Antinuclear

‘Inevitable’ that nuclear waste facility will go ahead without local consent says former minister.

“However, in the case of the UK, the DESNZ’s review raises the possibility that overriding public approval could be a matter of policy.

“These developments point to a growing sense of futility and desperation, to secure both a suitable site for nuclear waste disposal and public support for it.”

it mirrors developments in Australia, where efforts to secure sites for nuclear waste disposal have, just like the UK, been repeatedly stalled by local opposition.

“But critics are now concerned that recent legislation grants broad powers to the Australian government to designate any site as a nuclear waste dump, even without local or indigenous approval.”

23 Sep, 2025 By Tom Pashby https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/inevitable-that-nuclear-waste-facility-will-go-ahead-without-local-consent-says-former-minister-23-09-2025/

It is “inevitable” that the government moves away from the consent-based approach for deciding where to site the planned geological disposal facility (GDF) for nuclear waste, a former Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) minister has told NCE.

The comments come as reports suggest the government is considering scrapping the “consent-based” approach for siting the GDF. However, DESNZ has asserted that the reports are “wrong” and “no changes are planned to this process currently”.

The GDF is currently the only solution proposed by the government for disposing of high level nuclear waste (HLW). HLW is generated by both the civil and defence nuclear sectors

It would involve disposing of HLW in an engineered vault placed between 200m and 1km underground, covering an area of approximately 1km² on the surface.

Work to select a GDF site should take 20 years, according to the government body responsible for the project – Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) – and a further 150 years to build, fill and close the facility.

The HLW then needs to sit and remain undisturbed for 100,000 years before its radioactivity has reduced sufficiently for people to be able to be near it. Due to the hazards associated with radioactive waste, the government has always maintained that a GDF will only be sited in a location where the local community has agreed to host it. This is known as the “consent-based” approach and it has been in discussion with a few communities for a number of years.

Consent-based approach seeing little progress over years

The “voluntary” or “consent-based” approach to deciding where to site a GDF was first proposed by the government in a White Paper published in 2008 titled Managing radioactive waste safely: a framework for implementing geological disposal.

“For the purposes of this White Paper ‘an approach based on voluntarism’ means one in which communities voluntarily express an interest in taking part in the process that will ultimately provide a site for a geological disposal facility,” the paper said.

“Initially communities will be invited to express an interest in finding out more about what hosting a geological disposal facility would mean for the community in the long term.

“Participation up until late in the process, when underground operations and construction are due to begin, will be without commitment to further stages, whether on the part of the community or government. If at any stage a community or Government wished to withdraw then its involvement in the process would stop.

“In practice, development could also be halted by the independent regulators at any point in the process through a refusal to grant authorisations for the next stage of work.”

The government further committed to the approach in 2014, when the then secretary of state for energy and climate change Ed Davey said: “The UK Government also continues to favour an approach to identifying potential sites for a GDF that involves working with communities who are willing to participate in the siting process.”

Despite having been committed to the approach for more than 10 years, NWS only has two communities it is making gradual progress with via community partnerships – Mid Copeland and South Copeland. Lincolnshire withdrew from the process in June after a change in governance.

With the government pushing for the deployment of dozens more nuclear reactors in the coming decades, the need to confirm a long-term solution for the waste is pressing – something that has been stressed to NCE by both the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) and anti-nuclear campaigners.

Reports say Government reviewing consent-based approach

The Telegraph published a story on 22 September that claimed, based on a government source, that DESNZ had decided to review the consent-based approach to siting the GDF.

The source told the newspaper that conversations were taking place within government to consider prioritising areas with the best geology rather than areas with the most welcoming communities.

Ending the consent-based process could result in ministers effectively imposing a GDF on a community, although they would still face the standard planning and consenting obstacles, including judicial reviews from campaigners.

A DESNZ spokesperson denied the reports, saying: “Our position continues to be that any potential geological disposal facility site will be subject to agreement with the community and won’t be imposed on an area without local consent.

“Progress continues to be made, with two areas in Cumberland taking part in the siting process for this multi-billion-pound facility, which would bring thousands of skilled jobs and economic growth.”

Former minister tells NCE ‘we must get on with GDF’

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath is now a backbench Labour peer but was a DESNZ minister of state from July 2024 to May 2025. He was also an energy minister at the end of the previous Labour government from 2008 to 2010 and served in shadow front bench roles from 2010 to 2018.

“This is an inevitable approach. We must get on with GDF,” Hunt told NCE.

“It’s vital to the nuclear programme. It’s a matter of national strategic importance and should proceed on that basis.”

Reported policy change points to ‘growing sense of desperation’

Nuclear Information Service research manager Okopi Ajonye told NCE: “The prospect of the DESNZ reforming policy to override local consent for hosting a geological disposal facility is very concerning.”

“Furthermore, it mirrors developments in Australia, where efforts to secure sites for nuclear waste disposal have, just like the UK, been repeatedly stalled by local opposition.

“But critics are now concerned that recent legislation grants broad powers to the Australian government to designate any site as a nuclear waste dump, even without local or indigenous approval.”

“However, in the case of the UK, the DESNZ’s review raises the possibility that overriding public approval could be a matter of policy.

“These developments point to a growing sense of futility and desperation, to secure both a suitable site for nuclear waste disposal and public support for it.”

End to consent-based approach would ‘lead to more vociferous public resistance’

Nuclear Free Local Authorities secretary Richard Outram told NCE: “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.

“Proposals to site a GDF at South Holderness and Theddlethorpe were roundly defeated by massive and persistent public protests, backed by responsive local councillors.

“Opposition is also growing in South Copeland with residents impacted by the declared area of focus up in arms.”

Outram added that two local councils in the South Copeland area – Millom Town Council and Whicham Parish Council – have withdrawn their support for the process, and a third – Millom Without Parish Council – is “about to confer with parishioners about continued engagement”, he said.

He also said that the NWS community partnership was “described in a recent external review as ‘dysfunctional’ and seemingly at war with itself”.

“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,” he added.

Government reveals to NCE it is ‘replanning’ GDF project

These latest developments add to the uncertainty that has bubbled around the GDF project in recent months.

In August, the Treasury’s National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (Nista) assessed the delivery confidence of the GDF as “appears unachievable” and said the cost could be as much as £53.3bn.

Following the rating, NCE asked DESNZ via the Freedom of Information Act whether the government was responding by changing its approach to the GDF project. It said that it is “undertaking some replanning to mitigate risks and support ongoing progress” on its major projects, including the GDF.

DESNZ added: “However, a GDF will always remain necessary as there are currently no credible alternatives that would accommodate all categories of waste in the inventory for disposal.”

Nuclear industry says credible GDF plan needed for investor confidence

The Nuclear Industry Association, which represents more than 300 companies across the civil and defence nuclear supply chain, was perturbed by this uncertainty around the GDF and told NCE: “A credible, long-term policy on HLW disposal is very important. Developers need confidence that the back end of the fuel cycle is being responsibly and sustainably managed, not just for regulatory compliance but also to secure investor confidence and public trust.

“Clarity and credibility in government policy reduces uncertainty, helps de-risk new nuclear projects and ensures that developers can focus on safe, efficient generation”

September 25, 2025 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized