Many Thanks to Residents Action on Fylde Fracking for their much welcomed support. It was such a relief to see people put their concerns into action to stand with us in resisting the nuclear juggernaught. RAFFs report is the only one to date in either the alternative or mainstream media to give voice to the dissenting view.
Residents Action on Fylde Fracking
The Report from the Front Line….
“Cumbria County Council passes plans to stack shipping containers of nuclear waste ever higher beside the Irish Sea
Today, Pam and Ian from RAFF, and Sandra and Martin from Singleton went up to Kendal to offer our support to Radiation Free Lakeland. Cumbria County Council was meeting to consider the planning application by LLW Repository Ltd to expand the nuclear waste dump at Drigg on the Cumbrian coast. We joined a handful of local campaigners who handed in a petition of over 2,000 signatures.
The Drigg nuclear waste site is home to shipping containers storing ‘low level’ nuclear waste. Its history dates back to 1957 when it was granted permission to store radioactive waste from Windscale. It now takes waste from all over the country. LLW Repository wants to expand the number of containers. Radiation Free Lakeland say that the waste isn’t low level and that some containers on the site are already rusting and are potentially leaking. They also raised concerns about rising sea levels, flooding, the decommissioning of Sellafield (higher grade waste), the aquifer – many properties depend on boreholes for their water, pollution of the Irish Sea, and more.
The council proceedings were depressingly familiar with some councillors seemingly having made their mind up before listening to the objections. The Environment Agency provided a detailed presentation; it appears that the EA will rely on LLW Repository to do their own testing and reporting of results. Sounds familiar? Once again it appears there is to be little inspection and that safety will be dependent on the word of the company rather than an independent regulatory body. Even more familiar was a well known face sitting next the the Chairman – Lancashire County Council’s ex Planning Officer Stuart Perigo! According to the CCC website he is Interim Manager of Development Control and Countryside Management.
Unsurprisingly, the plans were passed.
It was a privilege to support Radiation Free Lakeland. They have little support from any of the NGOs we have been fortunate to enjoy and it does seem that this remote part of the NW coast has been forgotten. The area is facing a much larger threat – the possibility of becoming home to the biggest nuclear development in Europe. Moorside nuclear power station is a proposal to build three AP1000 nuclear plants near Sellafield. The plan by NuGeneration, which is the British subsidiary of Toshiba-owned Westinghouse Electric Company, has the station coming online from 2024.
There will be a Stop Moorside demo on 23 July at 10:00–12:00 at Whitehaven Civic Hall
Whitehaven. Please try and support our neighbours in Cumbria. Join with the thousands of people who already say NO to Moorside. Bring Banners, Bring Yourselves, Bring your Children, Bring Music. The plan for New Nuclear Build next to Sellafield’s already dangerous Plutonium wastes is outrageous. More information here.
West Cumbrian Radiation Free Lakelanders had a stall at last saturday’s beautiful setting of the Wasdale Show. There was lots of interest in the Stop Moorside petition which has now been signed by over 8300 people. There was also huge interest in the ongoing Resistance to the insanity of making Cumbria an ever expanding and increasingly dangerous “Nuclear Heartland.”
I am going to be taking a break from Radiation Free Lakeland until 2016 in order to support my daughter Rebecca who is about to undergo a stem cell transplant.
The fantastic Radiation Free Lakeland Facebook group can be found here. I will pop in from time to time on the Facebook group but I am sorry I won’t be able to organise or attend events …it is over to you.
The Cumberland News reported yesterday in sycophantic mode on the “Fantastic” Feedback over Moorside Nuclear Power Station Plans. The article looks like it was pulled straight from NuGen PR Man (formerly Copeland Borough Council’s Lead Planning Officer) Fergus McMorrow’s press release and goes on to say:
“Fergus McMorrow, NuGen’s planning lead in Cumbria, said: “We have had a fantastic response. The numbers of people through the doors, and those logging-on to use the online portal, has surpassed all our expectations.
“It’s not just the sheer number of visitors that’s impressed us, but their level of interest and engagement. For example, we’ve had lots of people come back to see us on several occasions to find out more or to give us greater in-depth feedback”.
