to the Council`s report pack

Transcription

Public Document Pack
Agenda
Meeting:
Date:
Time:
Place:
Council
19 September 2012
7.00 pm
Council Chamber - Civic Centre Folkestone
To:
All Members of the Council
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to attend a meeting of the Council on
the date and at the time and place shown above. The meeting will be open
to the press and public.
Anyone who wishes to have information on any matter arising on the
Agenda which is not fully covered in these papers is requested to give
notice prior to the meeting to the Chairman or appropriate officer.
Chief Executive
1.
Apologies for absence
2.
Declarations of interest
Members of the council should declare any discloseable pecuniary interest
or any other significant interests in any item/s on this agenda.
3.
Minutes (Pages 1 - 10)
To receive the minutes of the meeting of the council held on 11 July 2012
and to authorise the Chairman of the Council to sign them as a correct
record.
4.
Chairman's communications
Queries about the agenda? Need a different format?
Contact Lorraine Burley – Tel: 01303 853411
Email: [email protected] or download from our website
www.shepway.gov.uk
Date of Publication: Tuesday, 11 September 2012
Council - 19 September 2012
5.
Petitions
There are no petitions to be presented.
6.
Petitions requiring debate
There are no petitions requiring debate.
7.
Questions from the public
There is one question from Mr James Kitson.
8.
Questions from councillors
(Questions can be found on www.shepway.gov.uk from noon 2 days
before the meeting. They can be found in the A-Z index under Q)
Up to 45 minutes is allowed for questions from councillors.
9.
Announcements of the Leader of the Council
To receive a report from the Leader of the Council on the business of the
cabinet and on matters that the leader considers should be drawn to the
council’s attention. The leader shall have 10 minutes to make his
announcements.
The opposition group will have an opportunity to reply to the leader’s
remarks. The opposition group leader shall have 5 minutes to respond
after which the Leader of the Council will have a right of reply. Any right of
reply will be for a maximum duration of 5 minutes.
10.
Opposition business
The People First Group has raised the following matter:
‘Localism: empowering our local communities by developing partnerships
between tiers of local government in Shepway and environmental
volunteers’.
Debates on opposition business shall be limited to 15 minutes. If the time
limit is reached or the debate concludes earlier, the leader of the group
raising the item shall have a right of reply.
The council shall:
a)
b)
c)
Note the issue raised and take no further action;
Refer the issue to the cabinet or relevant overview and scrutiny
committee, as the case may be for their observations before
deciding whether to make a decision on the issue;
Agree to examine the matter as part of a future scrutiny
2
Council - 19 September 2012
d)
11.
programme;
Adopt the issue raised by opposition business provided that the
decision so made is within the policy framework and budget.
Romney Marsh Nuclear Research and Disposal Facility (NRDF) Expression of Interest (Pages 11 - 254)
Report A/12/22 sets out the arguments for and against making an
Expression of Interest to Government on behalf of the Romney Marsh
community about potential involvement in the search for a site for a
Geological Disposal Facility for the permanent disposal of the UK’s nuclear
waste. It outlines the process of involvement and summarises views
received from local and other communities.
12.
Annual Investment Strategy 2012-13 - Increase in Investment
Counterparty Limits (Pages 255 - 260)
In accordance with the governance arrangements for Treasury
Management Report A/12/23 seeks approval to temporarily increase the
counterparty limit for investments with Lloyds TSB Bank for the remainder
of the current financial year.
13.
Dissolution of East Kent (Joint Arrangements) Committee and East
Kent (Joint Scrutiny) Committee (Pages 261 - 264)
Report A/12/24 sets out the background of the East Kent (Joint
Arrangements) Committee and the East Kent (Joint Scrutiny) Committee
dissolution of both joint committees.
14.
Motions on Notice
There are no Motions on Notice.
3
This page is intentionally left blank
Agenda Item 3
SHEPWAY DISTRICT COUNCIL
Minutes for the meeting of the Council held at the Council Chamber - Civic
Centre Folkestone on Wednesday, 11 July 2012
Present: Councillors Emily Arnold, Hugh Barker, Mrs Keren Belcourt,
Mrs Ann Berry, Robert Bliss, George Bunting, Miss Susan Carey,
Miss Pamela Carr (Vice-Chair), Alan Clifton-Holt, John Collier, Brian Copping,
Ms Victoria Dawson, Malcolm Dearden, Anthony Dunning, Alan EwartJames, Peter Gane, Clive Goddard, David Godfrey, Stan Hayward,
Anthony Hills, Mrs Jennifer Hollingsbee (Chairman), Shane Lawrence,
Rory Love, Michael Lyons, Paul Marsh, Philip Martin, David Monk,
Peter Monk, Terence Mullard, Mrs Shirley Newlands, David Owen,
Richard Pascoe, Paul Peacock, Stuart Peall, Russell Tillson,
Mrs Susan Wallace, Roger West, Roger Wilkins and William Wimble
Apologies for Absence: Councillors Tristan Allen, Peter Simmons and
David Stephenson
35.
Declarations of interest
There were no declarations of interest.
36.
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2012 were submitted, approved as
a true record and signed by the Chairman of the Council.
37.
Chairman's communications
The chairman began her communications by mentioning the following events
she had attended since the last full council meeting:
•
Raising of the Flag on Armed Forces Day – a good crowd attended and
are keen for this to continue and grow as a special event.
•
Folkestone Town Armed Forces Day.
•
Canada Day – Military Cemetery Shorncliffe – with all the local children
laying flowers at the head stones.
•
The Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM) Medal Presentation Ceremony, hosted
by the Folkestone Nepalese Community – over 400 ex-servicemen were
presented with medals by Brigadier Othman Bin HJ Jamal.
•
Wind Energy Seminar including a visit to Cheney Court Farm.
•
Folkestone Hidden Gems Project – led by Shepway District Council –
congratulations to Emily Glassenpour.
•
Business Breakfast at Romney Hythe & Dymchurch Railway.
1
Page 1
Council - 11 July 2012
Councillor Mrs Hollingsbee went on to say that she was pleased that there will
be a focus for Shepway councillors, partners and guests on Christchurch
Gardens for the Olympic Torch Relay on 18 July. She then introduced Tamasin
Jarrett, who has organized the event for Shepway, to give a presentation to
council.
The chairman also offered her thanks to Shepway District Council, Haguelands,
Allied Entertainment and The Looker for supporting the Marsh Academy
programme.
Finally, Councillor Mrs Hollingsbee informed council that Lee Jones, a
committee administrator is leaving the council’s service to join the East Kent
Audit Partnership. The chairman thanked Lee for his service to councillors and
his enthusiasm and helpfulness in carrying out his work.
38.
Petitions
There were no petitions for presentation.
39.
Petitions requiring debate
There were no petitions for debate.
40.
Questions from the public
There were no questions from the public.
41.
Questions from councillors
A copy of the questions put and the answers given are at appendix 1 to the
minutes.
42.
Announcements of the Leader of the Council
The leader began his announcements by saying that the council had been
working hard to establish a revised Code of Conduct and new standards
regime, the benefits of which are on tonight’s agenda.
Councillor Bliss went on to detail some of the great deal of ongoing work being
carried out by the council:
•
The monitoring of the introduction of the Dog Control Orders and the new
policing arrangement.
•
The modifications to the Local Development Framework in the light of the
inspector’s report.
2
Page 2
•
The new recommendations for the Independent Remuneration Panel in
the light of councillors’ views.
•
Mystery shopping exercises in line with the Customer Charter.
•
Neighbourhood Planning and the Community Right to Challenge
arrangements.
•
Continuing to develop relationships with local businesses and to finance
apprenticeships.
•
The Olympic Torch Relay next Wednesday, 18 July.
Councillor Bliss ended his report by congratulating the new mayor of Boulogne,
Mireille Hingrez-Cereda on her election and said that the previous mayor,
Frederic Cuvillier had gone on to be the Junior Minister of Transport and the
Maritime Economy in Paris.
Councillor Copping responded by reminding the leader of the policy regarding
dog orders, some time ago the leader had said ‘enforcement, enforcement,
enforcement’; but judging by the streets in his area, the service is not stepping
up to the wire on dog and other enforcement issues. The Leader of the
Opposition went on to say that, of course, not all enforcement matters such as
using mobile telephones whilst driving and also speeding came under the
jurisdiction of this council.
He then said that he would rather see the dog enforcement officer go about
their business in an undercover way, although this might be seen as being
underhand.
Councillor Copping stated that he was pleased that the council is developing the
apprenticeship scheme as the town is in a tatty state, which led to his next item
that two roundabouts along the route of the Olympic Torch Relay had had the
grass cut, but one escape lane had not. Councillor Copping’s suggestion was
to place some railway sleepers on the escape lane to be evocative of the
Folkestone Harbour area which would be better than weeds.
The Leader of the Opposition finished his response by saying that he would not
be commenting further on the seven to eight point made by the Leader of the
Council in his announcements as he had an item for Opposition Business later
on the agenda.
The Leader of the Council stated that he was pleased to confirm that there has
been a significant improvement in enforcement in Sandgate. There was an
additional enforcement officer in operation this week and in total, an extra
hundred hours a week is being carried out.
3
Page 3
Councillor Bliss went on to say that one cabinet member is pulling all
enforcement matters together and lots of good results can be looked forward to.
He then went on to finish by informing council that grass cutting on roundabouts
was a Kent County Council responsibility, but on this occasion Shepway District
Council will tidy them up for them.
Proposed by Councillor Robert Bliss
Seconded by Councillor Rory Love and
Resolved:
To receive and note the Leader of the Council’s announcements.
(Voting: For 39; Against 0; Abstentions 0)
43.
Opposition business
The People First Group raised the following matter: The future role of Lydd
Airport.
Proposed by Councillor Brian Copping
Seconded by Councillor Paul Marsh and
Resolved:
That council shall note the issue raised and take no further action.
44.
Localism Act 2011 - Adoption of New Standards Regime
Report A/12/20 presented the matters that needed to be adopted and decided
to implement the new standards regime including a new code of conduct,
arrangements for dealing with complaints and delegations.
Resolved:
1. To receive and note report A/12/20.
2. To adopt as from 12 July 2102 the code of conduct as set out in
appendix 1 which deals with the conduct of members and co – opted
members of this authority when acting in that capacity subject to the
alteration of clause 5 (4) of the code to read:(4)
Where you have an Other Significant Interest in any business
of the Authority, you may
4
Page 4
(a) in accordance with the authority’s procedure rules attend and
observe the meeting from the place reserved in the meeting room for
the public but you may not participate in any discussion of, or vote
taken on, the matter at the meeting (subject to the provisions of sub –
paragraph b below)
(b) make representations, answer questions or give evidence relating
to the business, provided that the public are also allowed to attend
the meeting for the same purpose. Having made your
representations, given evidence or answered questions you must:
(i) not participate in any discussion of, or vote taken on, the matter at
the Meeting; and
(ii) withdraw to the place in the meeting room reserved for the public
in accordance with the Authority’s procedure rules.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
That the council puts in place, with effect from 12 July 2012 the
arrangements contained within Appendix 2 of the report under
which allegations of non-compliance with the Code can be
investigated and under which decisions can be made.
To delegate the powers and functions set out in Appendix 3 of the
report to the Monitoring Officer.
To adopt the terms of reference shown in Appendix 4 of the report
for the Audit and Standards Committee.
To agree the person specification and job – description of the
Independent Person at Appendix 5 of the report.
To appoint one Independent Person and one reserve.
To authorise the deputy chief executive in consultation with the
chairman of Audit and Standards Committee to set the
remuneration of the Independent Persona and the reserve.
To authorise the Audit and Standards Committee to interview
prospective candidates for the role of Independent Person and
reserve and to make recommendations to council on the
appointment.
That a review of the scheme be conducted within a year.
45.
Proposed Procedure Rules
The constitutional advisory committee considered report CA/12/01 seeking a
recommendation that the council adopt a procedure rule in the council,
committee and executive procedure rules requiring a councillor to withdraw from
the meeting when he/she has a Discloseable Pecuniary Interest or and Other
Significant Interest as defined respectively in the statutory instrument and the
proposed code of conduct. The views of the constitutional advisory committee
were reported to council and are set out in Report A/12/21.
5
Page 5
Resolved:
1.
To receive and note report A/12/21.
2.
To insert the following rule in the council, committee and executive
procedure rules.
a) ‘A councillor or co-opted member with a Disclosable Pecuniary
Interest in a matter to be considered, or being considered at a
meeting, must withdraw from the meeting room unless he/she has
been granted a dispensation by the Audit and Standards Committee
or the Monitoring Officer (where authorised) to speak only or to
speak and vote on the matter.’
b) ‘A councillor or co-opted member with an Other Significant
Interest in matter to be considered, or being considered at a
meeting, must,
(i) if he/she attends the meeting and subject to sub-paragraph (ii)
below, be in the place reserved for the public in the meeting room;
(ii) where the public are allowed to make representations, answer
questions or give evidence relating to the business withdraw to the
place in the meeting room reserved for the public after having made
representations, answered questions or given evidence.
Unless in either case he/she has been granted a dispensation by
the Audit and Standards Committee or the Monitoring Officer
(where authorised) to speak only or to speak and vote on the
matter.’
46.
Motions on Notice
There were no motions on notice.
6
Page 6
Appendix 1
Schedule 1
Council Meeting – 11 July 2012
Councillors’ Questions and Answers
1.
To the Cabinet Member for Traffic Management and Parking Councillor Malcolm Dearden from Councillor Paul Marsh
Given the apparent importance of raising income from car parking, would
the cabinet member please advise the council of the level of parking
income for the district for the first quarter of 2012-13 compared with that of
the first quarter of 2011-12, together with the associated costs?
Response:
Thank you for your question. The quarterly figures should be considered in
the context of the annual figures. Parking service enforces both on and off
street parking resources within the district, including car parks owned and
managed by the Council.
The gross income from these two service areas, including income from car
park charges, season tickets, residents’ permits and penalty charge notices
totalled £1.32m during the financial year 2011/12. Early projections based
on the figures from the first quarter of this year suggest that gross income
will increase slightly during 2012/13 to £1.36m.
At the same time overall costs for the parking service are projected to
remain steady at around £1.26m, resulting in a small increase in the net
surplus for the parking services from £60k in 2011/12 to £100k in 2012/13.
It is important to note however that within these total figures there is a
significant difference in the financial position for on-street and off-street
parking.
During 2011/12 off-street parking generated a net surplus, after costs of
£284k. Current projections show this increasing to £321k in the current
year.
In contrast, on-street parking generated a net cost, taking into account the
costs of providing the service, of £231k during 2011/12. Current projections
show this net cost reducing slightly to £220k in the current year. These
figures include a prudent estimate of the impact of the new central
Folkestone CPZ, which will be updated with more accurate projections as
actual income and cost figure become available later in the year.
Looking at the quarterly figures, the off-street parking net income reduced
by £35k during the first quarter. There is also slight increase in the net onstreet cost (£15k) when compared with last year’s first quarter.
Page 7
Appendix 1
However, the current trend is showing an improvement in on & off-street
income and the annual projections which we believe is more relevant are
positive.
It is recognised that these budgets are sensitive to seasonal fluctuations
and that periods of unexpected good or bad weather have an impact. It is
for this reason that parking budgets are closely monitored throughout the
year.
Supplementary:
Bearing in mind the cabinet reversal of the original proposals for car
parking charges, meaning that the proposed income will be severely
reduced, how will the financial hole be filled?
Response:
We listened to the results of the consultations and scrutiny, hence the
change. Figures are being prepared to answer two questions for the
Resources Scrutiny Committee on 18 July. If we do suffer, whatever the
consequence, we will act with integrity. As things develop, council will be
kept informed.
2.
To the Cabinet Member for Economic Development – Councillor Alan
Clifton-Holt from Councillor Paul Marsh
Given the noticeable reduction in the numbers and scale of applications
being considered by the Development Control Committee, can the Cabinet
Member advise the council of the level of income from planning
applications for the first quarter of 2012-13 compared with that of the first
quarter of 2011-12?
Response:
Planning income for the first quarter of 2011/12 was £68,445 compared to
£91,345 for the first quarter of 2012/13.
Planning application fees have not been increased since 2008. The
Government has recently announced a proposed one-off adjustment of
application fees in line with inflation, amounting to around 15%. It is likely
that regulations bringing this fee increase will come into force in the
autumn.
Supplementary:
Thank you for your answer, there is a third increase in income. Are people
applying now as they know that costs are due to go up, or will we keep
overperforming and cover our costs for once?
Page 8
Appendix 1
Response:
I don’t think that people plan their applications this way, major applications
mean major income.
3.
To the Leader of the Council – Councillor Robert Bliss from
Councillor Brian Copping
The Leader can’t have helped but notice the fact that the Folkestone
Harbour and seafront site from the Road of Remembrance down to the
Harbour arm is looking sad and distressed, apart from the solitary Triennial
bell. Would he agree to an all party group being established to meet with
the owners and developers of the site to try to identify the short, medium
and long term plans for this vital site of regeneration and tourism for the
district?
Response:
The Folkestone Harbour Company is currently preparing an outline
planning application for the whole of Folkestone Seafront. This application
is expected to be submitted to the Council by the end of July and would
regenerate the Harbour with proposed residential, commercial and
recreational development following the principles set out in the published
master plan. The realisation of this project has the potential for an
inspirational transformation of this part of the town.
However it is acknowledged that the proposed scheme is likely to be
developed on a phased basis over a number of years and therefore it is
agreed that the Harbour Company be approached with a view to discussing
shorter term measures to improve the attractiveness of the site.
Supplementary:
The question asked for an all party meeting, of course there are only two
parties. Do you contemplate Folkestone Town Council being asked for its
views.
Response:
Everyone will be consulted through the process.
Page 9
Page 10
Agenda Item 11
This report will be made
public on 11 September
2012
Report Number
To:
Date:
Status:
Chief Executive:
Leader of the Council:
Project Lead Member:
SUBJECT:
A/12/22
Council
19 September 2012
Non-executive decision
Alistair Stewart
Councillor Robert Bliss
Councillor David Godfrey
ROMNEY MARSH NUCLEAR RESEARCH AND DISPOSAL
FACILITY (NRDF) – EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
SUMMARY: This report sets out the arguments for and against making an
Expression of Interest to Government on behalf of the Romney Marsh community
about potential involvement in the search for a site for a Geological Disposal
Facility for the permanent disposal of the UK’s nuclear waste. It outlines the
process of involvement and summarises views received from local and other
communities.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council is asked to recommend to the Leader of the Council how to proceed as
set out in the recommendations below in order to determine if and how this project
should proceed.
Recommendations:
2. To decide to recommend to the leader of the council either:
a. Not submit an Expression of Interest, or
b. Submit a without commitment Expression of Interest, or
c. Submit a qualified and without commitment Expression of Interest
recommending the nature of the qualifications and any time limits,
or
d. Defer a decision to a later date and instruct officers on the
following issues so that sufficient information to enable a decision
can be provided to a later meeting:
i. Whether Romney Marsh should continue to be considered
as a whole or on a parish basis in any possible future
Expression of Interest
ii. The minimum level of community support required in each
parish individually or Romney Marsh as a whole for them to
be included in any possible future Expression of Interest
3. To recommend the minimum level of community support required for
any possible future Decision to Participate, if appropriate to the
decision on Recommendation 2.
Page 11
1.
BACKGROUND
1.1
Dungeness A nuclear power station ceased generation and entered its
decommissioning phase in 2006. Decommissioning is expected to
continue in five stages until about 2098 with the current first stage lasting
until about 2019. The ‘Romney Marsh Socio-Economic Impact
Assessment’ report produced for the council et al in 2011 estimated that:
•
•
•
•
226 Magnox employees (64% of the total) who work at the site live in
the district, of which 75% live on Romney Marsh. The majority of other
employees live in neighbouring areas such as Ashford, Hastings and
Rother
Onsite employment at the site accounts for around 21% of all jobs in
Lydd ward and around 8% of all jobs on Romney Marsh
The site currently supports around 458 jobs in the district. This will fall
to around 166, averaged over the second and third stages of
decommissioning between about 2019 and 2027
The site currently contributes around £18.6 million a year to the
district’s economy. This will reduce by an average of about £13.6
million a year to £5.0 million, averaged over the second and third
stages of decommissioning between about 2019 and 2027, and by
about £16.3 million a year to £2.3 million during the fourth stage which
will last until about 2088.
1.2
Dungeness B nuclear power station is currently scheduled to cease
generation and enter decommissioning in 2018, although an extension of
up to 10 years may be applied for by EDF. A detailed assessment of the
socio-economic implications, as has been done for Dungeness A, was not
included within the report. However it does suggest that decommissioning
will follow a similar pattern to that at Dungeness A with job losses
anticipated throughout the 2020s and 2030s (ignoring the effect of any
extension). It states that Dungeness B currently employs around 554
people and contributes an estimated £29 million a year to the local
economy (both figures are higher than the contribution from Dungeness A).
1.3
Dungeness A and B together currently employ about 780 people, excluding
sub-contractors. They support over 1,000 jobs, which represents 20% of
all jobs on Romney Marsh and around 45% of all jobs in Lydd ward. Their
annual combined contribution to the local economy is estimated at £48
million.
1.4
Dungeness C - Report C/10/49 submitted to Cabinet at its 12 January 2011
meeting considered a Government consultation on revised draft Energy
National Policy Statements (NPS). As in previous consultations, the
proposals excluded Dungeness as a site suitable for development of a new
nuclear power station (Dungeness C), principally on the grounds of
possible harm to the Special Area of Conservation (SAC). However the
Government said that should evidence be presented to show that
development could take place without adversely affecting the integrity of
the SAC it would consider including Dungeness as a site in its NPS.
Community Overview Committee and Cabinet considered this and resolved
Page 12
(see Minute 64 of Cabinet meeting on 12 January 2011) that in its
response to the consultation the council:
a. “Renews its support for a new power station at Dungeness and for its
inclusion within the NPS as a preferred site for deployment in the period
to 2025;
b. Welcomes the Government’s view that there is still scope for a
developer to demonstrate that the integrity of the international wildlife
sites would not be adversely affected and that coastal erosion issues
can be dealt with;
c. Continues to encourage all parties to maintain an active dialogue with
the objective of identifying suitable mitigation and compensatory
measures and enhancement opportunities to deal with the concerns
raised in the Strategic Siting Assessment;
d. Asks the Government to consider including in the final Nuclear NPS a
statement welcoming an application from a developer for consent to
build a new nuclear power station at Dungeness providing it could
satisfy the IPS and the Secretary of State that any such application has
satisfactorily addressed the ecological and coastal defence issues”.
1.5
In its response to the consultation, published in June 2011, the
Government’s view was unchanged and it concluded that “Dungeness is
not potentially suitable for the deployment of a new nuclear power station
by 2025” but allowed for reconsideration “should evidence come forward
that satisfies the Government that there is potential for development to take
place at Dungeness without adversely affecting the SAC G”.
1.6
Senior officers met with officials from the Department of Energy and
Climate Change (DECC) in February 2012 to promote consideration of
Dungeness C. At this meeting it was made clear that the likelihood of
Dungeness C going ahead in the foreseeable future is very low. The two
main reasons for this are the SAC issue outlined above and EDF’s view, as
site owner and potential developer, that the commercial case for
development is much stronger at other UK sites. DECC consider it unlikely
that any developer would choose Dungeness when there are eight other
sites that have been identified for new nuclear power stations. These
views were reinforced by DECC at a meeting with members and officers
from Kent County Council, Ashford Borough Council, Canterbury City
Council, Dover District Council and Thanet District Council in Ashford on 11
May 2012.
1.7
Following the meeting in February, the Leader and Chief Executive decided
to consider the possibility of a major infrastructure project within the nuclear
industry which has the potential to provide employment and contribute to
the local economy, particularly of Romney Marsh, as decommissioning
progresses at Dungeness A & B. The project currently under consideration
is the construction and operation of a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).
This generic Government title for the project was substituted by Nuclear
Research and Disposal Facility (NRDF) for the reasons set out in
paragraph 6.4. The Government’s project title of GDF and the council’s
project title of NRDF are therefore interchangeable in this report.
Page 13
1.8
In recent months, following announcement of the potential GDF project,
there has been increased lobbying for Dungeness C. The Government has
agreed to review the issues but has also advised Damian Collins MP, KCC
and the Leader at a meeting on 25 July 2012 that the likelihood of
Dungeness C going ahead in the foreseeable future remains low.
1.9
The Local Development Framework Core Strategy recognises Romney
Marsh as one of the district’s priority areas for investment and the need for
a long term development strategy to encourage a wide range of
employment opportunities to provide suitable training and environmental
improvements. It recognises the uncertainties around Dungeness as well
as Lydd Airport and the possible necessity for a review of the Strategy to
address these issues. Any such review could be extended to include a
GDF if the project were to have substantially progressed by then.
1.10
The decisions on whether or not to submit an expression of interest and
associated matters are executive decisions and must be made by the
executive. The leader has indicated that he will make an individual
decision on this matter once he has heard the debate of the council and
considered its decisions.
2
GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL & THE GDF
2.1
The UK has been producing nuclear waste of varying types for many
decades and has built up a large stockpile, much of which is currently
stored at Sellafield in Cumbria with the remainder at various sites around
the country including Dungeness. Nuclear waste will continue to be
produced for decades to come as a by-product of existing and new nuclear
power stations and from other sources. The Government has an obligation
under international law to arrange for the safe and permanent disposal of
all higher activity radioactive waste within the UK. Radioactive waste
cannot be disposed of in another country, nor can radioactive waste from
other countries be disposed of in the UK. The Government’s programme
for dealing with radioactive waste is the Managing Radioactive Waste
Safely (MRWS) programme. Responsibility for the programme rests with
the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) which has a
dedicated website on this aspect of its work - http://mrws.decc.gov.uk/.
2.2
In common with other countries with a similar problem, the Government’s
preferred approach is ‘geological disposal’, which essentially means
permanently disposing of nuclear waste deep underground in stable strata
where the radioactivity can decay safely over many thousands of years. Of
the 39 countries that have nuclear waste to deal with, 25 are progressing
with geological disposal. These countries include France, Switzerland,
Belgium, Finland, Sweden, China and the USA. The other 14 countries
have still to decide, although so far none have chosen any other method.
2.3
The case for geological disposal is not universally accepted. Greenpeace,
for example, has many technical and other concerns about geological
disposal, as detailed on their website - greenpeace.org.uk. Nuclear Waste
Advisory Associates have been involved in the debate in Cumbria and also
have concerns – see nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk. However the countries
Page 14
progressing with geological disposal are confident that the approach is
technically viable and will be demonstrably safe to the satisfaction of
national and international regulators. Research and development
throughout the design stages is therefore an integral part of implementing
geological disposal in the UK and elsewhere.
2.4
The facility which the Government intends to build somewhere in the UK to
facilitate geological disposal is generically called a GDF. Details of the
facility, including the amount and type of nuclear waste to be disposed of,
are included within the Government’s 2008 white paper titled ‘Managing
Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological
Disposal’ (subsequently referred to as the white paper) which can be
downloaded from DECC’s website. The white paper contains a great deal
of information on geological disposal and the GDF. Outline details are
provided below.
2.5
The GDF would probably consist of surface facilities covering an area of
approximately one square kilometre and underground facilities covering a
much larger area, the extent of which is not known at this time. The
underground facilities are expected to be at a depth of between 200m and
1,000m and may be located directly beneath or at some distance from the
surface facilities, probably up to 10 km away but possibly even further.
Surface and underground facilities would probably be connected by means
of sloping tunnels and/or vertical shafts. Details of the design will not be
known until a site has been chosen and further design work has been
carried out to suit the characteristics of the site and the underlying geology.
Preliminary details about the likely physical arrangement of the GDF are
contained in the white paper.
2.6
The GDF will allow permanent disposal of the UK’s nuclear waste. The
waste may include high, intermediate and low level waste, spent nuclear
fuel, plutonium and uranium. Indicative amounts, radioactivity levels and
other details for each type of waste are given in the white paper.
2.7
The GDF will cost approximately £12 billion to build and will have an
operational life of about 140 years. The Government’s programme is for
construction to start by 2025 and for the first emplacement of waste in
2040, although they are currently looking at ways of accelerating the later
stages of their programme by up to 11 years. The Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA) will be responsible for construction and
operation of the facility.
3
POTENTIAL BENEFITS
3.1
The potential benefits to an area from having a GDF are considerable. A
brief overview of the main potential benefits follows. An explanation of the
process of involvement is in section 5.
3.2
Employment - construction and operation of a GDF would provide
hundreds of long term well paid jobs and secondary employment in the
area around the facility. The ‘manpower and skills requirement’ study by
the NDA assessed the skill levels and numbers of jobs likely to be
Page 15
necessary to build and operate a GDF. It concluded that the average
manpower requirement (excluding secondary employment) would be:
•
•
•
•
437 prior to construction (approx 15 years)
838 during construction before first waste placement (approx 15 years)
565 during operation and on-going construction (approx 100 years)
188 during closure (approx 10 years)
This amounts to manpower of 555 averaged over the whole study period
(140 years).
More details are given in the study report which can be downloaded from
the project website - romneymarshnrdf.org.uk/downloads.htm.
3.3
Infrastructure – construction and operation of a GDF is likely to involve
major investment in local transport facilities, such as road and rail. It is
also likely to include improvements to other infrastructure such as defences
against inland and possibly also coastal flooding. Improvements could
benefit local residents, businesses and tourists and would remain after the
facility closed. The nature and extent of any infrastructure improvements
would be dictated largely by the location of the surface facility.
3.4
Economy - the local economy would benefit from expenditure on
construction and operation and through taxation of various forms. There
could be spin-off industry benefits and positive impacts on local service
industries that support the facility and its workforce. Socio-economic
studies into the potential effects would be carried out as part of the design
and approval process so would be taken into account before any final
decision by the community on whether or not to agree to a GDF.
