16/10/2011 The Politics Show North East and Cumbria

Should something like this be built on the Cumbrian countryside? We

consider whether nuclear waste should be buried.

Should local people be turned into planners? We will be finding out in

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1499 seconds

Will it work? I will be finding out. First a new generation of power

stations is being considered including one in Cumbria and one on

Tyneside. There is no reason to haul them on safety grounds that

there is another obstacle. One option is building an

underground store in Cumbria. Our reporter went with a delegation of

local councillors to France. On a mission far from home.

Councillors deep underground at a Councillors deep underground at a

Councillors deep underground at a Councillors deep underground at a

laboratory in France. On all sides an extensive network.

500 metres below ground. Behind me excavation workers are digging into

rocks to see if it might be suitable for the long-term storage

of nuclear waste. This facility will never store or

radioactive waste. But by 2025 the French government hopes to build a

repository in their eyrie at. It is an eye opener. It gives us a

feel of what could occur. The size of the tunnels is massive. It is

like starting gate. But there is no doubting the importance of the

decision. In the 1990s the British government tried and failed to find

a site for burying a high-level nuclear waste. This time the

politicians needed to get it right. Geology is geology. We need a

solution that is safe and accepted by everybody. We need a consensus.

We need to have an agreement around this project. This is a long-term

project. This project will last a minimum of 200 years. That is the

concern for those who oppose underground storage. TRANSLATION:

there are a number of arguments. What is important is to make sure

that nuclear waste is not buried. That will never be fully researched,

will pollute for a long time and be hard to control. Deep disposal is

sweeping it under the carpet. in Cumbria environmentally

activists are finding it hard to believe the region is once again

being considered. This is crazy. It is taking us back to their position

we were in at 20 years ago when the dump was supposed to be forced on

us. Now we are in the same position but it looks as if the local

authorities have volunteer. All investigations were done all that

time ago culminating in a public inquiry into a rock laboratory and

it was thrown at it because we were a totally unsuitable area. So where

will always be buried? No site have been specified, but this map has

been published showing sites in of red that will not be suitable. That

means some of the most beautiful parts of the Lake District National

Park have not been ruled out. For the politicians their visit to

France has focused their thoughts. The laboratory was the one thing

that stood out. We want to carry out borehole work if the community

take the decision to move forward. What is now in my mind is something

like a laboratory would be a boost. The Community could see first hand

the work and the Test and it would happen. In the spring the councils

will decide whether to press ahead to the next stage of the process.

The Government would like to find a solution soon, but critics are

hoping the complex geology of Cumbria will still be found wanting.

Should Cumbria be considered as the site for banning high-level nuclear

waste? We have somebody who used to work

in the nuclear industry with us and we have a Conservative MP.

I know you think this is a good thing for Cumbria. Is it just about

jobs? It is not just about jobs. If you look at the history of nuclear

waste and storage it has been beset by short-termism. A succession of

governments have not wanted to deal with the problem. It is in the best

long-term interests of everybody in the county and my own constituents

that we do move ahead with the deep geological facility should that

area be suitable. That is all very well, but if a West Cumbrian side

had been considered in the past and ruled out as an say, what has

changed? That is not true. I worked in the nuclear industry and work

for the agency that was responsible for exploring that facility in the

1990s. The nature of the geology of any airier actually changes that

engineering challenge which the project would present. There is a

number of fundamental misconceptions surrounding this

issue. This would not be a bump as some claim. It would not be buried

in that kind of a motor cents. It would be a deep underground store.

That is better for the storage of radioactive waste. I do not think

there is another plan on this. The most eminent minds in the country

have looked at it over a long period of time and this is the best

way forward. There has to be suspicion that Cumbria is chosen

because it has an association with the nuclear industry and that might

override any concerns about geology that really did come up last time.

Those concerns cannot be overridden. I would not let them be over ridden.