No mention of the protests outside Whitehaven, Kendal, Carlisle and Penrith, protests which included music, leafletting, hundreds of people pledging to boycott Toshiba (Toshiba are 60% NuGen) and 8000 people signing the ongoing Stop Moorside petition.
No mention of the experience of Irene Sanderson from North Cumbria CND who has written to the press with a “request that you make the public aware that this was not a public open-to-all consultation as required for this type of development.
“I attended the consultation at Penrith Methodist Churhch on 8 July. In the lobby on a table to one side I laid out three small piles of A5 literature with informationfrom CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) on radiation and nuclear power and from Radiation Free Lakeland stating the protest to the Moorside development, all valuable background information relevant to the consultation. I sat by the table out of the way in peace reading. Not many people attended that morning and all four rushed past me.
“Fergus McMorrow took it upon himself to challenge my presence. Eventually he had me ejected into the street from the Methodist church on the grounds that Nugen had hired the hall and my presence was creating an unfavourable impression about their project. The management informed me that Nugen had hired the hall and it was private property and indeed Nugen could dictate who entered the building. That is to say this was a private event and in no way an open-to-all public consultation”.
Irene concludes with : “Nugen states that 1,700 people viewed its plans during the 10-week consultation. The population of Cumbria is just under 500,000 so only 0.34% of the population attended. This could indeed indicate a determined effort to keep their plans private”.
STOP MOORSIDE! North Cumbria CND, Cumbria and Lancashire Area CND and Radiation Free Lakeland are holding a series of events to protest against the building of nuclear reactors in Cumbria.
These events are timed to run alongside and inform the NuGen Moorside Consultation. NuGen, a UK nuclear company, is a joint venture between Toshiba and ENGIE (formerly GDF SUEZ) bidding to purchase government (publicly) owned Moorside, farmland on the flood plain of the River Ehen, in order to build the reactors on greenfields in the village of Beckermet a few miles from Sellafield.
In order to gain the public approval necessary NuGen has launched the Moorside Consultation. This was described by former NuGen Chief Executive Sandy Rupprecht as a means to “shape plans.” However, members of the public attending the consultation at Whitehaven on 16th May were told by a NuGen representative that “nothing will stop the construction.”
Thousands of people have already signed the ‘Stop Moorside!’ petition which says: “We urge David Cameron and the leaders of Europe to scrap plans for Moorside. The UK Government is planning to sell a vast area of Cumbria to the same companies responsible for the Fukushima disaster, so that they can build new nuclear reactors. Please don’t risk the safety of Europe by turning Cumbria into a nuclear sacrifice zone.”
Marianne Birkby of Radiation Free Lakeland says: “We are bewildered why Toshiba should be engaging in an aggressive push for new nuclear build here in Cumbria. Toshiba are still battling to contain the results of the Fukushma disaster in their own country. We saw their Reactor 3 explode before our eyes. Their latest efforts at containment have been halted by a ‘glitch’ which has lasted for over a year. And even without accident or incident, the links between routine emissions from nuclear reactors and childhood leukaemia have now been confirmed.”
Irene Sanderson of North Cumbria CND adds, “The US Energy Information Administration recently concluded that using nuclear power as a climate ‘solution’ would prevent the deployment of the renewable technologies that are faster and cheaper at reducing carbon emissions and are safer and cleaner overall to boot.”
The Stop Moorside petition will be available for people to sign at the protests. There will also be postcards for pledging a boycott of Toshiba products.
Artists and musicians will be contributing to the Kendal event on 7th July. The events are open to all.
Carlisle 30th June – Leafletting and Demonstration outside the Hallmark Hotel (11am until 1pm)
Kendal 7th July – Stop Moorside – Music and Art! 10am -4pm at the Bird Cage.
Penrith 8th July – Leafletting and Demonstration outside the Methodist Church (from 11am)
STOP PRESS We have just heard that other events are taking place independently to #StopMoorside, a movement which is now growing apace:
Stephen from West Cumbria will hold a vigil at the top of Dent Fell on 3rd July. He says, “We all need to ‘Stand Up To Cancer’ and the main causes of cancer!”