3.5
Community Benefits Package – in addition to the benefits outlined above,
the white paper states that “there may be other benefits which may be
commensurate with developing the social and economic wellbeing of a
community that has decided to fulfil such an essential service to the
nation”. The following are suggested areas that a community might benefit
from as result of hosting a GDF:
•
•
•
•
Investment in local education, training and skills development,
including for the specific skills required by the GDF investment
Improved public services, transportation, housing and recreational
facilities
Enhanced local healthcare
Local environmental improvements
It would be for the local community to agree priorities for investment
through a Community Siting Partnership, as summarised in Appendix A
and defined in the white paper. The scale of the Community Benefits
Package would be negotiated between the Government and the
Community Siting Partnership prior to any final decision about hosting a
GDF so that a fully informed decision can be taken by the community at
that time. While it is not possible at this stage to give any indicative figures,
Page 16
it is likely that the Community Benefits Package would be worth many
millions of pounds a year to the local community, in addition to the other
benefits outlined above.
3.6
Other benefits – there may be other benefits of being involved in the siting
process. It is impossible to quantify or guarantee these but West Cumbria
(see paragraph 5.5) are understood to have benefited from additional
Government funding in other areas as a direct result of them considering
hosting the GDF. There may also be benefits of being involved in the
process of finding a site even if the Government eventually decide to locate
the GDF elsewhere i.e. by being involved in the process but without
actually hosting the GDF. This occurred in Sweden where two ‘competing’
communities agreed which of them should host the GDF and shared a
benefits package. Any such benefits, if they applied, would not be agreed
with Government until a later stage in the process.
4
POTENTIAL RISKS
4.1
The potential risks to an area from having a GDF are also not to be
underestimated. A brief overview of the main potential risks follows. An
explanation of the process of involvement follows in section 5.
4.2
Public health and environmental damage – the hazards presented by
radioactive materials, some of which have half lives measured in
thousands of years, are well known and would be a major concern to most
people. It would therefore be essential for the hazards to be investigated
and risks controlled to the satisfaction of the local community as well as
national and international regulators. The principal UK regulators would be
the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency, the Office for
Civil Nuclear Security and the Department for Transport. Environmental
impact and sustainability issues would be dealt with through the Strategic
Environmental Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal and Environmental
Impact Assessment processes. Further details are given in the white
paper.
4.3
Disruption during construction – in common with any major infrastructure
project, construction would cause disruption to local people. The extent of
this disruption would depend on the site chosen and the extent of works to
improve infrastructure, particularly road and rail. The NDA would work with
the local community, including through the Community Siting Partnership,
to mitigate the disruption. The likely extent of disruption would be
established through studies carried out before the local community was
asked to decide whether or not to host a GDF.
4.4
Long term use of land – the surface facilities will require the use of about
one square kilometre of land throughout the operational life of the project.
This is similar to the area taken up by the two power stations at
Dungeness, including the transformer building and the land between them.
It is also an area similar in size, although of a different shape, to the
Eurotunnel Terminal at Cheriton. On closure, after about 140 years of use,
the facility would be dismantled and the land returned to its former or some
other use, as agreed at the time. The current land use, which may
Page 17
comprise agriculture, industry, housing, infrastructure etc., would be
displaced and issues of relocation and compensation would therefore need
to be addressed. Clearly there can be no assessment of these issues at
such an early stage when the area in which the surface facilities could
potentially be located is so large.
4.5
Other effects – a GDF may have a wide range of other effects on the local
community, including aspects such as the environment, property values
and tourism. These effects may be positive or negative, major or minor
and short or long term. At this early stage it is too soon to be certain about
what these effects might be or even if some of them would occur. There
would need to be extensive studies, carried out for the Community Siting
Partnership and funded by Government, to establish what the effects might
be. These studies would probably be carried out over a period of years
and would certainly need to be completed before any final decision by the
local community on whether or not to host a GDF. They would probably
address the same general issues as those which also apply to West
Cumbria as well as studies into specific local issues.
5
PROCESS OF INVOLVEMENT
5.1
The Government’s approach to finding a site for a GDF is based on
‘voluntarism’. This essentially means that communities which live on and
around the site where a facility may be located must be willing to host it.
The Government’s approach includes a ‘Right of Withdrawal’ from the
process which can be exercised up until the point when underground
operations and construction are due to begin. The inclusion of a Right of
Withdrawal is intended to contribute to the development and maintenance
of community confidence, although there are likely to be issues around how
it would be safeguarded and exercised. Further details of the voluntarism
approach and the Right of Withdrawal are contained in the white paper.
5.2
The process of involvement leading to site selection is staged. This is to
enable local communities and others to gather information and make
informed decisions at each stage before deciding whether or not to
proceed further. A Community Siting Partnership would represent the local
community from Stage 4 onwards. The Right of Withdrawal applies until
the end of Stage 5. An outline of the process is set out below and further
details can be found in the white paper:
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.3
Stage 1 – Invitation issued and Expressions of Interest
Stage 2 – Sub-surface unsuitability test (desk study of geology)
Stage 3 – Community consideration leading to Decisions to Participate
Stage 4 – Desk-based studies in participating areas
Stage 5 – Surface investigations on remaining candidates
Stage 6 – Underground operations (construction and operation)
The Government “does not wish to be over-prescriptive” about the way in
which community involvement and decision-making should work, as this
will depend on local circumstances. However the white paper does provide
Page 18
an indication of the potential steps to be taken by communities at all stages
of the process. The steps suggested for Stage 1 include:
•
•
•
•
“Preliminary discussion between potential local partners”
“Opportunity for initial discussions between potential local partners and
government/NDA”
“Further soundings from potential local partners”
“Decision about Expression of Interest”
5.4
The invitation from Government to “communities to express an interest in
opening up without commitment discussions on the possibility of hosting a
geological disposal facility at some point in the future” is contained in the
white paper. It requires local authorities, as the ‘Decision Making Body’, to
submit a formal Expression of Interest (EoI) to Government on behalf of a
community that wishes to accept the invitation.
5.5
It is useful to see how the process has progressed elsewhere. In 2008/09
three councils (Cumbria County Council, Allerdale Borough Council and
Copeland Borough Council) each submitted an EoI. Their intention was to
work together regarding one possible site somewhere in the Allerdale or
Copeland areas of West Cumbria, so this could be considered as being a
collective EoI rather than three unrelated EoIs. Since then these councils
have worked with a range of other organisations as part of the West
Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership (West Cumbria).
This work was paid for by DECC so there was no cost to any of the three
councils. Details of their work can be found on their website westcumbriamrws.org.uk.
5.6
To date only the West Cumbria councils have submitted EoIs, although it is
understood from Government that at least one other community, apart from
Romney Marsh, is actively considering whether or not to do so.
5.7
Since submitting EoIs, West Cumbria has received a total of £2.8 million
from the Government through an engagement package grant. This funding
covered all of the costs of running the partnership, direct costs incurred by
the local authorities as result of their involvement, the cost of public
engagement activities and the provision of independent expert and legal
advice, including on issues of geology.
5.8
West Cumbria recently conducted an extensive public consultation which
sought people’s views on a range of issues related to GDF. This
generated responses from 1,400 people in West Cumbria, other parts of
the county and further afield. The responses were used to inform West
Cumbria’s final report to the three councils to inform their decisions on
whether or not to submit a Decision to Participate (DtP). The report
(document 306) can be viewed on their website - westcumbriamrws.org.uk
5.9
In addition to the consultation, Ipsos MORI was commissioned to conduct a
representative and random opinion poll telephone survey of more than
3,000 people, asking if they supported taking part in the search for a site
for a GDF. A poll was used rather than a referendum because West
Page 19
Cumbria decided that not enough information was known about where a
GDF may be sited and therefore also about key issues such as safety,
geology and community benefits.
5.10
The results of the combined total of over 4,400 responses are tabulated
below. In all areas more people supported a DtP than opposed it.
Table A
West Cumbria public consultation
5.11
For
Opposed
Neutral
Do not know
Allerdale BC
51%
37%
4%
8%
Copeland BC
68%
23%
4%
5%
Other parts of Cumbria
50%
35%
5%
10%
The results of the opinion poll showed that support for taking part seemed
to be linked to awareness as those who were more aware of the search for
a site for a GDF were more likely to support it, as shown in the table below:
Table B
Should
take part
in the
search
Should
not take
part in
the
search
Neutral
Don’t
know
A lot
70%
27%
2%
2%
Not heard of
35%
38%
8%
19%
West Cumbria –
level of knowledge
of the search
5.12
The three councils are expected to make decisions on whether or not to
submit a DtP in October this year. If a DtP is submitted then West Cumbria
will begin Stage 4 which includes the formation of a Community Siting
Partnership.
5.13
Members should note that a DtP is a far more significant step than an EoI.
It shows to Government that a community has seriously considered the
possibility of hosting a GDF over a period of years, including investigation
of a range of issues, and that it is in overall support of proceeding to the
next stage (Stage 4). A DtP is therefore the trigger for far more detailed
work by Government than is warranted by an EoI. This would include
addressing issues which the community had raised but that were not
addressed fully at previous stages. The community’s Right of Withdrawal
is unaffected by a DtP.
Page 20
6
PROJECT INCEPTION
6.1
In February 2012 a project team of members and officers was set up, led
by Councillor David Godfrey. Their remit was to carry out the work
necessary at Stage 1 to facilitate a decision by members on whether or not
to submit an EoI on behalf of a community within the district.
6.2
It was decided that the focus of the search should be on the areas of
Romney, Walland and Denge Marshes colloquially and collectively known
as Romney Marsh which fall within the district. This was the part of the
district likely to be affected most by the decommissioning and closure of
Dungeness A and B. As parish/town councils would be a key part of the
decision-making process it was decided to define the search area by parish
boundaries. Parishes would therefore be either fully in or fully out of the
defined search area in order to facilitate decisions by their councils.
6.3
The potential Host Community, as defined in the white paper, was therefore
defined as all parishes within the district including and to the south and
west of Dymchurch and Burmarsh. By definition, the potential Wider Local
Interests are “other communities that have an interest in whether or not a
facility should be built in the Host Community”.
6.4
The project team agreed that the title Geological Disposal Facility would
not be clear to the general public, nor did it give any indication of one of the
benefits of this potential project i.e. the highly skilled and other well paid
jobs associated with a research centre which would be an international
centre of excellence. The project was therefore titled the Romney Marsh
Nuclear Research and Disposal Facility (Romney Marsh NRDF).
7
SOUNDINGS
7.1
The white paper states that “before making an EoI, Government suggests
that the local authority should have canvassed opinion G” with
“parish/town councils, local community, business and environmental
stakeholder groups, and neighbouring local authorities”. It does not
suggest that individual residents or businesses should be canvassed but
the project team agreed that it would be desirable to do so within the
potential Host Community to obtain a better indication of local opinion.
7.2
The white paper refers to “preliminary soundings”. It does not suggest or
require ‘consultation’ as might be carried out for, as an example, a major
Planning Application. The project team therefore agreed that formal
‘consultation’ was not necessary or warranted at this very early stage. As
in West Cumbria, detailed consultation would be carried out at later stages
of the process (Stage 3 onwards) if an EoI is submitted, and would be
funded by Government as part of an engagement package.
7.3
Although the soundings were not a consultation, the Government’s ‘Code
of Practice on Consultation’ dated July 2008 (the consultation code of
practice) was used to guide the soundings process. All of the criteria in the
consultation code of practice were considered and adapted to the
soundings process and available resources.
Page 21
7.4
A council budget of £44,000 was set up to commission work required at
Stage 1. This included the costs of engaging a consultancy to produce
information, run public exhibitions and set up and maintain a dedicated
website. The final cost is estimated to be about £38,000.
7.5
The soundings process began with a series of meetings with potential key
stakeholders starting on 10 May 2012. Confidential briefings were given to:
•
•
•
•
MPs for Ashford, Dover, Hastings & Rye and Folkestone & Hythe
East Sussex and Kent county councils
Ashford, Canterbury, Dover, Rother and Thanet district councils
Shepway District Councillors
7.6
The soundings process continued with a media launch on 16 May 2012.
Articles were published in the Kentish Express, Folkestone Herald and the
Romney Marsh edition of The Looker. The dedicated project website
(romneymarshnrdf.org.uk) was activated and a link from the council’s own
website was provided.
7.7
The following letters were sent, timed to arrive before the media launch:
•
•
•
•
10,223 to all registered homes in the potential Host Community
652 to all registered businesses within the potential Host Community
All parish/town councils in the district and immediately adjacent to the
potential Host Community
Potential key stakeholder and interest groups, as listed in Appendix B
Leaflets and reply forms were included with the letters to homes and
businesses. The offer of a meeting to explain the proposals was included
within all letters to parish/town councils on Romney Marsh and potential
key stakeholders and interest groups.
7.8
The question asked was “Do you think that Shepway District Council
should submit an Expression of Interest on the community’s behalf, in order
to find out more information about a possible Nuclear Research and
Disposal facility on Romney Marsh”? The available responses were:
•
•
•
“Yes. We should find out more”
“No. We should not find out more”
“I am undecided”
Space was provided on the printed and on-line forms for any comments or
questions. A deadline of 20 July was given for views to be expressed, just
over nine weeks after the letters were expected to be delivered. However
all views received by 26 July were considered, in order to allow sufficient
time for any postal delays. The period allowed for the expression of views
was therefore just over ten weeks.
7.9
Presentations were made to bodies and groups that requested them, at
which members of the project team were questioned. Officials from DECC
Page 22
and the NDA attended some of the presentations and were also
questioned. Presentations were given to the following bodies and groups:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dungeness Site Stakeholder Group
Folkestone Town Council
Kent Channel Chamber of Commerce
Lydd Town Council
New Romney Town Council
Marsh Forum
Shepway District and Parish Councils Joint Committee
7.10
A series of seven all-day public exhibitions was held so that the public and
interested parties had the opportunity to speak directly to members of the
project team and officials from DECC and the NDA about the proposal.
Seven public exhibitions were held across Romney Marsh and one at
Dungeness A for workers at both nuclear power stations. This last
exhibition was not open to the public for security reasons. The public
exhibitions were attended by over 400 people.
7.11
The project website was updated during the soundings period in response
to queries and views expressed by providing additional information and
clarification. A series of ‘Q&As’ was also added to provide answers to
questions asked in reply forms, letters, emails and at the public exhibitions.
The website was visited 1,489 times during the soundings period, of which
1,254 were first time visits and 235 were return visits. The total number of
pages loaded was 1,972, giving an average of only 1.3 pages seen per
visit. The website has over 20 pages indicating that most people did not
see most of the information provided.
7.12
There was significant media interest during the soundings period, as
summarised in the media report at Appendix E.
7.13
It is worth noting that the soundings were far more extensive, both in terms
of the amount of information provided and the number of people and
organisations from whom views were sought, than were carried out in West
Cumbria at this stage of the process.
8
VIEWS EXPRESSED
8.1
The table below shows the number of responses received and the variation
between parishes. The percentage in the final column is the response rate
based on the number of properties. The response rate per person would
be lower as most properties house more than one person, although there
were many instances of more than one view being received for a particular
property. The response rate measured in this way varied between 21%
and 42% with an overall average of 29%. This is considered to be good
and higher than normally expected in ‘consultation’ type exercises.
However, it also means that no responses were submitted from 71% of
properties which represents more than 71% of residents and businesses.
Page 23
Table C
Parish
Brenzett
Brookland
Burmarsh
Dymchurch
Ivychurch
Lydd
Newchurch
New Romney
Old Romney
Snargate
St. Mary in
the Marsh
Totals
Forms
Sent
179
222
157
1,813
119
3,184
152
3,426
109
57
Views Received from Romney Marsh
Residents Businesses
Total
47
1
48 (27%)
54
0
54 (24%)
38
3
41 (26%)
509
12
521 (29%)
25
0
25 (21%)
840
16
856 (27%)
59
3
62 (41%)
1,038
25
1,063 (31%)
26
3
29 (27%)
24
0
24 (42%)
1,457
378
6
384 (26%)
10,875
3,038
69
3,107 (29%)
It should be noted that the total number of residents and businesses
expressing a view varies considerably between parishes, ranging from 24
in Snargate to 1,063 in New Romney. All summary percentages in the
remainder of this report should therefore be considered with an
understanding of the number of views they represent and the relative size
of different parts of the community.
8.2
Views were expressed by a variety of means. The majority of responses,
89%, were submitted on printed reply forms posted to the council, 9% via
the on-line reply form on the website with the remainder by email or letter.
All views were collated into a single spreadsheet and checked for multiple
and other invalid returns, as detailed in Appendix B. Only one response
per person was considered. A total of 32 submissions were excluded for
this reason. All responses will be published on the project website after the
council’s decision.
8.3
A total of 3,328 valid views expressed to the council were included in the
analysis, of which 94% were from Romney Marsh. Views sent to other
bodies such as the media were not included in the analysis as they did not
always address the same question and may have duplicated views that
were officially submitted. Views expressed in the media are however
summarised in the report at Appendix E for members’ information. Views
expressed by political bodies and representatives are summarised below.
8.4
The project team decided that members would want to understand the
views of people in the potential Host Community in more detail than those
in potential Wider Local Interests areas. Views from the potential Host
Community were therefore grouped by parish and views from outside this
area were grouped as follows:
•
•
The remainder of the district and neighbouring districts within an
arbitrary distance of 30 km
Remaining areas of Kent and East Sussex further than 30 km
Page 24
•
All other areas
8.5
Members should note that the responses to the question asked do not
necessarily correlate directly to support for a GDF on Romney Marsh.
While this may be true for some respondents, some comments indicate
otherwise. Some people who have indicated “Yes. We should find out
more” have provided comments to show that they want more information
before they can form an opinion, which is consistent with the purpose of the
soundings exercise. However other people have indicated “Yes G” but
their comments suggest that they would not be in favour of a GDF.
Members should assess the analysis of views expressed against this
background.
8.6
The views expressed to the council during the soundings process are
summarised in Tables D to L below. Of the 3,328 views expressed, 2,065
(62%) were accompanied by comments, the full text of which is contained
in Appendix D. For the purposes of these tables the potential Host
Community is called Romney Marsh and the potential Wider Local Interests
are described in the title of each table. In all tables ‘Yes’, ‘No’ etc. are
abbreviations of the available responses listed in paragraph 7.8 above,
together with a ‘No View’ category for those who submitted comments but
did not express a view. Members should also note the following:
•
•
All areas are defined by local or national administrative areas i.e. using
parish, district, county and national boundaries
All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number - rounding
errors therefore mean that not all figures total 100%
8.7
The views expressed have also been summarised in graphical format
(maps) in Appendix C. Arbitrary categories have been used to assist
interpretation of the maps.
8.8
The views expressed directly to the council by residents of Romney Marsh
are summarised below:
Table D
Parish
Brenzett
Brookland
Burmarsh
Dymchurch
Ivychurch
Lydd
Newchurch
New Romney
Old Romney
Snargate
St. Mary in
the Marsh
Totals
‘Yes’
12 (26%)
18 (33%)
15 (39%)
126 (25%)
5 (20%)
301 (36%)
19 (32%)
367 (35%)
11 (42%)
3 (13%)
Residents of Romney Marsh
‘No’
‘Undecided’
34 (72%)
1 (2%)
35 (65%)
0
23 (61%)
0
357 (70%)
18 (4%)
19 (76%)
0
513 (61%)
23 (3%)
39 (66%)
1 (2%)
632 (61%)
28 (3%)
14 (54%)
1 (4%)
21 (88%)
0
‘No View’
0
1 (2%)
0
8 (2%)
1 (4%)
3 (0%)
0
11 (1%)
0
0
135 (36%)
223 (59%)
18 (5%)
2 (1%)
1,012 (33%)
1,910 (63%)
90 (3%)
26 (1%)
Page 25
A total of 3,038 views were expressed by residents of Romney Marsh
representing 91% of the total 3,328 valid views expressed.
‘Yes’ views varied between 13% and 42% of the total in each parish with
an average of 33% across Romney Marsh. ‘No’ views varied between 54%
and 88% with an average of 63%.
The pattern of responses varied during the soundings period, as indicated
on the graph below. During the first week of the ten week soundings period
44% of the total responses were received. This was before the first public
exhibition. The public exhibitions were held in weeks 2, 3, 4 and 9.
796
Graph 1
800
'Yes'
'No'
500
447
600
490
17
41
20
53
8
28
10
29
181
32
42
100
60
84
96
200
85
300
209
400
194
Views Received
700
8
9
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Week Number
The views expressed by people who attended one of the public exhibitions
showed a different pattern to the overall figure with 54% indicating ‘Yes’
and 41% indicating ‘No’. This seems to reflect experience in West Cumbria
(see Table B) where people who knew more about the search for a site for
a GDF seemed more likely to support involvement in the process.
Page 26
8.9
The views expressed directly to the council by businesses on Romney
Marsh are summarised below:
Table E
Parish
Brenzett
Brookland
Burmarsh
Dymchurch
Ivychurch
Lydd
Newchurch
New Romney
Old Romney
Snargate
St. Mary in
the Marsh
Totals
‘Yes’
0
0
1 (33%)
6 (50%)
0
8 (50%)
3 (100%)
11 (44%)
2 (67%)
0
Businesses on Romney Marsh
‘No’
‘Undecided’ ‘No View’
1 (100%)
0
0
0
0
0
2 (67%)
0
0
6 (50%)
0
0
0
0
0
7 (44%)
1 (6%)
0
0
0
0
12 (48%)
2 (8%)
0
1 (33%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
5 (83%)
1 (17%)
0
31 (45%)
34 (50%)
4 (6%)
0
A total of 69 views were expressed by businesses on Romney Marsh which
represents 2% of the total 3,328 valid views expressed.
The average level of ‘Yes’ views across Romney Marsh was 45%. ‘No’
views represented 50% of the total.
8.10
The views expressed directly to the council by residents and businesses in
neighbouring areas, all of which are outside but within 30km of Romney
Marsh, are summarised below:
Table F
District
Ashford
Canterbury
Dover
Hastings
Rother
Northern Shepway
Swale
Tunbridge Wells
Totals
Residents & Businesses
outside but within 30 km of Romney Marsh
‘Yes’
‘No’
‘Undecided ‘No View’
’
18 (50%)
18 (50%)
0
0
0
2 (100%)
0
0
2 (100%)
0
0
0
5 (50%)
5 (50%)
0
0
5 (15%)
29 (85%)
0
0
20 (29%)
48 (69%)
2 (3%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50 (32%) 102 (66%)
2 (1%)
0
A total of 154 views were expressed from these neighbouring areas,
representing 5% of the total 3,328 valid views expressed.
Page 27
8.11
The views expressed directly to the council by residents and businesses
further than 30km from Romney Marsh are summarised below. Views from
people who did not give an address are included within this category and
shown as unknown.
Table G
Location
East Sussex
Kent
UK
Mainland Europe
Rest of the world
Unknown
Totals
Residents & Businesses
more than 30 km from Romney Marsh
‘Yes’
‘No’
0
2 (100%)
0
0
3 (25%)
9 (75%)
0
0
3 (23%)
9 (69%)
1 (8%)
0
0
1 (100%)
0
0
1 (100%)
0
0
0
2 (25%)
4 (50%)
0
2 (25%)
9 (24%) 25 (68%)
1 (3%)
2 (5%)
A total of 37 views were expressed from all areas more than 30km from
Romney Marsh, or whose location was unknown, representing 1% of the
total 3,328 valid views expressed.
8.12
The following table summarises Tables D to G by showing the total views
expressed directly to the council by residents and businesses, categorised
by location:
Table H
Summary
Romney Marsh
Residents
(Table D)
Romney Marsh
Businesses
(Table E)
Kent & Sussex
< 30 km
(Table F)
Elsewhere
> 30 km
(Table G)
Totals
‘Yes’
All Residents & Businesses
‘No’
1,012
(33%)
1,910
(63%)
90
(3%)
26
(1%)
31
(45%)
34
(50%)
4
(6%)
0
50
(32%)
102
(66%)
2
(1%)
0
9
(24%)
25
(68%)
1
(3%)
2
(5%)
1,102
(33%)
2,071
(63%)
97
(3%)
28
(1%)
A total of 3,298 valid views were expressed by all residents and
businesses, representing 99% of the total 3,328 valid views expressed.
The remaining 30 views (1%) were from political bodies and
representatives, interest groups and key stakeholders, as detailed below.
Page 28
The proportion of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ views are the same for all residents and
businesses as they are for residents of Romney Marsh i.e. 33% ‘Yes’ and
63% ‘No’.
8.13
The views of political bodies and representatives, including MEPs, MPs
and councils at county, district and parish level, are summarised below.
The views are tabulated separately for Romney Marsh and elsewhere. To
avoid duplication, the former is given precedence where both are
represented. Members should note the following:
•
•
•
These views have not been included in the preceding summaries for
residents and businesses
Although not all have directly advised the council whether they have a
view on the proposal, the following is believed to be an accurate
representation of their views
Where individual representatives have expressed views they are not
shown separately where the political body of which they are part has
collectively expressed a view
Table J
Romney Marsh
‘Yes’
Catherine Bearder
MEP
Lydd Town Council
Shepway District
Councillors for
Romney Marsh
Political Bodies & Representatives
‘No’
‘Undecided’
‘No View’
Keith Taylor MEP
Dymchurch
Parish Council
Damian Collins MP
Ivychurch
Parish Council
Kent County
Newchurch
Council
Parish Council
Kent County
Councillor for
Romney Marsh
Brenzett Parish
Council
Brookland Parish
Council
Burmarsh Parish
Council
New Romney
Town Council
Shepway Liberal
Democrats (also
petition with 142
signatures)
Page 29
Old Romney
Parish Council
Snargate
Parish Council
St. Mary in the
Marsh Parish
Council
Table K
Outside Romney
Marsh
‘Yes’
Aldington &
Bonnington Parish
Council
Appledore Parish
Council
Lead Member for
Romney Marsh at
Ashford Borough
Council
Bilsington Parish
Council
Hawkinge Town
Council
Hythe Town Council
Political Bodies & Representatives
‘No’
Julian Brazier MP
‘Undecided’
‘No View’
Damian Green
MP
East Sussex
County Council
Camber Parish
Council
Kent Green Party
Newington Parish
Council
Saltwood Parish
Council
Iden Parish Council
Kenardington Parish
Council
Lyminge Parish
Council
Stanford Parish
Council
Stowting Parish
Council
8.14
The views of interest groups and other potential key stakeholders are
summarised below. Members should note the following:
•
•
These views have not been included in the preceding summaries for
residents and businesses
Views are not shown separately for Romney Marsh and elsewhere as
the geographical area of interest of these groups does not generally
coincide with these areas
Page 30
Table L
Interest Groups & other Key Stakeholders
‘Yes’
‘No’
‘Undecided’
‘No View’
Discover Folkestone, Hythe Civic
Community
Hythe & Romney
Society
Action South
Marsh
East (CASE)
Kent
Greatstone Primary
Kent Downs AONB
EDF Energy
School
Keep the Marsh
Kent Wildlife Trust
Farming
Special Alliance
members of
Romney
Marsh NFU
Royal Society for
Natural
the Protection of
England
Birds (RSPB)
Visit Kent
Veolia Water
8.15
Members should note the limitations of the soundings process. These are
discussed in Appendix B, together with further details of the process.
9
KEY ISSUES
9.1
The most frequent issues raised during the soundings period are listed
below, followed by brief comments on each and suggestions for further
actions if an EoI were submitted. The issues were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9.2
Public health
Environmental damage
Geology
Flooding
Waste from other countries
Blight & house prices
Tourism
Employment
Location
Preference for something else
Benefits
Delay in implementation
Inadequate information
Planning process
Democratic accountability
Right of Withdrawal
Public health – several reasons for concern were raised, including the
hazards of radiation from the facility or during transportation, the location of
the facility and rail links within the most populated corner of the UK and
long term changes such as sea level rise and climate change. Both DECC
and the NDA have sought to address some of these issues by providing
Page 31
generic information which has already been publicised in West Cumbria.
Further assessments, including of site-specific (local) aspects, would be
carried out if an EoI were submitted. All such issues would need to be
resolved in order to satisfy the Community Siting Partnership and
regulators as well as local people, for all of whom safety would be the
overriding issue.
9.3
Environmental damage – many of the concerns here were the same as for
public health. Other issues were the scale of the surface facility, the type
and scale of any associated new infrastructure, traffic impact and visual
impact on the landscape of Romney Marsh. These issues would need to
be addressed if an EoI were submitted in order to inform decisions by the
local community and Community Siting Partnership on whether or not to
proceed further.
9.4
Geology – many reasons for concern were raised about the local geology,
with many respondents quoting its unsuitability as a reason that an EoI
should not be submitted. Concerns included tunnelling, shingle, aquifers,
groundwater, earthquakes, faults and the Nirex investigations in the 1980s.
While many opinions were expressed, Government has advised that they
do not have any detailed knowledge of the geology below Romney Marsh
at the depths which would be necessary for the underground facilities. At
this stage all they know is that there may be clay of a type similar to that
found in the GDF facilities being developed in France and Switzerland. As
outlined in the white paper, detailed investigations over many years would
be necessary to establish what the geology is at depth and whether it
would be suitable. These investigations would begin with a desk study by
the British Geological Survey at Stage 2 if an EoI were submitted. A GDF
could not be built on Romney Marsh if at any point during the process the
geology were found to be unsuitable. If a GDF was built the suitability of
the geology would first need to be proved to the satisfaction of the
regulators.
9.5
Flooding – many concerns were expressed about the safety of a facility
built on the low-lying ground of Romney Marsh which is at risk from both
inland and coastal flooding. These concerns included future risks
associated with sea level rise, long term tilting of the UK and climate
change. There is no information at this stage to suggest that it would not
be possible to mitigate these risks. However they would need to be
addressed if an EoI were submitted in order to inform decisions by the local
community and Community Siting Partnership on whether or not to proceed
further. An assessment should also be made of the potential benefits to
the community of any coastal defence or other flood protection works
carried out as part of the project.
