Agenda item

(To receive a report from Justin Brown, Assistant Director – Growth which invites the Committee to consider an invitation from Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) to join a Working Group to explore further whether eastern Lincolnshire, and the former Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal site in particular, would be an appropriate location for a geological disposal facility. The views of the Committee will be reported to the Executive as part of its consideration of this item)

Consideration was given to a report from the Assistant Director – Growth on the invitation from Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) to LCC to join a working group to further explore whether the former Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal site was an appropriate location for a geological disposal facility (GDF). Joining the working group does not necessarily suggest that the Council necessarily supported or objected to the proposal, nor did the Working Group have the power to ultimately decide whether to locate the in Lincolnshire. The local community would undertake a test of support, to consider if they would like to host the facility. The geology of eastern Lincolnshire initially suggested suitability for this facility. The site of the terminal is owned by the National Grid and the Council has been advocating to them that it should continue to be used as an asset the Lincolnshire. Other commercial entities were interested in the site other than RWM. The aim of the project, led by RWM, is to dispose of the UK's nuclear waste underground safely and permanently. RWM has indicated that this facility could create over 1,000 construction jobs, then hundreds of further technical and skilled permanent jobs. In addition, the proposed facility is predicted to result in infrastructure investment in the area. The working group and if it is formed the subsequent community partnership is part of a defined Government process intent on establishing the facts of the scheme, advising on infrastructure, setting development grants and establishing a community vision. East Lindsey businesses would likely benefit from increased infrastructure. Youth unemployment in the area is high and employment opportunities outside of the tourism industry are limited. The Community Partnership, if formed, would be responsible for the right of withdrawal from the programme and for the process of undertaking a test of public support.

The Chairman invited Mr Ken Smith to address the Committee in his capacity as spokesperson for the campaign group in opposition to GDF. The uncertainty the project could generate was of concern to Mr Smith and the campaign group. Mr Smith said that the east of England geological survey revealed coal deposits below the site and that RWM's guidelines precluded GDFs to be established close to other sources of energy because of the danger to future generations. The campaign group is concerned that the GDF risked being drilled through if future generations sought access to the coal. Mr Smith continued that he had read government guidelines that indicated that GDFs should not be located in areas which had previously been used to drill for fossil fuels due to the change in water flow. The proposed site was believed by the campaign group to have been subject to fossil fuel drilling previously. These issues suggested that the site would be considered a final option if all alternative sites had been exhausted. If the Council were to join the working group, it was feared by the campaign group that it may appear indicative of the possibility of a GDF in Lincolnshire. Mr Smith continued that reports of cancelled property sales had been received from estate agencies and that The potential of a GDF could create uncertainty which was unpopular with local business. The leisure industry generated over £700 million for the East Lindsey economy per annum. The campaign group is worried that businesses were unlikely to invest if a GDF was introduced. While RWM sought to assure that the GDF was safe, which may be true, public perception wasn't supportive of nuclear energy. The campaign group felt that this could have a significant impact on the viability of the tourism economy, particularly if eventually the GDF was located elsewhere which would mean that any concerns that the campaign group had raised would have led to an unnecessary stalling of investment.

The Committee considered the report, and during the discussion the following comments were noted:- 

• Members emphasised on the importance of being part of the discussions of this Working Group, which would likely going ahead regardless of whether the Council participated in these or not, which enabled the Council to influence and help shape the outcomes through lateral sharing of knowledge and information. The report made clear points on the benefits of the proposed project, nevertheless, further engagement with the process on the Council's part would ensure that risks and potential issues were also being known and understood. Membership to this working group, further, allowed for subtleties and nuances, as these would emerge, as well as fear and uncertainties felt in the local community, to be seen and acknowledged. This was also an opportunity to engage with and support the local community that was being consulted on whether they wanted to have this facility in their local area.
• Members observed that the proposed project could potentially address issues around deprivation in East Lindsey and Boston areas however, recognised it was ultimately up to the residents to determine the merits of the proposal in the future.  Therefore, it was clarified that Members took no view on supporting the plans for the facility going ahead, rather, took a role to ensure that the local communities had access to information and knowledge for a fair, balanced and fully informed decision to be made.
• It was acknowledged that, regardless of the decision to join the working group, there were factors such as the geology of the local area that remained unchanged, the requirement for long-term storage of nuclear waste remained present and the discussions around this project were still going ahead in spite of the decisions of the Council on joining the working group, however, Lincolnshire was not having a voice and residents taking the decision were not having the Council's support. Members agreed that it was in the Council's and the community’s best interest for the former to have had a seat around the table, being thus able to access information and influence decisions.
• The process being undertaken by RWM was clearly prescribed and well defined by the Government in documents attached to the report. This document specifically described the location of the community as District Council level Wards in which the following were located:

o   proposed surface development;

o   associated development;

o   transport links;

o   direct physical impacts.

Information being availed directly to the public was an important part of the Terms of Reference (TOR) of any working group; detailed account of how TOR was being shaped was also included in the aforementioned document. The impact analysis attached to the report ensured that the Council was able to introduce mitigations were the above requirements not being met. Equally, where members of the working group established gaps in the TOR, they were able to request additions to be considered at the early meetings of the working group. The process also recognised the importance of listening to the views of the community from the outset.

• In the interest of maintaining high levels of transparency, it was agreed that TOR, agreed by the working group, as well as on-going information about progress of the working group’s remit, was fed back to this Committee and more widely.
• In other parts of the country Parish, Town Councils and local relevant bodies were included in such working groups whereas in this paper, only the Council and East Lindsey District Council were mentioned as participants. Assurance was given that it was being asked of the Executive to consider that the Council's position echoed the view that Parish, Town Councils, and local relevant bodies were part of the working group on this occasion.

RESOLVED

1.         Upon a vote, a majority for the Environment and Economy Scrutiny Committee agreed to support the recommendations to the Executive as detailed in the report.

2.         That the comments listed above be passed on to the Executive in relation to this item.