In the last act of the dying Parliament, MPs quietly voted to dump democratic planning processes to expedite a ‘facility’ for the high level nuclear waste in geologically fractured Cumbria, writes Marianne Birkby – so over-ruling strong and highly effective local opposition. Shame on them!
The nuclear industry concede that a nuclear burial site would definitely leak radioactive atoms that would get back up to the surface and into people’s drinking water and food – and so put them at risk of cancer.
On the last law-making day of Parliament, MPs voted to dump democracy along with radioactive wastes.
There was no debate or even public vote in the lobbies of the Commons – voting was done by filling in a form. Incredibly MPs ‘voted’ 277 votes to 33 to dump democracy.
And in that act the dying Parliament gave birth to a monster – the adding of the geological disposal of radioactive wastes to the list of ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects’ (NSIPs). Or as we see it in Cumbria, wiping out democracy to dump nuclear waste.
There were no notices of the impending birth. No outraged opinion pieces by environment journalists. No national countryside or environmental groups galvanising their members.
Also in the Guardian today…Friends of the Earth quoted but where are they on nuclear? Certainly no national campaign to halt this obscenity – their silence until jumping up when asked for a quote by national press after the vicious deals are done is hair raising. Come on FoE and Greenpeace lets see some active anti nuclear campaigning!
Thank you for your reply. As I understand it by making nuclear waste disposal a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project the local councils will have the same kind of input as you have had to the Committee meeting about this ie None. Unless, that is, you have been selected. In the case of the Committee meeting the careful selection was done by the whips. Who knows who will be choosing the ways and means of the fig leaf “positive test of public support.” The normal checks and balances of democracy will have been wiped away by undemocratic NSIP. Normal rules of planning are voided by NSIP. There would be no public inquiry and no meaningful scrutiny or debate from full council meetings. The fig leaf of “positive test of public support” would be followed by the final decision being made by the Secretary of State with a predetermined government agenda to “implement geological disposal.”
It is meaningless to say this is “not site specific.” Only Cumbria is in the frame.
Making nuclear dumping NSIP is an abuse of Cumbria (or any other community who comes forward – how likely is that?) and it will take place in the next day or two in another carefully selected Committee with no press coverage or ability by the public to influence the outcome. The only press coverage we have seen on this is the excellent open letter from Dr Becky Martin to Baroness Worthington published in the Ecologist (below). We are about to be stitched up while all eyes are diverted elsewhere.
Please Please reconsider your stance to do nothing. Please do everything within your power to stop this abuse of power.
Dear Bryony – don’t dump your nuclear waste on us!
Dr Becky Martin
12th March 2013
The ‘environmentalist’ peer Baroness Worthington argued last week in the House of Lords for local authorities to be stripped of their powers to refuse the dumping of radioactive waste in their areas. Geneticist Becky Martin takes her to task in this Open Letter.
You have risen to a position of great power. You stood in the Moses room as someone who is known for their actions in protecting the environment, and damned it by championing nuclear power and nuclear waste dumping.
Dear Baroness Worthington,
I watched on in horror as you championed the removal of local authority’s right to decide over the disposal of nuclear waste in their communities.
I didn’t know who you were at the time, and your position of the matter left me thinking perhaps you were a stakeholder in some nuclear power supply chain company.
I was dismayed to learn that you used to be a key member of Friends of the Earth. Further research shows that you have a background in environmentalism and appear on the surface to be concerned with climate change.
So I ask myself, why would someone with your background be a champion of nuclear power? And why would you champion the disposal of nuclear waste underground at levels where groundwater circulates?
And why would you want this done without allowing the full scrutiny of councillors and planning officers? Why would you prefer to remove power from locally elected representatives and place decisions in the hands of one person, creating a potentially corruptible situation?
Nuclear power is not low carbon!