9.6
Waste from other countries – some people expressed concern that nuclear
waste from other countries would be disposed of in a GDF. This would not
happen as it is illegal under international law. All 39 countries that have
produced nuclear waste are required to dispose of it in their own country.
This also means that the UK’s nuclear waste cannot be disposed of
elsewhere. Clarification on this point was added to the project website
during the soundings period.
Page 32
9.7
Blight and house prices – various issues were raised, including possible
effects on business in the area, possible implications (both positive and
negative) for attracting new business, and possible effects on house prices
(also both positive and negative). There is very little information at this
stage to justify either the positive or the negative opinions, although there is
some evidence that in Cumbria house prices have tracked those in Kent
over the last four years. This suggests that the possibility of their hosting a
GDF has had no net effect on house prices there, although this cannot be
relied on as firm evidence about possible effects on the housing market
here. All such issues would need to be investigated if an EoI were
submitted in order to inform decisions by the local community and
Community Siting Partnership on whether or not to proceed further.
9.8
Tourism – many concerns were raised about possible effects on tourism,
with many respondents being concerned that the construction and then
operation of a “nuclear dump” would discourage people from visiting or
staying in the area. Some of the respondents said that this was
incompatible with the promoted image of an unspoilt natural environment,
although there was no detailed justification of why a GDF would be worse
in this regard than the existing or any new nuclear power stations. In the
absence of any detailed indication about the scale of community benefits
that a GDF would bring, nor any detail on what they could be spent, there
was little appreciation during the soundings period of the positive potential
impacts, such as improved rail links and other measures to promote
tourism in the area. If an EoI were submitted studies could be carried out
into the potential positive and negative effects on tourism of hosting a GDF,
including during involvement in the siting process.
9.9
Employment – doubts were expressed about the number and type of jobs
that a GDF would bring to the area and whether workers would be local or
would commute from elsewhere. The ‘manpower and skills requirement’
study by the NDA, referred to in paragraph 3.2 was published on the
project website to provide answers to many of the questions and concerns
raised. Unfortunately incorrect information was also published (by others)
which may have led to confusion or doubts in the minds of local people
about this major benefit of a GDF. If an EoI were submitted employment
issues would need to be clarified before any decisions by the local
community and Community Siting Partnership on whether or not to proceed
further.
9.10
Location – a further cause of confusion in the minds of some local people
became apparent during the soundings period. Some people assumed
that a GDF on Romney Marsh would necessarily be sited at Dungeness,
on or near the site of the existing power stations. No information was
provided stating this although one of the schematic images of a GDF
provided by the NDA unfortunately and unintentionally resembled the
Dungeness peninsular. Clarification was added to the project website to
address this issue as soon as it became apparent, including an explanation
that Dungeness is an unlikely site due to its SAC, SPA and other
environmental designations which protect the Dungeness peninsula.
Page 33
9.11
Preference for something else – many people expressed a preference for
something other than a GDF to provide jobs and investment. Dungeness
C, Lydd Airport, green tourism, more wind turbines, solar panels and new
energy generating technologies were all mentioned. The scope of this
report is limited to the possibility of involvement in the siting process for a
GDF and does not extend to these issues which could occur alongside a
GDF.
9.12
Benefits – views expressed about the potential benefits focussed on
employment with very few people mentioning any of the other potential
benefits outlined in section 3. Preliminary information about the scale and
extent of the potential benefits was provided in the leaflet and on the
website but was, unfortunately, not as detailed or specific as some people
would have liked. This was unavoidable because the Government cannot
give details of the level or type of benefits at this very early stage, nor has
there been much discussion about what the community’s priorities might
be. Although these issues would be resolved during later stages of the
process, the lack of detailed information about potential benefits did not
help respondents to properly consider and weigh the arguments for and
against an EoI.
9.13
Delay in implementation – the process of finding a suitable site for a GDF
necessarily takes many years. The Government’s current programme is
for construction to start in 2025 and a site is not likely to be chosen until
near this time, unless the programme is accelerated. There could therefore
be a period of many years between an EoI (if submitted) and Government’s
decision on where to site the GDF. Some people were concerned about
this long period of uncertainty, particularly if at the end of it a GDF is built
elsewhere. This is an issue which cannot be resolved at this stage and
would be a key consideration for the community in deciding whether or not
to remain in the process as it goes forward, having balanced the risks
against the potential benefits. The only means of mitigation, apart from
withdrawal from the siting process, is to press Government to carry out
their investigations as quickly as possible so that the suitability or otherwise
of a site on Romney Marsh can be established in the shortest possible
time. This would be in line with the Government’s wish to accelerate the
programme.
9.14
Inadequate information - some people felt that there were too many
uncertainties and unknowns regarding the possibility of a GDF on Romney
Marsh, including the issues mentioned above, and therefore said ‘No’ to an
EoI. This apparent misunderstanding of the process and the question
being asked is not surprising as it is unusual for Local Government to take
soundings in this way. Many people seem to have understood the
soundings to be a ‘consultation’ on a definite proposal, of the type typically
carried out for a major planning application. They do not seem to have
understood it to be a far more informal and less rigorous process which is
simply about expressing an interest in finding out about a possible scheme
and in which the answers to many questions raised would not be known
until later in the process.
Page 34
9.15
Planning process – queries were raised about the planning process
associated with development of a GDF. Planning permission for a GDF
would not be applied for until a preferred site has been identified, which
would probably not be until 2025 unless the programme is accelerated.
Under current legislation this would be submitted to KCC for determination
in consultation with the council (KCC determine all applications relating to
minerals and waste development). Prior to any application for a GDF
planning applications would be needed to be submitted for any boreholes.
Under current legislation such proposals would also be determined by
KCC, in consultation with the council. The 2008 Planning Act provided
means by which large scale infrastructure projects, known as Nationally
Significant Infrastructure Projects can be determined in a more streamlined
manner. The National Infrastructure Directorate (NID), previously known
as the Major Infrastructure Planning Unit, within the Planning Inspectorate
is responsible for making recommendations for such projects to the
relevant Secretary of State who would then make the decision. A GDF
does not currently fall within the remit of NID and further legislation would
be required to be passed for it to do so. Were such legislation to be
passed then any planning application for a GDF would be submitted to
NID. The council’s planning department, alongside that of KCC would be
involved in pre-application discussions, would consider the application
against local policies and would prepare a response in terms of a Local
Impact Report. It would also consider the applicant’s Statement of
Community Consultation and negotiate planning obligations and
community benefits in conjunction with the Community Siting Partnership.
9.16
Democratic accountability – some people were concerned about aspects of
the process including how the council would decide whether or not to
submit an EoI, who would decide whether or not to submit a DtP at Stage 3
and how the Community Siting Partnership would work from Stage 4
onwards. While the white paper provides some guidance, these aspects
generally need to be resolved locally at the appropriate times, which would
not be until after submission of an EoI. It was therefore not possible to
provide the public with detailed answers during the soundings. However
publication of all views received during the soundings, including the full text
of all comments, does mean that the public have access to exactly the
same information as members at this stage. If an EoI were submitted,
work could progress in a similar way to West Cumbria where all documents
are publicly available and all meetings are open for the public to attend.
9.17
Right of Withdrawal – some doubt about the right of a local community to
withdraw from the process once it had begun was raised. These doubts
echo those raised in West Cumbria and, as there, would need to be
addressed before any DtP could be made. West Cumbria has been given
a commitment by the Minister that the Right of Withdrawal will be legally
binding, which would presumably also apply to Romney Marsh.
9.18
As can be seen from the above discussion, it was possible to provide
satisfactory answers to some of the issues raised during the soundings
period. However it would not be possible to address all of the issues until
studies have been carried out, in a similar way to those in West Cumbria.
These studies would be fully funded by Government if an EoI is submitted.
Page 35
The only key issue raised which it would not be possible to address by
means of studies or other work is that of the delay between any EoI and
Government’s decision on where to build a GDF.
9.19
The wide range of comments expressed is of considerable value in
highlighting the specific concerns which would need to be addressed if an
EoI is submitted. However, in terms of their relevance to a decision on
whether or not to submit an EoI, the consultation code of practice states
that the “focus should be on the evidence given by consultees to back up
their arguments”. Understandably, the majority of comments received were
not supported by evidence, particularly with regard to issues around
geology, flooding, blight, house prices, tourism, employment and potential
benefits. This was unavoidable in view of the limited information available
during the soundings period. The studies mentioned above, which could
be carried out if an EoI were submitted, would provide much better
evidence on which local people could base their views before any DtP.
9.20
The consultation code of practice states that “analysing consultation
responses is a qualitative rather than a quantitative exercise”. Although the
soundings process carried out was not a consultation, this does suggest
that members should base their decisions more on the validity of views
expressed (qualitative aspects) than on the numbers and percentages in
the report (quantitative analysis). Quantitative analysis would be more
appropriate in informing a decision on whether or not to submit a DtP than
it is for an EoI since the level of information available and consequent
understanding of the issues by the community would be much greater at
that stage. This is the approach taken by West Cumbria which did not
carry out opinion polls until after EoIs had been submitted.
10
OPTIONS
10.1
To assist debate and decision by members, this report presents a number
of options for consideration. Key issues and risks for each option are given
in Appendix F. Members may wish to consider other options which may be
a variation of or entirely different from those presented, in which case they
are asked to instruct officers to consider and report on the issues and risks
associated with such options before deciding further. The options below
were considered and relate directly to the report recommendations:
•
•
•
•
10.2
Option 1 – no EoI
Option 2 – submission of an EoI
Option 3 – submission of a qualified EoI
Option 4 – defer decision
The EoI is that described in the white paper and relates to finding out more
about the possibility of hosting a GDF by participating in Stages 2 and 3 of
the process. Any EoI would be without any obligation or commitment, as
set out in the white paper. None of the options relate to a DtP or any
further involvement at Stages 4 or beyond, nor for any agreement or
willingness to eventually host a GDF.
Page 36
10.3
Option 1, no EoI – members may decide for a variety of reasons that they
recommend that the council does not wish to submit an EoI on behalf of
Romney Marsh. One argument for this decision would be that a significant
majority of those who expressed views (63% overall) do not want to find
out more about the possibility of hosting a GDF. This decision would
reflect the views of those people on Romney Marsh and neighbouring
areas that submitted views and would avoid the need to address a wide
range of concerns which cannot be answered adequately at this stage.
The main implication of this decision would be loss of the opportunity to
find out more about the significant potential benefits of hosting a GDF and,
possibly, the eventual realisation of those benefits.
10.4
Option 2, submission of an EoI – members may decide that there is
sufficient support (33% overall) to recommend that an EoI is submitted on
behalf of the Romney Marsh community. One argument for this decision
would be that if an EoI were submitted the risks and issues raised during
the soundings period could be thoroughly and independently addressed.
The community would then be much better informed before being asked
whether or not it supported the submission of a DtP. As shown in West
Cumbria, increased knowledge and understanding of the issues may lead
to increased support and a majority in favour of the possibility of hosting a
GDF. An extensive process of consultation, which would be far more
rigorous and quantitative than the soundings process, would be carried out
to determine the community’s view before any decision on whether or not
to submit a DtP. A key issue associated with this decision is that it would
be against the wishes of the majority of those who expressed a view at this
stage.
10.5
Option 3, submission of a qualified EoI – as Option 2 except that
members may decide that there are some issues that have not been
adequately addressed in West Cumbria or that are specific to Romney
Marsh and so recommend that the EoI is subject to qualification. The
purpose of these qualifications would be to ensure that adequate
information was available to the community to inform the decision on
whether or not to submit a DtP, rather than these issues potentially not
being addressed until later stages. Members may wish to include
qualifications on a range of issues, although the following are suggested
based on views expressed during the soundings:
•
That the EoI is subject to the Government funding independent studies
into the potential effects of Romney Marsh being involved in the GDF
siting process, as well as the possibility of eventually hosting a GDF,
on local tourism, house prices and the business community. The
extent of the studies is to cover Romney Marsh itself as well as the
rest of the district and neighbouring districts
•
That the EoI is subject to the Government clarifying the risks
associated with hosting a GDF on Romney Marsh in relation to inland
and coastal flooding, both in the short and long term, and provides an
indication of the location and nature of any coast protection works it
sees as necessary to ensure the safe construction and operation of a
GDF
Page 37
•
That the EoI is subject to the Government clarifying the scale and
timing of the benefits, including the Community Benefits Package, that
the local community would benefit from if a GDF were built
A time limit of, say, one year could be set on these qualifications to ensure
that the Government provides this information within a reasonable
timescale and well before a decision on whether or not to submit a DtP.
The other risks and issues discussed above will be addressed during the
process, as set out in the white paper, so members may not feel it
necessary to specifically include them as qualifications at this early stage.
If sufficient concerns remained at the end of Stage 3 then these issues
could be reconsidered as qualifications in any DtP (if submitted).
10.6
Option 4, defer decision – members may decide that they do not yet have
enough information to make a recommendation with sufficient confidence.
An argument for this decision would be that a GDF could have such
significant implications for Romney Marsh that a higher level of certainty is
required to ensure that the right decision is taken, including ensuring that
the views of the community are more objectively understood than the
limited soundings carried out have allowed. If so, it would be possible to
carry out a more rigorous process of assessment of the community’s views,
possibly including a quantitative method such as an opinion poll.
Depending on the extent of further work required by members, this
approach could cost several tens of thousands of pounds funded by the
council and would delay a decision by several months. This approach
would not provide members of the community with any more information
than was provided during the soundings process, for which the submission
of an EoI (options 2 or 3) would be necessary.
10.7
As part of Option 4 members may consider that, in view of the difference in
views from different parishes on Romney Marsh, the extent of the potential
Host Community should be reassessed so that areas where there is
insufficient support are removed from the search area. Current views are
summarised in the table below which categorises the parishes based on
the total numbers of ‘No’ views expressed by local residents from Table D
during the soundings process. There were no parishes where ‘Yes’ views
were expressed by a majority of residents. Of those residents who
expressed a view, those in Brenzett, Ivychurch and Snargate were most
opposed to an EoI. Those in Old Romney and St. Mary in the Marsh were
least opposed to an EoI.
Page 38
Table M
Views expressed as percentage of total
50% to 60% ‘No’
60% to 70% ‘No’
> 70% ‘No’
Old Romney
Brookland
Brenzett
St. Mary in the Marsh
Burmarsh
Ivychurch
Dymchurch
Snargate
Lydd
Newchurch
New Romney
Any more quantitative assessment work carried out could be used to inform
a decision on which parts (if any) of Romney Marsh should not be included
in an EoI. It would be necessary to clarify that the extent of the potential
Host Community was being reconsidered and that only those part(s) where
there was sufficient support for an EoI would be included if one were
submitted. This would not preclude any other part(s) of Romney Marsh
from changing their opinions as further information becomes available
during Stages 2 & 3 and becoming part of the potential Host Community at
a later date. This assumes that the process was still continuing in the
original potential Host Community and would probably need to be before
any DtP in these areas. Reduction in the extent of the potential Host
Community would in any case be part of the process at Stage 2 and
beyond, as further information on geology and community views became
known, but areas of the community shown to express significant opposition
would probably prefer to be removed from the search for a site at the
earliest opportunity.
10.8
As a further part of Option 4, members may also wish to address
community concerns about democratic accountability by specifying the
minimum level of support which would be required in any part of Romney
Marsh before it could be included in an EoI. The minimum level of support
required could be set at 50% of those expressing a firm opinion i.e.
excluding ‘Undecided’ and ‘No View’s, which would represent a clear
majority. Alternatively it could be set at a lower threshold, perhaps 40% or
some other figure, in recognition of the fact that opinions may change as
more information becomes available after an EoI. The level of support
would be demonstrated by opinion poll or other quantitative means of
assessment.
10.9
For Options 2, 3 & 4, and in recognition of community concerns about
democratic accountability, members may wish to decide that clear majority
support i.e. by more than 50% of those who express a firm opinion, would
be necessary for any decision to submit a DtP, as in West Cumbria. The
level of support within the community would be established by quantitative
assessment as part of the extensive consultation carried out during Stage
3.
Page 39
11
FUTURE WORK
11.1
The council’s decisions will need to be communicated and explained to the
local community and key stakeholders. Residents and businesses will be
informed through local newspapers, broadcast media and the council and
project websites. Key stakeholders will be informed by letter.
11.2
If an EoI was submitted the Government would commission the British
Geological Survey to carry out geological screening using available
information to establish if there were any reasons that the geology may not
be suitable. This is Stage 2 of the process. In parallel with this, the council
would discuss with Government the work required at Stage 3 i.e. up to a
local decision on whether or not to submit a DtP. The white paper lists
indicative steps on how this could be done but is not prescriptive. A
programme of work and associated resources would be discussed and
agreed with Government but it would need to include an extensive
programme of engagement with the community, stakeholders and political
bodies to provide further information and address the issues raised during
the soundings process. This work would be funded by the Government.
11.3
If a decision is deferred officers will carry out the further work necessary, as
outlined in paragraphs 10.6 to 10.8, to inform a decision at later date.
12
RISK MANAGEMENT
12.1
A summary of the perceived risks at this stage of the process (before the
end of Stage 1) is provided at Appendix F.
12.2
A comprehensive process of risk management would be carried out by
officers, DECC and the NDA if an EoI were submitted and would continue
through all stages of the process.
13
CONCLUSION
13.1
The report has attempted to present both the opportunities and concerns
associated with development of a GDF. The options presented attempt to
enable members to balance those opportunities and concerns and either
stop any involvement now or allow further information to be obtained to
answer the questions that have been posed by the community.
13.2
An EoI would be without any commitment and allow the issues and
concerns raised during the soundings period to be investigated in detail
and discussed at length by the potential host and surrounding
communities, stakeholders and political bodies before a decision on
whether or not to submit a DtP. Actual participation in the process of
finding a site for a GDF would not begin unless a DtP is submitted.
14
LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS
14.1
Legal Officer’s Comments (PW)
There are no legal implications arising directly from this report.
Page 40
14.2
Finance Officer’s Comments (TM)
There are no financial implications arising directly from this report if the
authority submits an Expression of Interest as the Government will fund all
of the costs incurred including staff time. Recommendation 2(d) may incur
some additional cost as DECC will not pay for any costs until an EoI is
submitted.
14.3
Diversities and Equalities Implications (DI)
There are no implications arising directly from this report.
15
CONTACT OFFICERS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the
following officer prior to the meeting
Graham Harris, Senior Project Engineer
Telephone: 01303 853305
Email: [email protected]
The following background documents have been relied upon in the
preparation of this report:
‘Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing
Geological Disposal’, a Government White Paper by Defra, BERR and the
devolved administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland, June 2008
‘The Government Response to Consultation on the Revised Draft National
Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure’ by DECC, June 2011
‘Romney Marsh Socio-Economic Impact Assessment’ report by Regeneris
Consulting for Shepway District Council, Kent County Council, Magnox Ltd
and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 2011
‘Geological Disposal: Manpower and skills requirements – summary’, a
study report by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), May 2011
‘Code of Practice on Consultation’, HM Government, July 2008
Appendices:
Appendix A: Abbreviations & acronyms
Appendix B: Soundings report
Appendix C: Maps summarising views by area
Appendix D: Comments expressed
Appendix E: Media report
Appendix F: Risk management
Page 41
Page 42
Appendix A
APPENDIX A TO REPORT A/12/22
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
Abbreviation
or Acronym
Community
Siting
Partnership
DECC
Decision
Making Body
Full Name
or Description
A partnership of local
community interests set
up to advise Decision
Making Bodies from
Stage 4 of the siting
process onwards
Department of Energy
and Climate Change
The Local Government
decision-making authority
for the potential Host
Community
DtP
Decision to Participate
EoI
Expression of Interest
GDF
Host
Community
MRWS
NDA
NRDF
Geological Disposal
Facility
The volunteer community
in which a GDF will
eventually be built
Managing Radioactive
Waste Safely
Nuclear
Decommissioning
Authority
Nuclear Research and
Disposal Facility
Explanation
Works with the NDA and other
relevant interested parties to
ensure questions and concerns of
the potential Host Community and
its Wider Local Interests are
addressed and resolved as far as is
reasonably practicable
The Government department
responsible for the MRWS
programme
The Decision Making Body for
Romney Marsh is Shepway District
Council. Will decide whether to
continue or withdraw at various
decision points in the process
The decision point at which a
community makes a formal
commitment to participate in the
GDF siting process, but without
commitment to host the facility
The decision point at which a
community registers its without
commitment interest in discussions
with Government about potential
involvement in the GDF siting
process
The Government’s generic name
for surface and underground
facilities for the disposal of
radioactive waste
The potential Host Community
under consideration in this report is
Romney Marsh, as defined below
The Government’s programme for
dealing with radioactive waste
The implementing organisation
responsible for planning and
delivering the GDF. It is a nondepartmental public body
The council’s working title for a
GDF, intended to give a clearer
description of the facility and its
purpose
Page 43
Appendix A
Abbreviation
or Acronym
Romney Marsh
SAC
SPA
West Cumbria
White Paper
Wider Local
Interests
Full Name
or Description
The parts of Romney,
Walland and Denge
Marshes which fall within
the district i.e. Burmarsh,
Dymchurch and all
parishes to the south and
west of them
Explanation
The parishes of Brenzett,
Brookland, Burmarsh, Dymchurch,
Ivychurch, Lydd, Newchurch, New
Romney, Old Romney, Snargate
and St Mary in the Marsh
Sites designated and strictly
protected by the EC Habitats
Directive
Strictly protected sites classified in
Special Protection Area
accordance with Article 4 of the EC
Birds Directive
A independent partnership of local
organisations and interest groups
set up to assist Cumbria Country
West Cumbria Managing
Council, Allerdale Borough Council
Radioactive Waste Safely
and Copeland Borough Council
Partnership
decide whether or not to submit
Decisions to Participate at the end
of Stage 3
A White Paper by Defra, BERR and
‘Managing Radioactive
the devolved administrations dated
Waste Safely: A
June 2008, setting out the
Framework for
Government’s framework for
Implementing Geological managing higher activity
Disposal’
radioactive waste in the long term
through geological disposal
The potential Wider Local Interests
under consideration in this report
are all areas outside Romney
Other communities that
Marsh as defined above i.e. all
have an interest in
parishes in the district including
whether or not a facility
and to the north and east of Hythe
should be built in the Host
and Lympne, adjoining districts in
Community
Kent and East Sussex, the
remainder of Kent and East Sussex
and elsewhere
Special Area of
Conservation
Page 44
Appendix B
APPENDIX B TO REPORT A/12/22
SOUNDINGS REPORT
Introduction
The soundings process was undertaken to gauge the view of the community on
Romney Marsh as to whether the council should submit a formal Expression of
Interest (EoI) on their behalf regarding the area hosting a Geological Disposal
Facility for nuclear waste. The EoI will allow formal discussions to commence
with Government, in order for the community to find out more information.
As discussed in the main report, the process initiated by the project team was not
a formal consultation, but was designed to assist members in their decision
making. The decision whether to submit an EoI will be made by the leader after
the council meeting on 19 September.
Potential Host Area
The area under consideration was identified as the parishes within the district on
Romney Marsh, as these are the areas that have or will be most affected from the
closure of the two existing nuclear power stations at Dungeness.
Use was made of the council’s Land and Property Gazetteer in order to compile a
master postal address list for every residential and business property within the
identified potential Host Community. This list also included the Unique Property
Reference Number (UPRN), Easting and Northing and details of the parish in
which the property was located. Details were also provided as to whether the
property was listed as residential or as a business. This list comprised a total of
10,223 residential properties and 659 businesses.
Key Stakeholders
A list of external key stakeholders was compiled by the project team, in addition to
the list of residential and business properties. Contact with each external key
stakeholders was by one of the following methods: 1. Personal contact via telephone;
2. Email; or
3. Letter.
The list of external key stakeholders who were to be contacted personally with
an invitation to attend one of a series of briefings included:a. Kent County Council;
b. East Sussex County Council;
c. The leaders and chief executives of Rother District Council, Ashford
Borough Council, Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council
and Thanet District Council; and
d. Local media (newspaper).
Page 45
Appendix B
The list of external key stakeholders who were contacted via email with an
invitation to attend one of a series of briefings included:a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
All Kent and East Sussex MPs;
All Kent and East Sussex district councils not listed above;
Kent Fire and Rescue;
Kent Police;
Kent Against a Radioactive Environment; and
Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum (NuLeAF).
Each key stakeholder who was sent a letter was assigned to one of seven
categories. These categories were developed, based on the level of
information given in the letter, as well as the intended date that the stakeholder
was to receive the letter. Details for each category, including a list of the key
stakeholders within each category is identified below: 1. Potential Host Community - Parish Councils. The list of parish councils
within category 1 was as follows: a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Brenzett Parish Council
Brookland Parish Council
Burmarsh Parish Council
Dymchurch Parish Council
Ivychurch Parish Council
Lydd Town Council
New Romney Town Council
Newchurch Parish Council
Old Romney Parish Meeting
Snargate Parish Meeting
St Mary in the Marsh Parish Council
2. Potential Host Community - Potential Key Stakeholders. The list of key
stakeholders within category 2 was as follows: a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Shepway Business Forum
Romney Resource Centre
Ministry of Defence
Defend our Coast
The Marsh Academy
Dungeness Site Stakeholders Group
3. NOT USED
4. Potential Host Community - All residential properties (10,223 letters in
total).
5. Potential Host Community - All businesses (659 letters in total).
6. Wider Local Interests - Parish Councils. This category comprised all
remaining parish councils within the Shepway District boundary (not
included in category 1 above), all parish councils outside of the Shepway
District boundary and whose area borders the potential Host Community,
Page 46
Appendix B
Kent Association of Local Councils and Sussex Association of Local
Councils. The complete list of all key stakeholders within category 6 was
as follows: a. Acrise Parish Meeting
b. Elham Parish Council
c. Elmsted Parish Council
d. Folkestone Town Council
e. Hythe Town Council
f. Lyminge Parish Council
g. Lympne Parish Council
h. Monks Horton Parish
i. Newington Parish Council
j. Paddlesworth Parish
k. Postling Parish Council
l. Saltwood Parish Council
m. Sandgate Parish Council
n. Sellindge Parish Council
o. Stanford Parish Council
p. Stelling Minnis Parish Council
q. Stowting Parish
r. Swingfield Parish Council
s. Hawkinge Town Council
t. Camber Parish Council
u. East Guldeford Parish Council
v. Playden Parish Council
w. Iden Parish Council
x. Aldington & Bonnington Parish Council
y. Appledore Parish Council
z. Bilsington Parish Council
aa. Kenardington Parish Council
bb. Orlestone Parish Council
cc. Ruckinge Parish Council
dd. Stone Parish Council
ee. Warehorne Parish Council
ff. Kent Association of Local Councils
gg. Sussex Association of Local Councils
7. Potential Host and Wider Local Interests - Potential Key Stakeholders. The
complete list of all key stakeholders within category 7 was as follows: a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Eastern & Coastal Kent PCT
Federation of Small Businesses
Visit Kent
Discover Folkestone, Hythe & Romney Marsh
National Farmers Union
Lydd Traders Association
RWE Innogy
Romney Marsh Network
Community Action South East (CASE) Kent
Action with Communities in Rural Kent
Romney Marsh Research Trust
Page 47
Appendix B
l.
m.
n.
o.
New Romney Day Centre
Caring Altogether on Romney Marsh
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
Protect Kent (Kent Branch of Campaign for the Protection of Rural
England - CPRE)
p. Shepway Environmental Community Network
q. Greenpeace
r. Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT)
s. Romney Marsh Countryside Project
t. The Crown Estate
u. Kent Downs AONB Unit
v. Shepway Economic Regeneration Partnership
w. Keep the Marsh Special Alliance
x. Kent Green Party
y. Shepway Liberal Democrats
z. Folkestone, Hythe & Romney Marsh Labour Party
aa. Sussex Wildlife Trust
bb. Friends of the Earth
cc. Country Land and Business Association
8. Potential Host and Wider Local Interests - Potential Key Stakeholders. The
complete list of all key stakeholders within category 8 was as follows: a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
Natural England
Network Rail
National Grid
English Heritage
London & South Eastern Railway Ltd.
Veolia Water Southeast Ltd
South East Water
Infrastructure Planning Commission
Romney Marsh Area Internal Drainage Board
Southern Water
Magnox Ltd
British Energy
UK Power Networks
Pre-Media Launch
A media launch date was set for Thursday 17 May 2012. A programme was
developed to ensure that each stakeholder received the relevant information in a
timely manner in the lead up to this launch date. Officers from the Department of
Energy and Climate Change (DECC) attended a number of these events and
gave presentations. The programme of the pre-media launch activities was as
follows and those activities in which DECC were also in attendance is noted: 1. Thursday 10 May - Confidential briefing at Portcullis House,
Westminster for all Kent and East Sussex MPs. Briefing by the project
team and DECC. Attended by Damian Collins MP (Folkestone and
Hythe), Amber Rudd MP (Hastings and Rye) and Charlie Elphicke MP
(Dover and Deal).
Page 48
Appendix B
2. Friday 11 May am - Confidential briefing at Ashford Borough Council
offices. Briefing by the project team and DECC to Kent County Council,
Ashford Borough Council, Canterbury City Council, Dover District
Council and Thanet District Council.
3. Friday 11 May pm - Confidential briefing at Rother District Council
offices. Briefing by the project team and DECC to East Sussex County
Council and Rother District Council.
4. Friday 11 May pm - Confidential telephone briefing for Damain Green
MP (Ashford) given by the leader.
5. Friday 11 May eve - Confidential briefing at Romney Resource Centre.
Briefing by the project team and DECC to council members
representing the Romney Marsh parishes (being the area identified as
the potential Host Community).
