King's Cliffe Campaign

Louise is campaigning against the proposed disposal of low level radioactive waste in King’s Cliffe.

Louise's letter to the Planning Inspectorate
 
 
Reference – APP/K2800/A/10/2126938

As the Member of Parliament for Corby and East Northamptonshire, I strongly object to the Appeal, APP/K2800/A/10/2126938/NWF, regarding the landfill disposal of low level radioactive waste (LLW) in phases 4B, 5A and 5B of the currently permitted hazardous waste landfill at the East Northants Resource Management Facility in Northamptonshire.

I am a firm believer in localism and the ability of local residents to understand the unique needs and problems of their specific area. In addition to meeting with local residents and groups, I have received, in just the previous few weeks, 105 letters of objection to this Appeal from constituents, compared with just one letter of support. These objections come from a broad cross-section of society – children as young as seven, grandparents, families, scientists, environmentalists and businesses. Furthermore, the ‘Waste Watchers’ pressure group has a petition containing over 3,000 signatures, and parish councils, the Borough Council and the County Council are all united in their opposition to this proposal, achieving cross-Party consensus.

Given the strong local opposition to this proposal, I anticipate you will have already received substantial correspondence from those who stand to be affected if the Appeal is granted. Indeed, I have already written to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to raise the concerns of my constituents and to bring this Appeal to their attention.

Residents need full and frank clarity on the consequences of this proposal, but this has failed to materialise as a result of both the unknown implications of the LLW and the lack of transparency in Augean’s consultation with local residents. Furthermore, I am concerned of the possibility of project ‘creep’, given requested changes to the site began with a larger area and now extend to radioactive waste. The question must be posed as to what Augean envisages the final usage and extent of the site to be.

I am aware that you will have already received many submissions from local residents, but I have summarised below the main concerns of my constituents which I would implore you to take into consideration.

• According to the proximity principle, LLW should be disposed of at, or as close as possible to, the site at which it was produced. However, Augean’s proposal is for King’s Cliffe to take LLW from nuclear sites throughout the UK, with the closest being at Harwell, around 90 miles away. This appears to flagrantly flout the proximity principle.
• According to the precautionary principle, LLW should be disposed of in remote sites with a low population density. This site is within 12 miles of 250,000 residents, and specifically just over one mile from King’s Cliffe Middle School and two miles from the main village and its primary school.
• I understand that Augean intends to treat LLW in the same manner as HVLA, despite their very different compositions and needs. The King’s Cliffe site is a large uncovered space in the ground, which means that when rain interacts with the LLW, radioactive leachate will form, which has to be pumped out and transported to Avonmouth. The transport of radioactive materials in a liquid form also raises questions for public safety on the roads and carbon emissions. In contrast, the Dounrey site in Caithness, which has been granted permission, will place LLW in steel drums, compact them and then place these inside steel containers within a concrete-lined and covered vault.
• Augean has argued that the quality of clay at King’s Cliffe is optimal for the disposal of LLW. However, this clay is present in large swathes of the country and there are many other locations throughout the country with a favourable geology and hydrology, which do not have such large numbers of concerned residents living close by.
• The LLW intended for King’s Cliffe will be up to the level of 200Bq/gm. However, there are concerns that the total volume of material being proposed may be a mechanism of diluting the radioactive element of the waste so the overall levels fall within an apparently safer limit.
• Augean’s projected radiation levels appear to take no account of potential airborne or waterborne emissions. This is particularly salient given the site is built over an aquifer which feeds into a main water supply.
• I believe Augean has no previous experience of handling LLW and has already received a number of convictions at magistrates courts for environmental problems, seriously calling into question its ability to administer a site for this magnitude of waste. Indeed, given the site is to be self-monitored, there appears to be few safeguards in place to identify errors and bring Augean into compliance should it fail to meet the necessary standards.
• Constituents have provided evidence of poorly maintained or non-existent perimeter fences at the site and Augean has not indicated it will be providing any additional security, leaving the area open to vandalism and trespass by both humans and wildlife, thereby increasing the likelihood of accidents and the transmission of contamination.
• There are existing concerns of the suitability of the access road for the existing use of the site, even before accounting for the additional and dangerous loads that this proposal would bring. The road is small, twisted and unsuitable for heavy lorry traffic and the cause of many accidents already, especially in the winter months.
• There are considerable implications for local livelihoods and the area’s prosperity; for example, I believe a local farmer has been informed his insurance cover may cease, house prices stand to be affected, and airborne contamination brings the risk of radioactivity entering the food chain through the adjoining farmland.
• The site is close to the wildlife-rich vestiges of Ancient Rockingham Forest, containing threatened flora and fauna, which stand to be affected by airborne and animal-transmitted contamination.
• I understand the current licence for the site expires in 2011, which, combined with the current financial position of Augean, creates considerable uncertainty for the future of the site. Now is not the time to redesignate its use, which may indeed prejudice any later application for licence renewal and prove costly for future land management.
• Augean is based in North Yorkshire and, as such, the economic benefits of this application will fall outside of my constituency, with local residents simply left with the negative environmental and health consequences.
• Local residents feel they have been poorly consulted with by Augean throughout the entire process. Augean has refused to attend local public meetings and refused to debate the matter with me on local television. After their application was unanimously rejected by NCC, Augean withdrew from all press interviews. Furthermore, I have recently learned that Apethorpe village, with a population of around 150, just 2.5 miles from the site, has received no consultation or information.
• My constituents are extremely fearful of the consequences of this application, were it to be successful at Appeal – not only in terms of the effect on their quality of life and safety in the short-term, but also for future generations, the children attending school within a few miles of the facility, and the general prosperity of the village.

Of course, my constituents understand there is a need to dispose of LLW, but this must be done safely, appropriately and in a manner which gains public confidence. However, I believe that Augean’s application does not meet these criteria.

I have a responsibility to stand up for my constituents, both in the short and long term. The commercial needs of Augean should not ride roughshod over the genuine fears and concerns of local residents who stand to be affected by the outcome of this Appeal for generations to come.

In light of the concerns outlined above and the strong opposition from local residents, I would strongly urge you to reject this Appeal. I look forward to remaining fully appraised of any developments in the Appeal process and I would be grateful for the opportunity to speak at the Inquiry in October.