Nuclear power is not a low carbon energy source. There is a wide range of data on the carbon footprint of nuclear waste, much of which is industry rhetoric. Benjamin Sovacool’s review found the average carbon footprint of nuclear power to be 66 gCO2/KWh, breaching the Committee on Climate Change’s recommended limits. Keith Barnham’s article in The Ecologist has more detail:
The fact is the carbon cost of decommissioning and waste handling is difficult to estimate – and if Sellafield’s soaraway clean-up budget is anything to go by, carbon costs as well as financial ones could spiral.
Building geological disposal facilities to handle waste would not necessarily reduce these costs. Vitrification and construction are not low carbon pursuits. What would the carbon cost of a water contamination event be? The human cost would be far greater.
Then there is the issue of uranium mining, a carbon-costly enterprise. As this finite source depletes, ever lower quality of uranium ore will be sought, further increasing the energy required to extract the uranium, and raising the carbon price tag.
Fast breeder reactors technologies that could avoid some of the uranium ore issues have been tried, at enormous cost – and repeatedly failed due to intractable technological hurdles and monstrous expense, while their purported advantages in reducing long-lived nuclear waste have been hugely over-hyped.
Moreover despite bullish promises by the nuclear industry and its cheerleaders, for example over Hitachi’s Prism design, they do not exist – and probably never will.
And thanks to serious and possibly unsolvable technological difficulties, it’s a very long way of becoming a practical reality. Any large scale deployment is at least half a century away – by which time low cost renewables will surely dominate the world’s power supply, and it will be completely redundant.
Finite investment funds must go into renewables!
The amount of subsidies the government wishes to funnel into the greedy jaws of nuclear power is quite frightening, locking us into ridiculous contracts for decades and guaranteeing fuel poverty in the future.
Who knows what the energy market will look like in ten, twenty years? Yet energy consumers may be having to pay inflation-proofed subsidies for Hinkley Point C – if it’s ever built – to 2060 and beyond!
If renewable technology received the proper support – and that includes people like you ceasing to defend the nuclear industry that is threatening to grab almost all the UK’s ‘low carbon’ energy funding – we could be online to meet our carbon targets.
Cheerleading for new builds that take years to get off the ground, even if you do believe they are low carbon – in the face evidence that clearly suggests otherwise – could delay action on climate change that should be happening right now, but is being deliberately starved of funds.
What if those nuclear energy subsidies were instead promised to the solar, wind, tidal, anaerobic digestion and retrofitting industries? Wouldn’t that be a far better way to tackle climate change?
There’s nothing ‘natural’ about fission products!
But back to radioactive waste, which is a sticky issue. We have to deal with what we have, but most environmentalists and humanitarians agree that adding to that pile is madness. Why would someone with your credentials think otherwise?
You have risen to a position of great power. You stood in the Moses room as someone who is known for their actions in protecting the environment, and damned it by championing nuclear power and nuclear waste dumping and stressing that it was a nationally significant issue that extends beyond the lifetimes of the people living in the area.
You spoke about a pendulum of nuclear regulation and how radiation is ‘natural’. Background radiation is natural. Mining ores, processing, enriching etc, is most definitely not natural. Even less so are the myriad fission products emitted by nuclear power plants, concentrated in spent nuclear fuel, and discharged during fuel reprocessing – and comparing the two through insinuation is both wrong and immoral.
How is reducing regulation ever a good move for protecting public health and safety?
You may be thinking right now that I am part of a public that is somewhat hysterical about radiation and its effects. I have a PhD in cancer biology and have studied the response of cells to irradiation.
I’m not frightened of a bit of background radiation, but I do have grave concerns about burying highly radioactive nuclear waste underground where it has to stay isolated for hundreds of thousands of years, without any of it ending up in our water supplies.
The one thing we know for certain about deep hydrogeology is that we don’t know all that much about it. How can you guarantee the safety of our water supplies, and those of our children and their descendants? I suggest you read the ‘Rock Solid?‘ review produced by GeneWatch on behalf of Greenpeace on geological disposal if you have not done so already.
I also very concerned about climate change, and quite aside from the radioactive waste issue, I am opposed to nuclear new builds due to their carbon emission consequences.
I would urge you to rethink your position on nuclear new builds and geological disposal on both pragmatic and ethical grounds.