6. Monday 14 May am - Email to all MEPs representing the potential Host
Area, all Kent District Councils and nearby East Sussex District
Councils.
7. Monday 14 May pm - Confidential briefing by the project team to the
council’s senior mangers and customer contact centre staff.
8. Monday 14 May pm - Briefing by the project team to Folkestone Herald.
9. Monday 14 May pm - Briefing by the project team to Kentish Express.
10. Monday 14 May eve - Confidential briefing by the project team to the
council.
11. Monday 14 May - Letters posted first class to key stakeholders within
categories 1 and 2 (to ensure delivery on 15 May).
12. Monday 14 May - Letters posted second class to key stakeholders
within categories 6, 7 and 8 (to ensure delivery by Wednesday 16 May)
13. Tuesday 15 May am - Briefing by the project team to The Looker.
14. Tuesday 15 May - Half the batch of letters to residential properties in
the potential Host Community were posted (Second Class) (to ensure
delivery by 17 May). Only half were posted due to the large number
involved.
15. Wednesday 16 May pm - Briefing by the project team to council staff.
16. Wednesday 16 May - The remaining batch of letters to residential
properties in the potential Host Community were posted (Second Class)
(to ensure delivery by 17 May).
17. Wednesday 16 May - The letters to businesses in the potential Host
Community were posted (Second Class) (to ensure delivery by 17
May).
18. Thursday 17 am - Press release to all media groups.
19. Thursday
17
am
A
dedicated
project
website
(romneymarshnrdf.org.uk) is activated. Due to information concerning
the scheme circulating on twitter on Wednesday 16 May, the decision
was taken to launch the website a day earlier than planned.
The letters noted above provided details on the potential scheme and included a
newsletter, a reply form and a postage paid reply envelope. Each letter and reply
form was individually overprinted with the property address in order to assist with
registering and analysing the replies. In addition, key stakeholders assigned to
categories 1, 2, 6 and 7 were also sent a copy of the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority’s (NDA) DVD titled ‘Geological Disposal, Issue 02 - 2011’.
Page 49
Appendix B
In order to gauge the view of the community, the question asked was ‘Do you
think that Shepway District Council should submit an Expression of Interest on the
community’s behalf, in order to find out more information about a possible Nuclear
Research and Disposal Facility on Romney Marsh’? The available responses
were: 1. Yes. We should find out more;
2. No. We should not find out more; or
3. I am undecided.
Space was provided on the reply forms for the stakeholder to note any comments
or questions.
Post Media Launch activities
A number of post launch activities took place to provide additional information on
the potential scheme. The details of these activities were as follows: 1. Thursday 17 May eve - Presentation by the project team to Kent
Channel Chamber of Commerce (The Marsh Academy, New Romney).
2. Thursday 17 May eve - Presentation by the project team to the
Shepway District and Parish Councils Joint Committee (The Marsh
Academy, New Romney)
3. Tuesday 22 May eve - Presentation by the project team to the Marsh
Parish Joint Forum (Lydd Town Hall).
4. Thursday 24 May am - Presentation by the project team to the
Dungeness Site Stakeholder Group (Dungeness Power Station).
5. Thursday 24 May - Public exhibition at Newchurch Village Hall.
6. Friday 25 May - Public exhibition at Brookland Village Hall.
7. Wednesday 30 May - Public exhibition at Hardy Hall, Lydd.
8. Thursday 31 May - Public exhibition at Dungeness Lifeboat Station.
9. Thursday 7 June - Public exhibition at The Bowery Hall, Dymchurch.
10. Friday 8 June - Public exhibition at New Romney Scout HQ.
11. Thursday 21 June eve - Briefing by Cllr Tillson on behalf of The Leader
given at KCC organised public meeting - ‘Community Call for Action’
(The Marsh Academy, New Romney).
12. Tuesday 3 July eve - Presentation by NDA to New Romney Town
Council meeting (New Romney Town Hall). Attendance by the project
team.
13. Monday 9 July eve - Presentation by the project team to Lydd Town
Council (Lydd Town Hall).
14. Thursday 12 July - Exhibition for Dungeness ‘A’ staff (Dungeness ‘A’
site).
15. Thursday 12 July eve - Presentation by the project team to Folkestone
Town Council (council chamber).
16. Monday 16 July - Public exhibition at St Mary’s Bay Village Hall.
In excess of 400 people attended the seven public exhibitions.
Officers from DECC and the NDA attended all seven public exhibitions and
additional activities where noted above.
Page 50
Appendix B
The project website was regularly updated during the soundings period by adding
additional information and clarification. This was in response to a number of
views and frequently asked questions which were raised at the exhibitions and
through the replies.
Process of recording the replies
Various methods of communication were made available to enable residents,
businesses and key stakeholders to make their views known, as follows: 1. Reply forms - enclosed with the letters to residents, businesses and
key stakeholders along with postage paid reply envelopes;
2. Reply forms - blank reply forms were made available at each exhibition.
A post box was made available at each venue to collect the completed
replies, as well as postage paid reply envelopes;
3. Via the on-line form which was accessed through the project website;
4. Letters sent direct to the council; and
5. Emails to the project email address.
The soundings period closed on 20 July.
With respect to the reply forms and letters, these were date stamped on receipt
and given a Unique Identifying Number (UIN). This was to assist with analysing
the results.
Data provided on the reply forms was manually populated into a master
spreadsheet to enable the data to be analysed after the close of the soundings
period.
The data that was initially recorded in this master spreadsheet included the
following: 1. Date of response;
2. UIN;
3. The format of the response, i.e. pre-addressed reply form, reply form
from an exhibition, on-line form through the project website, email or
letter;
4. The name of the key stakeholder or an abbreviated name for a resident
or on behalf of a business, i.e. Mr J or MJ;
5. The town, village or area taken from the address details provided by the
responder; and
6. The response (Yes, No, Undecided or No view expressed);
The following additional details were subsequently populated in the master
spreadsheet: 1. Full address details (including postcode, UPRN, Easting and Northing
and Parish). Where the reply was received from a resident or business
within the potential Host Community, then the entry for this address was
copied across from the master address list. The entry in the master
address list was then highlighted to make it easier to identify
subsequent duplicate entries from the same person.
Page 51
Appendix B
2. Whether the reply was from a resident or business (this information was
detailed in the master address list), or from one of the key stakeholders
(which
were
split
into
political
body/group
or
interest
group/organisation/other); and
3. Any comments recorded. These were transcribed as written.
Where a response was received from an individual or business from outside the
potential Host Area, then the full address (including UPRN, Easting and Northing
and location (as above) was obtained by the council’s GIS developer. This
information was then populated into the master spreadsheet in order to analyse
these responses by the following areas groupings: 1. By district boundaries where the response was within 30km of the
potential Host Community (Ashford, Canterbury, Dover, Hastings,
Rother, the remaining areas of Shepway, Swale and Tunbridge Wells);
2. By county boundaries where the response was from Kent or East
Sussex and beyond 30km from the potential Host Community;
3. The rest of the UK;
4. Mainland Europe;
5. The rest of the world;
6. Responses from an unknown address.
Details showing the number of replies from these areas are given in the main
report.
As information about the number of people living at each property was not
available, only one reply form was enclosed with the letters to residential
properties and businesses in the potential Host Community. However, with
respect to the overall numbers detailed in the main report, these figures take
account of where more than one person responded from a property on a single
reply form, i.e. Mr & Mrs, were logged as two separate views.
A number of replies were excluded from the analysis, as they were deemed
invalid. The number of these is detailed in the main report. These replies were
deemed invalid due to one of the following: 1. Duplicate entry from one person. Where individuals responded more
than once then only one view was used and this was the last view
received. This was to take account of where, perhaps, people had
changed their view during the soundings period.
2. Replies received after the close of the soundings period; or
3. Incomplete submission (received via the website where the entry was
submitted before all data entry fields were completed).
Upon completion of the data entry process, a thorough check was carried out for
each entry against the original reply. Any corrections were made where
inaccuracies were found. These inaccuracies mainly related to where the
comments had been transcribed from the original reply forms.
Page 52
Appendix B
Analysis
The master spreadsheet was set up to enable the data to be analysed by the
following methods, the results of which are presented in the main report: 1. The number of letters sent to, and replies from residential properties
and businesses within each parish in the potential Host Community;
2. The breakdown (number and percentages) of views from residential
properties for each parish within the potential Host Community;
3. The rate that the replies were received each week during the soundings
period and the breakdown of these views;
4. The breakdown (number and percentages) of views from businesses for
each parish within the potential Host Community;
5. The breakdown (number and percentages) of views from residents and
businesses by district where within 30km of the potential Host
Community; and
6. The breakdown (number and percentages) of views from residents and
businesses grouped by area where beyond 30km of the potential Host
Community;
The Easting and Northing details included in the master spreadsheet for each
reply enabled the production of the maps which are included at Appendix C.
These maps give the overall view and a summary of each parish area (showing
the address location and view for each reply) within the potential Host Community
and the location and views of responses received from outside the potential Host
Community.
Limitations of the Sounding Process
The results presented in the main report are based on the total number of valid
replies received from individual people and businesses, being 3,328.
The total number of responses received from residents and businesses from the
potential Host Community was 3,107. This represented an average response rate
of 29% based on number of letters sent to residential properties and businesses.
Whilst this average response rate is considered to be higher than normally
expected from such ‘consultation’ type exercises, it does show that no response
was received from 71% of properties and businesses. Taking into account that
most properties house more than one person, then clearly the rate of no response
was much higher than 71%.
The soundings process allowed for anyone with a view to make their view known.
Clearly, whilst the area of focus for the soundings was the residents, businesses
and key stakeholders within the potential Host Community, a number of
responses were received from residents living outside of the potential Host
Community. The figures presented in the main report have not been altered to
show a higher weighting for responses received from the potential Host
Community. However, should the scheme progress beyond an EoI, then
consideration may be given in any future consultation to give a greater weighting
to key stakeholders, residents and businesses from this area. In order to assist
members in their decision making, the main report does separately identify all the
views received from the key stakeholders who replied.
Page 53
Appendix B
The views of the parish councils, as noted in the main report, are the overall views
submitted. Details were not sought from the parish councils to identify how the
parish councils arrived at their decision, i.e. the number of parish councillors who
voted yes, no or abstained.
The numbers provided in the main report do not take into consideration whether
the reply was received from a residential property, which is registered as a
second/holiday home on the Electoral Register. However, only 5 replies were
received from properties within the potential Host Community, which are
registered as second/holiday homes.
Page 54
Appendix C
APPENDIX C TO REPORT A/12/22
OVERALL VIEWS RECEIVED FROM PARISHES WITHIN THE
POTENTIAL HOST COMMUNITY
Page 55
Appendix C
BRENZETT PARISH
Forms
Sent
179
Views
Residents
Businesses
Residents
47
‘Yes’
12 (26%)
0
Replies
Businesses
1
‘No’
34 (72%)
1 (100%)
Total
48 (27%)
‘Undecided’
1 (2%)
0
‘No View’
0
0
View of Brenzett Parish Council - ‘No. We should not find out more’
No other views received from any other Political Body/Representative or Interest
Group/Organisation/other Key Stakeholder from Brenzett Parish.
Page 56
Appendix C
BROOKLAND PARISH
Forms
Sent
222
Views
Residents
Businesses
Residents
54
‘Yes’
18 (33%)
0
Replies
Businesses
0
‘No’
35 (65%)
0
Total
54 (24%)
‘Undecided’
0
0
‘No View’
1 (2%)
0
View of Brookland Parish Council - ‘No. We should not find out more’
Group/Organisation/other Key Stakeholder from Brookland Parish.
Page 57
Appendix C
BURMARSH PARISH
Forms
Sent
157
Views
Residents
Businesses
Residents
38
‘Yes’
15 (39%)
1 (33%)
Replies
Businesses
3
‘No’
23 (61%)
2 (67%)
Total
41 (26%)
‘Undecided’
0
0
‘No View’
0
0
View of Burmarsh Parish Council - ‘No. We should not find out more’
Group/Organisation/other Key Stakeholder from Burmarsh Parish.
Page 58
Appendix C
DYMCHURCH PARISH
Forms
Sent
1,813
Views
Residents
Businesses
Residents
509
‘Yes’
126 (25%)
6 (50%)
Replies
Businesses
12
‘No’
357 (70%)
6 (50%)
Total
521 (29%)
‘Undecided’
18 (4%)
0
‘No View’
8 (2%)
0
View of Dymchurch Parish Council - ‘No View’
Group/Organisation/other Key Stakeholder from Dymchurch Parish.
Page 59
Appendix C
IVYCHURCH PARISH
Forms
Sent
119
Views
Residents
Businesses
Residents
25
‘Yes’
5 (20%)
0
Replies
Businesses
0
‘No’
19 (76%)
0
Total
25 (21%)
‘Undecided’
0
0
‘No View’
1 (4%)
0
View of Ivychurch Parish Council - ‘No View’
Group/Organisation/other Key Stakeholder from Ivychurch Parish.
Page 60
Appendix C
LYDD
Forms
Sent
3,184
Views
Residents
Businesses
Residents
840
‘Yes’
301 (36%)
8 (50%)
Replies
Businesses
16
‘No’
513 (61%)
7 (44%)
Total
856 (27%)
‘Undecided’
23 (3%)
1 (6%)
‘No View’
3 (0%)
0
View of Lydd Town Council - ‘Yes. We should find out more’
Group/Organisation/other Key Stakeholder from Lydd Parish.
Page 61
Appendix C
NEWCHURCH PARISH
Forms
Sent
152
Views
Residents
Businesses
Residents
59
‘Yes’
19 (32%)
3 (100%)
Replies
Businesses
3
‘No’
39 (66%)
0
Total
62 (41%)
‘Undecided’
1 (2%)
0
‘No View’
0
0
View of Newchurch Parish Council - ‘No View’
Group/Organisation/other Key Stakeholder from Newchurch Parish.
Page 62
Appendix C
NEW ROMNEY
Forms
Sent
3,426
Views
Residents
Businesses
Residents
1,038
‘Yes’
367 (35%)
11 (44%)
Replies
Businesses
25
‘No’
632 (61%)
12 (48%)
Total
1,063 (31%)
‘Undecided’
28 (3%)
2 (8%)
‘No View’
11 (1%)
0
View of New Romney Town Council - ‘No. We should not find out more’
Group/Organisation/other Key Stakeholder from New Romney Parish.
Page 63
Appendix C
OLD ROMNEY PARISH
Forms
Sent
109
Views
Residents
Businesses
Residents
26
‘Yes’
11 (42%)
2 (67%)
Replies
Businesses
3
‘No’
14 (54%)
1 (33%)
Total
29 (27%)
‘Undecided’
1 (4%)
0
‘No View’
0
0
View of Old Romney Parish Meeting - No response received
Group/Organisation/other Key Stakeholder from Old Romney Parish.
Page 64
Appendix C
VIEWS RECEIVED FROM SNARGATE PARISH
Forms
Sent
57
Views
Residents
Businesses
Residents
24
‘Yes’
3 (13%)
0
Replies
Businesses
0
‘No’
21 (88%)
0
Total
24 (42%)
‘Undecided’
0
0
‘No View’
0
0
View of Snargate Parish Council - No response received
Group/Organisation/other Key Stakeholder from Snargate Parish.
Page 65
Appendix C
ST MARY IN THE MARSH PARISH
Forms
Sent
1,457
Views
Residents
Businesses
Residents
378
‘Yes’
135 (36%)
0
Replies
Businesses
6
‘No’
223 (59%)
5 (83%)
Total
384 (26%)
‘Undecided’
18 (5%)
1 (17%)
‘No View’
2 (1%)
0
View of St Mary in the Marsh Parish Council - ‘No View’
Group/Organisation/other Key Stakeholder from St Mary in the Marsh Parish.
Page 66
Appendix C
RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM WIDER LOCAL INTERESTS
Page 67
Page 68
Appendix D
APPENDIX D TO REPORT C/12/22
COMMENTS EXPRESSED
Introduction
All valid comments expressed by residents and businesses during the soundings
period are reproduced in this appendix, grouped by parish, district or other area
as titled.
Comments expressed by residents and businesses are listed first, followed by
those from political bodies and representatives, potential stakeholders and
interest groups.
A table of contents and summary statistics are contained on following page.
Please note the following:1. As most of the comments received were hand-written, some of which were
diffcult or impossible to read, there may be some transcription errors.
2. Some spelling mistakes have been corrected to assist clarity.
3. Offensive words have been replaced by asterisks.
4. To assist legibility, all comments have been typed using standard council
format which is Arial font size 12.
5. For practical reasons and clarity the full formatting of comments has not
been reproduced.
6. Blank lines between paragraphs have been removed to minimise the size
of this document.
7. Comments from residents and businesses are listed in no particular order
within each grouping, other than the order in which they were typed.
8. Comments from political bodies and representatives, stakeholders and
interest groups are listed in alphabetical order within each table.
Page 69
Appendix D
Contents
Area
Page
number
POTENTIAL HOST COMMUNITY
Brenzett
71
Brookland
75
Burmarsh
77
Dymchurch
79
Ivychurch
103
Lydd
104
Newchurch
146
New Romney
150
Old Romney
197
Snargate
198
St Mary in the Marsh
200
Sub-total
POTENTIAL WIDER LOCAL INTERESTS
North Shepway (outside Romney Marsh)
214
Ashford, whole district
222
Rother, within 30km
226
Hastings, whole district
228
Canterbury, within 30km
229
Dover, within 30km
229
East Sussex, further than 30km
230
Kent, further than 30km
230
Rest of UK
231
Rest of Europe
N/A
Rest of World
233
Unknown
233
Sub-total
POLITICAL BODIES & REPRESENTATIVES
Romney Marsh
234
239
Outside Romney Marsh
POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS &
240
INTEREST GROUPS
Sub-total
Total number of comments received
Page 70
Number of comments
received from:Residents Businesses
31
1
35
0
19
1
322
4
10
0
512
8
38
0
615
13
16
3
15
0
230
5
1,843
35
All respondents
61
29
27
10
2
2
2
8
12
0
1
6
160
All respondents
9
9
9
27
2,065
Appendix D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
BRENZETT RESIDENTS
"NO" "NO" "NO" "NO" "NO" "NO"
We are concerned about the safety aspects of this project.
I have lived in Romney Marsh for most of my life and I do not want to see anything
like this. I think we stand a risk from Dungeness as it is so no to the above.
How many feet is Romney Marsh below sea level? Come on, we can't even build
bungalows anymore on the Marsh!!
After listening to experts and studying the risks - it must be NO it is too dangerous, for
us and for generations to come.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to consult us.
We are violently opposed to Romney Marsh being used as a dumping ground for
nuclear waste and look forward to the closure of the nuclear facalities at Dungeness.
We have lived in this area for many years and have an established business on the
marsh. Please keep this sheet as I intend to check that it is included in the count. I
have photocopied it and will send this recorded delivery.
Quite adamant against the proposal!
No storage system can be guaranteed safe! Think of the future of our county.
The power stations have been there in excess of 40 years so further nuclear activity
won't make the situation worse as the final decommisioning will take of at least
another 100 years.
I think setting a nuclear waste storage facility on acknowledged area of high risk of
flooding is an act of luracy. It is not a question of not in my back yard. The primary
consideration for such sites must be safety not possible short term benefit in terms of
jobs. Irresponsible siting now will affect everyone in the future not just the living with
the narrow area of shepway and mistakes will be irreversable.
I don’t think you should build a Research or disposal facility on the Marsh. If you did
that we should have the power stations back the jobs there have been eroded over
the past 20 years & as far as employing a lot of locals when any major work was
done special contractors will be brought in & you know it for the specialised work for a
disposal & research facility & also the jobs would go to someone not local as they
would need special training so definitely not. Let us have a bigger Airport at Lydd &
really have let the locals who have lived in this area for generations have employment
that lasts more than 2 or 3 months a year.
We need training, transport & proper infrastructure to let our families have a decent
future. I want airport plans to go ahead & I don’t think the Dungeness power stations
to be decommisioned its alright for pilots who’re retired & people who have retired to
Lydd or somewhere to say NO to anything like the Airport Expansion they aren’t the
ones living in Council property, relying on bad public transport with no mains drainage
& no jobs available because I have no money for driving lessons to pay for tuition. I
have brought my children up & now I can’t even retire at 60 because the Government
says so. So Go away Government & find somewhere else to stick your ‘b’ rubbish.
Kent used to be the Garden of England now thanks to successive rubbish
immigration controls we are the sump pit. I love where I live & its very beautiful
outside my house. I need a job & transport help that’s not public. But I don’t need
‘NUCLEAR WASTE’ on my doorstep. I apologise for some of my comments but most
I don’t. Again I love where I live & I don’t agree to a Nuclear Waste Disposal &
Research Facility being built on the Marsh. Because the only Research going on will
be to ensure the product is kept stable & contained.
Page 71
Appendix D
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
BRENZETT RESIDENTS
Who in their right would want a nuclear disposal facility on their doorstep. Jobs can
be created in many other ways. This area in busy SE England is very precious to so
many local inhabitants. Using the façade that it would be for jobs is a copout - cheap
and stupid!!
Surely the money which would be spent on this facility could do so much more on
Romney Marsh if spent on the people in the area on housing, factories and facilities
that would make the Marsh a prosperous and pleasurable place to live in.
Just don’t want your rubbish.
In the interests of fair play it seems only right that West Cumbria should be allowed to
host this nuclear waste facility having already shown an interest.
We would NOT support this proposal!
The Prosperity of the Romney Marsh is due in the main to the building and running of
the two power stations this new proposal would allow this prosperity to continue for
our children.
I understand the local water supplier draws water from under the Marsh - this could
be affected by construction of underground vaults/tunnels. How would nuclear waste
be brought to a possible site? If by rail, the line currently has many level crossings
with no warning devices for traffic using the lanes. Jobs are needed in this area, but
what proportion would realistically be filled by local people? Overall, I feel the
disadvantages vastly outweigh the possible benefits.
I don’t believe that Romney Marsh has suitable geology for the long term storage of
nuclear waste, and with the increasing likelihood of flooding and ongoing coastal
erosion I don’t see how anyone would consider it a sensible proposal. Radioactive
waste is extremely dangerous and the risks of keeping it underground far outweigh
any potential job creation that may or may not occur in the distant future. i dont
believe you can claim that 'such a faciltiy would employ hundred of people' and even
if some jobs were created I certainly wouldn't encourage any of my family to work in
such an unhealthy industry.
I strongly object to the council's suggestion for such a scheme and I want to make it
absolutely clear that I do not want such a facility to be built on the Romney Marsh. I
would much prefer that no nuclear waste was ever created in the frist place, and
having lived here my whole life worrying about Dungeness Power Stations and thier
constant leaks and shut downs I was very relieved that they were finally to be
decommissioned. I understood that the Dungeness site was rejected for future
nuclear generation becasue of the unsuitable geology, threat of coastal
erosion/flooding etc, and if that is the case then why are the council now suggesting
that the surrounding area might be suitable for long term storage of dangerous
radioactive waste material? I feel as though my council are constantly letting us down
on the Romney Marsh - it feels that in the council's view we live in some marginalised
'outland' where anything can be dumped on us becasue we're too few in number to
out-vote you. There are much better, cleaner, safer and more deliverable solutions to
lack of employment in the area - for example the proposal by Vestas to move to
Medway to build their wind turbines measn they will be employing 2000 local people
in the next few years; but we don't need one massive plant to employ everyone - we
could surely encourage a number of smaller enterprises to employ people in
sustainable, clean and safe industries?
Where on the Marsh would it be sited? How much soil or shingle would be excavated
and how would it be disposed of?
Page 72
Appendix D
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
BRENZETT RESIDENTS
I am in my 90th year, therefore this project will not concern me, unless I became the
oldest person on the Planet: if the time it has taken for the Government to make up
its mind for Expandtion of Lydd Airport is an example. But I have concerns about my
Great-Grandchildren on Romney Marsh in the future if the Project goes ahead. If
West Cumbria is so interested in the project, it would be better to have it up there
where they already have Rock Formations. I don't think they are going to find many of
those on the Marsh. No doubt Big Business a the Government have got together &
decided, that with a smaller population on Romney Marsh, & half of them not careing,
its a good way, for Big Business to make a lot of money & profit for themselves. As
for jobs in the Area it will no doubt be like the Power Stations most of the jobs will go
to outsiders. I have lived on Romney Marsh for 50 years & I would like to see more
employment for the "Young Folk" but there must be a better way, than dumping
Nuclear Waste here.
I think it is a very good idea - brilliant for the area with jobs and associated benefits.
I no not wish to live next to a nuclear waste dump, and I would not like my children
and grandchildren to inherit such a facility. It would only be a metter of time before
the dump was taking wast from the continent.
Rpmney Marsh would seem to be totally unsuited to such a development, both
environmentally and geologically. I also have no desire to live near what is, in effect,
a nuclear dump, or for my children and grandchildren to have to.
There are many reasons why this project should not be considered. 1) Affect on
tourism. 2) Transportation of dangerous material. 3) Flood risk area. 4) Affect on
S.S.I. sites. 5) Lack of information on exact location. Development of the airport
would be far more beneficial to the area.
Leave the marsh alone, Shepway is running it. Have it in Folkestone on your
doorstep.
I support a new power station at Dungeness and/or the safe extension of the
operational life of Dungeness B but I oppose the submission of an Expression of
Interest for the proposed Nuclear waste disposal facility for the following reasons:
1. The potential harm to the Environment, to business, to tourism and to house prices
has been noted by both Shepway DC and the NDA.
2. The 250 acre above ground facility will be have a detrimental effect - in terms of
visual aesthetic, warehouse style buildings surrounded by a 'bund' could be visible
from the Saxon shoreline, and indeed across the flat marsh plain. There is also the
potential security risk
3. It is likely that there would be several 'air vents or deep shafts' located above the
waste disposal tunnels to act as pressure release points and 'escape routes' for the
underground personnel, so the above ground facility is not simply limited to a single
area. Again there are security and environmental issues attached to that.
4. The prospect of all of the UK's low, intermediate and high level radioactive waste
being buried under the Marsh which is prone to flooding and near an earthquake
zone poses serious safety concerns. IN 1580 the English Channel was the location of
the most serious earthquake the UK has experienced. Tremors were felt in Scotland.
It has been prone to 1 in 200 since that time.
5. The suggestion that all of the UK's waste would be transferred from Cumbria via a)
rail or b) ship is of concern - both economically and environmentally. Transporting
large quantities of waste via train through some of the most densely populated areas
of England, or indeed via one of the busiest shipping lanes in the World poses
serious safety issues in a time when there is a recognised increase terrorist threat to
the UK and its' inhabitants. Hence not only would the UK's historical and current
Page 73
Appendix D
30
31
BRENZETT RESIDENTS
waste be 'transferred' to the new site, but also all of the future waste generated within
this country.
5. The underground facility is likely to have an operational life of approximately 90
years, following which time it is planned to flood and so 'naturally seal' the storage
tunnels. However there is ongoing research in relation to this and there is no
guarantee that it will work. There is potential harm through radiation leaking into the
water table at some point in the future.
6. The project is not supported by the local MP - Damian Collins who thinks the area
deserves better than this. I agree. The project is not supported by Kent County
Council and I believe that East Sussex County Council have also voted against it.
7. The potential community benefit - a community benefit package that would only be
provided once construction of the facility commenced would not be available for
around 15 years. Given the ongoing cutbacks in Government funding, such monetary
benefit cannot be guaranteed. What happens in the interim?
8. The recognised disruption to the area during construction of the many underground
tunnels will have a negative impact on the local habitat. Also, the current transport
and associated infrastructure cannot withstand such a major increase in 'traffic'.
9. Romney Marsh is a unique, beautiful area. Home to a wide variety of wildlife,
plants and birds. The potential for growth of the 'green tourism' industry alongside
other positive job-creating projects should not be underestimated. More work is
required to research and promote more positive and sustainable business
opportunities for the area. The legacy this generation leaves for the next and all future
inhabitants on Romney Marsh should be life enhancing.
10. I firmly believe that we should not submit a formal Expression of Interest for all of
the above reasons.
Both my wife and I would like to express the strongest possible opposition to the
consideration of a Nuclear Research & Disposal Facility on the Romney Marsh. We
believe that this location is the most inappropriate for such a facility, and whilst we
appreciate there is a concern for employment in this area we would not consider this
facility to be beneficial in any way whatsoever.
The proposal to establish a nuclear research and disposal facility sited at
Dungeness/Romney Marsh appears to be driven by an argument for job creation and
regional economic advantage without any clear recognition of the environmental and
public safety hazards that the proposed development would pose.
Firstly, the storage of high level nuclear waste is a very long term strategy, (the use of
the word 'disposal' in the project title implies that somehow the unwanted material
disappears; it does not ). High level nuclear waste will remain a danger to the
environment and will present a public safety hazard for thousands of years. It is
therefore a prerequisite of any storage location that it should be geologically stable
and not subject to flooding or the environmental impact of climate change over a very
long period of time. Romney Marsh cannot meet these requirements.
Secondly, the transportation of nuclear waste to the site from other UK nuclear
facilities will require shipment of very dangerous material through the highly
congested rail and road network of the South East of England and consequently
through one of the most densely populated regions of Europe. The likelihood of
nuclear contamination through accidental damage or terrorist action cannot by
discounted and its impact on the population would be catastrophic.
It is not insignificant that in the United States the Yucca Mountain range in Nevada
has been identified as a 'deep geological repository' for nuclear waste. The location
has the advantage of being very geologically stable, very dry and hundreds of miles
from the nearest population centre in Las Vegas. A greater contrast to Romney
Page 74
Appendix D
BRENZETT RESIDENTS
Marsh is hard to imagine.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
BRENZETT BUSINESSES
This project would ruin tourism in this area, and would involve transporting dangerous
material right across the country
BROOKLAND RESIDENTS
NO. WE SHOULD NOT FIND OUR MORE
No no no and no again.
