:00:48. > :00:52.Should something like this be built on the Cumbrian countryside? We
:00:52. > :00:57.consider whether nuclear waste should be buried.
:00:57. > :01:07.Should local people be turned into planners? We will be finding out in
:01:07. > :01:07.
:01:07. > :26:06.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1499 seconds
:26:06. > :26:11.Will it work? I will be finding out. First a new generation of power
:26:11. > :26:17.stations is being considered including one in Cumbria and one on
:26:17. > :26:22.Tyneside. There is no reason to haul them on safety grounds that
:26:22. > :26:28.there is another obstacle. One option is building an
:26:28. > :26:37.underground store in Cumbria. Our reporter went with a delegation of
:26:37. > :26:40.local councillors to France. On a mission far from home.
:26:40. > :26:41.Councillors deep underground at a Councillors deep underground at a
:26:41. > :26:46.Councillors deep underground at a Councillors deep underground at a
:26:46. > :26:52.laboratory in France. On all sides an extensive network.
:26:52. > :26:57.500 metres below ground. Behind me excavation workers are digging into
:26:57. > :27:02.rocks to see if it might be suitable for the long-term storage
:27:02. > :27:08.of nuclear waste. This facility will never store or
:27:08. > :27:17.radioactive waste. But by 2025 the French government hopes to build a
:27:17. > :27:27.repository in their eyrie at. It is an eye opener. It gives us a
:27:27. > :27:30.
:27:30. > :27:36.feel of what could occur. The size of the tunnels is massive. It is
:27:36. > :27:40.like starting gate. But there is no doubting the importance of the
:27:41. > :27:45.decision. In the 1990s the British government tried and failed to find
:27:45. > :27:55.a site for burying a high-level nuclear waste. This time the
:27:55. > :27:56.
:27:56. > :28:00.politicians needed to get it right. Geology is geology. We need a
:28:00. > :28:06.solution that is safe and accepted by everybody. We need a consensus.
:28:06. > :28:14.We need to have an agreement around this project. This is a long-term
:28:14. > :28:21.project. This project will last a minimum of 200 years. That is the
:28:21. > :28:26.concern for those who oppose underground storage. TRANSLATION:
:28:26. > :28:31.there are a number of arguments. What is important is to make sure
:28:31. > :28:36.that nuclear waste is not buried. That will never be fully researched,
:28:36. > :28:40.will pollute for a long time and be hard to control. Deep disposal is
:28:40. > :28:44.sweeping it under the carpet. in Cumbria environmentally
:28:44. > :28:50.activists are finding it hard to believe the region is once again
:28:50. > :28:54.being considered. This is crazy. It is taking us back to their position
:28:54. > :28:59.we were in at 20 years ago when the dump was supposed to be forced on
:28:59. > :29:04.us. Now we are in the same position but it looks as if the local
:29:04. > :29:09.authorities have volunteer. All investigations were done all that
:29:09. > :29:17.time ago culminating in a public inquiry into a rock laboratory and
:29:17. > :29:21.it was thrown at it because we were a totally unsuitable area. So where
:29:21. > :29:26.will always be buried? No site have been specified, but this map has
:29:26. > :29:30.been published showing sites in of red that will not be suitable. That
:29:30. > :29:35.means some of the most beautiful parts of the Lake District National
:29:35. > :29:39.Park have not been ruled out. For the politicians their visit to
:29:39. > :29:45.France has focused their thoughts. The laboratory was the one thing
:29:45. > :29:49.that stood out. We want to carry out borehole work if the community
:29:49. > :29:53.take the decision to move forward. What is now in my mind is something
:29:54. > :29:58.like a laboratory would be a boost. The Community could see first hand
:29:58. > :30:02.the work and the Test and it would happen. In the spring the councils
:30:02. > :30:06.will decide whether to press ahead to the next stage of the process.
:30:06. > :30:11.The Government would like to find a solution soon, but critics are
:30:11. > :30:14.hoping the complex geology of Cumbria will still be found wanting.
:30:14. > :30:20.Should Cumbria be considered as the site for banning high-level nuclear
:30:20. > :30:24.waste? We have somebody who used to work
:30:24. > :30:28.in the nuclear industry with us and we have a Conservative MP.
