Cumberland Council is Looking Like Last Line of Defence Against Lake District Coast Nuclear Dump So Why Won’t They Hold A Full Vote and Full Debate ?

On September 23, 2025 By mariannewildart, Radiation Free Lakeland

Below are letters following Cumberland Council’s Nuclear Issues Board meeting yesterday and the news that the Government are looking to scrap the already flimsy “Test of Public Support” which would be limited to the Lake District coast’s “Areas of Focus” for the surface mine shafts through which to trundle plutonium and high level wastes to the proposed sub-sea mine between the Lake District and the Isle of Man.

Councillor Andy Pratt is Chair of the South-Copeland Community Partnership with the Developer Nuclear Waste Services (Friends of the Lake District are also members of this diabolic partnership). Councillor Mark Fryer is Cumberland Council Leader. Yesterday after the Nuclear Issues Board meeting I asked again for the Council to hold a full debate and full vote he said it “was not the right time” (we are four years into this “process”) and “it will happen when I say so”. I said: “what about democracy”? and he said ‘it is democracy, I’m elected leader, not you!’

He really said that – which kind of underlines the need for a full debate and vote – which ever way it goes the full council should take democratic responsibility now especially as they are accepting millions from the developer, Nuclear Waste Services.

sent today..

Dear Cllr Pratt and members of the Nuclear Issues Board,

Summary

Can you point to the documents showing that as you claim the “GDF has always assumed plutonium would go into the GDF?”

Please can you list any other country burying plutonium under the sea bed?

If so please send the documentation.

We demand the very least of demands, that the democratic duty of Cumberland Council is upheld and that a full debate and full vote is taken before another step towards a deep sub-sea mine for high level wastes and plutonium.

Response to Chair of South Copeland Community Partnership

When you and just three other councillors took the decision to take Cumbria once again into the GDF (deep sub-sea nuclear dump) plan, plutonium was most definitely not on the inventory.

Can you point to the documents showing that as you claim the “GDF has always assumed plutonium would go into the GDF?”

To repeat, this is unprecedented. No other country is burying plutonium under the seabed.

Please can you list any other country burying plutonium under the sea bed?

If so please send the documentation.

I attach again the recent paper on the dangers of burying plutonium en-masse (it must not come into contact with water!) and urge all the nuclear issues board to read it.

Finland, Sweden, Canada and France are not burying 140 tonnes of plutonium in the sub-sea geology and do not plan to bury huge amounts of plutonium in sub-sea geology. All those international plans are on a far smaller scale than the UK proposal and all of those plans are still in the experimental stage and are not in mountainous regions with complex and faulted geology.

Your reply ignores our call for the full council to hold a full debate and vote. It is painfully clear that the elected leaders of the new Unitary Authority, Cumberland Council, who are responsible for the immediate regions in the “Areas of Focus” for a GDF (and the wider area) are not listening to concerns from communities or reading, or seemingly understanding the complexities of the already known geology.

Also not read or seemingly understood are alternatives to GDF which despite it not being our responsibility to provide, we have already outlined along with Nuclear Free Local Authorities and others including geologists and the Scottish Government (see previous letter).

Accountability

The lack of Cumberland Council’s accountability for this situation is absolutely unprecedented. Never before has humanity made decisions that are potentially so damaging on behalf of 100,000 years (and more) of future generations. Other councils have had full debates and votes BEFORE embarking on long term “Partnership” with Nuclear Waste Services to deliver a GDF.

Cumbria has the most understood and explored geology in the UK due to the presence of Sellafield and multiple previous enquiries into “suitability” for GDFs of far lesser impact and all rejected because of the geology and mountainous context. This is a matter of public record which councillors should be aware of.

As Leader Mark Fryer pointed out after the meeting yesterday the few councillors who took the decision on the whole council’s and Cumbria’s behalf may well not be there to take the blame for total collapse of house prices (already happening in “Areas of Focus”)…….to be evacuated due to sub-sea criticality of the plutonium, to find out one day that their drinking water has been poisoned. Their names will not be in the history books. They will not pay the price in any way that counts. Descendants of the few councillors who undemocratically held the door open to GDF may well pay the ultimate price but who cares about them?

Rachel Reeves wants to dismiss opposition to the plans as ‘NIMBYism’. But the concerns held by local opposition groups are valid, and backed by science that isn’t funded by Nuclear Waste Services. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2025/09/23/cumberland-council-is-looking-like-last-line-of-defence-against-lake-district-coast-nuclear-dump-so-why-wont-they-hold-a-full-vote-and-full-debate/