civil aircraft movement. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has agreed with this advice. 44. Nuclear power stations in the UK receive some protection from aviation activity through the establishment of a Restricted Area at each individual station. This is established by regulations12. Typically, such Restricted Areas have a radius of 2 nautical miles and extend vertically to 2000 feet above the surface. Any aviation activity within a Restricted Area is limited to that specifically permitted by the regulations. 45.The Civil Aviation Authority has advised that the existing Dungeness nuclear installation has an associated Restricted Area and that a Restricted Area around the proposed facility (or an amendment to the existing Restricted Area to extend it) would provide a similar level of protection from civil aircraft movements. 46. However, the Civil Aviation Authority has advised that the existing Dungeness associated Restricted Area has the potential to impact upon operations associated with London Ashford (Lydd) Airport, although such impact is mitigated by the related Statutory Instrument allowing flights that have taken off or intend to land at London Ashford (Lydd) to cross the existing Restricted Area providing they remain at least 1.5 nautical miles from the Restricted Area datum. 47. The Civil Aviation Authority has advised that it follows that any new (or amended) Restricted Area established in association with the proposed nuclear installation would have the potential to impact upon operations associated with London Ashford (Lydd) Airport, and may similarly need to similarly mitigate the impact upon the airport. It would also need to consider power station associated helicopter activity. 48. The Government also received a number of public comments querying whether development of a new power station at Dungeness could go ahead if plans to develop London Ashford (Lydd) Airport are approved. As outlined above, the Civil Aviation Authority has advised that there is potential for an exclusion zone which mitigates impacts on the existing airport. 49. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has advised that the risks to the existing site from the proposed development have been considered to be acceptable. It has also advised that consideration of the risks posed to any new nuclear development from airport operations would be assessed as part of the licensing process and take account of the prevailing conditions at London Ashford (Lydd) Airport and any proposed developments. This would include a review of the implications of any new Restricted Areas on the risks from accidental aircraft impact. 50. The Civil Aviation Authority has also advised that there are no other known (i.e. marked on Civil Aviation Authority approved charts or promulgated in the UK Aeronautical Information Publication) civilian landing sites in such proximity to the proposed nuclear installation that a new or amended Restricted Area would have a material impact on associated operations, and that the current establishment of the existing Dungeness Restricted Area is such that the impact of a new or amended Restricted Area upon civil aircraft in transit through local airspace is likely to be negligible (the advice about potential operations concerning London Ashford (Lydd) Airport-related aircraft activity relates to aircraft that are arriving or departing as opposed to aircraft in transit). Assessment 51. This site meets this criterion. Given the advice above it is reasonable to conclude that any likely power station development within the nominated site boundary can be protected against risks from civil aircraft movement, and that the effects on air traffic and aerodromes can be potentially mitigated. As part of licensing there would be a need for any proposals to be considered in detail alongside the most current plans for London Ashford (Lydd) Airport both to ensure that the safety of the site was not compromised and that the impact on the airport was taken into account, had the site been in the Nuclear NPS. For D5 see C2 D6: Internationally designated sites of ecological importance Analysis 52. The Appraisal of Sustainability site report has identified that the potential for adverse effects on sites and species considered to be of European nature conservation importance (the Dungeness SAC, the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA and also the proposed Ramsar designated site) means that significant strategic effects on biodiversity cannot be ruled out at this stage of the appraisal. 53. The Appraisal of Sustainability conclusions on sites of European nature conservation importance13 are drawn from the Habitats Regulations Assessment for Dungeness, and the assessment of this site against this criterion was in particular informed by the Habitats Regulations Assessment and the input of the statutory consultees14 who 13 The European Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (the Habitats Directive) protects habitats and species of European nature conservation importance by establishing a network of internationally important sites designated for their ecological status. These are referred to as Natura 2000 sites or European sites, and comprise of Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSAC), and Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) designated and defined under the EC Habitats Directive. It is Government policy to treat Ramsar sites, designated by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (1971) and potential SPAs (pSPAs) as if they are fully designated European sites for the purpose of considering any development proposals that may affect them. Natural England, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Department of the Environment's Environment and Heritage Service (Northern Ireland) and Scottish Natural Heritage are the Statutory Consultees for the Habitats Directive highlighted, amongst other