NOT A GOOD IDEA
We are sure that shepway distict council has the ability to think of other ways to
create jobs on Romney Marsh, without going down the route of nuclear waste
disposal
We are sure that shepway distict council has the ability to think of other ways to
create jobs on Romney Marsh, without going down the route of nuclear waste
disposal.
To Riskey
As long is it used solely for waste from Dungeness and we don’t become the nations
dumping ground
We believe it will ruin Romney Marsh and be dangerous for the residents
I think it is a marvelous idea
Absolutely apalling idea Fukushima!!!!!
Leave well alone
We don't want this on Romney Marsh
We don't want this on Romney Marsh
There is a lot of ignorance regarding the real dangers of nuclear power/waste. I think
it is definetly a good idea to find out more.
Why is it that other countries value their special areas & get special status for them
National Parks etc.
ROMNEY MARSH from RYE TO HYTHE IS BORDERED by that Historical Canal The ROYAL MILITARY CANAL the area within the boundary of the canal is stunning
from beaches, fields, buildings, wildlife etc. For GODS sake get out of your offices &
see the sunrises and sunsets - the lack of light pollution and do something to protect
the Marsh for a change - A paradise for bird watchers, walkers, cyclists - especially
the elderly & the very young. Promote the Marsh as the haven it is & stop trying to
industrialise it & bury rubbish under it.
Apart from the above if we have no nuclear power station then why transport such
waste for miles across country. One thing to bury local waste - another to import it.
Is that how the Council sees Romney Marsh - as a dump. If so get educated before
its to late!!!
I am in favor of a 3rd nuclear power plant (C), as the site already exists, but if this is
not to happen, I am against the Marsh becoming a nuclear dump - I can't see that it
would be stable enough anyhow, which would create its own problems.
There is not enough information for the ordinary person to make any sort of decision.
I think the ground is not stable enough, but there is no mention of this. You have not
given enough questions to put a tick on any. Big decision.
Page 75
Appendix D
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
BROOKLAND RESIDENTS
One point to remember is that Romney marsh is all reclaimed land, and the sea has
taken back what it gave up times before and and can do this again. Why should we
be the dumping ground for everyone elses waste? Plus the journey the waste as to
make to get here. For more needs to be thought about. We need jobs on Romney
Marsh NOW, not generations from now and that is all this idea is pointing to of whole
lot more needs to be thought about with this idea in mind.
Yes I think we should find out more. The Marsh will need alternative means of
employment with the closing of the power stations.
The Marsh has suffered the blight of the wind turbines and should not be subjected to
further damage to its unique environment.
Do not let anyone ruin our Marsh any further. We are a unique part of the UK and
long may it remain that way!
The price we would pay for jobs is too high. This is a very special area, unique in
many ways, and should be preserved as such. The infrastrucutre required for such a
venture alone would destroy the area. Cause misery for many people - remember this
is quite a highly populated area.
I shall do everything I can to make sure that no nuclear research and disposal facility
is ever built on or near this beautifull area where I live. It is an insult to me and my
intelligence to suggest that these proposals could bring anything other than stress
and harm to Romney Marsh. NO IT IS NOT WANTED HERE.
This facility, indeed just the idea of it would blight Romney Marsh. The council should
put a lot more effort into prolonging the lives of the existing power stations &
advocating a new one. Logic dictates that if the threat of future rising sea levels
militates against a new power station it will apply more so to and underground waste
facility!
Are you mad!! I do not want this anywhere near where I live! We need to move away
from nuclear power and look to natural resources in future if we had done that in the
first place we wouldn’t have nuclear waste to dump!
Who in their right mind would want nuclear waste on there doorsteps
The only way forward for reliable future energy resources.
Although employment world benifit from such a shceme, it would only be skilled
workers who would gain. When the wind farm at the Kent Ditch was errected there
was a lot of oppostion, people now think that it is good to move away from nuclear
power, the thought of waste site on Romney Marsh is horrific! If West Cumbria have
expressed an interest in the project we should go with it.
ABSOLUTELY NOT IN FAVOUR OF THIS PROPOSAL
I do not believe that a possible Nuclear Research and Disposal Facility on Romney
Marsh presents the best option for future development of this area. Given the
governments plans to increase the development of Nuclear Power Generation, it can
be assumed that the problem of waste stroage will only increase, therefore it would
be likely that any original repository would need to be expanded at some future time.
Hence the original repository with its associated transportation of the waste would
only increase over time. I can see the reasoning behind locating a repository out in
the chalky geological formations in the channel especially as these formations are
particulary good at 'absorbing' radiation however, it is not reasonable to commit the
future use of Romney Marsh and it's surrounding areas to the restrictions of
developments and use that would necessarily need to accompany the development
of a Nuclear Waste Repository and the transportation of waste to it.
Shepway District Council should consider the information regarding the seepage of
groundwater issue that prevented the location of a repository in the Cumbrian Granite
Page 76
Appendix D
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
BROOKLAND RESIDENTS
proposal. Even in geologically 'secure' repositories with little active fault movements
it was shown that it was impossible to eliminate the possibility of groundwater
contamination due to microfractures in the rocks.
Are we prepared to spend the time and money therefore on a future development
which brings little value to this valuable 'Wilderness Area' of the South East?
As there is no commitment at this stage, we should find out more about any proposed
facility. Nuclear waste has to be stored somewhere and if geology is suitable, we
should consider whether it would be of benefit to the local economy.
Excellent proposal for investigation. Use of the land where the present facility is
situated is very appropiate. I suspect that the knee jerk reaction from most people will
be negative but press on with your campaigne.
Who in there right mind would even consider this proposal, spending £40,000 in the
process (Tax payers money!!) Romney Marsh is we are told, a flood risk area and as
such is totally unsuitable for any underground instalation. For even considering this
brings the people of shepway - none of those councillors will get my vote in the future
with regards to our property can you imagine what the value of our houses will be if
this waste tip went ahead! no person of sound mind would buy and live in a house a
few miles from such a site.
This is a photocopy beacause you only sent to householder, not to anyone one the
electorial list why? How could Shepway councillors even consider such a project for
the marsh and waste £40,000 of tax payers money this would not create very many
jobs as skilled workers would be brought in and then leave after. What about house
prices in the area, these would plumment, Also who would want to come and live
here, this would change the marsh forever. (Is this what you want) also there is the
case of transport of this waste all the way down through london and n roads down to
the marsh. Cumbria have expressed their intrest as storage is already there which
makes for more sense, so why have shepway even considered this??? NO
It will mean jobs for many people, and a renewal for the whole area
BURMARSH RESIDENTS
Far better things to spend money on. Wildlife would be disrupted. Not safe.
NO
NO
These are more suitable sites in the UK. Romney Marsh should be as unspoilt as
possible
The Marsh wants and needs jobs
Whilst it may provide a few specialist jobs for a few people, it will blight the property
market for everyone in the area. Whoever did their calculations on this facility
obviously got their sums wrong.
I am horrified! I appreciate that Romney Marsh desperately needs employment
opportunities, but this would devastate the agricultual character of the Marsh, and
perhaps only offer limited employment for local people in the long term. The lack of
infomation has not been helpful. Surely a geological survey to see if and where this is
feasible should come before a consultation. I would be much more positive about this
if it were to be sited on the existing Dungeness A/B site, rather than some 'unknown'
location on the Marsh.
Page 77
Appendix D
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
BURMARSH RESIDENTS
I think it is disgraceful that anyone should consider using Romney Marsh, a unique
and outstanding area of natural beauty and a special area for wildlife as a national
dumping ground for dangerous waste when there is no scientific research to the the
dangers of this area, our planet or the channel. This is the busiest peice of water in
the world and God knows what trouble it could cause all for a few jobs!
What a ridiculous idea! Cannot think of anywhere less suitable for a waste plant.
One concern is that like Dungeness, people say it gives local people jobs, but
realistically its mainly nothern contractors that stay in bed and breakfast then possibly
move to local area thus not really providing local jobs. I would like to know what
effects on enviroment and local lifes this would have before commiting to anything,
but it doesn't hurt to get more info. Would have a keen interest so would like to be
kept updated.
We are already associated with The Nuclear Industry on Romney Marsh
With Dungeness history and changing coastline if the sea levels rise due to global
warning this area will be first to flood, as forlocal people, that’s what they said about
the power stations, But they brought most of the work force with them. Who brought
every available house, so the locals who earned less could not afford to buy.
Nuclear waste - no thanks. Detterrant for holiday makers - Bad for enviroment and
wildlife habitat - Government now looking at extending lifespan of Dungeness B to
2025 - Draft energy bill now looked at investment required for next generation of
nuclear power.
I feel this proposal is totally unacceptable. (I was born and bred on the Marsh as
many of my family for generations)
The project to continue with Nuclear industry in Romney Marsh does fill me with
dread. The disruption from the building process & the transport to the site would
surely entail more road building - Yes Good for jobs but could utterly distroy the
character & beauty of the whole area which would be a tradgey
I would like to know more, also more about the benefits the Government might
provide for the community during the process
Would it be earthquake proof - my house foundation moved 6" each way in the last
land slip. If we have a sea surge up the channel on a spring tide the Marsh will flood
i.e. East Anglin 1950? EDF should bury the waste in the French Alps. If we have to
have a large hole in the ground turn it into a prison for murders & drug pushers etc
child abusers, paedophilia - (Roman Catholic priests) with a new town on top, or a
large vault for bankers bones & pensions, with housing for security guards & M.P.'s
expenses.
Of the many hairbrained and ill-thought out schemes proposed by SDC of late, this
has to rank as the most ludicrous. Not only is such a scheme riddled with iherent
dangers for the future generations, but the Romney Marsh is an Area prone to
Flooding which must make it totally unsuitable for the underground storage of nuclear
waste. The implementation of such a scheme would be more likely to deter future
investment and job creation for the area rather than encourage it. I can therefore see
no reason why thousands of pounds of public money should be wasted on
undertaking further investigation.
Why not concentrate on wave power instaed.
Page 78
Appendix D
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
BURMARSH RESIDENTS
Why is this consultation not more clearly focussed so that each and every member of
a household can have their say. No where on the form supplied through the post is
there an indication that the response can be made on line and neither is there any
indication that more forms can be obtained. Without such provision the result of this
survey is flawed and not necessarily representative of the real views of those who live
on Romney Marsh.
BURMARSH BUSINESSES
I'm one of the church wardens & trustee to the hall and can see no future in this
ridiculous application. The Romney Marsh is totally unsuitable
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
Nuclear research ok but the thought of underground storage no. there isnt a suitable
rock to construct the underground tunnels. Concrete isnt suitable and its under the
sea on an unstable point.
Previous governments have allowed our ability to build our own nuclear reactor power
stations to fall to zero. We must rely on the French to build new nuclear power
stations. We should at least encourage this scientific project to solve the nuclear wast
problem
Me and my partner say yes to a new power station as there has been one for years
As an independent Vice Chairman of Site Stakeholder groups for the Dungeness
Sites I am strongly in favour of finding out more. There will naturally be a large
diversity of opinions on such a sensitive issue and these will need to be respected
and given due consideration. Through our group we have acces to considerable
funding for socio-economic support but I have frustratingly unsuccessful in generating
any real interest from communities. I suggest the first thing that needs to be settled,
as a matter of extreme priority, is whether there is any suitable geology in the area. It
would be very unwise to set any hares running before the basic posibilities have be
confirmed.
I feel this is important for the future of local people in temrs of employment.
I agree we want more employment in the area but do not agree we should have a
Disposal facility. How about look at some of the quarry sites. I understand these are
almost pure water and purifying this for use. Surely this would be useful and give
some employment.
Kent, the Garden of England, is becoming a concrete build up dumping ground. We
do not wamt more lorries on the roads which are bad enough. Leave Romney Marsh
alone. Don’t say there will be jobs for local people because there wont. We don’t
have Nuclear Researchers on the Marsh and it won’t take many people to direct evert
ones waste to an area. Romney Marsh has its quiet unique qqualities lets leave it
that way.
Take your nuclear waste somewhere else. Romney Marsh is an important area for
the residents who live here and the many species of wildlife. Would you still want to
live here with that on your doorstep? To talk about employment opportunities and
infrastructure improvements is insignificant to whats being proposed. This will blight
all of our lives not to say the devastating effect this will have on property values!!
Page 79
Appendix D
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
Take your nuclear waste somewhere else. Romney Marsh is an important area for
the residents who live here and the many species of wildlife. Would you still want to
live here with that on your doorstep? To talk about employment opportunities and
infrastructure improvements is insignificant to whats being proposed. This will blight
all of our lives not to say the devastating effect this will have on property values!!
Overly' concerned re transport to the site and esp risk of accident/terrorism related
not only with rail but also Lydd Airport. Also, flood risk. I'm less concerned with the
technology & reliability of the waste once all storage is completed. On a selfish level:
- devaluation of property & difficulty in selling in first few years of project (as well as
health risk potential).
We should not pollute soft water boreholes on the Marsh. Too many people live in
the SE who would be exposed if things went wrong. Also what about the earthquake
fault line nearby? Geology totally unsuitable. My suggestion would be to make the
Marsh 'The Retirement Haven' of England, like Florida in the USA. Build suitable
housing, sports, medical and social facilities. this would creats a lot of jobs in the
long run, keep the tranquility and tourism part and wildlife working together for the
future too.
In the light of recent discoveries of the adverse side of wind turbines any
encouragement we can give to nuclear energy can only be common sense.
In the light of recent discoveries of the adverse side of wind turbines any
encouragement we can give to nuclear energy can only be common sense.
Safety would be a priority, but jobs are in short supply in this area. Providing every
effort is made to make certain that the facility is as safe as is humanly possible, then
go ahead.
And why should the marsh be a dumping ground for the UK and possibly other
countries dangerous nuclear waste. What could it do if something went wrong?
Totally unthinkable, infact possibly goodbye to all life on Romney Marshand we
should definitely find out more. Our concern is for our children, grandchildren and
their familys.
And why should the marsh be a dumping ground for the UK and possibly other
countries dangerous nuclear waste. What could it do if something went wrong?
Totally unthinkable, infact possibly goodbye to all life on Romney Marshand we
should definitely find out more. Our concern is for our children, grandchildren and
their familys.
Far far prefer an airport
I am undecided as to whether the facility would benefit Romney Marsh and if the area
could sustain, support and embrace such a large industry.
We are prone to earthquakes
Anything that creates employment in the area is good.
Any project that may bring more jobs to the area is worth investigating.
Can the experts assure the public that this is a safe way to store (nuclear waste) I
don’t think so. I have not forgotten about the (nuclear) problems in tokyo and eastern
europe over the last decade.
Anything that is likely to create jobs in the future, especialy for youngsters should be
welcomed.
We do not want this facility on Romney Marsh
What bloody fool though this one up!! Do they live in Shepway?
I am against a Nuclear Research Disposal Facility.
I would not be opposed to a research facility but would be opposed to disposal as it
could affect the nature of the Marsh.
Page 80
Appendix D
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
It would completely kill this area. No one will want to come on holiday to a toxic
waste dump. This is all reclaimed land, how stable would it be if they start digging
tunnels under it.
No to the above proposal. Yes to a nuclear power station.
Stop wasting your time and my money on stunts that are going nowhere just so that
you can give the appearance of trying to do something.
In my opinion such an installation would ultimately have a detrimental effect on this
unique area and deter newcomers from settling or investing here. The disruption
during the installation process could cause great harm to a very special environment.
Totally opposed to these plans. Would be a blight on the whole of Kent, let alone
Romney Marsh! NO
It's difficult enough to get insurance in the area because of flood threat. To store
nuclear waste on the site around the Marsh is ludicrous, madness and definitely a no
go. Prepare yourselves for a major rejection.
It concerns me Mr Godfrey that in your letter all you talk about is the economy and
jobs. Where is the ackowledgement (never mind acceptance!) of this area's
importance to people for its intrinsic value. For its natural beauty its value not a 'real
estate' but for conserving natural history, tranquility and safety. People come here on
holiday for goodness sake! And those that live here are thankful for the enviroment.
Leave it be. If jobs are the only issue then maybe people need to be move to where
jobs are as I had to when younger. Don't rob England of more of its areas of n
beauty. Leave it to Cumbria.
Bringing radioactive waste to this coastline is something I think is very wrong. You
cannot rely on our motorways when Stack is in force let alone if there was a major
road accident and these sealed containers were involved. This coastline is
residential and I'm sure that even though Romney Marsh may not be the same, I
would worry that the built up areas surrounding would suffer with the trouble we may
get with bringing the waste in. This coast is a holiday coastline and should stay like
that, not be a coast that people would shy away from.
No
No
No No No - A dreadful idea. Keep the Romney Marsh as is. Do not contaminate it. It’s
a wonderful area.
No we do not want this it will ruin our countryside, we are proud of Romney Marsh - it
will de-value property's - we had the earthquake what would happen if that’s all buried
under the ground, it is all our lives
No we do not want this it will ruin our countryside, we are proud of Romney Marsh - it
will de-value property's - we had the earthquake what would happen if that’s all buried
under the ground, it is all our lives
We are totally opposed to having a Nuclear Research and Disposal Facility on
Romney Marsh. The local jobs this might possibly create do not compensate for the
damage this facility would have on the Marsh and Environment in general. It is one
thing to have a Nuclear Power Station on our doorstep, but a totally different matter
having a nuclear waste (dump) disposal facility there. We are not, and could not be
convinced that there is a safe way of storing radioactve waste in the long term and it
would be a disaster for future generations if we should allow this contamination to go
ahead; they certainly would not thank us for leaving them with such a dangerous
legacy.
Absolutely no!
Page 81
Appendix D
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
No no no - we want to save our Marsh not pollute it!!! It should never be a
consideration!!
Enquiries cost money ie Airport. We do not want nuclear waste in the garden of
England.
Absolutley Not
A Nuclear Disposal Facility, will devalue property in this area everyone is wary of
nuclear power and to have a disposal facility more less on your doorstep does not
make you feel safe. The Romney Marshes are supposed to be a designated wildlife
area, how can the council justifie building this plant it will cause destruction and a lot
of rare plants could be lost as well
As we are on a flood plan I would think that geologically that would be a suitable for a
start. I also think the population has grown in recent years, making it unsafe for the
proposed facility to proceed. Until scientists come up with a solution for recycling
nuclear waste we need to proceed in another direction! Solar perhaps? A natural
source without the need to dispose waste underground!
Providing that SDC will not be required to spend a considerable amount of money on
the initial process as there is the possibility that it will be money wasted if the project
is not fullfilled.
As a nuclear test veteran, a lot more is needed to find out what happens should there
be any leakage accours after disposal? Perhaps we should increase the size of our
cemeterys.
I think this will be good for the community, economically, work prospects and
rejuinate the 'Marsh' which is slowly dying. But only if Health and Safety are checked
out rigorisly.
Anything that brings more jobs to the area cannot be bad.
I feel the marsh could become a dumping ground for the international nuclear waste
and the government of the day could take any profit cry
Yes as it will provide jobs in the future, I believe it will be safe
Worried about longterm leakage
As I don’t know enough about the long term effect of nuclear waste we do need to
look into this im 72 this year and hopefully I wont be around to find out if it all goes
wrong. I don’t want it in the Marsh. But its to go somewhere.
There are too many unanswered questions to decide such as the transportation of the
waste through Kent. The dangers of storage etc. A lot more about the project must be
avilable before a decision is made.
WE DO NOT NEED IT IN ROMNEY MARSH OR WANT IT IN ROMNEY MARSH
THIS SHOULD INCLUDE THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT
THE TRUTH
Thank you Shepway District Council for the opportunity to have my say.
No to Nuclear Waste which will not benefit the area. Yes to the Airport expansion
which will.
Jobs need to be created in this area now - not 15 - 20 years time! The environmental
impact needs to be very carefully considered.
ROMNEY MARSH SHOULD NOT BECOME A DUMPING GROUND FOR NUCLEAR
WASTE. RESEARCH INTO IMPROVED WIND POWER TECHNIQUES AND TIDAL
ENERGY/SOLAR COULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE FOR THE AREA. WHAT ABOUT
THE RISK OF EARTHQUAKES AS WE RECENTLY EXPERIENCED IN THE
SOUTH-EAST?
WHAT PROPORTION OF THE VOTES WILL DETERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTES
AN "EXPRESSION OF INTEREST"
Page 82
Appendix D
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
We need Dungeness C not this
Lets not make the Romney Marsh a dump for anything. Especially something as
dangerous as Radioactive waste. You have ideal sites by using the existing coal
mines that have been exhausted in the Midlands and the North.
Any such ideas are idiotic in the extreme!
We don't want Kent to be a dumping ground we take landfill, children in care from
other countries. Let them keep Nuclear waste in their own countries. We need
homes, transport links eg rail, road, hospitals etc.
We do not want this facility at all.
I think it would detrimental for the area people would not want to move here and
business premises would suffer.
We do not need to kill off anymore of Romney Marsh (one Sellafield is enough!). How
much of a tourist attraction would it be? How many workers with the specialist skills
required would be from the local community?
The shear size of the complex will look awfull you will be able to see it from all over
the Marsh. Then the upheaveil of getting the waste to the site ie building the railway?
Then just the uncertainty of the effect on people’s health in the long and short term?
My wife and I cannot agree to this, accidents can happen, as proved by the nuclear
reactor in Japan. As there are now earth tremours in this area it does not seem safe
to put nuclear waste underground in this area. Although jobs will be created I think
puplic safety comes first.
My wife and I cannot agree to this, accidents can happen, as proved by the nuclear
reactor in Japan. As there are now earth tremours in this area it does not seem safe
to put nuclear waste underground in this area. Although jobs will be created I think
puplic safety comes first.
Just beacause local people put up with the power station in the first place, does not
mean we would want it used as a dump how insulting to the area and local people.
Why have a dumping ground for nuclear waste instead of a nuclear power station? A
power station would be more beneficial to jobs and the Romney Marsh not forgetting
the environment and most importantly the wild life.
Why have a dumping ground for nuclear waste instead of a nuclear power station? A
power station would be more beneficial to jobs and the Romney Marsh not forgetting
the environment and most importantly the wild life.
We should find out more, however I would be entirely against this idea as we would
become the dump of all waste for UK and Europe.
We do not want it
We do not want it
Nothing to lose by submitting an expression of interest, and if it helps the community
particularly with chances of employment, it can only be in the long term a good thing.
The Romney Marsh is a rural farming and fishing area not a place to place a nuclear
waste dump.
I oppose this because although I am nearly 82 years of age, I probably will not be
around anyway, but I think of the younger generation and the wildlife so I am saying
no - Thank you.
This crazy idea would not only kill off Romney Marsh but the whole of Kent as who on
earth would want to live and work near a nuclear dumping ground and the
transportation of this deadly stuff by road and rail through the county from all over the
UK doesn't bear thinking about. And all this next to an airport! How much is all this
consultation costing cash strapped SDC, it's a criminal waste of council taxpayers'
money.
Page 83
Appendix D
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
This is ridiculous, the airport wasn’t allowed to expand due to the wildlife - noise, etc.
Why should this be allowed?
Hope this will give young people employment?
Although we a acknowledge that you state clearly that the 'community' have the final
say and that 'we' can pull out at any stage - we are not confident , in the light of
experience, that Shepway Council will listen to community opinion - or act on majority
views. We cannot therefore trust that tentative enquiries would not end up with
acceptance of an unacceptable scheme. Maybe when the political leadership
changes as it surely must at the next election - however we doubt that any party will
put community before their ambitions.
We are not in agreement with this proposal as it could have serious affects on the
local communities & commerce, not withstanding the risk factor involved. Romney
Marsh is an area of outstanding natural beauty and naturalness and again this would
be affected as would the huge wildlife. We shall do everything possible to oppose this
project.
We are not in agreement with this proposal as it could have serious affects on the
local communities & commerce, not withstanding the risk factor involved. Romney
Marsh is an area of outstanding natural beauty and naturalness and again this would
be affected as would the huge wildlife. We shall do everything possible to oppose this
project.
We need another power STN FOR JOBS
The facility would be a great benefit to the area after A and B closure. The Marsh
area may be a poverty wasteland without a major employer here.
My concern is the geological make up of the land around here. So much marsh land
would surely cause seepage. No matter how cafeful the seal around the waste, it
would only take a minor land fault to split the seal. There are many earthquakes in the
UK. Certainly small ones compared to Asia for instance, but it would only take one in
the right place.
I do not believe Romney Marsh is a suitable place for the disposal of Nuclear Waste.
The geology of the area is unsuitable - our water supply comes from deep in the
ground. Job creation should not be used as a reason for approving this idea. Other
ways of creating employment should be explored. Finally the burying of waste is an
unknown quantity - with potentially catastrophic consequences. Think about future
generations - not just short term solutions.
No we should not find out more
Without any replacement for the power stations Romney Marsh will become a very
unattractive place to live. It provides jobs & associated businesses, without it the area
will severely struggle.
We can't have a new power station built due to risk of flooding! Yet this proposal for
waste to be stored underground is deemed to be safe? We do not want to be the
nuclear waste dumping ground, it cannot be safe.
Lydd Airport would create more jobs now rather than in eight years time.
I do not believe that SDC should take this further. There are too many risks involved. I
can't really belive that it is being considered! I would definitely not want such a facility
in our area (I have read the enclosed leaflet).
Page 84
Appendix D
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
We need more information on the impact it would have on the Marsh wild life and the
infrastructure Re - ROADS, HOSPITAL,WATER are all fit for the load they would
have to carry, well in advance of the start of building as well as the start of operations.
Likewise safety would be top of the list along with the above. We need jobs.
Permenant, long term jobs, Safe Jobs and we must safeguard what we have in
respect of our countryside.
Below sea level. Flood plain. Unstable sea bed that’s been reclaimed. Global
warming. Rising sea level. Nuclear waste travelling thur or round London. Over
expandtion of nuclear enviroment in this part of Kent. Ruin wildlife once more, if
airport gets go ahead and already have windfarms.
The Romney Marsh is a rare low populated unique environment, in this ever
overcrowded south east of Britain. And because of this should be treated an an asset
and be protected and left alone from any large future developments (a resident of 44
years on Romney Marsh).
I doubt if Romney Marsh/Dungeness is a suitable place to dump hazardous waste. I
realise it has to go somewhere. However off the north of Scotland there is an
uninhabitated island used during the war as a chemical warfare experimental site.
Why not consider this? It’s not good for anything people can’t live there. Just refuse.
We object strongly and do not want any effort made. Lydd airport should be the
future. This would be better at Sellafield not on Romney Marsh. Please put us down
as two no's.
We object strongly and do not want any effort made. Lydd airport should be the
future. This would be better at Sellafield not on Romney Marsh. Please put us down
as two no's.
This seems again to be all about money under the disguise of providing jobs, but can
only be detrimental to the Marsh area.
Have you ever looked at the marsh? And you propose lorries and machinery on the
narrow roads? The soil is completely unsuitable - a mixture of sand and damp clay no rocks or places for ...CANNOT READ... It is a beautiful area full of ...CANNOT
READ... And wildlife and a paradise for walkers and cyclists. You propose to spend
several years of complete disruption to the people who live there, it is dangerous.
No! I see they are keen in Cumbria. Let them have it. We have so little beautiful
countryside in coastal Kent. This is unthinkable.
Too dangerous
We are both against any facility being built here on our Marsh.
Why should the Romney Marsh always be a dumping ground. It would be better for
some sort of reasonable safe industry to invest here.
Would not like to see a disposal faciltiy here as I think it is still too dangerous for the
communitys future. The number of jobs created will not justify the risk to our
environment.
1) Does the local geology support the proposed construction? 2) Would there be
consideratin to building a port facility so that the product can be delieverd by sea and
not rail.
I would not be against this proposal and trust S.D.C to make the rigth decision
My 20 years experience working at the Dungeness nuclear site leads me to believe
that a storage/research facility on the Marsh would be an asset to the area.
Who will pay for this. Will my property price fall. Keep it up in Cumberia less houses.
Unproven technology, lack of information of the transportation of the waste through
Kent and risks involved.
Page 85
Appendix D
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
I believe there must be a better way of securing employment & security for the Marsh
without poisoning the land for future generations. The Marsh is too lovely to become
a dumping ground for nuclear waste.
The thought of Nuclear Waste under our feet feels me with horror. We must think of
our childrens childrens children.
I think it would be very sad to have a nuclear research disposal facility in Romney
Marsh. I think it would have people deciding NOT to move and live in Romney Marsh
& I think in time the village would die and people would NOT want to visit the
marshes. Lets keep our nature marsh alive.
I think it would be very sad to have a nuclear research disposal facility in Romney
Marsh. I think it would have people deciding NOT to move and live in Romney Marsh
& I think in time the village would die and people would NOT want to visit the
marshes. Lets keep our nature marsh alive.
GO FOR IT WE NEED IT
I think we should build new power stations or find out more about disposal ect as long
as Dungeness is not spoilt. It is beautiful. Electricity is essential!
It would be a disaster for the people in the area & ruin the enviroment of Romney
Marsh.
There is more to life & our future than money & jobs. It is to dangerous for all of us.
Thank you.
Push for a new power station instead, much better idea.
Push for a new power station instead, much better idea.
No thanks
This nuclear research should be done before we continue to have more power
stations using nuclear power. Saying that if we do not have nuclear power what is the
alternative? We need PCANNOT READP for people who live near them. We do not
want to worry ...CANNOT READ... this or that goes wrong. But what else is there?
So it looks like we can't win we have to just keep trying.