:30:28. > :30:35.I know you think this is a good thing for Cumbria. Is it just about
:30:35. > :30:41.jobs? It is not just about jobs. If you look at the history of nuclear
:30:41. > :30:45.waste and storage it has been beset by short-termism. A succession of
:30:46. > :30:51.governments have not wanted to deal with the problem. It is in the best
:30:51. > :30:55.long-term interests of everybody in the county and my own constituents
:30:55. > :31:00.that we do move ahead with the deep geological facility should that
:31:01. > :31:04.area be suitable. That is all very well, but if a West Cumbrian side
:31:04. > :31:10.had been considered in the past and ruled out as an say, what has
:31:10. > :31:14.changed? That is not true. I worked in the nuclear industry and work
:31:14. > :31:22.for the agency that was responsible for exploring that facility in the
:31:22. > :31:28.1990s. The nature of the geology of any airier actually changes that
:31:28. > :31:30.engineering challenge which the project would present. There is a
:31:30. > :31:34.number of fundamental misconceptions surrounding this
:31:34. > :31:39.issue. This would not be a bump as some claim. It would not be buried
:31:39. > :31:45.in that kind of a motor cents. It would be a deep underground store.
:31:45. > :31:49.That is better for the storage of radioactive waste. I do not think
:31:49. > :31:53.there is another plan on this. The most eminent minds in the country
:31:53. > :31:58.have looked at it over a long period of time and this is the best
:31:58. > :32:01.way forward. There has to be suspicion that Cumbria is chosen
:32:01. > :32:06.because it has an association with the nuclear industry and that might
:32:06. > :32:13.override any concerns about geology that really did come up last time.
:32:13. > :32:17.Those concerns cannot be overridden. I would not let them be over ridden.
:32:17. > :32:22.Everybody a matter where they are in relation to the industry would
:32:22. > :32:27.let that happen. It is a technical and sophisticated process. This is
:32:27. > :32:34.something that we now need to get on with. I have made the case to
:32:34. > :32:39.successive governments and to the current Government regarding a
:32:39. > :32:45.repository be there in 2040. I have called for 2025. The government
:32:45. > :32:49.thinks they can do it by 2029. Time is of the essence. The longer we
:32:49. > :32:55.leave it the more it will cost. there a danger of the tail wagging
:32:55. > :32:59.the dog? Are be rushing with undue haste just so that we can build a
:33:00. > :33:03.new generation of nuclear power stations. It is quite the opposite.
:33:03. > :33:07.Successive governments have failed to get to grips with this over many
:33:07. > :33:12.decades. We have a huge amount of using nuclear material, nuclear
:33:12. > :33:17.waste, which is currently stored above ground. It has to be guarded
:33:18. > :33:23.at great cost. The government are working to find a solution. We have
:33:23. > :33:29.cross-party consensus. They're working with local communities will
:33:29. > :33:37.stop the are insuring everything is done properly. Somebody said that
:33:37. > :33:43.the legacy of the waste is �2 billion pair waste to store it. And
:33:44. > :33:47.that is why we should not go down this route. We cannot rely on any
:33:47. > :33:52.one source. The there is a huge legacy that we're having to deal
:33:52. > :33:57.with now. That suggests it is not achievable. It is not achievable
:33:58. > :34:04.with electricity. It is comparable with other forms of using
:34:04. > :34:11.electricity. We are looking for a generation X. We are not ruling out
:34:11. > :34:14.any one form of generation. If we do not get to grips with this the
:34:14. > :34:17.light will go out. This is not optional. We have to build new
:34:17. > :34:24.nuclear power plant and power plants and other sorts to keep the
:34:24. > :34:28.lights on. The film that we saw suggested that this its areas
:34:28. > :34:32.suitable could be in the middle of a national park. Is that acceptable
:34:32. > :34:35.question mark we will have to wait and see. We will have to have those
:34:35. > :34:39.detailed discussions. We will have to acknowledge that that that was
:34:39. > :34:43.the case then it would not be as if anybody was going to dig and nine
:34:43. > :34:47.chat right in the middle of the National Park and access any kind
:34:47. > :34:52.of repository in the middle of a national park. The access would be
:34:52. > :34:58.potentially above the Sellafield site. And National Park, a
:34:58. > :35:01.priceless asset, would have tons of nuclear waste underneath it.
:35:01. > :35:05.completely except that people would be concerned about that and the
:35:05. > :35:09.dialogue surrounding this, let us not forget that this is based upon
:35:09. > :35:19.the principle of voluntarism, which is essential here. The entire
:35:19. > :35:22.process these to be open and transparent. I want to get involved
:35:22. > :35:26.in a properly informed and engage dialogue with anybody who has any
:35:26. > :35:31.concerns. How confident are you that the public will be consulted
:35:31. > :35:35.on this? The council is involved but will the public get a say?