concerns, that there would be "permanent and direct loss of SAC and SSSI habitat of international and national importance." They commented that "Natural England has particular concern that the proposed build will have direct impact on the SSSI and SAC and likely indirect disturbance over a prolonged period to the SPA. Based on information made available to date this will amount to a potentially significant impact on the biodiversity interest of this internationally important shingle site." 54. Taking into account the strategic nature of the plan and the information available, the Habitats Regulations Assessment has found that it cannot, at this strategic level, rule out adverse effects on the integrity of three European sites (Dungeness SAC, Dungeness to Pett Level SPA) and a proposed Ramsar site (the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay proposed Ramsar or pRamsar) with regards to impacts upon water resources and quality, air quality; habitat and species loss and fragmentation/ coastal squeeze; and disturbance (noise, light and visual). 55. The Habitats Regulations Assessment recommends a suite of avoidance and mitigation measures to be considered as part of the project level Habitats Regulations Assessment (i.e. accompanying any application for development consent should plans for the site progress). The Habitats Regulations Assessment concludes that, based on Habitats Regulations Assessment experience, professional judgement, and the consultation advice received from the statutory consultees, if the proposed suite of measures is effectively implemented as an integral part of the nominated site development (including through refinements developed as part of site level Habitats Regulations Assessment), there is the potential to address the identified adverse effects relating to air quality and water quality on the European sites' integrity. The Habitats Regulations Assessment report is less certain at this stage that impacts relating to disturbance could be mitigated for. It is not considered that mitigation of impacts related to habitat loss would be possible. 56. The Habitats Regulations Assessment has concluded that losses as a result of a new nuclear power station at Dungeness would prove difficult to mitigate or compensate for, due to lack of suitable alternative shingle habitat available in the vicinity, the active role that coastal processes play in maintaining the shingle habitats, and the time period that successional shingle vegetation communities take to establish. 57. The Habitats Regulations Assessment report for Dungeness should be referred to for more details, but in summary, it is concluded that further assessment supported by detailed data at the project level will be required before it can be concluded whether a nuclear power station development can be undertaken without adversely affecting the integrity of the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA. However, it is unlikely to be possible to develop nuclear generating facilities at Dungeness without adversely affecting the integrity of Dungeness SAC, and possibly the proposed Dungeness Romney Marsh and Rye Bay proposed Ramsar site, should the pRamsar and SAC have the same boundaries. 58. The Habitats Regulations Assessment has found that that there are likely to be inherent difficulties in providing compensation for habitat losses at the Dungeness SAC. Natural England has advised that it would be "very difficult, if not impossible in some cases to compensate for the loss of habitat should a new nuclear power station be built at Dungeness. Assessment 59. The Government notes the scope for avoidance and mitigation identified in the Habitats Regulations Assessment for sites of international importance. 60. The Habitats Regulations Assessment has concluded that only some impacts on European sites could be avoided or mitigated and that compensation for remaining impacts would be difficult. The Government is not satisfied that a new nuclear power station could be built at Dungeness without causing an adverse effect on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site. 61. Because adverse effects on the integrity of European Sites cannot be ruled out, Government has also considered whether alternative solutions are available and whether there is an Imperative Reason of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI)15 which justifies the inclusion of Dungeness in the Nuclear NPS. 62. The draft Nuclear NPS states that the Government believes in principle new nuclear power should be free to contribute as much as possible towards meeting the need for 25GW of new non-renewable capacity16 within the strategic market framework set by Government. The Alternative Sites Study did not result in the identification of any feasible alternative sites beyond the nominated sites. However, as detailed in Annex A of the draft Nuclear NPS, whilst the Government considers that it is necessary to include the ten other nominated sites in the NPS to ensure that sufficient sites are available for development to allow energy companies to fill a significant proportion of the 25GW of new capacity that has been identified, even if a number of sites fail at the project level, the Government does not consider it is appropriate to include more than ten sites in the Nuclear NPS at this stage when balanced against the potential harm to Natura 2000 sites and other factors like planning blight. 