Note: Baroness (Bryony) Worthington, a Labour peer, spoke in the House of Lords debate on the Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015.
Dr Becky Martin earned her PhD at the Institute of Genetics, University of Nottingham and went on to work at the University of Oxford studying DNA repair gene expression in bladder cancer for three years. She is now a full time mother and environmental campaigner, and blogs here. Together with several other mothers she co-founded the group No Geo Nuke Dumping @NoNukeDumping.
LETTER FROM TIM FARRON to Radiation Free Lakeland – 12 MARCH 2015
Our Ref: Birk004/48/ag
12 March 2015
Thank you very much for your recent email with regard to the meeting of the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee to consider the Draft Infrastructure
Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015.
I am not a member of this Committee and so it would not have been possible for me to
speak or vote on its business. From my perusal of the contents of the meeting, it
seems to me that this could have been another false alarm from 38 degrees but I am pleased to report that my colleague, Tessa Munt MP, attended to seek clarification on the issues that you have raised. This led the Minister to give the following assurances in her closing speech to the Committee: –
“The hon. Lady will have heard me say that this is not about site specifics. I am,
of course, aware of the example she gave, but this is about providing the overall framework, not discussing individual sites. I reassure her and the hon. Member for Chippenham that local authorities will be in no way excluded from the decision-making process.
Such a characterisation would be wrong.
The final development consent process does not replace the need for an open process to identify potential sites in the first place. The 2014 “Implementing Geological Disposal” White Paper is clear that the final decision to apply for development consent and regulatory approval for a GDF will not be taken until, and unless, there is a positive test of public support at the site in question.”
PANELISTS ISSUE NUCLEAR WARNING TO KESWICK AUDIENCE
A packed public meeting in Keswick on Wednesday evening heard two experts warn of the dangers of building new nuclear reactors in West Cumbria.
Arnie Gundersen and Dr Ian Fairlie were introduced as two internationally-respected authorities on the nuclear industry at the event organised by Radiation Free Lakeland.
They addressed more than 70 people at the Skiddaw Hotel about current plans to build third generation AP1000 reactors at Moorside near Sellafield.
Mr Gundersen is a former nuclear industry executive, engineer and licensed reactor operator. He said the proposed new Moorside reactors had two design flaws and that there had been five international reactor meltdowns in 35 years – at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and three at Fukushima.
Dr Fairlie, an independent consultant on radioactivity in the atmosphere, said it was immoral to build nuclear power stations as he claimed they were “killing children.” He told the audience: “There have been four-fold increases in leukaemia in children who live within five kilometres of nuclear plants because of radiation leaks – and more than 60 world- wide studies either ignored or covered up by governments.”
He added that in Germany, 440,000 jobs were directly related to renewable energy and a million indirectly, while in the UK, just 6000 worked in renewable energy.
Fellow panellist Ruth Balogh, from West Cumbria and North Lakes Friends of the Earth, said West Cumbria didn’t have to rely on the nuclear industry for jobs. “Many more could be created in renewable energy industry. Nuclear technologies continue to become more expensive whilst renewable technologies get cheaper,” she said.
Marianne Birkby from Radiation Free Lakeland, added: “The Moorside project is to build the largest nuclear power station in Euorpe close to the largest stockpile of nuclear waste in Europe.”
The meeting was primarily to discuss the Moorside project, rather than the separate plans to create a vast underground nuclear store to house nuclear waste at an unidentified site in West Cumbria.
More than 600 people had attended a public meeting about this in Keswick two years ago, mostly to oppose it.
Former Keswick mayor Cllr martin Pugmire was among the audience on Wednesday. The talk took place in the Skiddaw Hotel after Keswick School had refused to host it because it was organised by an anti-nuclear campaign group. Head teacher Simon Jackson said the school was following its policy which prohibited the hiring out of its facilities for any event which could disturb the “principles of community cohesion” or bring the school into disrepute. He added that man of the school’s families also relied on employment in the nuclear industry.
Mr Jackson said: “In this case it would not be appropriate for the school to appear on either one or other side of what is fundamentally a political argument. We also have to consider our own school community where many of our families rely on employment in the nuclear industry.” he added that the same principle would apply to the “nuclear lobby” if they asked to use the school premises.
