Question 1

Mike Crookes

Subject

Evaluation for disposal of low-level nuclear waste underground between 1985 and 1988

Response by

Councillor Leyland, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Corporate Affairs

Supplementary

Does the Leader not find it strange that Nirex (so called at that time) was rebuffed in two areas in Lincolnshire, including Theddlethorpe for low level nuclear waste?  Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) Community Partnership has failed and 85% of residents oppose the dump, why did you not reject their advances at the outset?

Response

I have to recognise the situation nationally in respect of nuclear waste storage.  There are over 20 sites across the country that store various levels of nuclear waste.  The government's solution to that is to engage with communities that have put themselves forward, in this case Lincolnshire County Council.  We as a District Council thought it would be better to be involved in the process than be excluded from it and that's our involvement. 

The last Motion regarding this to Council being that the Council would see the intent and work of NWS over the next year, before making a decision whether it left the process or not.  Equally, LCC have made a statement together with myself as Leader of this Council, that by 2027 there should be a test of public support. In all of this, it comes down to the local community making a decision through a test of public support and will be for the local community, whether this goes ahead or not.

Question 2

Carl Davis

Subject

Positioning of public waste bins

Response by

Councillor Foster, Portfolio Holder for Operational Services

Supplementary

None

Question 3

Sarah Goodley

Subject

Opinion on the question/answer posed on the Community Partnership Website

Response by

Councillor Leyland, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Corporate Affairs

Supplementary

Are you aware of the Radioactive Waste Management report of 2016, where losses to the economy were reported as 1.7 billion during the lifetime of the project, or the NWS tourist survey in 2023 which shows 16% would not visit.
Also, the resident survey of 2023 of which 74% said they would not visit or the NWS survey of 2004 in which 23 said the GDF would impact their decision to visit?

I myself have been surveying visitors with others over the summer and over 80% said they would stay away.  After four years, why have you not studied the impact of a GDF on the visitor economy, which is currently worth £800 million per annum?

Response

The reality is, we will have to have an understanding of that and we have done great work with our Connected Coast Board to know the impact and the value of our tourism industry and wouldn't want to see anything harm that.  It is in our interest to understand the potential impact, if any, of the GDF and that work will be done. The surveys that you talk about will have to be understood by this authority.

The reality is, as a local authority, we took a decision to be involved in this process because we felt it was better to be involved than be external to it so we can understand what the impacts potentially could be, but at this point in time, we can't come to a judgement and equally all those surveys that you mentioned over a period of time need to be fully understood and interrogated.  You're right to highlight the value of the tourist economy to our coast.  It's much valued and it's something that we wouldn't want to see damaged. So it's in our interest to make sure we understand those issues.