63. The Habitats Regulations Assessment reports for the ten other sites suggest at this stage that development of them would better protect the integrity of the Natura 2000 network of European sites. In particular there is a greater scope for mitigation of adverse effects at these sites, and Dungeness is the only nominated site that overlaps with a European site to such an extent that avoidance of adverse effects is not possible and mitigation of the effects of direct land take is assessed as unlikely to be successful. In view of the fact that the Government does not consider it appropriate Where it was not possible to rule out an adverse effect on the integrity sites protected under the Directive, as part of the SSA the Government considered whether there were alternative solutions and subsequently Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest ("IROPI") in favour of including those sites in the NPS in accordance with article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. The Government's consideration of IROPI is set out in Annex A of the draft Nuclear NPS. The Government was also required to consider the issue of compensatory measures under article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (The European Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (the Habitats Directive). See Part 2 of the draft Nuclear NPS for details of the need for new capacity to include more than ten sites in the NPS at this stage when the need is balanced against the potential harm to Natura 2000 sites and other factors like planning blight and given that it is considered at this stage that the other ten sites would better protect the integrity of the Natura 2000 network, the Government considers that those sites are alternatives to Dungeness. 64. Because of the alternative solutions available, it is not currently considered that there is an Imperative Reason of Overriding Public Interest for the inclusion of Dungeness as an eleventh site in the draft Nuclear NPS. 65. Given that the above tests from the Habitats Directive have not been met, it is not strictly necessary to consider the issue of compensatory measures that could be taken. However, in this respect the Government notes the Habitats Regulations Assessment conclusion that there likely to be inherent difficulties in providing compensation for adverse effects. 66. The Government also notes that the Habitats Regulations Assessment cannot rule out, at this stage, that development of the nominated site would result in adverse effects on the integrity of the proposed Ramsar site. 67. The site does not pass this criterion. D7: Nationally designated sites of ecological importance Analysis 68. The Government notes that the Appraisal of Sustainability has identified potentialimpacts on nationally designated sites of ecological importance. It has found that there are significant negative effects on several national and internationally protected nature conservation sites, and that as well as the Dungeness SAC and the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA, these include the Dungeness SSSI and National Nature Reserve (NNR). 69. The Appraisal of Sustainability finds that the adverse effects would include direct loss of vegetated shingle habitat, which is internationally recognised for its ecological importance. It is considered unlikely that these adverse effects could be fully mitigated. The Appraisal of Sustainability notes that development of the site would also involve land take from the Dungeness SSSI and the Dungeness NNR. The Appraisal of Sustainability finds that these designated sites share some common interest with the Dungeness SAC and the same impacts and mitigations would apply. Assessment 70. There is a strict regulatory regime governing internationally designated sites and a high threshold given the significance of the designations, and to the extent that the nationally designated sites are covered by international designations, criterion D6 should be referred to. 71. The overlap between national and international sites and the similarities in effects makes this criterion difficult to judge in isolation. Government has reservations about this site given the unique nature of the habitat and that in some respects the assessment of D6 and D7 are intrinsically linked. However, although the level of impact in parts of the nationally designated sites is potentially significant, and mitigation may not be complete, the Government considers that the scope for mitigation is sufficient to meet this criterion given that the sites are not designated at a European level. D8: Areas of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value Analysis 72. The Appraisal of Sustainability identified potential adverse effects on the view from the Lade Fort Scheduled Monument. However, there is a possibility that this can be mitigated. 73. The prominent, coastal location of the nominated site and low-lying hinterland mean that the nominated site can be seen from distant viewpoints including parts of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) located 22km to the west, the Kent Downs AONB located 25km to the north east and the Dover-Folkestone Heritage Coast located approximately 21km to the north east of the proposed development. 74. The Appraisal of Sustainability therefore identifies potential, adverse visual effects and some localised impacts on landscape and the seascape character, including potentially some perceptible adverse indirect impacts on parts of the High Weald and Kent Downs AONBs and the Dover - Folkestone Heritage Coast. 75. The nominator of the site has noted that "the proximity of the new nuclear development alongside the existing Dungeness A and B power stations will help to minimise its visual impact. The overall visual impact of the group of power stations will not be significantly greater than the existing power stations and substation building."17 The Appraisal of Sustainability concurs that overall, the new power station would be seen in the context of existing power station facilities and industrial setting, prior to any decommissioning. However, given the scale of the nominated site it is unlikely that effects could be mitigated entirely. 