Mrs Birkby said: “Keswick School is more than happy for students to take part in days organised by Sellafield, building pretend nuclear reactors, but is not prepared to allow a friendly, informative public talk by eminent scientists on the subject of building real AP1000 reactors in Cumbria.”
The meeting was called We Need To Talk About Moorside. It marked the fourth anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.
Tomorrow at 2pm Copeland Borough Council’s Development Control Committee will be discussing once again the one 30 metre wind turbine for Petersburgh Farm. Councillors went against the advice of their officers and turned it down on the grounds of wildlife, beauty, noise and the like. This contrasts with NO SCRUTINY for 100 boreholes up to 15o m in the same area, the decision to go ahead with the 100 boreholes was left to one Development Manager.
PLEASE WRITE AND ASK that Copeland support this one wind turbine or if they feel the area is too beautiful for one wind turbine ask why on earth are they are supporting – the drilling of 100 boreholes up to 150m deep in the same area in preparation for the madness of “Moorside” ? write to: email@example.com
On Wednesday 21st January your Development Control Committee will once
again be discussing the plan for one wind turbine at Petersburgh Farm,
Radiation Free Lakeland fully support your officers in their assessment
that this application should be approved. We do however applaud your
scrutiny as councillors on this issue despite disagreeing with your
decision to turn the wind turbine down. We would agree with you that this
area, Beckermet village and its surrounds is diverse in wildlife, ancient
hedgerows, is beautiful and contains two SSSIs of Church Moss and the
River Ehen. We support the wind turbine as it would help ensure the
resilience of farming in this area, an area historically fertile and which
prior to Sellafield supported several farms.
We would like to share with you correspondence on this same area regarding
the “Moorside Project’ and the appalling lack of democratic oversight with
regards the planning application for 100 boreholes up to 150m. We would
remind you that Petersburgh Farm is on the boundary of “Moorside” and that
the farm would be demolished and made into a “bund’ should “Moorside” go
Please do read the following correspondence between Radiation Free
Lakeland and Tim Farron MP
Correspondence with Tim Farron MP
13th January 2013
Thanks for your email. I’ve gone through your constituent’s letter
point by point
3. Was it passed in 2011 (or 2012 according to NuGen correspondence with
us) without any scrutiny? The planning application for 100 exploratory
boreholes over 500 green acres in Beckermet was received on the 8th
October 2011 and delegated to one Development Manager of Copeland Borough
Council. The development was passed one month later. http://www.copeland.gov.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/d_weekly_list_09_09_11.pdf
Nugen say they were given “full planning permission on 11th November 2011”
(letter from Fergus McMorrow, Cumbria Planning Lead, NuGen Ltd to Rachel
Carrol, Planning Officer, Copeland BC, 28th Dec 2012)
The “extensive consultation” over that one month was limited to:
• Beckermet Parish Council who raised no objection,
• Office for Nuclear Regulation who raised no objection apart from
that the site be incorporated into the Sellafield Site Emergency Plan,
• Scientific Officer of Copeland BC who raised no objection with the
caveat that “if any contamination is identified, work should stop”,
• Environmental Health Officer of Copeland BC – no objection
• Head of Nuclear and Energy Development of Copeland BC – no objection
Radiation Free Lakeland did not know of this planning application, and it
seems no one else did, there is just one objection, from a resident
This is in contrast to for example the planning application for one wind
turbine at Petersburgh Farm (on the boundary of Moorside) which raised
huge discussion by the full council with additional reports from all
quarters and was turned down.
4. Has the correct procedure been followed? When Radiation Free Lakeland
asked NuGen about the lack of environmental impact assessments or
consultation for 100 boreholes up to 150m deep in area of greenfields,
hedgerows and two SSSI protected sites (the River Ehen and Church Moss).