Definately no. why should we take in other areas or countries nuclear waste. Times
are changing. Job losses are inevitable result of this progress. Let our children,
grandchildren and great granchildren grow up without the threat of a terrorist attack
on Dungeness power station. Security at the power station is inadequate to say the
least. I realise you are all lighting for your jobs, but we are fighting for our future. Its
not to much to ask for a safe enviroment to live in. I think we have done our duty in
the past by having the power station in our back yard so to speak. Its time for
someone else to shoulder the burden of nuclear waste and energy. Leave Romney
Marsh alone.
I am extremely eneasy concerning the question of the above facility in this area. We
still have the questions concerning the expansion of Lydd Airport and the power
stations. I fully appreciate that it will bring money and jobs into the area but personally
I would vote against the above facility. I feel all should be left as it is to preserve the
wildlife otherwise you will almost certainly lose the many holiday makers.
I would be concerned about the water table in the area.
If I can't get planning permission for a plot land at the side of my house because we
are in a flood risk area. How safe is a huge storage area going to be? What happens
to all the displaced water that is in the Marsh as well if such a facility is built.
Please drop this proposal now!
The Marsh has a high water table
Page 86
Appendix D
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
Sellafeild has has a minimum of 20 armed gaurds 24 hours a day. Why invite this risk
to Romney Marsh. I say another No to this. I appreciate nuclear is the safest from of
generating electricity. But why do we want to be the waste disposal site if after 2018
we will be producing the waste ourselves.
No No No
There is no room for such a development on Romney Marsh. This project should not
even be considered.
This is very difficult to decide upon. The fact it would bring more work oppurtunities to
the area is appealing & of course this facility has to be put somewhere - so why not
the Marsh! However, the fact that it is near the sea and in the event of an ''accident''
could cause more chaos than a site inland needs thinking about. My fears may be
completely unfounded, but I err on the side of caution and vote No
Having worked at Dungeness 'A' & 'B' Powerstation for 30 years generating electricty
has provided a neligille risk. Storage of nuclear waste is an entirely different matter.
You only have to look at Sellingfield's records to see the risk invovled. We are
against your proposal. Consider 1) the Canterbury fault 2) Transport problems 3)
Where is the spoil going to go?
Visitors come to Romney Marsh from all over for the green open spaces and wildlife,
Im sure knowing a nuclear dump was here would put the majority off. In this little
haven of Kent it should never be allowed to happen.
We all ready live on reclaimed land from the sea it would be madness to even think
about it. Our homes would not be worth a penny
I know we really do need more jobs in our area, and more funds to come in for the
Marsh. But it’s a bit of a wrong when transporting it here and allso and when it is
here would visitors stay away and would it put people off buying homes here?
I brought my first property in Dymchurch 43 years ago so I have some knowledge of
recent history of the Romney Marsh. I find the prospect of living with high level
radioactive waste dump quite intolerable. Although my wife and I would probably not
live long enough to be affected our children and their offspring will be. Its beggars
belief that a dump buried up to 3000 feet deep can be maintained safely for hundreds
of thousands of years. One only has to look at the many of the uncaring and selfish
employees engaged in the waste disposal industries to recognise that neglect over
many years of a dump out of sight would lead to disaster. For this dump to be so far
below the water table and the likelihood of inundation of the Marsh is far to risky.
Concrete and steel erode over years and do not last forever. We already have the
risk of the cores of A and B station facing the risk of raising sea levels. So to add a
dump which ALSO CANNOT BE MOVED if it is subsequently found to be a mistake is
something I will protest actively. I have watched spellbound at the performance over
the extension of Lydd airport (which makes no sense to me whatsoever) which will so
materially affect our lives. Make no mistake after the Lydd airport fiasco I will get off
my bottom to fight this radioactive dump proposal even if I have to spend the
remainder of my retirement doing it.
I do not want to have anything to do with nuclear disposal. We seem to get everything
we do not want in the South East. Why are we always picked on? Please let us live
our life (our way).
I do not fancy having vast caverns of deadly material nearby. Dungeness is a place of
great beauty spoilt by the exsisting power plant. Let us return to how it should be.
Page 87
Appendix D
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
Shepway Council should not proceed on this matter as you were not elected to do
this. You have to think of the generations to come. You have opened the gate for the
Green Party at the next elections. After the parking charges fiasco you need to think
very carefully
The Romney Marsh should be left as it is. No nuclear waste. No Lydd Airport. What
will happent to Greatstone School? My grandchildren go to this school.
The Romney Marsh should be left as it is. No nuclear waste. No Lydd Airport. What
will happent to Greatstone School? My grandchildren go to this school.
Dungeness is a unique landscape of outstanding beauty and an area known for its
wildlife and unsual plants. Why should this area be used as a disposal facility and
nuclear research. Its never been done before and who knows what harm can be done
to the surrounding environment. We are suppose to be green but dumping nuclear
rubbish underground who knows what harm will be done. How safe will it be exporting
the nuclear waste to Dungeness, accidents happen especially man-made ones and
as for digging underground tunnels and vaults could this cause an earthquake,
Folkestone runs across a fault line. I say no to the proposals let Dungeness be free of
nuclear power and be left to nature for everybody to enjoy.
I am against the proposals for nuclear reasearch and the disposal facilitys. I feel that
burying radiation containers underground is unsafe. Nothing lasts forever. Nobody
can say it is safe. Nobody really knows. Transportation of the nuclear waste could
also be dangerous. Accidents happen. The area could also be flooded with climate
change. I say no to those proposals.
It would be detrimental to the environment. Employment needed yes but we are very
unskilled and jobs go to outsiders anyway. Need training and education for locals!!
I will come to one of the meetings.
We understand there is is a geological fault at Dungeness academy is the experts.
No nuclear waste is 'safe'. There is a high water level across Romney Marsh so this
is another defendant, and at Dungeness the shingle itself b always on the move. If
this facility was built it would be the death of all that is living in this area indivudaully
the population , the wild life ect.
I am 'pro' this project. Yes - more jobs. However I suspect the Marsh geology will rule
out there is a high water table (my house Is below sea level) Dymchurch resident
since 1970. I wd prefer a power station ratherP Please find out if it is physically
possible ... before asking again far fors, against .. thanks. Good luck!
Page 88
Appendix D
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
We cannot believe any council would consider such a ludicrous proposal for a
Romney Marsh nuclear research and disposal facility. A very fancy title for something
nobody else in the country wants. Perhaps we need to bring a few points of concern
to your attention. This proposal would be major works on and more importantly
beneath land, perhaps better explained as bogland, below sea level, the belgian fault
line runs very close to the marsh, what effect would this have on this proposal?
Considering that Folkestone suffered an earthqauke, of which shock waves were felt
on the marsh. Surely active earth plates would not be an ideal area for this proposal.
The marsh already has a wind farm at Brookland, each turbine stands at 150ft of
concrete taking the space where the volume of water should be. How much concrete
would be needed for this proposal? Both above and below ground. taking up the area
where the water should be. Water may indeed find its own level, but one assumes
this must mean flooding of the surrounding area and beyond. it has been said that
this proposal would cover and area of 250 acres, this would accomodate 22 football
pitches the size of Wembely Stadium! This said how many villages and their
communities would be obliterated? Often in press releases the marsh is refered to as
' The Jewel in the Shepway Crown of Shepway' some jewel, as at every oppurtunity
Shepway counillors see this area is a desolate space, just waiting to be monoplized
on. The dumping ground is more the truth ! we already have ongoing issues at Lydd
airport with all the problems that entails. Why did Shepway council not have the
foresight to build a regional aiport at the Hawkinge Aerodrome when they had the
chance, instead of allowing all those houses? The road access was all there at the
ready, apart from the large open space such as business needs. The marsh is a most
unique place in many ways and should be treated with great respect . We are all its
custodians for its fragile future.
I cannot believe this has even been considered for Romney Marsh, and my answer is
a definate no. futher more I would not vote for any councillor who supported it, now or
in the future.
I am not concieved that it is a good idea to store radioactive waste underground at
Dungeness. I appreciate that more jobs in this area is desireable but balamee I think
the proposal is a step to far at the moment.
Definetly not - do not even start the proces.
Geologicaly unsound
I am absolutely disgusted that something like this would even be suggested for this
beautifull unique area. I agree that we do need employment but not at any cost we
cannot ignore the possible safety problems this project could bring to us. We also
need to develop tourism but recreational not industrial. it will put a blight on this area
people could not want to live here.
No No No please do not do this!
In 2013 it may be difficult for residents on the 'Marsh' to get house insurance as this
area is designated a 'flood risk area' by the Environment Agency. To consider this
proposal it would be absolute folly!! For tourism - which the whole area depends on,
Romney Marsh is a unique area - which will be lost forever!
I have grave concerns regarding the safety issues where a facility such as this is
concerned. I do not think that very many local residents will want this on the Romney
Marsh.
Page 89
Appendix D
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
Leave the Marsh alone! It's unique and does not need all these get rich quick
schemes. Any contract would of course go to a foreigner, as usual, with any profit
going abroad. The works on the sea wall proved that and the local labour force gets
no employment as they bring their personnel with them. The benefit is nil for the area.
Radioactive waste is dangerous and no one as yet can say how long it remains so.
Of course we should find out more. It is silly to say 'no' when you don't know what you
are saying 'no' to.
Five generations of my family have lived on the Marsh. This is not a good idea for the
Romney Marsh, the last thing I could think of to promote the Romney Marsh is a
dumping ground for nuclear waste. We need to encourage visitors and tourism not to
totally put them off.
How can you dig to a depth of 1000 metres when the watertable is closer and much
of the Marsh is shingle and in the past was covered by the sea. We are also told that
the Marsh is in danger of flooding - the power stations have to have shingle replaced
every year to protect them.
No I do not agree, the beach moves all the time, I think we have had enough nuclear
power in this area. As for employees a good amount were brought in from other
areas.
NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS I'm 88 years old in residential home, the Fairways, Littlestone so this doesn’t effect
me. But the main question is how safe is this for coming generations. Especially in
the event of war, god forgive.
I am totally against a nuclear disposal facility on Romney Marsh.
I feel we should be spending more effort to get the airport expanded now. Although
the nuclear disposal facility will create jobs, it will be so far in the future that there will
be no young people left to see work on the Marsh. My other concern regards the
transportation of the nuclear waste i.e. by more lorries on the road or will a new train
line be built? Either of these options will further spoil a huge area.
Too hazardous on the simple roads we having serving the Marsh and would be better
sited on some of the huge country areas in Scotland, where people are few.
Definitely not in favour of our beautiful Romney Marsh being effectively used as a
nuclear 'dumping ground'. I can just imagine what effect all the upheaval involved, in
developing the project, would have on the flora and wildlife on Romney Marsh. I
sincerely hope the outcome will be in the negative.
Please do not kill the Romney Marsh with a dump you hear of the danger that Japan
had and to store waste would be madness. I am 93 years old and would like to think
that the Romney Marsh will be safe for my childrens children.
I think this is the most stupid idea Shepway or the government have ever had.
It may be good for employment and revenue but what happpens when the seas rise
and flood the Marsh? Will it be in a 'bubble' or contaminate a large area?
There seem to be pros and cons to this scheme.
No No No on any plain or Marsh!!
Do not want other people's nuclear waste.
No to nuclear waste.
Personally - I wouldn't want this to happen: too close to the sea - environment hazard
(this place is suppose to be a nature reserve?)
I have listened to people talking about this nuclear research, on television as well. Its
not going to effect me but I am thinking of our future generation, and of Romney
Marsh so it’s a big no from me.
Page 90
Appendix D
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
We think that a new power station should be built and are definitely against a nuclear
research and disposal facility. It will spoil the Marshes!!
Ex senior construction engineer Dungeness 'B'. Find out the exact site, bearing in
mind that Romney Marsh is reclaimed land from the sea, that is why it is called the
Marsh, and we believe that we on the Marsh live on a water table, with new houses
having to be built on a raft? Also in the early 80s a survey was taken for a possible
site for a 'C' station west of the then existing 'B' station, which proved to be unable to
find a suitable rock face for foundations? How can you build a facility up to 1000m
depth withoub hitting the water table?
I think first a decision should be decided on the expansion of Lydd airport (how long
now? Cost!) as for a nuclear dumping ground no thank you we have enough rubbish
dumped on our little to land called England, from all over Europe as it is.
They would not let them build a power station why a dump.
It may be buried deep down, but with climate change it could be flooded in a few
years. And probably get the rest of the world nuclear stations dumping here.
Romney Marsh is first & foremost a seaside town, and tourism, therefore is extremely
important to the area. If this nuclear facility were to go ahead, it would not only impact
on tourism and other visitors to the Marsh, it would also have an adverse affect on
house prices etc, which could, in long term could cause the Marsh to die, becoming,
almost ghost towns & villages. Whilst we definetly need jobs in this area, I would
have a thought a new power station would be more benficial all round, for a long
period of time.
This is the way forward for the Marsh. It will ensure long term investment in the area.
Which will be lost beyond the closure of the power station. I'm all for progress!
I would not have thought the geology of the area was suitable for such.
I don’t know enough about these things to comment.
This has to be a joke! Or perhaps a diversionary tactics to take our minds off the
unpopular Lydd Airport expansion proposal? Developing a nuclear dump on the
Romney Marsh would destroy the unique nature of the Marsh - more
roads/construction vehicles etc. It is also a completely unsuitable location - It's a
marsh! - We are told it is at risk of flooding (just try and insure a house on the Marsh)
- There is a earthqauke fault in the channel (ask Folkestone) - We are told a new
nuclear powerstation will not be built here due to the sunami risk. I was under the
impression this type of waste had to be burried hundreds of feet down in granite. How
about Scotland? Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding, NO, NO, NO
This has to be a joke! Or perhaps a diversionary tactics to take our minds off the
unpopular Lydd Airport expansion proposal? Developing a nuclear dump on the
Romney Marsh would destroy the unique nature of the Marsh - more
roads/construction vehicles etc. It is also a completely unsuitable location - It's a
marsh! - We are told it is at risk of flooding (just try and insure a house on the Marsh)
- There is a earthqauke fault in the channel (ask Folkestone) - We are told a new
nuclear powerstation will not be built here due to the sunami risk. I was under the
impression this type of waste had to be burried hundreds of feet down in granite. How
about Scotland? Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding, NO, NO, NO
The SDC should do all in its power to support this proposal and push for a C station.
The site will remain heavily radioactive for hundreds of years so it makes sense to
reuse an exsisting site rather than spoil ''clean'' land. This makes more sense than
London Ashford Airport!
Definetly No.
Page 91
Appendix D
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
Why should the beautiful coast of the Romney Marsh be a dumping ground for the
nuclear disposal, the depth of which they will have to go, no knows what they may
find. Perhaps if the airport is extended, they would employ quite a number of people.
The thought of all that waste lying there is very frightening.
We do not need this in kent
NO
I realsie that lack of employment in the Romney Marsh area is a huge issue but this is
absoloutely not the answer. If anything such a project would make the Marsh area
less attractive to possible businesses and I'm certain it would impact property values.
The general area's recreational facilities employ many local people to this aspect of
development & potential is at present considerebly under development used &
promoted = Nuclear use for the area would at least cost a mental reserve for people,
maybe not just curtailing the present recreational numbers of people jobs & housing but for the long term future, this ''slight stigma'' for want of a better term, could cost
the whole community of Shepway District very dear indeed. I really think the short
term job losses you refer to - are just a drop in the ocean compared to the damage
that could be inflicted to a considerable area by the publics perception of this plan.
Having recently moved to this area I do not want radioactive waste nearby on my
doorstep. This area is a haven for wildlife and open spaces. Plus the water table I
would assume is near to the surface. There will never be a cast iron gaurantee that
there will not be an accident or pollution. Is it worth the risk. No.
Bringing this to a very nice part of the world is just not on!! Our homes would be
blighted more than at present. I feel safe with the power stations and any new jobs
will be many many years away.
Need to know more about the pros and cons
Its got to go somewhere. And the young people need jobs - they need a future. I don’t
know about the people in Dungeness - they have always been pleasant and friendly.
But the people from Dymchurch, think their something special and that they are some
how different from the rest of the county or even the country. It might help them come
to terms with, diversity and that they can't exclude themselfs from what, everywhere
else has to cope with. They are not a freindly bunch and I wouldnt recommend
anyone moving here - but thats what they want!!
There is no question - we do not need this on the Romney Marsh
We do not think it’s a good idea to have a nuclear research and disposal facility on
Romney Marsh - mistakes can happen
This facility will:- 1) reduce house prices/houses will be difficult to sell. 2) Destroy the
tourist industry. 3) No local jobs will be created for the construction phase. 4) All of
the people employed at the current power stations will have left the area before this
facility has opened, we need something now. We are fully against this plan.
It would be catastrophic to the Marsh. 1. People are not rich in this area, their house
values will plumet. 2. The waste from other nuclear sites will have to pass through
the most densely populated areas of England and arrive at one of the closest points
to Europe, and the main waterway import channel for this country. 3. The unskilled
jobs that are needed will not be permanent and the skilled jobs will most likely be
filled from outside of the area. 4. This area relies on tourism. This will effectively kill
it. 5. I WILL move out of this area if this goes through.
The idea is so crazy its not worth commenting on
Page 92
Appendix D
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
I do not feel that the unique Romney Marsh landscape would be appropriate for such
a facility, bearing in mind that the area is below sea level and has a high water table.
Also, despite the recent work on the new sea defences at Dymchurch, the Marsh is at
high risk of flooding. Dymchurch in particular relies on tourism and I think this would
have a detrimental effect on the economy of Dymchurch
We are concerned about the disposal facility - especially as our water comes from
'underground'. We are concerned for the next generation as its unlikely to happen in
our lifetime.
We are concerned about the disposal facility - especially as our water comes from
'underground'. We are concerned for the next generation as its unlikely to happen in
our lifetime.
My wife and I am both in our 70's and I do not expect to be affected by the proposal
and feel it is not for people like us to vote either way. The increase in jobs for the
Marsh is a very good thing. I would be worried by the chance of a radiation leak.
It is difficult to think of any circumstances in which a low-lying area subject to risk of
flooding could be considered suitable for storing nuclear waste for a peroid of several
hundred years.
It seems to me that if we can't have the power station working again we are being
blackmailed into accepting another nuclear alternative. Surely it is time to consider
other employment rather than just rely on one controversial sector. A very strong no
from me.
On flat ground liable to flood - Never!
In principle I am in favour, but realise there are many quesitons to be answered. Well
done for finding alternative ways to help unemployment and improve investment on
Romney Marsh
Absolutely no to the disposal facility, it would be a disaster for the area (house prices
etc). We are all for Dungeness C it would create far more jobs which we need here on
the Marsh.
I think disposal units should be closer to the sites making the waste. It is hazardous
to move waste around the country, especially along the Marsh.
I feel that the questions are a little ambiguous I have answered yes from the view
point that I can only take an informed position on this if I have as much information as
possible. Ticking yes at this stage does not imply support or otherwise for the
proposal as i said we need to know as much as possible in order to take an informed
position
I do not believe that a facility such as this would be advantageous to the marsh in any
way. I further believe that the inherent risks associated with waste atomic materials
are unacceptable to both human and animal life.
I am totally against any form of nuclear waste disposal on Romney Marsh in any
form, even without taking into account the water table problems
Past experience of windscale nuclear plant (now sellafield in cumbria) plus very high
incedence of cancers in a wide area of the dungeness plant in kent makes me have
no trust in the nuclear industry and safety issues where public health is concerned.
No TO NUCLEAR REASEARCH and DISPOSAL FACILITY ON ROMNEY MARSH!!
The Marsh is built on land reclaimed from the sea, watertable is not very deep. Do not
want trains transporting hazardrous waste travelling to the site. Will affect tourism and
house prices.
As long as new jobs are created and that the disruption to the wildlife around the
facility is not too much.
Page 93
Appendix D
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
I think the idea that Romney Marsh should be considered a dumping ground for
Nuclear Waste is an insult. I dispair at the thought that Shepway would even consider
this creator of jobs should not come into it. Why not expansion of Lydd Airport, that
would create jobs, investmant in our young people educating and training would be a
start!!
Would rather have A"C" Station for employment
It would spoil the Romney Marsh, house prices would drop - who would want to live
here. Why should we have the countrys rubbish. No.
It’s a ridiculous idea. The Romney Marsh is below sea level. How are you planning on
building underground vaults in water!
We don’t see how nuclear waste could be stored safely as Romney Marsh is mainly
shingle which moves all the time. If we can't expand our airport than we don’t want a
nuclear dump.
We don’t see how nuclear waste could be stored safely as Romney Marsh is mainly
shingle which moves all the time. If we can't expand our airport than we don’t want a
nuclear dump.
The Coucil is so short of money it intends to cut services & lay off staff yet it can find
money for this nonsense. I should like a list of the councillors who apporved this to
ensure I never vote for them again.
Frankly- whilst we probaly deal with nuclear waste better in this country then
anywhere else - I would catergorically state that you would have to be idiot to even
consider this - particulaly when a large proportion of our water comes from the
Dungeness aquifer.
We have lost the contract for the new power station so we have been offered the
rubbish instead; and have to put up with hundreds of lorries clogging the roads. There
will be lots of construction jobs for outsiders and little benefit for us except nuclear
waste risks. This will had to the increase traffic coming soon from the airport; more
holiday makers in transit clogging the roads ruining a traditional countryside holiday
area.
It is no good hiding our heads in the sand. Nuclear is here to stay and it has to go
somewhere. We have had nuclear on the Marsh for years & years and it has provided
all sorts of jobs, mundane as well as skilled. If the geological is suitable then we
should accept this opportunity. After all we already have the people with the expertise
here and properly handeled it is quite safe, at least no more dangerous than any
other chemical industry. Let us find out more!
We are storing up problems for the future generations, with regards to health.
As long as the process of finding out more is not too costly as the concept is a non
starter due to the geology, as any excavation would be below sea level and we have
had the 'historic' Folkestone earthquake. Greater emphasis should be put on a new
generation Nuclear Power Station at Dungeness as the infrastructure is already there
1, The simple answer is no! 2, why waste furthur council tax payers money on this
outrageous idea. 3, Concentrate on tourism and rural industrial outlets and think of
the future generations. 4, No contamination on the Marsh.
1, The simple answer is no! 2, why waste furthur council tax payers money on this
outrageous idea. 3, Concentrate on tourism and rural industrial outlets and think of
the future generations. 4, No contamination on the Marsh.
I do not think this should happen due to the high water table and the fact that if jobs
do happen it will not be local people who get the jobs, also I feel this is not the right
area for the project.
There are many reasons against
Page 94
Appendix D
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
As this will most likely be a fully automated plant, with just a few key workers, it wont
be bringing any or at most a few jobs to the area. I'm sure there are far more remote
places in the country that is could be situated.
Thanks but no thanks. It will not make a bit of difference to the area except a threat of
disaster also a large majority of workers would come from abroad, or at least not
locals it’s a no from me.
Due to Romney Marsh being an area reclaimed from the sea and libal to flooding, this
should be the last palce considered. As for jobs, more consideration needs to be put
into industry and tourism.
Am totally against this crazy idea.
I feel this is a high risk strategy and not something I would want to see on the
Marshes. I listened to a news report and a nuclear expert was interviewed and
expressed his concerns over such a plan.
The overwhelming issues for me are twofold: Firstly, the complete lack of information
on location, the huge variation of size, the large surface structure at an unknown
location means I cannot possibly agree. Secondly, although the process may be
100% safe, the overall public opinion is that it is not. In an area like Dymchurch,
which relies so heavily on local tourism such a stigma would be hugely destructive to
the existing economy.
What on earth are SDC thinking! This area has protected species. Gravel - unstable
for tunnels. Only a 25% chance of being chosen so a 75% chance of wasting public
money. You list the community benefits as housing, environmental improvements.
This is a special area, more housing would turn the area into the same as other
places. We don't need to have our environment spoilt. it already provides us with
fresh air, beautiful scenery, peace and the opportunity to provide green tourism for
those not lucky enough to live here. If flooding occured there would be water
contamination. Building a facility below sea level cannot be a sensible option. Expert
workforce would be brought in from outside the area and move on after. The loss of
work at the power station does not automatically mean a drop to the local economy.
Many workers are retired from the powerstation on a good pension and stay in the
area. Will the waste from tunnelling prove another eyesore 4000m2 and at what
height. You suggest turning the site into a forest. I suggest you come here and get to
know the Marsh - maybe then you will realise how luck Shepway is to have an area of
such beauty within its boundary.
I live on the marsh and love living there, whislt I applaud the idea of creating more
jobs, I do not feel that this is the route to go, and would not agree to anything that
would compromise its uniqueness and natural beauty or stigmatize it as a dumping
ground for the country's nuclear waste, thereby compromising its tourist trade
NO!
NO
We have recently moved to the Marsh and no way would we have moved here if this
proposasl was agreed. Tourism will suffer as no young families would come here as
they would be worried for their children. House prices would fall. The disposal of
nuclear waste would also have to be brought across land, a new railway line across
fields? A thousand new jobs seems a lot at the beginning but would this dwindle if this
process takes place and no one is saying if local people would get the jobs. A
definate no from us.
Page 95
Appendix D
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
The Marsh is subject to flooding. It is unique that it supports a huge range of wildlife,
and visitors come here for its unspoilt areas of natural beauty. I feel the idea of having
a nuclear waste disposal faciltiy would threaten our environment. It doesnt make
sense to transport the waste across the country to the South East.
Why risk ruining such a beautiful area + affecting business for already struggling
surrounding areas?
Little point as Sellafield has already expressed an interest and has offered to take the
waste
1) Above ground, the scandal of putting a square km of building on an otherwise
unbuilt-up site. 2) Below ground, making the Romney Marsh a nuclear dustbin. 3) I
am sensitve to the need for jobs locally but we must be able to find a better solution
than burying nuclear waste beneath this unique area. I believe we are custodians of
our locality & that future generations would never forgive this short sighted step. i
found the exhibition highly informative & staff maning it very professional & well
informed. i went open minded but came away convinced we should not proceed.
Thank you for the exhibition.
We have only been living on the Marsh for 6 months so do not feel we have the right
to make decisions without through discussions with local residents.
I don't agree with energy from nuclear sources, so I would not want a research or
disposal facility on Romney Marsh.
I believe a lot more reassurance has to be given if indeed this is not a politcal ploy to
enhance the chances of a new nuclear power station, which I agree with.
I believe a lot more reassurance has to be given if indeed this is not a politcal ploy to
enhance the chances of a new nuclear power station, which I agree with.
We were appalled when we read this pamphlet, and were completely baffled how
anybody could consider this type of project as a suitable for this area. Romney Marsh
is a unique habitat and should not be blighted any more than it is already. When we
moved here 21 years ago we felt the nuclear power station was bad enough although
by then it was already established and had already integrated and been accpeted by
the local people. However the proposed project is another matter entirely. We
consider oursenves very fortunate indeed. Our back garden looks out on the MArsh
& beyond to Lympne. This are is so beautiful and peaceful and to think it could be
turned into the nuclear dustbin of the UK and maybe beyond - whereever it may be
situated on the Marsh, fills us with dread - not forgetting the noise and disruption it
would cause. This leaflet paints quite a rosy picture naming all the positives such a
site could bring to the area, but as has often been proved, the reality can be very
different. it is true that lack of employmentis a problem in this area but we feel a
nuclear waste site is too high a proce to pay for jobs - and the situation could be very
different in the future. Another worry is terrorism. It iss too easy to discuss this idea
but we are near to the Channel Tunnel & Lydd Airport which means the possibility
cannot be ruled out, also general safety cannot be guaranteed as has been proven
many times. We completely oppose this scheme and thank you for allowing us to
voice our objections.
We were appalled when we read this proposal and were completely baffeled has
anybody could consider this type of project as a suitable for this area. Romney Marsh
is a unique habitat and should not be blighted any more than it is already, when we
moved 21 years ago we felt the nuclear powerstation was bad enough although by
then it was already established and had already intergrated and been accpeted by
local people. However the proposal project is an entire matter entirely.
Page 96
Appendix D
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
I think it would be potentially dangerous to have a nuclear waste dump on the Marsh it would be vulnerable to flood risk* increasingly in the long future as global warming
produces sea rises, & it would be increased risk from accidents to trains carrying the
waste to the Dungeness area - we have already had one accident of that nature at
the Brenzett/Brookland crossing, though fortunately the safeguards built around the
waste prevented radiation on that occasion.
* As far as flood risk goes in the current situation, the Lydd Ranges, so close to
Dungeness, are the weakest point in local sea defences having a risk criterion of only
five years, i.e. one flood expected every five years, whereas the Dymchurch Wall is
built to a criterion of one incident in 200 years. Hythe Ranges are the other bad risk
area at one in 20 years. The Environment Agency wishes to deal with their defences
to increase their effectiveness, with the next priority being the Lydd Ranges.
However, DEFRA at present is not forthcoming to find this, (source:
www.defendourcoast.org) but discussions continue. Hopefully, this will be dealt with
before too long. If this is the case most residents in the area would welcome a new
nuclear power station to maintain employment on the Marsh - but not a waste dump.
If the government advisers say the Marsh is unsuitable for the new power station due
to flooding then surely it must be unsuitable for a nuclear dump.
I have seen the presentation in Dymchurch today which was very informative and
reached the above conclusion
An emphatic no - schemes such as this undervalue the fantastic life of Romney
Marsh and uses the nationwide - and permanent problem of unemployment as an
excuse to invite industrial devestation to an area that should simply be protected from
such careless plans. The invitation of interest should never have been expressed.
Even the question is demoralising and sends a message of such low self esteem to a
beautiful area. If it went any further I would simply move out of the area. The
construction work alone would be intolerable.
Give over you’re having a joke!! It's difficult enough trying to insure and sell property
on Romney Marsh. It may be safe but peoples perception would lead to financial
disaster.
Romney Marsh is already below sea level, so there would be a real risk of flooding
from the rising tides due to global warming. The spaces for graves is a problem now
due to the water level below ground, also a lot of the coast is shingle so not properly
protected from the sea.
Should not ruin countryside anymore.