:35:35. > :35:38.can see that already. We have seen that with the history of these
:35:38. > :35:42.sorts of projects. When previous governments have looked at
:35:42. > :35:45.solutions to this problem invariably in some areas there has
:35:45. > :35:48.been opposition that has been listened to and that is one reason
:35:48. > :35:52.why we have not yet sold it. It clear and active community
:35:52. > :35:57.engagement. At this early stage people are engaging with it and
:35:57. > :36:04.talking about it. I do not see any reason to doubt that. Thank you.
:36:04. > :36:08.Most people would welcome having a greater say in what goes on. Also
:36:08. > :36:13.when it comes to building new houses or wind farms. It seems the
:36:13. > :36:16.Government agrees. It has set up pilot schemes. That will give
:36:16. > :36:26.locals more control over neighbourhood planning. What does
:36:26. > :36:30.
:36:30. > :36:36.that mean? Will we get the powers? Northumberland. You might think
:36:36. > :36:42.this is sleepy, but the village cafe is not just in brewing tea.
:36:42. > :36:47.All of the things... The villagers are here to take part in what could
:36:47. > :36:51.be a people power revolution. It is a pilot is rare for a government
:36:52. > :36:56.project. They will draw up what they want and do not want in their
:36:56. > :37:03.community. We are the people live here. We have to use the services.
:37:03. > :37:09.Our children go to school here. It is fundamental that we have the
:37:09. > :37:12.real understanding of what we need and what the ex bet for the future
:37:12. > :37:17.in relation to services and developments. It is fundamental
:37:17. > :37:20.that we are involved in this. Rather than being a wish-list the
:37:20. > :37:27.plan will have to be taken into account the never any development
:37:27. > :37:31.is taking into account. But there is a limit to this. Under one of
:37:31. > :37:35.these schemes a parish can more or less decide what it wants to do
:37:35. > :37:39.itself and cut itself adrift from the rest of the country.
:37:39. > :37:43.Unfortunately it cannot do that. It must at here to national planning
:37:43. > :37:49.guidelines. Hopefully some of the things that a more local level we
:37:49. > :37:53.can influence. Important things such as local housing, site for
:37:53. > :37:56.small businesses. But the new national planning policy that the
:37:56. > :38:03.plans of the parish will have to fit into might not suit every
:38:03. > :38:06.community. But national policy will include a presumption of favour in
:38:06. > :38:10.regard to sustainable developments in the countryside. For those that
:38:10. > :38:15.do not want some plans there is a fear that the parish plan will not
:38:15. > :38:21.be worth the paper it is written on. The problem we have at the present
:38:21. > :38:28.time is that the government is only encouraging it if local communities
:38:28. > :38:32.are minded to do development, do what the government wants. If they
:38:32. > :38:38.are wanting to protect their own environment as it is and prevent
:38:38. > :38:44.development, I do not think that the neighbourhood planning will
:38:44. > :38:48.have them at all. There are is that would like development. This area
:38:48. > :38:52.in North Shields is another test bed. These local people are part of
:38:52. > :38:59.a group beginning to draw up what it wants. More regeneration is top
:38:59. > :39:03.of the last. We are looking at run- down areas. There are buildings
:39:03. > :39:13.that have been vacant for a number of years. Nobody knows what to do
:39:13. > :39:17.
:39:17. > :39:22.with them. The community can decide what to do. We are being invited
:39:22. > :39:27.and encouraged to get people in to advise as on issues and constraints.
:39:27. > :39:31.By bringing us all together and getting a feeling for it, we may
:39:31. > :39:35.not become professional planners, but potentially we will understand
:39:35. > :39:39.the issues better if. Even the will there is some people power in
:39:39. > :39:43.evidence it is being underpinned with a lot of support by the local
:39:43. > :39:50.council - support that can only be offered because it is only
:39:50. > :39:53.happening in a few pilot areas. question arises if it is to be
:39:54. > :39:58.rolled it out beyond the pilot stage and that question is can
:39:58. > :40:02.councils possibly support them all? They cannot do that in the level of
:40:02. > :40:05.support there are giving to the pilot. To what extent is it a
:40:05. > :40:10.diversion from other things that are important that the present
:40:10. > :40:14.time? Few people are likely to quibble about communities directing
:40:14. > :40:18.their own destinies, but there will be a debate about whether
:40:18. > :40:21.neighbourhood planning can deliver their kind of power that the
:40:21. > :40:25.government promises? This is just part of the
:40:25. > :40:29.government's locals an agenda which also includes things such as free
:40:29. > :40:35.school set up by parents, and elected mayors. Let us see what our
:40:35. > :40:39.panellists think. If you want to protect what you
:40:39. > :40:42.have got this could be useless could it not? We have to
:40:42. > :40:45.acknowledge the rare starting from. At the moment planners and local
:40:45. > :40:53.authorities have a local development framework which is
:40:53. > :40:58.effectively a big neighbourhood plan for the council a rare. We are
:40:58. > :41:01.giving powers to local communities to have more of a say in how that
:41:01. > :41:06.development framework is going to proceed. What it will look like and
:41:06. > :41:10.what it means for the community. We cannot say, and the Government
:41:10. > :41:14.could not say, we will go Communities power so there will be
:41:14. > :41:17.no more developments no matter what. What we're saying is that there
:41:17. > :41:21.should be greater consultation. This is a welcome step in that
:41:21. > :41:25.direction. The message coming from David Cameron is that if you want
:41:25. > :41:30.to get in the wake of these -- get out of the way of those
:41:30. > :41:34.developments go down to the JobCentre. Those that do not want a
:41:34. > :41:42.wind farm, the do not have the power. It is about allowing
:41:42. > :41:45.communities to influence what happens. The wind farm, houses?