The reply was “You will not find permits for the boreholes currently being
drilled on the Moorside site as they are not required.“ The planning
consent NuGen was granted in 2012 (??) permits the drilling of the
boreholes. The Environment Agency are aware of this activity … a specific
permit is not required…”
In their 2011 planning application for the 100 Boreholes NuGen say there
are “no protected and priority species,” when there is a huge diversity of
wildlife including species on the red list.NuGEN also says “there are no
trees or hedgerows” — again this is a fraud, there are at least 12 miles
of ancient hedgerows and trees. NuGEN says that “there are no designated
or important habitats or other biodiversity features” — again this is
fraudulent. They say there will be no contamination when the groundwater
(outside the Sellafield site) is documented by Sellafield as containing
5. Have Copeland Borough Council and Cumbria Council been mis-guided,
sidelined, deceived or misled into making a less than democratic decision?
Yes! Copeland Borough Councillers were not allowed discussion or decision
– the decision was taken by one Development Manager. It seems Cumbria
County Council was not consulted at all on the plan for 100 boreholes in
the vicinity of the worlds most dangerous nuclear wastes, on geological
faults and an area of known groundwater contamination. https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/one-wind-turbine-turned-down-while-100-radioactive-boreholes-are-being-drilled-on-ancient-land/
We share the concerns of your new constituents and ask you as our MP and a
representative of government to:
a) Ask what discussions have taken place with government and Copeland
Borough Council leading to scrapping due democratic process on this
“exploratory” 100 borehole development for Moorside. Is this a taste of
things to come?
b) Ask Copeland Borough Council to place all the documents relating
100 borehole planning application and consent online. Radiation Free
Lakeland are constantly having to justify our telling of the awful truth
about this which seems crazy to lay people who assume that democracy and
due process is being upheld.
On behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland
I have placed some documents refererred to above on file share but not
sure if this will work …. I could put them on a disc – Or –
Please could you ask Copeland BC for them to be made available to the
public online ?
> Our Ref: Birk004/45/ag
> 12 January 2015
> Dear Marianne
> I wonder if I might for once seek your assistance because I suspect that
> you will be far more up to date with information in response to the
> following questions that have been posed.
> If you could supply the relevant answers with the benefit of your close
> connections with campaigners in west cumbria, I and these constituents
> would be extremely grateful and you might well enlist more supporters!
> With best wishes
> Yours sincerely
> Tim Farron MP
> We moved from Rory Stewart’s Constituency into your Constituency on
> December 2013. As MP for South Lakeland, we thought you may know soemthing
> about the background to the development of the nuclear power site in
> Cumbria near the village of Beckermet in the Copeland Borough. It is being
> built at Petersburgh and Greenmoorside Farm, a beautiful historically
> fertile lowland area between the Lakeland mountains and Irish Sea. Have
> you heard about this development in Parliament, and are you satisfied that
> the planning application has gone through the correct channels?
> This Nuclear Power development is described as ‘the biggest nuclear
> development in Europe’ to be built by the company that built Fukushima.
> Who will own it and run it? Is it another of our Country’s assets to be
> owned by other Nationalities.
> We, the general public, have heard very little about its progress through
> the planning system. Was it passed in 2011 or 2012? Who knew about it?
> The application has been dealt with without any scrutiny or discussion by
> either Copeland Borough Council or Cumbria County Council. The decision
> was delegated to the Development Manager of Copeland Borough Council
> alone. Is it possible for such a major decision be made by one man or
> woman? Has the correct procedure been followed? What has been the
> Government’s involvement? What influence was used by the Nuclear Power
> Industry? Have Copeland Borough Council and Cumbria Council been
> mis-guided, sidelined, deceived or mislead into making a less than
> democratic decision?
> While Copeland Borough Council gives its full scrutiny to any applications
> for wind turbines,(a single wind turbine’s application at Petersburgh
> being refused in 2014 after full scrutiny) the same is not true for
> nuclear planning applications. The application from the Nuclear Industry
> for a 100 boreholes in the same area was given consent in 2011 (or 2012?)
> without any scrutiny or discussion either by Copeland Council or Cumbria
> County Council. Did the Government in the South and Nuclear Industry
> ignore them?
> We have no faith in the way this Government has renaged on its Renewable
> Energy Policies and its delusion in calling Nuclear Power ‘green energy’.