The Romney Marsh is a unique area which should be preserved as it is. The area
relies heavily on visitors - who would want to visit if the landscape is ruined by the
suggested Facility, jobs will be lost to create jobs in 20+ years time
I do NOT THINK WE NEED THIS. YES WE NEED JOBS BUT NOW NOT TWENTY
YEARS PLUS. I THINK IT WOULD PUT PEOPLE OFF COMING TO VISIT THE
AREA. THE ROAD NETWORK WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COPE WITH THE
INCREASE TRAFFIC WHILST THE SITE WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
1. Shepway Council claims it has not formed a view on the subject, but every word
written or uttered by Councillors and Council Officers actively promotes only the
'positive' of this proposal. Nowhere has Shepway referred to Damian Collins our local
Member of Parliament who has said: Romney Marsh residents ... relating to the idea
of whether or not we should build a dump for the UK's high level nuclear waste
somewhere in the middle of the Marsh. I believe that the Marsh deserves a better
future than this, and I would urge all residents to make sure that they respond to the
consultation and let the council know their views. If people reject this idea it will go no
Page 97
Appendix D
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
further. Nowhere has Shepway referred to the fact that Kent County Council is utterly
opposed to this. The leader of Kent County Council, Paul Carter, said his authority
opposed the plan and would push for a county-wide referendum if necessary. "We
will do everything possible to oppose this unviable proposal and will use every tool in
the box to bring an end to this scheme. "I have no doubt that the residents of Kent
will share my horror, and I am absolutely committed to ensuring the public have their
voce heard on this."
2. This Project cannot and will not deliver the jobs this area needs. Any jobs the
Project does offer are likely to be for a limited and specialist workforce not currently
resident here. Shepway Council should be working with our MP and with Kent
County Council to achieve genuine, sustainable mass job creation.
3. This Project will not deliver any improvements in the area's road and rail
infrastructure. At best it may have a dedicated rail line as does the existing
Dungeness Nuclear power Plant. Shepway should be working with our MP and with
kent County Council to deliver on an improved road and rail infrastructure.
4. This proposal is put forward with absolutely no knowledge of the local geology or
its suitability for the Project. It is a Project with so many "unknowns" is it not immoral,
even criminal, that a public should consider spending such a vast amount of money at
a time of such economic uncertainty?
5. At the exhibition I attended it was made clear to me that while the surface level
facility might be on Romney Marsh - it is unlikely to be on Denge Marsh or much of
Walland Marsh. It was also confirmed that the under-ground facility could be
constructed wholly beneath Romney Marsh and not out beneath the sea. Amazingly
it was further conceded that the underground facility could go inland, beyond the
Military Canal! Is there consultation in Hamstreet, Woodchurch, Ruckinge, Bilsington,
Bonnington and Lympne? If not, why not?
6. In the absence of new investment for jobs the Romney Marsh rely on tourism and
holiday makers. The Nuclear Generating Plant has been with us for 50 years but
news of a "nuclear dump" will do nothing to attract new businesses or promote
tourism to the area! Shepway Council should be working with our MP and with Kent
County Council to achieve this.
7. Shepway Council continues to make house building sites available eg Nickells
Quarry in Dymchurch and in New Romney but the Council makes no visible effort to
cultivate stable and long lasting employment for the families who will move into such
housing. With a surfeit of homes, insufficient work opportunities and a "nuclear
dump" on the doorstep the area's already fragile property market could collapse.
8. I am assuming that the money made available by Central Government is a finite
sum which will be "shared" amongst the communities which submit an Expression of
Interest; any individual community would therefore receive only a percentage of the
total.
9. At the exhibition I attended, it was confirmed to me that approximately 65% of the
Nuclear Waste to be stored in any new facility is already in temporary, surface
storage in Cumbria. The figure does not include waste which will accumulate at
existing nuclear plants during the consultation and building programme for the new
disposal site. the figure does not include any furture waste from any new nuclear
plants once built. This begs the question: "Will the Romney Marsh become the
Nation's 'nuclear dump site' with more dump facilities in future?"
Additionally, unlike others on the Government's current shortlist, we on the Marsh are
not afraid to have a nuclear power plant; it is simply perverse that Dungeness has
been excluded. I did, however, learn at the exhibition I attended that the major
obstacle to Dungeness "C" and "D" is:
Page 98
Appendix D
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
"The owner of the site is believed not to see a viable business case for development
of the site. They own other sites in the U.K. and currently have plans to build on two
of them. The Dungeness 'C' site is therefore unlikely to be developed by them, even
if the other problems could be overcome".
For "owner of the site" read EDF Energy! Shepway should be tackling EDF, hard, to
get the Power Station built!
I was particularly encouraged when I read Damien Collins' website this week:
"The Government has made clear that the 'door remains open' to building a new
power station there, but that any company taking proposals forward would need to
satisfy the planning inspector that they could minimise and compensate for any loss
of the protected habitats at the site. I believe Dungeness is an excellent site for a new
station as it is located in a place of high energy demand and most of the ground
where it would be built was previously disturbed during the construction of the A and
B stations.
"This week we have had some good news for Dungeness and the future of the
nuclear power on Romney Marsh. EDF energy, the company that owns and operates
Dungeness B has confirmed that it is in talks with National Grid and the Government
about extending the life of the station. This means, from where we are now, that
Dungeness will be producing electricity for Kent for at least another ten years. This is
good news for everyone who works at and with the power station. The Government
has also published this week a draft energy bill which paves the way for the future
investment needed to build the next generation of nuclear power stations. These new
sources of nuclear energy will provide a large amount of the low carbon electricity
that this country will need in the coming decades. This Bill has been welcomed by
the energy companies that will build the new fleet of stations and I will be urging them
to look seriously at Dungeness."
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
NOT WANTED NUCLEAR DISPOSAL
WE HAVE AIRPORT WAITING FOR A GO AHEAD FOR EXTRA LENGTH RUNWAY
TO EMPOY MORE PEOPLE BUT ARE JUST KEPT WAITING WHEN IT COULD BE
UP AND RUNNING
ALSO YES ANOTHER POWER STATION AND MORE EMPLOYMENT
WE NEED EMPLOYMENT NOW NOT TO WAIT YEARS JUST FOR SAKE OF RED
TAPE
I am a big fan of nuclear energy, hydro and geo-thermal sources, none of which
visually scar the environment, and which in terms of CO2 emissions is near zero.
Energy is going to be more expensive whichever way we go. Fossil fuels are a dead
duck..we just haven't shot it yet. We also need to become "totally self-sufficient" in
energy terms, and "wind" will not get us there!!! So go ahead nuclear!
WE DO NOT WANT IT DOWN HERE.
WE DO NOT WANT IT DOWN HERE.
As the Romney Marsh is a high flood risk area. Why are you wasting tax payers
money on all the paper-work and manpower, knowing full well this will never happen.
Maybe a concerted effort to build the 3rd power station could help. (PROVEN TO
EMPLOY WORKERS). We will always need Electricity, but do not need to be a
nuclear dump.
Absolute lunacy.
Romney Marsh a totally unsuitable location.
Page 99
Appendix D
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
I have attended an event explaining the potential facility chich was informative &
helpful.
The reason why I have "voted" no, we should not find out more is because I (&most
of the people I speak to) do not trust Shepway DC to listen to the voice of the people.
This (potential) facility & the associated investment it could generate could have been
used to support & exploit the Romney Marsh & Coast's best & most valuable asset tourism & its development to bring money into the area from London & Abroad.
However, the decision to approve the planning application for the airport (if approved)
will cause the area & associated tourism to be blighted. This is against residents
wishes & will result in private investment resulting in private profit.
Coupled with this suggestion the 2 proposals together would blight the area still
further - rather than a nuclear disposal facility alone being a key to the generation of
iinvestment of (say) eco tourism.
Clearly, jobs are important - but a few jobs created to the detriment of everything else
is not a long term or a coherent strategy.
I think that Nuclear Research & Disposal Facility put alongside the Lydd Airport
expansion will create a blight on this part of Kent and result in damage to tourism.
I am deeply concnered about the long term effect on our environemnt. Theres no
guarentee that the disposal of nuclear waste is 100% safe, also the increase in
transport on our already busy roads to and from this site of Nuclear waste being
carried through our towns and small villages is extremely worrying. What are the risks
if they were to be involved in a road/rail accident. To reliterate I am against this
proposal
We very strongly object to the Romney Marsh being used as a nuclear dump. We
don't believe there will be any benefits to the community if this goes ahead, but will be
detrimnetal to the environment. It would become deserted as people would move
away in their droves from such a place. We don't want it.
We very strongly object to the Romney Marsh being used as a nuclear dump. We
don't believe there will be any benefits to the community if this goes ahead, but will be
detrimnetal to the environment. It would become deserted as people would move
away in their droves from such a place. We don't want it.
I do not think that we know enough about the impact of nuclear waste on the
environment, population or heritage not only the storage but also the transportation
can provide a significant danger.
I am in favour of getting a NRDF in Romney Marsh. I make the following comments.
1) Nothing ventured, nothing gained: Shepway DC should find out more even if the
initial vote is anti - it will not affect us adversly to do this. 2) The NRDF will bring jobs
to the area including spin off jobs such as maintenance, landscaping and other
work/jobs to local companies servicing the facility/building new infrastructure. 3) The
above ground facility would be small so will not damage the environment. 4) By not
having the NRDF in Cumbria (probably adjacent to Windscale) the nation will not be
concentrating its nuclear resources thereby limiting therrorist threat. 5) It may be that
neither Cumbria or Romney have sufficient suitable geology so we may need 2
facilities anyway. 6) The flat terrain means that it is more likely that Romney can
utilise an upgraded rail network. This makes environmental sense and limits road
haulage problems/pollution. It is also eaier to secure a rail network from criminal
attack. 7) The proximity of the Channel Tunnel and Dungeness suggests we may still
have the required skills/trades in the area. 8) Our proximity to Europe means we
could 'sell' the NRDF service to EU countries thereby generating a favourable
balance of payments into Kent. I would love to be involved!
Page 100
Appendix D
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
I find this a terryfying prospect. I'm not against nuclear power and wouldn't object to
another power station on the same site as the others at Dungeness, but a disposal
facility would take up an enormous amount of space and ruin a huge area of Romney
Marsh. The companies building it would bring in workers from outside the area. Once
it is built the waste would be brought in from elsewhere constatnly travelling across by
land and sea. If there were to be an accident en route this would casue a horrendous
disaster.
No we do not want a disposal facility in Dymchurch. Thank you!
Sheer madness to consider this proposal!!
This would totally have a detremental effect on property prices.
Nuclear fuel must be our min source of energy and I have every faith in the scientists
to make it as safe as possible. Research to this end is essential. Wind farms are a
Fop to the 'Greens' - Nuclear is & the logical rest of us as the sure way forward to
satisfy future energy needs.
The infrastructure for bringing in this type of waste materials would mutilate this area
more so than building the plant itself. We need the power station (C). There has
always been room for C & D stations between B station & the electrical switch
building.
I have been to your public exhibition and was impressed with your and the
representatives of the Energy and Climate industry.
I have been to your public exhibition and was impressed with your and the
representatives of the Energy and Climate industry.
I no not want to live near a nuclear dump of any description. I do not want Lydd
Airport extended. I do not want the area which is givenover to nature to be spoilt by
industry or anything which disturbs the peaceful environment of the marshes.
I am not for a nuclear reserch and disposal facility due to it would reduce house price
of property, and people will not want to live in ghost area. We have to think of the
next generation who want to live here as it will not effect this generation. Also we
must preserve the area as it is now for future.
I disagree with using nuclear for anything. Renewables, research nore into making
this effective.
In view of the widespread public ignorance of this subject, plus the generated
baseless worries, you can expect an adverse answer from many. This should not be
taken too seriously.
I think the proposal to create a nuclear disposal facility on Romney Marsh is
ccompletely mad! Who in our elected District Council came up with this idea? Who
authorised the money already spent on this exercise? Did SDC as a whole vote the
money or a small group? Romney Marsh is a unique environment, it is liable to flood
by surface water and by sea. We are below sea level. the rock formations are soft
and not sound. Earthquakes have taken place in recent years. Apart from
Dungeness power station, we are many miles from any other nuclear stations, this
would involve bringing waste many miles. We are supposed to be a tourist area!
Where people from the UK and abroad would like to come and spent their holidays,
but not on top of a nuclear waste dump. If this project was to come about, our Marsh
would be polludet for 1000 ys.
Page 101
Appendix D
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
I think Romney Marsh is a completely unsuitable area. We have experienced an
earthquake in Folkestone and area in recent years. We are in a flood area (re
insurance issues). We are geologically unsound for such a project. We are a tourist
area and an area of SSI. I think the Council are irresponsible to be even considering
such a proposal. There must be safer ways than this to promote employment, rather
than to spoil Romney Marsh.
We are sure that with the technical knowledge known ( this will continue to improve)
we will be in safe hands the site should benefit the area - Jobs, Infastructure etc
Romney Marsh is not a dumping ground!!!
For geological seasons, I do not think the marsh is suitable. It is below sea level and
is unique area which should not be spoilt. Why is the council so keen to destroy our
heritage As we already have a power station on the very edge of the marsh, I would
not be against hqving another one built, but please dont destroy our marsh - make it
something to be proud of.
If anyone needs to be done on/for Romney Marsh it should be a search for shale/
marsh gas for fuel and/or a much needed reserviour for water. Not a nuclear
waste/dump which could be out in the vast empty caverns where oil was once found
in North Sea. Why is it SDC always retains a clique of councillers who blindly put forth
rubbish ideas for the future.
Definitely No to a nuclear waste dump.
There is nothing to lose by finding out more.
It’s the wrong place to store nuclear waste. (Residential and near the sea. This
should be the place for families and such a site would be dangerous visitors.
I strongly object y to having a nuclear disposal facility on the Romney Marsh. The
building off it would disrupt our roads for years, our homes would devalue and I for
one would not be happy to live here.
Leave our lovely marsh alone.
This seems a very dangerous plan, destruction of a beautiful and unique area. The
Romney Marsh is supposed to be shepways "Jewel in The Crown" The thought of all
the traffic movement to bring wast4e to the facility is horendeous and if a leakage
were to occur doest bare thinking about. I pray the area is unsuitable for the
development and it never comes to fruition
The the area of Romney Marsh has been left without major investment for many
years and there is no reason for people to feel gratefull for jobs of this kind, the marsh
is an area of outstanding beauty and should be left this way jobs or no jobs. The
people in responable positions including politicians and councillors should start
treating the public as reasonably intelligent people not idiots. So I say No to the
nuclear waste dump.
Having looked at the case for Cumbria and weighed up the long term benefits for this
area, I feel the level of employment generated does not justify the impact of such a
development
romney marsh is mainly below high tide level .with rising sea levels through climate
change i think the whole idea is a joke.with the country virtually broke where is the
money coming from to stop flooding into a 1000mtr below ground nuclear pit .we
struggle now to find funds for sea defences.the future should be totally green and the
nuclear era should be ended.
I do not agree with this proposal. this will destroy the whole area and drive down
house prices.
Page 102
Appendix D
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
DYMCHURCH RESIDENTS
I think Shepway DC should be doing more
to encourage industry and tourism to the area now. The defunct Rotunda site
in Folkestone does nothing to attract tourists and there is nothing on the Marsh either
The facility should not be built below sea level. This is a long term storage facility and
the risk of flooding however small is unnecessary.
This idea is pathetic, the whole idea of having a waste facility instead of a power
station is ridiculous. If you won't install a new power station due to "Flooding" then
what planet do you think installing a underground nuclear dumping ground is good? If
we was to "Flood" then you have just polluted the ocean with nuclear waste. Now if
you wish to retract your statement of our risk of flooding then the argument would be
why not intall something useful and go ahead with the powerstation because lets face
it will be more use. No need to worry about wildlife because they adapted to the
previous two stations so they would do the same for the third.
I totally oppose making Romney Marsh a dumping ground for nuclear waste. The
community and commerce would be badly affected not to mention the dangers to
people and wildlife. Tourism would suffer. I would not wish to live here anymore.
Romney Marsh is a wonderful part of kent. It has the unique flore & forner of
Dungeness as well as the bird sanutury with its abundance of bird live. There is
already a plan to try to enlarge the airport that will increase the danger of damage to
this lovly part of Kent.
NO NO NO NO NO for the five members of my family and on behalf of future
generations.
Totally opposed to this madcap idea !
From the 'Garden of England' to the 'Radio Active Dump of England' This would
damage the reputation of the whole of Kent, not just the Romney Marsh.
If this goes any further could I ask the last person to leave this county to please
switch off the lights on the any future prospects for Kent's Ecomony and people.
Not content with destroying the Romney Marsh with the airport expansion, it is now
proposed to build a nuclear waste dump within the Romney Marsh. No,No,No.
the romney marsh is one of the few increasingly rarer under populated areas in
the already overcrowded south east.it is because of this that it should remain
so and be treated as an asset and be protected , from any ludicros damaging
projects such as this one. the development would totally spoil and blight the
marsh especially the tourist industry.( a resident of 44 years on the marsh)
Let them build "Dungeness C" first, then they can build the recycling facility/dump for
our own nuclear waste!
413
DYMCHURCH BUSINESSES
We feel with waste burried it prevents the land from being used for
argicultural/development of any time in the future.
The potential to improve employment opportunities should not be ignored.
Nuclear Energy is not safe!! We as a nation can generate our own safe electricity with
solar panels/wind turbines/water turbines. In the long term this is safe and affordable.
Only if it would bring a significant number of jobs to Romney Marsh.
414
IVYCHURCH RESIDENTS
Must be other ways to use the space without a risk of that.
410
411
412
Page 103
Appendix D
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
IVYCHURCH RESIDENTS
I am totally opposed to such a proposal - An Inappropriate development for so rural
an area.
If this was agreed I would move away from the area; this would be disastrous for this
beautiful, natural area.
What a ridiculous idea & another way to spoil our enviroment; I thought things where
bad enough with Lydd aiport. Place this facility within an already blighted area which
has a road network to support it.
The Romney Marsh is a nature haven, we do not need additional traffic by road or rail
it is too busy already.!
1) Something of a shock to discover there is a) no geological survey of the country
after all these years with a view to nuclear waste storage & b) that this is now for an
area with two nuclear power stations.
2) My small knowledge of local geology indicates very much sub-surface shifting.
3) On the face of it, hard to imagine a less likely area for such a proposal. The
granite West Country seems more suitable of Cumbria.
4) ‘Research facilities’ means how to keep the stuff there & safe, nothing else.
5) Stop building houses in an area where there is no water & insufficient money to
provide service, thus causing area immigration & so the need for employment.
"I've never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life"
As the marsh is on constantly shifting single I would not consider this a good idea as
the site would have to be constantly maintained (even after it is closed).
Terrible idea. Not only is this an area of outstanding natural beauty and a rich haven
for many wildlife but there are families living here and I worry about the health
implications. Romney Marsh should be cherished and not used, yet again, as a
dumping ground. There are so few areas in the South east of England left that are as
unspoilt as Romney Marsh and we should cherish it, not go about wrecking it!!!
Please don't!!!
The proposal appears rather ill-considered. The geology and location is not
appropriate as any review would promptly show. Deep disposal repositorys require
either stable impervious rocks or extremely dry terrain. Compare the sites chosen at
Olkiluoto in Finland, Yucca Mountain in the USA and the site proposed by NIREX in
the UK (Sellafield). A site below a marsh, with significant risk of flooding and with
permeable rock below would not seem at all suitable. I suggest, therefore, that you
are wasting time and money by raising the proposal and appear irresponsible in doing
so. I have worked in the nuclear industry for 30 years and suggest you should obtain
relevant technical advice before making any further announcements like this.
LYDD RESIDENTS
Power Stations are bad enough but underground is very much a no the water table is
to high.
If the site is not good enough for a new power station it should not be a dumping
ground for other power stations waste.
As a supporter of green peace, I do not believe that you know the damage this will
cause in the future, to the earth or the planet. I've never believed in anything Nuclear
or its research so as much as its sad that people will lose their jobs, I don't think that
they should have had these jobs in the first place. So my answer is NO to your
question.
Definitively Not
Page 104
Appendix D
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
LYDD RESIDENTS
West Cumbria already has a facility and are keen to accommodate a further site.
Keep it all in one place.
I vote no! It is common sence not to put nuclear waste under marsh land. As for
more jobs for locals! Every one knows? Most contractors travel from other parts.
I think that this is worth looking into. I have worked at three nuclear power stations
without any problems. BERKELEY. HARTLEPOOL and finally Dungeness "B" I
retired in 2000. At the moment all the active waste goes to Sellafield I believe and I
don’t think that they have had any problem with dealing with active waste and its
storage so maybe a facility on the marsh might be a good idea!
We would not mind another power station but we do not want the processing of
Nuclear waste in out back Garden. I would fight this all the way if I had too.
One big definate NO. From ex worker in the nuclear industry. Creating new jobs id
not an excuse to totally ruin one of the best parts of Kent in fact the country! Idea No.
1. Building blocks of flats and houses overlooking the sea all around would creats
1000s of jobs if done all over Dungeness ans Romney Marsh. ". 100 of equally other
stupid ideas!! Keep Romney Marsh The Garden of England free for the people now and in the future to enjoy!!
We are constantly reminded that much of the Marsh is an SSSI!!! - Let's keep it that
way.
Unfortunately I was born too soon to be affected by any decision, but I do feel
concerned about future generation if things were to go wrong.
I support stage one the Expression of Interest.
The most important thing for the Marsh is jobs. I was born here lived here all my life.
If you can’t drive, you have to use a bus, the young people of today don’t want to
travel and can't affore to. The airport, train stations anything for young people. I say
bring it on.
There needs to be development on the Marsh. There are too many "NIMBY's" who
have moved to the area to retire and who should think more about what futures the
younger generations are going to have.
Probably a good idea for this part of the country where unemployment is a huge
problem. A huge civil engineering contract is sure to bring employment to hopefully
hundreds of local people not incomers. Make that a condition and stick to it. I will be
long gone, time it is up and running. But yes, I'm all for it.
Would be great for Marsh employment
Employment is needed for this area - otherwise Romney Marsh will be a ghost town
Every party should pull together to revitalise parts of Romney Marsh which could soon
resemble a ghost town.
Just wondered what will happen to millions of rock that will be removed (coastal
defences perhaps?)
Go for it!
Yes! Yes! Yes!
We need more employment options in the area.
Although we have said 'yes' we have the following concerns:- 1) the location of the
facility and the impact on the area. 2) Jobs:- you state the facility would provide
hundreds of jobs. This is a big positive if they go to local (Romney Marsh) people.
Living near Dungeness we see that many of the vehicles travelling to and from the
power station seem to be travelling towards the A259 and on towards Ashford. This
needs to be carefully monitored if it is going to be beneficial to the local area.
This area really needs a boost in employment. It can't just rely on tourism.
Page 105
Appendix D
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
LYDD RESIDENTS
We seriously need to think about employment. Jobs are strongly needed in this little
community. If we don’t have any employment around here we might as well say
goodbye to the local shops and businesses. And I strongly feel there shouldn’t be
any questions to ask its the case of getting the employment. I'm totally for another
site as I work at Dungeness A or another option.
I will not be alive to see this happen but my grand children will be. Not a legacy I
would chose to leave them. Why not agree to the airport expansion now? But the
wildlife is always quoted as a reason not to. But this could create jobs in the present
or near future with no possible dangers of leakage of radioactive material.
A large people employed at the moment are not what you would call local. So I do not
think would help in one respect. Just more lorrys on small roads.
Research Yes, Disposal No. There is no way nuclear waste should be stored
Dungeness in an earthquake zone, government papers advise no nuclear station or
waste 7 years after earthquake. April 2007 earthquake & smaller earthquake 2008
ludicrous idea.
No new power station because of danger of flooding. Is this not the same problem.
Also houses will be worthless.
If the airport goes ahead and low flying planes fly over our propeties in
Greatstone/New Romney our property values wil be affected. A nuclear waste 'dump'
would certainly reduce the value of property too or instead. So 'No' to the site.
Creating '1000 jobs' would not mean for locals anyway - any more than the power
station(s) did - do. Thanks for asking!
We are definitely against the idea of the above for Romney Marsh for the following
reasons: 1. Large areas of the marshes lie below sea level. Creating underground
tunnels and storage areas would further weaken the area. 2. Climate change is
definitely pushing sea levels up, it is only a matter of time before the marsh areas
succumb to its effects. With the unfortunate events witnessed only recently of the
nuclear disaster in Japan, are the authorities blind to this fact? 3. Due to current
threat levels of terrorist attacks, are we making ourselves sitting ducks for them? 4.
House prices in our area have always been low - due partly to the fact that we are in
close proximity to the Nuclear Power Stations. This new proposal would drive house
prices even further down. 5. Is the Council so desperate as to rate monetary benefits
over the possible environmental contamination to our homes, our children and
ourselves?
I cannot imagine anybody wanting to buy properties to live in with a nuclear waste
dump located nearby and nobody would be able to sell their properties. Dungeness is
the largest shingle desert in the world and the council will be spoiling this by dumping
nuclear waste beneath it. I am also concerned about water levels, after all this is a
Marsh and Marshland holds water. At present Dungeness waste is taken away and I
do not want everybodys nuclear waste dumped here.
No
No to a nuclear research and disposal facility on Romney Marsh.
No to a nuclear research and disposal facility on Romney Marsh.
Page 106
Appendix D
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
LYDD RESIDENTS
No we should not become a dumping ground. "Never". We should have a part to play
as regards Dungeness "A" and "B" power station. We have unfortunately inherited
that, but we are going to leave our chidlren of the future a legacy which they don't
deserve - for hundreds and hundreds of years to come, - you can see what will
happen, the Marsh will become a dumping ground fore "all" nuclear waste throughout
the "world" "money" will rule, as always the politions (idiots) who don't have to live
with the problem will make these stupid decitions that the people are are going to
have to accept - "No thank you". You talk about bringing work to the area what has
happened to the "Lydd" airport extention. This has caused the "waste" of a hell of a
lot of time and money with up to date no results you talk about bringing work to the
area this will bring work to the area - get your finger out you are concerned about the
wild life and the noise the proposal of a "nuclear dump" will also endanger the
"people" of Kent more. To the idea of a "nuclear dump" I say a "big no" use a bit of
common sense don't let money rule life bring work to the area get on with the Lydd
airport extension your wasting time and money - get on with the airport and bring work
to the area.
This is a very bad idea, added to the possible blight of the extended Airport it is most
likely to put home owners not be able to sell and mortgage holders into negative
equity.
This is apalling idea & does not merit any further investigation. It would despoil a
unique area of Britain, with much risk & little benefit to the community.
This is apalling idea & does not merit any further investigation. It would despoil a
unique area of Britain, with much risk & little benefit to the community.
A blight on property - reducing value. There was opposition to the Airport expansion
for Environmental reasons. What about the damage this would do to protected
wildlife and plant life. Would homeowners be conmensated for the loss of value to
their property? Health Issues.
No way, leave the Marsh as it is.
1. Dangerous (wreckless) and extream. 2. Automatic waste does not go with human
beings (please note my views) thoughly and consider
Not on the Marshes thank you.
We don't want anymore rubbish on the Romney Marsh i.e NUCLEAR DISPOSAL
WASTE. The Marsh is a flood area. If the waste gets in to the water table or
farmland, which will affect the crops and wildlife. Where do we go from there? So
please you must think about the consequences for the future so its a NO NO NO.
Yes to the airport long term employment plus increase value of property. No to the
waste devalue my property.
This is a disgrace how on earth can you think this is a worthy possibility. Shame on
you, there goes your re election. Perhaps a better place to dispose of nuclear waste
would be your back gardenP. No. Then why would you think it was OK for it to be in
mine. This is a 100% NO - in case you still need clarification.
My concerns include: 1 The importance of the Marsh for wildlife and any undue
impact on this. 2 Transportation in of waste to the site. 3 Sheer volume of waste
coming to the Marsh if it is to be the only site in the country.
Page 107
Appendix D
471
472
473
LYDD RESIDENTS
As part of the farming community for the Romney Marsh this would be a complete
blow for us. We are struggling to make any of our products become sellable to the
likes of Tesco! We have huge audits to do already and what would this do to us.
People would not want to buy our products i.e. wheat, rape, potatoes for fear of it
being contaminated by nuclear waste. No-one can say that having the nuclear plant
on the Marsh is safe. We are totally against this. How can they definitely say that local
people will get the jobs, it will be people from overseas not the locals. If the Shepway
Council express any interest they are completly mad. For goodness sake we need to
keep the Marsh as it is, you will never replace what is here now. We would be better
off having the Dungeness C Power Station or the airport. People with the government
powers need to think very carefully, we have young children and I would definitely
advise them to get out of the area, as they get older if this goes ahead because this
will be the end of our livelihood completely. Is this down to some stupid professor who
has not even visited this area!! They need to think seriously, our drinking water comes
from underground how will they rectify this, it is so dangerous to the area. Is this a
scape goat to stop people voting from airport/powerstation!
As part of the farming community for the Romney Marsh this would be a complete
blow for us. We are struggling to make any of our products become sellable to the
likes of Tesco! We have huge audits to do already and what would this do to us.
People would not want to buy our products i.e. wheat, rape, potatoes for fear of it
being contaminated by nuclear waste. No-one can say that having the nuclear plant
on the Marsh is safe. We are totally against this. How can they definitely say that local
people will get the jobs, it will be people from overseas not the locals. If the Shepway
Council express any interest they are completly mad. For goodness sake we need to
keep the Marsh as it is, you will never replace what is here now. We would be better
off having the Dungeness C Power Station or the airport. People with the government
powers need to think very carefully, we have young children and I would definitely
advise them to get out of the area, as they get older if this goes ahead because this
will be the end of our livelihood completely. Is this down to some stupid professor who
has not even visited this area!! They need to think seriously, our drinking water comes
from underground how will they rectify this, it is so dangerous to the area. Is this a
scape goat to stop people voting from airport/powerstation!
