Changing the rules: Ministers may scrap nuke dump Test of Public Support
NFLA 1st Oct 2025
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities are dismayed that Government Ministers may be considering scrapping any right of local people to have their say prior to a nuclear waste dump being built in their community.
The Telegraph reported last week that rumours are circulating that officials in the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) are reviewing current government policy guiding the delivery of a Geological Disposal Facility as Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is considering abolishing the promised Test of Public Support.[i]
Sadly once again out-of-touch journalists have sought to besmirch the motivation of opponents to a GDF by branding them ‘nimbies’. This fails to acknowledge the multiple legitimate concerns that residents have about the devastating impact that the construction and operation of a undersea repository for Britain’s legacy and future high-level radioactive waste would bring upon their local community for up to 175 years.
The motivation behind the review appears to be the recent decision by Lincolnshire County Council to withdraw its political support, as the last remaining Relevant Local Principal Authority, from plans to develop a GDF in East Lindsey. This was clearly a bodyblow to Nuclear Waste Services as officials recently revealed to a meeting attended by the NFLA Secretary that Lincolnshire was their preferred location because of the favourable geology.
Although the paper stated that a Whitehall source had told Telegraph journalists that no decisions have been made, it has been suggested that the outcome of the review might be that other factors, such as the suitability of local geology and the delivery cost, could take precedence over securing local support.
The current policy is deemed to be ‘consent-based’, because it provides for a Test of Public Support to be conducted amongst the Potential Host Community in the final phase, with only a positive result enabling a GDF to go ahead in a community, and then only if the necessary planning and regulatory approvals are secured.
The exact timing of the test is determined by the Relevant Principal Local Authority, but the nature of the test is agreed by the local Community Partnership.
The policy also requires at least one Relevant Principal Local Authority to remain on-board with the process in every GDF Search Area, but the authority can exercise their Right to Withdraw.
In first South Holderness and then in Lincolnshire, plans to site a GDF were roundly defeated not by adverse Tests of Public Support, but rather by massive and persistent public protests which pressurised responsive local Councillors to exercise their Right to Withdraw ending the process.
It is unclear whether the review will consider ending the Right to Withdraw, as well as the commitment to a Test of Public Support. This is something the NFLAs intend to clarify with DESNZ.
In any case, the existing policy is caveated as ‘since 2008, the Government continues to reserve the right to explore other approaches in the event that, at some point in the future, such an approach does not look likely to work.’
NFLA Secretary Richard Outram said: “Any decision to abandon the established consent-based approach to siting a nuclear waste dump will be an admission by Ministers that no community actually wants to host it.
“Replacing voluntarism with a plan to railroad such a controversial project onto an unwilling community will be a retrograde step and simply lead to more vociferous public resistance.”
Academic and antinuclear activist Dr David Lowry co-wrote a book about previous Conservative Government attempts to impose a nuclear waste dump on English communities[ii].
Commenting on the news, Dr Lowry said:
“The Labour Government will be making a major political error if it tries to impose a nuclear waste dump on a community without its consent.……………………………………………………………………… https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/changing-the-rules-ministers-may-scrap-nuke-dump-test-of-public-support
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- December 2025 (213)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS



Leave a comment