Recent reporting on Hinkley Point C contains a number of inaccuracies regarding Natural England’s role, legal duties, and position on fish protection measures. Natural England is firmly committed to enabling nationally significant infrastructure while ensuring compliance with environmental law.
In building a new nuclear power station, EDF is delivering a complex and much needed project and Natural England along with other regulators are working alongside them to ensure that happens lawfully.
The Severn estuary is globally unique and a hugely important place supporting the many communities and economies that surround it. Any short term costs to protect its ecosystem are an investment in its future.
Claims that Natural England is blocking the project, acting disproportionately, changing its position, or ignoring evidence are incorrect. Our advice has been consistent and measured and has not changed.
The mitigation measures in question were agreed by all parties as part of the original Development Consent Order (DCO) in 2013. Natural England’s role is to advise on whether those agreed measures will be effective, not to introduce new requirements. There are also clear Operational Safety reasons to implement these measures.
This blog refutes those inaccuracies.
Claim: “Natural England is demanding new salt marsh creation on top of existing measures” and “would delay Hinkley by eight years.”
Our position: Natural England is not demanding a salt marsh to be created. We are working closely with EDF to ensure that mitigation is effective.
Our advice, alongside colleagues in the Environment Agency (EA), Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), has not materially changed since the DCO was granted in 2013.
The legal requirement agreed by all parties remains unchanged: where impacts on protected species remain, the developer must demonstrate either that:
a) impacts are fully mitigated; or
b) appropriate compensation is secured.
Claim: “Natural England is refusing to sign off the plant.”
Our position: Natural England does not “sign off” nuclear power stations. Our statutory role is to provide independent scientific advice to the relevant competent authorities.
We continue to work constructively with EDF and regulators to resolve outstanding issues. There has been no refusal, no ultimatum, and no attempt to halt the project.
Claim: “Natural England is ignoring positive trial data on the acoustic fish deterrent.”
Our position: Natural England has explicitly recognised and welcomed the encouraging results from recent AFD trials, particularly high‑frequency trials relevant to twaite shad, the species considered most at risk.
Field data for other protected species such as Atlantic salmon and cod — which have different behaviours and conservation considerations - is not yet available.
Claim: “Natural England is acting disproportionately and out of touch with reality.”
Our position: Natural England is applying the same legal tests that apply to every major infrastructure project in the UK.
Our advice is grounded in statutory duties under the Habitats Regulations, the best available scientific evidence and the government’s established policy framework.
We are working to enable the project, not obstruct it.
Claim: “Natural England is threatening Britain’s energy security.”
Our position: We do not accept this. Our role is to ensure that nationally significant infrastructure complies with environmental law so that projects are legally robust and protected from challenge - the very challenges that cause the most serious delays.
We are working alongside EDF, the EA and NRW to keep this important project on track. We are not aware of any project delays resulting from Natural England’s current advice on environmental mitigation measures.
Claim: “Natural England is contradicting the government’s steer on proportionate regulation.”
Our position: Natural England fully supports the government’s emphasis on proportionate, timely and enabling regulation. This is exactly the approach Natural England is taking at Hinkley Point C.
Claim: “Natural England is responsible for potential delays to the 2030 opening date.”
Our position: Natural England does not control the project timetable and is not aware of any delay to the project timetable arising from the current work on AFDs.
Claim: “Natural England is making disproportionate design change demands.”
Our position: Natural England has not required design changes to the power station. Our role is to advise on the effectiveness of mitigation already agreed in the 2013 DCO.
These mitigation measures were supported by all parties at the time consent was granted. Our advice relates solely to the environmental impacts of the cooling water system - a known and significant pressure on migratory fish in the Severn Estuary.
Natural England’s Actual Position
Natural England is committed to enabling this vital infrastructure project while ensuring the UK meets its environmental obligations. Development and nature recovery can and must be delivered together.
Dave Slater, Regional Director for Natural England said:
"Development and nature are not competing interests. Building the UK's largest nuclear power station is a major undertaking which brings significant environmental challenges and we are playing our part in finding solutions to enable this vital infrastructure development to go ahead while improving environmental outcomes.
“The findings on the effectiveness of the Acoustic Fish Deterrent are encouraging, and Natural England is continuing to work closely with EDF to deliver this incredibly important project, while meeting its legal obligations.”
Leave a comment