Everybody a matter where they are in relation to the industry would

let that happen. It is a technical and sophisticated process. This is

something that we now need to get on with. I have made the case to

successive governments and to the current Government regarding a

repository be there in 2040. I have called for 2025. The government

thinks they can do it by 2029. Time is of the essence. The longer we

leave it the more it will cost. there a danger of the tail wagging

the dog? Are be rushing with undue haste just so that we can build a

new generation of nuclear power stations. It is quite the opposite.

Successive governments have failed to get to grips with this over many

decades. We have a huge amount of using nuclear material, nuclear

waste, which is currently stored above ground. It has to be guarded

at great cost. The government are working to find a solution. We have

cross-party consensus. They're working with local communities will

stop the are insuring everything is done properly. Somebody said that

the legacy of the waste is �2 billion pair waste to store it. And

that is why we should not go down this route. We cannot rely on any

one source. The there is a huge legacy that we're having to deal

with now. That suggests it is not achievable. It is not achievable

with electricity. It is comparable with other forms of using

electricity. We are looking for a generation X. We are not ruling out

any one form of generation. If we do not get to grips with this the

light will go out. This is not optional. We have to build new

nuclear power plant and power plants and other sorts to keep the

lights on. The film that we saw suggested that this its areas

suitable could be in the middle of a national park. Is that acceptable

question mark we will have to wait and see. We will have to have those

detailed discussions. We will have to acknowledge that that that was

the case then it would not be as if anybody was going to dig and nine

chat right in the middle of the National Park and access any kind

of repository in the middle of a national park. The access would be

potentially above the Sellafield site. And National Park, a

priceless asset, would have tons of nuclear waste underneath it.

completely except that people would be concerned about that and the

dialogue surrounding this, let us not forget that this is based upon

the principle of voluntarism, which is essential here. The entire

process these to be open and transparent. I want to get involved

in a properly informed and engage dialogue with anybody who has any

concerns. How confident are you that the public will be consulted

on this? The council is involved but will the public get a say?

can see that already. We have seen that with the history of these

sorts of projects. When previous governments have looked at

solutions to this problem invariably in some areas there has

been opposition that has been listened to and that is one reason

why we have not yet sold it. It clear and active community

engagement. At this early stage people are engaging with it and

talking about it. I do not see any reason to doubt that. Thank you.

Most people would welcome having a greater say in what goes on. Also

when it comes to building new houses or wind farms. It seems the

Government agrees. It has set up pilot schemes. That will give

locals more control over neighbourhood planning. What does

that mean? Will we get the powers? Northumberland. You might think

this is sleepy, but the village cafe is not just in brewing tea.

All of the things... The villagers are here to take part in what could

be a people power revolution. It is a pilot is rare for a government

project. They will draw up what they want and do not want in their

community. We are the people live here. We have to use the services.

Our children go to school here. It is fundamental that we have the

real understanding of what we need and what the ex bet for the future

in relation to services and developments. It is fundamental

that we are involved in this. Rather than being a wish-list the

plan will have to be taken into account the never any development

is taking into account. But there is a limit to this. Under one of

these schemes a parish can more or less decide what it wants to do

itself and cut itself adrift from the rest of the country.

Unfortunately it cannot do that. It must at here to national planning

guidelines. Hopefully some of the things that a more local level we

can influence. Important things such as local housing, site for

small businesses. But the new national planning policy that the

plans of the parish will have to fit into might not suit every

community. But national policy will include a presumption of favour in

regard to sustainable developments in the countryside. For those that

do not want some plans there is a fear that the parish plan will not

be worth the paper it is written on. The problem we have at the present

time is that the government is only encouraging it if local communities

are minded to do development, do what the government wants. If they

are wanting to protect their own environment as it is and prevent

development, I do not think that the neighbourhood planning will

have them at all. There are is that would like development. This area

in North Shields is another test bed. These local people are part of

a group beginning to draw up what it wants. More regeneration is top

of the last. We are looking at run- down areas. There are buildings

that have been vacant for a number of years. Nobody knows what to do

with them. The community can decide what to do. We are being invited

and encouraged to get people in to advise as on issues and constraints.