76. During the period for public comments concerns were raised about the impact on the newly designated South Downs National Park. Whilst the nearest point of the National Park is over 50km from the site at Dungeness, it is possible that some views, for instance from Beachy Head, could stretch as far as Dungeness on a clear day. 17 Please see http://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk for the nomination of Dungeness, and in particular the "Nomination Report" for the nominator's proposals against this criterion. Assessment 77. The Government has considered the purpose of the relevant AONBs, which is of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty. The Government has also given consideration to the purposes of the designation of the National Park in conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the park and of promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public. 78. The Government believes that in relation to this criterion, the site is potentially suitable despite the potential impacts. This takes into account the fact that the nature, scope, and scale of any effect is currently uncertain and is dependent on the exact form of development proposed; that, had the site been in the Nuclear NPS, there would have been some scope for a developer and the IPC to explore in detail minimisation, avoidance and mitigation of adverse effects; and in particular the distance to the AONBs, National Park and Folkestone Heritage coast, and the context of the nominated site (next to existing facilities) when viewed from these distances, which does not suggest significant effects. D9: Size of site to accommodate operation Analysis 79. The nominated area is approximately 91 hectares. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and Office for Civil Nuclear Security have advised that this is of sufficient size and shape for the safe and secure operation of a new nuclear power station. 80. However, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security has advised that there appears to be insufficient land to provide effective defence-in-depth for a reactor (including the associated turbine hall), spent fuel and intermediate level waste stores and other plant important to the safe operation of the nuclear power station in the area east of longitude grid reference 608 as the land area is of inadequate size (this land appears to be nominated for a road (or something similar) rather than siting the plant). 81. The Office for Civil Nuclear Security has advised that the location of the National Grid transformer building may limit the potential locations for a reactor at this nominated site unless the transformer facility is re-located. However, this does not suggest that the size of site is not sufficient at this stage. 82. The Office for Civil Nuclear Security has also noted that the nominated land has a public track bisecting it. It is a security requirement that the licensee has exclusive rights of access to and control of a civil licensed nuclear site and that it is not therefore bisected by any public rights of way. Assessment 83. Whilst part of the site may not be suitable for the siting of those elements of a nuclear power station which require defence-in-depth, based on the advice of the Office for Civil Nuclear Security and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate there is sufficient land elsewhere within the boundary for the safe and secure operation of at least one nuclear power station, including the safe and secure storage of all the spent fuel and intermediate level waste produced through operation, and from decommissioning, on the site of the station until it can be sent for disposal in a geological disposal facility. This site passes this criterion. D10: Access to suitable sources of cooling Analysis 84. The nomination details a range of cooling options, expressing a preference for direct cooling from the sea18. 85. The Appraisal of Sustainability for Dungeness has found that if cooling water is returned to sea at elevated temperatures, this could have direct effects on sediment transport and water quality locally, and potential indirect effects on nationally and internationally designated habitats. It has noted that a more detailed appraisal is required at the project Environmental Impact Assessment level (i.e. accompanying an application for development consent) to assess the implications of this thermal discharge and that any future thermal discharge would be subject to consent from the Environment Agency. 86. The Environment Agency has noted that there are important nursery grounds on this coast for mackerel, sprat, bass and sole. Sea trout are common in Rye Bay and along the coast and Twaite shad are becoming common on this coast during the summer and autumn. However, the Environment Agency has advised that it is reasonable to conclude that there is access to potentially suitable source of cooling at this site. Assessment 87. Based on the advice of the Environment Agency, there appears to be access to potentially suitable sources of cooling at the site. The site passes the criterion. Appraisal of Sustainability and Habitats Regulations Assessment for Dungeness 88. The Planning Act (2008)19 requires an Appraisal of Sustainability to be carried out for all National Policy Statements. The purpose of an Appraisal of Sustainability is to consider the social, economic and environmental implications of the policy and to suggest possibilities for improving the sustainability of the NPS. The purpose of the Appraisal of Sustainability for Dungeness is to examine the potential positive and negative effects of the nominated site, identify the significance of these effects, and suggest any mitigation possibilities. 18 Please see http://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk for the nomination of Dungeness, and in particular the "Nomination Report" for the nominator's proposals against this criterion. 