:41:45. > :41:48.you are resident in a small village the first time you might know about
:41:48. > :41:51.the possibility of houses being built has been and will does goes
:41:51. > :41:55.on the lamp-post by which time it is too late to influence that
:41:55. > :42:00.decision. This is now an opportunity to your parish council,
:42:00. > :42:09.town council, or local body of residents, to influence that at a
:42:09. > :42:13.local level at an earlier stage. This is giving local people control
:42:13. > :42:18.over how their area develops. might quibble with the detail, but
:42:18. > :42:22.is the principle of giving more people a stake the right one?
:42:22. > :42:26.problem with this proposal is that it is essentially seeking to give
:42:26. > :42:30.power to people which they already have. The problems with the
:42:30. > :42:34.planning process and this country is that it takes too long, and it
:42:34. > :42:39.is too slow. That can that their investment. I would be supportive
:42:39. > :42:44.of any development that allows planning to be brought forward more
:42:44. > :42:47.quickly. Bringing it forward more quickly does not make it more
:42:47. > :42:52.responsive to people unnecessarily. It could be the opposite. That is
:42:53. > :42:56.true. It could be the opposite. But the principle of involving more
:42:57. > :43:00.people and planning is absolutely right. To these proposals do that?
:43:00. > :43:03.I do not think so. If anybody wanted to contribute towards
:43:03. > :43:08.planning proposals within the system as it can understand then
:43:08. > :43:11.there is lot of scope to do that. One of the problems I think, and I
:43:11. > :43:15.think the trials show this, is that a lot of resources will be taken
:43:15. > :43:19.away from local planning authorities to make sure that these
:43:19. > :43:24.trials work or at least show some signs of success. That is the
:43:25. > :43:30.problem. Local authorities do not have enough resources. They do not
:43:30. > :43:36.have enough people to make sure that they can properly influence
:43:36. > :43:42.decisions. You're a going to trying to us across the country but that
:43:42. > :43:47.will not work. I do not accept that. Extra resources have been given to
:43:47. > :43:51.the pilot areas so that these schemes can be pushed through and
:43:51. > :43:55.assessed and the government can make an informed decision. You do
:43:55. > :43:59.not have enough planning officers? You do not have to have all of
:43:59. > :44:02.their extra resources to develop and neighbourhood plan. People
:44:03. > :44:09.would quibble with that because these need to be legally binding
:44:09. > :44:13.plans and you cannot mess with them they must be a support network.
:44:14. > :44:17.course they need support mechanism. The problem of planning at the
:44:17. > :44:21.moment is that it is complicated. People look at it and say that is
:44:21. > :44:25.not for me. I do not feel I have a saying that. What the Government is
:44:25. > :44:28.doing is simplified planning, passing more control to people in
:44:28. > :44:35.those communities. There are committees in my constituency that
:44:35. > :44:42.are well down the track. People are doing a brilliant job of pulling
:44:42. > :44:47.together a committee plan. That will allow them to influence their
:44:47. > :44:54.village. Is the reality not that middle-class committees have time
:44:55. > :44:58.and power and only they will do this. It is hard to see people
:44:58. > :45:02.doing this in places where people are struggling to make a living.
:45:02. > :45:06.find that sort of talk condescending. This is an
:45:06. > :45:10.opportunity for anybody wants to engage. Where other communities
:45:10. > :45:16.that this is happening? There are 17 pilot areas. We hear this time
:45:16. > :45:21.and time again. This will only benefit people who choose to engage
:45:21. > :45:24.and only middle-class people will benefit. We hear this time and time