The decision by Cabinet has been “called in” by 3 Copeland councillors. That means that the Economy & Environment Group will ‘scrutinise’ the Cabinet’s decision and either agree with it or ask that the Cabinet take a revote. It has been suggested that Copeland was always expected to call in the decision if the Cabinet voted no.
The meeting is on 19th Feb in Carlisle Courts (where the Cabinet meeting was) , Committee Rm 2 at 2pm. The meeting is in public but there is no public participation. We will meet outside at 12.30 – the councillors will be going in for a pre meeting meeting at 1.30.
19 FEB As many people there as possible please! “We said NO!” … the Cabinet said NO
MEET CARLISLE COURTS 12.30 (or 1ish – meeting starts at 2) COUNCILLORS WILL GO IN AT 1.30
Letters can be sent – even a one line urging the Economy and Environment
Group to uphold the Cabinet’s decision
Letter sent to all Economy and Environment Group re ‘call in’ from RaFL
Dear Councillor ..
On 19th Feb you will be looking at the ‘call in’ of the Cabinet’s decision
not to proceed to Stage 4 of the MRWS process.
We hope that your scrutiny of the Cabinet’s decision will not be
influenced by the smear campaign against anti- nuclear campaigners.
The actions of anti-nuclear and anti-dump campaigners has been exemplary,
especially given the context of the pressure put on Cumbria by the MRWS
process and what appears to be continuing blatant predetermination of
central Government regarding siting a geological dump in Cumbria.
We have written to Jamie Reed MP, Baroness Verma and Lord Jenkins asking
for an apology for the defamation of anti-nuclear campaigners ie ordinary
Cumbrians (letter below).
With regard to the call in of the Cabinet decision we would like to rebut
the reasons cited by Councillor Southward and urge you to withhold the
1. “Cabinet gave no coherent reason for the decision”. We disagree, the
Cabinet gave extremely detailed rational and coherent reasons for refusing
to go to Stage 4.
2. “The decision forgoes the opportunity to identify suitable sites
indefinitely”. This statement indicates the nuclear bias of the ‘call
in’ councilors. A geological dump is not an opportunity, compensation
will not outweigh the blight as was pointed out by the Nirex inspector.
The “most promising” site in Cumbria from the Solway Firth to Morecambe
Bay was Longlands Farm, which was ruled out as being too complex. (see
attached map of the investigation area of Nirex homing in on the “most
3. “The premature abandonment of the MRWS process flies in the face of
established UK government and Cumbria County Council policies”
Rather than being “prematurely abandoned” the MRWS process was effectively
forced on an area which should never have been back in the frame for
geological dumping. Cumbria County Council’s policy on radioactive waste
was reiterated last May when Endecom wanted to dump low level waste at
Keekle Head. A report from Paul Feehily, the council’s assistant director
of planning and sustainability said: “The dispersal and proliferation of
ANY type of radioactive waste management facilities away from established
nuclear sites creates a negative image of Cumbria and west Cumbria in
particular. This could deter investment from the non-nuclear sector and
damage prospects for much needed economic diversification, growth and
regeneration.” Timothy Knowles said of Keekle “They want to bury even more
radioactive waste in the wrong place , this is not a good idea”
while Jamie Reed said “I understand the need for additional disposal
facilities but I don’t believe these should be undertaken away from the
existing areas – it makes no sense to do so”.
4. “The decision discounts the clear majority view of Copeland residents
who want the MRWS process to proceed to Stage 4”
The Ipsos Mori poll is not even representative of people who took the
poll, never mind Copeland or Cumbria. Many Copeland residents have
contacted RaFL saying that they would not have said yes had they known
that there was any question the dump could be unsafe. Of the Parishes,
88 Allerdale/Copeland parishes:
33 no formal response
There have also been petitions signed with tens of thousands of signatures.
That is an overwhelming majority – but of people who want the process
5. “The decision jeopardises relations between the UK government and CCC,
particularly with regard to nuclear new build”
Why? If Copeland genuinely wants to lobby for new nuclear build (to make
even more dangerous wastes) that should be on new build’s own merit rather
than being held to ransom by government to host the geological dump.
6. “The decision stultifies economic development in Copeland for a
Again Why? Why aren’t Copeland councilors lobbying for diversification of
the economy away from the toxic supermarket effect of nuclear to a healthy
diversity of industries? As councillor for St Bees and Egremeont, David
Southward will know first hand the effects of the nuclear industry on the
tourist economy. St Bees Parish Council expressed “strong concern” that
the sight of radioactive particles being picked up at the request of the
Environment Agency by a specialist machine and operators “ would have an
adverse impact on tourism.” The solution? The Environment Agency agreed
that monitoring for contamination on the beaches should avoid peak periods
such as during bank holidays. Despite this, the latest report shows a
record number of radioactive hotspots have been found at St Bees and other
beaches. Cumbrians feel that “brand protection” is at the expense of our
health and safety. A healthy population is a prerequisite of a healthy
on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland
Record Number of Radioactive Particles
Parishes Say NO
Opposition to dispersal of radioactive waste around Cumbria
Councillor Tim Knowles said of Keekle : “They want to bury even more
radioactive waste in the wrong place… this is not a good idea.”