By bringing us all together and getting a feeling for it, we may

not become professional planners, but potentially we will understand

the issues better if. Even the will there is some people power in

evidence it is being underpinned with a lot of support by the local

council - support that can only be offered because it is only

happening in a few pilot areas. question arises if it is to be

rolled it out beyond the pilot stage and that question is can

councils possibly support them all? They cannot do that in the level of

support there are giving to the pilot. To what extent is it a

diversion from other things that are important that the present

time? Few people are likely to quibble about communities directing

their own destinies, but there will be a debate about whether

neighbourhood planning can deliver their kind of power that the

government promises? This is just part of the

government's locals an agenda which also includes things such as free

school set up by parents, and elected mayors. Let us see what our

panellists think. If you want to protect what you

have got this could be useless could it not? We have to

acknowledge the rare starting from. At the moment planners and local

authorities have a local development framework which is

effectively a big neighbourhood plan for the council a rare. We are

giving powers to local communities to have more of a say in how that

development framework is going to proceed. What it will look like and

what it means for the community. We cannot say, and the Government

could not say, we will go Communities power so there will be

no more developments no matter what. What we're saying is that there

should be greater consultation. This is a welcome step in that

direction. The message coming from David Cameron is that if you want

to get in the wake of these -- get out of the way of those

developments go down to the JobCentre. Those that do not want a

wind farm, the do not have the power. It is about allowing

communities to influence what happens. The wind farm, houses?

you are resident in a small village the first time you might know about

the possibility of houses being built has been and will does goes

on the lamp-post by which time it is too late to influence that

decision. This is now an opportunity to your parish council,

town council, or local body of residents, to influence that at a

local level at an earlier stage. This is giving local people control

over how their area develops. might quibble with the detail, but

is the principle of giving more people a stake the right one?

problem with this proposal is that it is essentially seeking to give

power to people which they already have. The problems with the

planning process and this country is that it takes too long, and it

is too slow. That can that their investment. I would be supportive

of any development that allows planning to be brought forward more

quickly. Bringing it forward more quickly does not make it more

responsive to people unnecessarily. It could be the opposite. That is

true. It could be the opposite. But the principle of involving more

people and planning is absolutely right. To these proposals do that?

I do not think so. If anybody wanted to contribute towards

planning proposals within the system as it can understand then

there is lot of scope to do that. One of the problems I think, and I

think the trials show this, is that a lot of resources will be taken

away from local planning authorities to make sure that these

trials work or at least show some signs of success. That is the

problem. Local authorities do not have enough resources. They do not

have enough people to make sure that they can properly influence

decisions. You're a going to trying to us across the country but that

will not work. I do not accept that. Extra resources have been given to

the pilot areas so that these schemes can be pushed through and

assessed and the government can make an informed decision. You do

not have enough planning officers? You do not have to have all of

their extra resources to develop and neighbourhood plan. People

would quibble with that because these need to be legally binding

plans and you cannot mess with them they must be a support network.

course they need support mechanism. The problem of planning at the

moment is that it is complicated. People look at it and say that is

not for me. I do not feel I have a saying that. What the Government is

doing is simplified planning, passing more control to people in

those communities. There are committees in my constituency that

are well down the track. People are doing a brilliant job of pulling

together a committee plan. That will allow them to influence their

village. Is the reality not that middle-class committees have time

and power and only they will do this. It is hard to see people

doing this in places where people are struggling to make a living.

find that sort of talk condescending. This is an

opportunity for anybody wants to engage. Where other communities

that this is happening? There are 17 pilot areas. We hear this time

and time again. This will only benefit people who choose to engage

and only middle-class people will benefit. We hear this time and time