top of page

Questions to "The Partnership" looking to Host a Deep Nuclear Dump


The Lake District Coast and the Irish Sea are Under Threat of a Deep Nuclear Dump - the only banner headlines to date from are from the Isle of Man Examiner.


Please see below questions to South Copeland GDF Partnership which includes Government, nuclear industry and local politicians and businesses who have taken the bribes to join the "Partnership". The Partnership are having "drop ins" in May. Incredibly the dates for the areas most likely to be "in the frame" for a deep nuclear dump of High Level Nuclear Wastes (along with the plans for the "Gateway" of Near Surface Disposal of Intermediate Level Nuclear Wastes) have not yet been confirmed (!) but you can check for dates here: https://southcopeland.workinginpartnership.org.uk/get-involved/ EMAIL SENT TO THE SOUTH COPELAND GDF PARTNERSHIP from a concerned local...

Please note this is not for the developer this email is for the attention of the community partnership. The people who are supposed to represent the residents. When are you as a community partnership, not the developer. Going to investigate the negative impact that a kilometre square headworks for a gdf will have on a beautiful rural landscape and rural village community, on the edge of the world heritage site and world famous lake District national park. For example a kilometre square will take up a large amount of land within the parish that does not lie within the national park. I.e the only location could be north of drigg, and so extremely close to people's homes. Does the community partnership feel that as drigg already hosts the llwr, that it has done " it's bit" and should not have another development in the immediate part of the parish? Does the community partnership feel that the current electoral ward based test of support is unacceptable? Given that a electoral ward is not a community but a given area with a large enough population to meet the criteria for a councilor at local level. Does the community partnership agree that it would fair that the directly effected village or town has the final test of support? That it is unfair that drigg for example would vote on a site near Haverigg and vise versa? Has the community partnership started having independent estate agents value property in and around the available site locations outside the national park? If not are they going to? As a bench mark going forward. I for one would not trust a valuation done by the developer or a company employed by them. Has the community partnership liaised with the local council to ensure that property purchase searches include the gdf and it's search areas? If not are they going to? As I for one would not move here knowing this process is ongoing. Is the community partnership going to liaise with independent estate agents to monitor the impact of the gdf process on house sales? If not is it going to? Is the community partnership going to have residents on the community partnership that oppose a gdf in their parish? If not why not? Why are the minutes of the previous meeting so slow to come on to the website? Does the community partnership agree that it would be fair to have previous meeting minutes of on the website two weeks before the next meeting? If not why not? Surely it would be good project management and fair in the spirit of open transparency of the process? As stated at the start of my email this is for the community partnership members not the developer to reply. This is to be put to the people that are on the community partnership to represent the residents not the developer. I want proof it was sent to all community partnership members



56 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page