19 Planning Act (2008) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080029_en_1 89. The draft Nuclear NPS has also been assessed in accordance with the European Habitats Directive. That assessment (the "Habitats Regulations Assessment") tests whether a plan or project could have an adverse effect on the integrity of European Sites of nature conservation importance. A Habitats Regulations Assessment was carried out on the Dungeness site. 90. The conclusions of the Dungeness Appraisal of Sustainability and Habitats Regulations Assessment highlight areas of significance on, amongst other things: i) significant negative effects on several national and internationally protected nature conservation sites, including the Dungeness SAC, the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA, and the Dungeness SSSI. The adverse effects would include direct loss of vegetated shingle habitat, which is internationally recognised for its ecological importance. It is considered unlikely that these adverse effects could be avoided or successfully mitigated; ii) adverse effects on water quality and fish populations in nearby coastal waters due to the abstraction and release of sea water for cooling; iii) risk from coastal and fluvial flooding at parts of the site and also from coastal erosion. There are existing flood defences in place at the site and continual management is required to replenish shifting shingle deposits. Flood defences and erosion management plans may require significant upgrading to protect against sea level rise and coastal erosion for the full life time of a new power station; iv) additional adverse visual impacts on parts of the High Weald and Kent Downs AONBs and the Dover-Folkestone Heritage Coast. 91. Dungeness is not close to any other nominated site and therefore does not form part of a cluster. This means that regional or sub-regional cumulative impacts are not considered relevant for this nominated site. 92. The key findings are taken into account in the summaries against the SSA criteria above. Other issues raised during the assessment Health 93. The Appraisal of Sustainability for Dungeness has also considered strategic effects on human health and well being. The Appraisal of Sustainability looks at a range of different factors and should be referred to for a more in depth assessment. 94. One factor of particular interest to the public is incidence of cancer. The Appraisal of Sustainability reports that there has been, since 1965, a nuclear power station operating on the nominated site. There is, therefore, historical data which the Appraisal of Sustainability has analysed to correlate the incidence of cancer reported around this site so that it can be compared to the average prevalence of the same cancer in the British population as a whole. The Appraisal of Sustainability considers comparisons for childhood leukaemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other malignant tumours undertaken advice on all aspects of health risk to humans exposed to natural and man-made radiation. It has, for over twenty years, investigated the incidence of childhood cancer and other cancers around nuclear sites. COMARE has published eleven reports on topics related to exposure to radiation. Its view is that there is no evidence for unusual aggregations of childhood cancers in populations living near nuclear power stations in the UK. 95. COMARE's tenth report20 considered the incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear installations. These were divided into nuclear power generating stations and other nuclear installations. The results for the power generating stations supported the conclusion that 'there is no evidence from this very large study that living within 25 km of a nuclear generating site in Britain is associated with an increased risk of childhood cancer'. 96. The tenth report did however state that for other nuclear sites the situation was more complicated. The study did demonstrate corresponding results to previously published studies that showed excesses of some types of childhood cancer. These results (excess childhood cancers in Seascale near Sellafield, in Thurso near Dounreay and around Aldermaston, Burghfield and Harwell) have been extensively discussed in previous COMARE reports. 97. In its eleventh report21 COMARE examined the general pattern of childhood leukaemia within Great Britain and concluded that 'the search for increased risk levels near to nuclear power generation sites shows no pattern of excess cases of childhood cancer close to the sites of these types of nuclear installations'. Among its recommendations, the report said that the incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in the vicinity of Sellafield and Dounereay was raised and should be kept under surveillance and periodic review. COMARE is undertaking this work with the aim of producing an update report. 98. The Appraisal of Sustainability reports that radioactive monitoring carried out in 200722 found low concentrations of artificial radionuclides in water, sediment and beach samples and in meat and seafood samples taken around the existing Dungeness nuclear power stations. From this sampling, the Appraisal of Sustainability notes that the estimated total dosage levels to the public from all sources within the Dungeness area were assessed as being approximately 28% of the dose limit for members of the public of 1mSv per year as specified in the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999. 99. The Appraisal of Sustainability has found that the rigorous system of regulation of routine discharges from the proposed nuclear power station at Dungeness should ensure that there are no unacceptable risks to the health of the local population when the plant is operating normally. 100. The Appraisal of Sustainability also concludes that there is a very small risk of adverse health impacts arising from an accidental release of radiation but the multiple safety features within modern nuclear plants makes such an event exceedingly unlikely. Part 4 of the draft Nuclear NPS (Human health and wellbeing) should be referred to for further guidance on health.