This opportunity to register our views regarding the proposal to site a nuclear
research and disposal facility on Romney Marsh is likely to be another waste of
Council taxpayers' money. We were recently asked to vote on the expansion of Lydd
Airport. The majority voted against it. The then Council Members promptly voted for it!
They should have been ashamed of themsleves. They were supposed to represent
our views, the views they had canvassed. Our views then were obviously seen as
irrelevant. The effects of this proposal would be widespread and the views of a far
wider area of the south east should be sought. The national interest in where such a
facility is sitiated is also relevant. For what it is worth I am against the proposal. The
south east is too densely a populated area to put at such long term risk. The whole
Romney Marsh area could be the seabed of a shalow sea long before the nuclear
waste was safe. A far more remote site should be found. The council taxpayers must
be appraised surely of the full estimated cost of this imaginary opporunity to influence
the council's actions in this matter. I would appreciate confirmation that the costs likely
to accrue from this exercise will be made public. Also what percentage of the
population is in agreement with the council finding out more, so that we will all know if
our views have been taken into consideration - or not as the case may be!
Page 108
Appendix D
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
LYDD RESIDENTS
I don't want an airport expansion and I most certainly don't want a nuclear waste site
either.
You won't have an airport but want this dump which will cause problems for 100s of
years this is a joke.
I'm saying NO because its to dangerous for the for the Marsh & the surrounding . It
would better to expand Lydd Airport and making more jobs for the community and it
has been here a long time.
New power station yes. Nuclear disposal NO. Keep it at Sellafield where there is
already the facility.
I would prefer to see the Lydd Airport being used more to improve prosperity on the
Marsh.
We have 40yrs of a nuclear precence on the marsh. Time to give this SSSI a break.
Please return Dungeness to its natural form.
This is a beautiful and special area of the country. I see no benefit in turning it into a
nuclear dumping ground. Tourists/bird watchers/surfers... etc will stop coming. The
name 'Romney Marsh' will become synonymous with nuclear waste - like 'Windscale'
because synonymous with 'nuclear accident'; (and changing the name to Sellafield
didn't help). My view is a resounding 'NO'.
What about Lydd Airport! Make it bigger. No more nuclear power stations. Jobs
could be made in Lydd Airport. No dumping ground.
NO THANK YOU!
I would like to see how other countries facilities have worked out. I would like to see
Romney Marsh protected with sea defences. The natural environment flora and
fauna must be preserved and enhanced. The workforce must be taken from the local
area. Apprenticeships for the young.
My main concern would be the safe transpotation of nuclear waste through Kent to
the facility!
The concern I have is at my age 74 I would not want to make a call on what is best for
the young people, at present there is no hope for them on the Marsh. Sometimes I
think it is the old persons of the Marsh is considered first?. Let the young deceid this
one.
This is a much better idea than the preposterous Lydd Airport prosed development.
At this stage I feel that I am unable to make a decision but I would like to find out
more about this.
This is a good idea. I currently work at Dungeness A and will be retired before it
closes in 2018. But will be retired before it closes in 2018 . But with the skills and
experience and knowledge of the current workforce they would be a asset to the new
facility.... We rely on safety so we know what the expectations would be. and would
stop the area becomming a ghost town
From what I have read nuclear disposal waste material, requires deep down location
in rock formations. Next to the sea I would thought be a non-starter, especially the
shingle bed in that area and the lakes feed into our water supply system, but by all
means find out more about this proposal and we need employment in this area.
I think the Marsh should not have nuclear waste dumped on our doorsteps. The
Marsh is very fragile & it should be kept that way. Its all very well the government
proposing three things but they don’t have to live here, we do.
We should look into any way that new jobs could be brought into the area. I think we
should also go ahead with C site. We need jobs now as well as when we are dead.
Common sense sayes that a marshland area would not be suitable.
Page 109
Appendix D
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
LYDD RESIDENTS
I would want to be told of the danger's. Nothing else would really affect me/us.
Having worked most of my life at the local Power Station although I have some
reservation I feel that using a shut down facility which is in 'moth balls' anyway it
would be useful to use the present facility rather than somewhere else creating
another problem.
I am in favour of any possibility of creating more work in the Romney Marsh. Having
worked in the electricity supply industry for many years, some of which were at
Dungeness A. P.S; I find the proposal a very significant and interesting concept
Concerns; transport to & from site. Water table contamination. Does it include
interenational active waste - we are not likely to have nuclear power in UK. Jobs most
likely skilled so will have to be brought in? How many non-Brits. Overall increase in
population so more housing without infrastructure or resources & more unemployment
long term.
Please don't do this to our wonderful Romney Marsh
I THINK IT’S A BAD IDEA FOR THIS AREA
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO WE FEEL THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS
PERSUED FURTHER. WE FEEL THAT IT WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
REPUTATION OF THIS AREA, HOUSE PRICES, TO WILDLIFE AND IS 'DEAD IN
THE WATER' AND IS STUPID AS BORIS' IDEA FOR AN AIRPORT IN THE
ESTUARY. LET ME LEAVE YOU IN NO DOUBT - WE ARE AGAINEST ANY
FURTHER WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY IN CONSIDERING THIS AWFUL,
PATHETIC SUGGESTION. WE SUGGEST THE 3 COUNCILS IN WEST CUMBRIA
(NEAR SELLAFIELD?) JOINTLY SUBMIT "AN EXPRESSION OF INTEREST" TO
SOMEWHERE (ANYWHERE) ELSE!!! SO ENDETH MY (OUR) DECISION STATING
WE WANT NO PART OF THIS ****!
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO WE FEEL THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS
PERSUED FURTHER. WE FEEL THAT IT WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
REPUTATION OF THIS AREA, HOUSE PRICES, TO WILDLIFE AND IS 'DEAD IN
THE WATER' AND IS STUPID AS BORIS' IDEA FOR AN AIRPORT IN THE
ESTUARY. LET ME LEAVE YOU IN NO DOUBT - WE ARE AGAINEST ANY
FURTHER WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY IN CONSIDERING THIS AWFUL,
PATHETIC SUGGESTION. WE SUGGEST THE 3 COUNCILS IN WEST CUMBRIA
(NEAR SELLAFIELD?) JOINTLY SUBMIT "AN EXPRESSION OF INTEREST" TO
SOMEWHERE (ANYWHERE) ELSE!!! SO ENDETH MY (OUR) DECISION STATING
WE WANT NO PART OF THIS CRAP
NO!
I believe that the facility in question would damage Dungeness & surrounding areas
drastically. The airport should be a better option, this would bring more money, jobs &
resources to our community especially for our younger generations.
I believe that the facility in question would damage Dungeness & surrounding areas
drastically. The airport should be a better option, this would bring more money, jobs &
resources to our community especially for our younger generations.
WE DON’T WANT A NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP ON THE ROMNEY MARSH, IF YOU
WANT IT PUT IT IN FOLKESTONE!!
Although I applaud your attempt to increase the work opportunities for the area &
have no problem with the power station I feel really uneasy about the long term
storage of the waste in the area for hundreds of years to come please do not subject
us to this contamination possibility.
IT IS AN ABSURD IDEA. DISASTROUS! FORGET IT!
We do not wish to be a dumping ground for other peoples waste
Page 110
Appendix D
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
LYDD RESIDENTS
If we are good enough to generate the power then we are not good enough to
store/dispose of the waste and possible consequences associated to such.
REPLY FORM See attached letter.
A) The reasons for turning down Dungeness 3 will apply to this project.
B) Tunneling into shingle time consuming and costly in terms of man power and
materials for shoring up the tunnels.
C) Romney Marsh is a SSSI and protected wildlife habitat.
D) Industrial and other pollutants.
LETTER Common sense dictates that the Government reasons for turning down the building of
Dungeness C - I understand that there are concerns with global warming, rising sea
levels and inundation of the Marsh - will equally be applied to the above proposals,
making the project a non started.
Better that Shepway puts its focus and energy towsrds strong lobbying for the building
of Dungeness C in the first instance.
Secondly Dungeness is built on a shingle bank - anyone who has attempted to tunnel
in shingle has found that it is constantly on the move and caving in, which means
exceptional outlay in terms of man hours and materials before any underground work
takes place.
Thirdly Romney Marsh is a SSSI and all the parties involved in objections to the
extension to the runway at Lydd Airport causing environmental impact, will again
speak up.
Fourth there will be legitimate concerns about radioactive leakage and pollution.
Short term - Jobs may be provided around the Marsh although a no of jobs will be
through contractors from anywhere in the UK. Long term - it will wipe out tourism in
the area the RSPB will be destroyed, the peace and tranquility, the nature and the
remoteness that draws tourists each year will be destroyed. The Place will be a ghost
town.
We believe this should not even be considered
The Airport is the project which should be given priority
I am against nuclear power period and I will not be taking lightly, nuclear waste being
dumped on my doorstep so to speak. Its harmful to the local environment and also
unhealthy for the people that have to live neer the facility. I am totally against the
proposal.
My answer is 'No'. Shepway DC should not submit an expression of interest. The
whole idea is ridiculous. The 'Marsh' is treated as a dumping ground for everythting.
Property prices will plummit and the tourism will be greatly reduced. To repeat, my
view, and that of my wife, is a definate 'No' to this project. Jobs should not always
come first.
If such a facility was built it certainly would not be underground. The Council have a
major problem and we need to develop the airport and the facilities that it could
support plus improve the access facilities to the area by train and road.
We need to look after the future employment prospects for people who live on
Romney Marsh.
Defanatley no nuclear waste dumped on the Marsh. I am defanatley a no to that
taking up what bit of country side. Brick and morter built a most of our country side.
Employment on Marsh is No1 along with safety. Health risks ref disposal!
If we cannot have a power station, then we should not entertain the storage of our
and without doubt other country waste.
Page 111
Appendix D
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
LYDD RESIDENTS
Yes! Yes! Yes! As soon as possible! Please.
We should not be ostriches over this matter. It is important for the area and also the
environment to dispose of nuclear waste in an efficient and safe way.
I think continuing the tradition of some type of large employer here on the Marsh can
only be good for the community as a whole.
Yet another risk to the environment and residents of Romney Marsh! Re.
employment, as with Dungeness A+B, very few local people would be employed.
Specialist skilled workers would be recruited again!
I feel that in an area where nuclear power facilities already exist, this would be a
missed opportunity for development in the area if we do not support this project. I
hope it gets positive feedback for the expression of interest.
NO we should have the airport extended.
No no no no
If Shepway Council decide in their infinate wisdom that its safe and continue in any
form may I suggest they use Shepway Council offices as the site!! I believe the word
"research" is a con and "disposal" is what they are only interested in. Where's
Councillor Godfrey's residence, I'll bet its not Romney Marsh?
Are is to populated (need a remote area) and is on a flood plain SSI area's + tourist
area.
Absolute Madness
No! We have enough special needs people down here, don't create any more!
CAMHS already have a 2 year waiting list. DLA will increase 10 fold, we wont need to
produce jobs as no one will be able to work! And 1000's of people will sue you due to
health problems! You really think you can make any money from this?
If Dungeness C station is not to be built as Commisioned by Government to produce
electricity and create jobs in the area. I for one would not want our doorstep to be a
dumping ground for the nuclear waste of the rest of Britian or the rest of the world.
Dump your wate in China like everyone else.
You should be spending our money on looking at ways to increase tourism and
commercial trade not turning the marsh into what the B.B.C already described last
night (16/5/12) as a wasteland.
We have the facilities, we have the work force. Lets use them. There's precious little
else on the Marsh, except possibly the airport at Lydd, when a decision is finally
made.
If this takes as long to be determined as the LYDD AIRPORT PROJECT all I can
foresee is a waste of time and public monies in enquires etc.
Not on a site of beach ie (pebbles) which has been reclaimed and liable to flooding.
May I suggest the waste is put in the expensive waste pipe that was connected to
Folkestone!
1. Why is KCC coming out against Shepways keeness to explore? 2. Will this effect
the Lydd Airport Proposals? 3. Where will it be located relative to local population? 4.
Will it be UK waste only - not imported from abroad? 5. What consideration will be
made for the devaluation of properties within the immediate area? 6. What amount of
permanent employment do you envisage (not just setting up the facility)?
1. Why is KCC coming out against Shepways keeness to explore? 2. Will this effect
the Lydd Airport Proposals? 3. Where will it be located relative to local population? 4.
Will it be UK waste only - not imported from abroad? 5. What consideration will be
made for the devaluation of properties within the immediate area? 6. What amount of
permanent employment do you envisage (not just setting up the facility)?
Page 112
Appendix D
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
LYDD RESIDENTS
Marsh people are not miners so if this project goes ahead we shall be inundated with
workers with the skills required, so no benefit to marshman/women. Keep sending
the waste to Sellifield. If the system ain't broke don’t mend it.
We think it is a disgusting idea, Kent is much populated and not suitable for a nuclear
waste dump.
We think it is a disgusting idea, Kent is much populated and not suitable for a nuclear
waste dump.
I think that the Marsh has had its fair share of nuclear involvement. The Romney
Marsh would benefit more from airport expantion which would also provide better
infrastucture and job prospects both unskilled and skilled, also tourism which would
benifit many more people.
Daft idea pressure should be put on government for new nuclear power station Not to
be a dumping ground. Romney Marsh is worth more!!!
Romney Marsh should not be used as a rubbish dump and will not bring much local
employment. Employment will be from far and wide.
It’s a very good idea please go ahead
I don’t know anyone in there right mind who would want this on there door step, nor
anyone who would want there child to work with a nuclear disposal facility. It’s a
shame about the job losses but this is going to cost us in taxes!
The jobs created will be for specialists not locals. I find the roads around Lydd, busy
and noisey when the power station turns shifts around. I love Lydd for its quaintness,
lets keep it that way.
Why should Romney Marsh, be a dumping ground for England? Is there any
guarantee that the rest of the world want to use us as a dumping ground also.
We are all in favour of the scheme. It seems ridiculous to have a site which is used to
working with a nuclear environment and not make use of it. We desperately need
jobs to keep our community alive. Go for it!
No
Not the sort of legacy we'd like to leave our grand and great grand children
We should find out more and depending on the result of findings. I reaslyse if this
facility is deep underground wildlife should not be affected but I concerned as to how
much land will be taken for this project.
This is the most ludricous idea I've ever heard, how can you build underground
storage on the Romney Marsh when it's all reclaimed land and therefore no bedrock
also near Lydd and Dungeness it's all beach. If there was a leakage, it would go
straight in to the local water supply because most of Romney Marsh drinking water
comes from under this beach.
Properties would be devalued greatly as nobody wants to live near a nuclear waste
dumping ground. Many residents would want to leave the area to a safer place. In
Lydd, I am constantly told that I live in a high flood risk area, and also that if the airport
went ahead it would interfere with local wildlife. The latest earthquake in Folkestone
was felt by many here. I would not want my kids to enter the sea around the coast
including Camber Sands. Because of little railway structure the waste would have to
use the road network which at present is inadequate and poorly maintained. I expect
Russia and Japan also thought their nuclear programmes were safe.
Definitely no to rubbish!!
Another power station would be better
I believe that detrimental ramifications of this undertaking, and the effect on ecology,
and beauty of the area, should be avoided. Any advantages from employment will not
compensate the local residents for this.
Page 113
Appendix D
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
LYDD RESIDENTS
Dungeness has been denied the possibility or a new nuclear power station due to the
threat of flooding and damage to the environment, have these issues magically
disappeared now that a waste dump is to be considered? Dungeness is a world
renowned site for its unique environment, it must not be allowed to become renowned
as a 'nuclear waste dump!'
I do not want to see a nuclear disposal facility. I would like to see a new power station.
In my opinion this would be disastrous for Romney Marsh. Don't even consider it.
No way
We do not want disposal facility of nuclear waste here.
I am utterly against this proposal. How can Shepway Council even be interested in
this. Don't even think of it. I doubt the residents of Romney Marsh would be a party to
this. Think again Shepway.
I think you should open up the airport. May be some of the shops would open and
give more work for people.
If there is a a lot of money laying around build dungeness 3 - Not a dumping ground
for the worlds nuclear waste. An unashamed NIMBY.
I would not like to see Lydd/Romney Marsh turned into another Sellerfied and I don’t
agree with the handling of material from other countries also military.
I do not want a nuclear disposal facilty to go ahead.
I feel we should not use Romney Marsh as a nuclear dumping ground. We do not
have a lot going for our area apart from the conservation areas & beautiful
countryside so why destroy it! There is already to much qaurrying going on and new
qaurrying sites proposed. Leave our Marsh & Countryside alone.
It has been argued for many years that the Romney Marsh area is a SSSI and is very
important than surely it is also too important to build a nuclear dump even if it is going
underground. The airport expanstion is still undecided and Shepway wont back new
houses but they will back this plan.
It has been argued for many years that the Romney Marsh area is a SSSI and is very
important than surely it is also too important to build a nuclear dump even if it is going
underground. The airport expanstion is still undecided and Shepway wont back new
houses but they will back this plan.
You refused the airport and nuclear power station so no thank you to nuclear waste.
Just Let Them Build And Expand Airport
I would like to know a lot more - saftey replacing in marsh land - foundations of
existing buildings - flooding. Why Cumbria is interested. Which bit of the marsh
would be used. How this would impact on the locality. Other
How many jobs will it create, what sort of jobs, would it be highly specialised? Also
why is the Shepway spending all this money now. Why not get all the information
together and then do a consultation and roadshows.
I'm all for it. I must state that I am biased having worked there as a supervisor. At one
time as operations foreman refueling reactors, later on other sections on A & B
(turbine house foreman ''B''. My refueling experience on ''A'' gives me a
knowledgeable insight, and not a vague belief like others who only think they know.
Excellent idea, bring real employment to the area
Subject to safeguards 1) geological 2) seismological 3) environmental (a) future sea
level (b) nature (c) wildlife
Page 114
Appendix D
577
578
579
580
581
LYDD RESIDENTS
Nuclear Research facility is the very last thing the Romney Marsh requires. We wish
to pressure any heritage not to destroy it. As for the prediction of giving work to those
who are currently employed at the power station. A huge gap will be formed before
that becomes possibility. Wild life is always an issue here, open clean space for
visitors in which to relax is most important. Property values will plummet an even
larger rate downwards. Sea levels have risen over the past years and will continue to
do so. We have suffered enough and do not wish or need your proposal to take place
in our area. Thank you.
Nuclear Research facility is the very last thing the Romney Marsh requires. We wish
to pressure any heritage not to destroy it. As for the prediction of giving work to those
who are currently employed at the power station. A huge gap will be formed before
that becomes possibility. Wild life is always an issue here, open clean space for
visitors in which to relax is most important. Property values will plummet an even
larger rate downwards. Sea levels have risen over the past years and will continue to
do so. We have suffered enough and do not wish or need your proposal to take place
in our area. Thank you.
Absolutely no question. Don’t forget that the Marsh is a flood area.
I am replying to your (Have your say) which came to my home on Saturday 19th May
2012.
Does it really matter what the residents think about Dungeness Nuclear power station,
Look what happened about Lydd Airport. None of you listen to what the public and
resident had to say there.
It seems to me that Dungeness power station is a for gone conclusion with yourselves
and the government, and that you are just going through the formality’s, your decision
is already made, despite what ever the residents say.
Problem being is that mistake are made by the best of us, and it is all to easy to say
sorry once it is to late and the damage has been done,
Lesson will be learnt, again a problem there, lessons have not been learnt, Because
no one is listening. And the Council and government will not listen to the public.
I do not want the power Station to shut down, as it does supply plenty jobs for the
local people.
I certainly do not want nuclear dumping ground right on my door step, it will be like
putting a ticking time bomb there, ready to go off at any time, I have Children and
grandchildren, and I would like to think when I leave this world, I am leaving them in a
safe place to live and bring up there families, To be honest it is very frightening to see
what this world is becoming, the Council and government are not thinking of the
working class people, only what big fat wages they can get for them selves. Along
with a pat on the back for messing things up. With the word SORRY.
Again I don not want My doorstep as a dumping ground for NUCLEAR WASTE.
No - wrong in everyway! I live in Lydd. 1) The Marsh is a area of special scientific
interest 2) We are already told we are at risk of flooding. 3) Even KCC are against it 4)
There is always a risk of radio active leakage. I will be attending the exhibition in Lydd
but will NOT be changing our mind. I am so pleased we are losing Dungeness A and
B - we dont want anymore nuclear installtions on the Marsh Thank you ps) it will also
increase terrorism threats to Dungeness which is a vulnerable site at present! It is
very worrying - sorry forgot to write that before I sealed the envelope.
Page 115
Appendix D
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
LYDD RESIDENTS
I refer to your letter dated 14 May 2012 with Ref: RM-NRDF/2012
I am definitely against the idea of the above for Romney Marsh for the following
reasons:
1. Large areas of the marshes lie below sea level. Creating underground tunnels and
storage areas would further weaken the area.
2. Climate change is definitely pushing sea levels up, it is only a matter of time before
the marsh areas succumb to its effects. With the unfortunate events witnessed only
recently of the nuclear disaster in Japan, are the authorities blind to the fact?
3. Due to current threat levels of terrorist attacks, are we making ourselves sitting
ducks for them?
4. House process in our area have always been low - due partly to the fact that we are
in close proximity to the Dungeness Nuclear Power Station. This new proposal would
drive house prices even further down.
5. Is the Council so desperate as to rate monetary benefits over the possible
environmental contamination to our homes, children and ourselves?
6. Finally, why choose an area like the Romney Marsh and not a location that is
unpopulated? There must be numerous of location around Britain that would fit the
desired site, again why Romney Marsh?
Romney Marsh is not a suitable place to have this.
Romney Marsh is not a suitable place to have this.
I do not want to live or my children to live in an area that stores sucha a high amount
of nuclear waste. It will affect the cost of property & local businesses. I do not feel it
would improve the area or advantage it in anyway in fact completely the opposite.
It would bring more jobs & money to the area.
Yes, I think it is vital for the community's future and servival.
A new power station no problem using as a dumping ground for all nuclear waste NO
WAY
A new power station no problem using as a dumping ground for all nuclear waste NO
WAY
Should not be dismissed without more information.
This is the most ridiculous proposal from the Gov: and I am not surprised that
Shepway Council want to go ahead with it. As they are just as inefficient as them. You
only have to look at the abortion of the Ashford road works to see that. If all you MPs
and councillors are concerned with the lack of jobs in the area then lets build the next
nuclear power station. We do not want nuclear waste in our back yard as a dumping
ground for the rest of the world. Just imagine if we had another earthqauke. R.I.P.
For an area which the future predictions are flooding of Romney Marsh. For Shepway
to propose this facility is complete incompetence. Now to cost us a ratepayers a huge
amount of money. I hope somebody will be held responsible. I would add I am a pro
airport and was all for the building of our wind farm and pro nuclear power.
There is a need for employment so allow the airport to expand. I do not like the idea of
nuclear waste buried on the Marsh.
NO to a 'nuclear dump' and YES to a nuclear powerstation. Shepway D.C should
endeavour to encourage the building of another station.
I consider the proposal to be utter madness with the water tables so low it would be
like building it under the sea, old coal mines would be the place.
Please don’t even think about it - turn it down!
Please don’t even think about it - turn it down!
No dumping nuclear waste on Dungeness.
Page 116
Appendix D
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
LYDD RESIDENTS
Could you please tell me if Kent is going to be used as a dumping site, we have to
look at wind turbines, talk about another airport or enlarging ones we have and now
this proposal for nuclear waste. No I do not want or need this. If this is the case we
shall be moving to another part of the country.
DO NOT WANT Romney Marsh to be a dumping ground for nuclear waste
Lydd Airport would be more beneficial to Romney Marsh.
Please do NOT spoil the Romney Marsh. Please have respect for the land and its
residents. There are better ways to earn a living than being a waste dump! It shows
no respect.
Pro 1) As good as anywhere else. 2) Employment to local people. 3) Improve
infrastucture. 4) Plant already there. 5) encourage other ind/busineses. Assurance of
what would happen if something went wrong. Con 1) Contamination. 2) Disruption to
the area. 3) No phyiscial benefits to local infrastucture . 4) Benefit people in the longer
term not short term. 5) Fear detering expansion of area opposite of ...CANNOT
READ... effect.
I think it is a diabolical idea. Keep it in Cumbria. Lets get the airport up and running
first, this has also dragged on, what are you playing at. The Airport should have been
in full swing by now.
The process seems a bit odd. Surely some idea of the feasibility of siteing such a
facility on the Romney Marsh should be accertained before going to the expense of
submitting an expression of interest. I would be in favour of such a facility, but feel it is
unlikely geological conditions would be favourable. Given that granite would be the
preffered bedrock not sedimentary, the Marsh aquifer and high water table, the low
lying land which would be threatened if the predicted sea level rise occurs in the next
few hundred years. Not to mention the fault line in the channel near Dover. Please
dont waste our money, find out if its even remotely feasible first.
I think that it would put an end to the community of Lydd. Money should be spent on
expansion of the local airport instead. This will increase more jobs and may help the
town of Lydd instead of killing it by waste disposal of nuclear waste. Dungeness
power station will not be continuing for much longer, but we will always use an airport!
Government should be more interested in preserving energy sources we still have
and thinkling of ways to replace them when they finally run out. My Children need
relatively safe jobs for the future not dangerous jobs exposing them possibly
radiocactive material to dump in our earth. Spend money on the future of our children
not exposing them to dangerous, avoidable risks of jobs dealing with nuclear waste in
the grounds where they live.
Are Shepway Council not aware that the minimum stipulations for nuclear waste
storage are geologically stable areas? No earthquakes, floods, tidal surges or danger
of contaminating the water table. All of the above disqualify Romney Marsh from
consideration. Could I also suggest the councillors refresh their researches in future
before wasting time and money on such ill-conceived and speculative red herrings?
Dungeness is beautiful in its own way, leave it alone. No one will want to live near
nuclear waste so house prices will drop and the Marsh will become even more
desolate. Who wants to visit somewhere that has all that waste whether its
underground or not. It may provide much needed jobs whilst being built (I doubt it will
be local labour though). Surely the running of such a facility is more specialised so no
jobs there. Leave Dungeness alone.
Do you think you could do some of the presentatations at the weekend? Some of us
work in the week.
Page 117
Appendix D
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
LYDD RESIDENTS
We live at Lydd on Sea. We have been attempting to sell our bungalow for over 2
years. The area looks run down and unkept. The local pub is boarded up/the local
shop is closed etcP If people see on the TV and hear through other media, that we
are now having a 'disposal facility' we will have no interest at all in this area from
outside. Tourism will fall and people will attempt to move out of the area. Who in their
right mind would wish to dig down into shingle and marsh area to store nuclear
waste? Remote, mountainous regions are the obvious places to head for. We need
more 'attractive' modes of employment, such as the airport and an infrastucture in our
area to cope with the encouragement of such ventures.
The clue is in the address, Romney Marsh. A marsh area where the sea is likely to
flood at any time is a completely wrong area for this. But the way Shepway planning
have conducted themselves over the change of use of an old farm building next door,
it would seem anything can happen. The change of use is completely
uncomprehandable. Shepway planning did not listen to my views on this matter so
why will they on this matter?
Surely you can think of less desparate source of employment opportunity, project,
benefits for Romney Marsh. Romney Marsh deserves better. The airport would be
able to provide the same employment and contributions opportunities to the local
economy. There must be other ideas to thinl of.
How discusting, not thinking of hazard and danger to future generations. It would
destroy a unique 'habitat' for future generartions to see of rare birds and plants.
Definitely Not!
This could ruin Romney Marsh community as house prices could plumet and who else
would want to invest in the area with this going on.
The employment situation is very low in this area, once the power station has closed it
will be like a ghost town here with familys really struggling financially.
Something should be done to ensure employment on the Marsh. If this the only way
then so be it.
Something should be done to ensure employment on the Marsh. If this the only way
then so be it.
We have two nuclear power station here one closed this year and one will close in
2018-2023 - the governent said no more will be built. So why do we need disposal
facility here if we cannot have a new power station.
I think Shepway council have losts it brains to ever think of it, Yes we do need
employment. I would sooner see the airport enlargement.
Since a very large part of the Romney Marsh is not the only below spring tide level
but, in places, below Newlyn Datum, I consider this area to be a form of lunacy seldon
encountered outside mental institutions.
I strongly oppose the proposal for a possible romney marsh disposal facility. It would
be such a shame to use our incredible beautiful area for this purpose.
Its not a good idea to site such s thing near a rapidly expanding airport.
No! absolutely not. What about the site of special scientific interst? This subsoil is
unsuitable anyway that is why waste is sent to Cumbria (bedrock foundations) . It is
apperent that Shepway District Council loves the Romney Marsh so much that they
want to convert it into a nuclear dump.
Page 118
Appendix D
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
LYDD RESIDENTS
At best your plans are stupid! You have managed to reduce house prices immedtialtly
. Possibly any tourist investment within 20 sq miles!! You have given everyone a
feeling of dread and apprehension, which under the current economic problems we
could all do without. As regard jobs, as an x employer of J.Fisher nuclear waste ,
employee's would have to be highly paid, highly skilled, in lunne construction and
would probbaly come from Hilland/ Germany/ who have these skills and equipment.
Why dont you invest in tourism, holiday camps heaven for a bit !! But a Tesco's would
employ more local unskilled workers than a nuclear site. Unfortunetly, we will now be
be voting UKIP! we think you have lost the plot!! never voted for any other than
conservative, Good bye.
At best your plans are stupid! You have managed to reduce house prices immediatly.
Possibly any tourist investment within 20 sq miles!! You have given everyone a feeling
of dread and apprehension, which under the current economic problems we could all
do without. As regard jobs, as an x employer of J.Fisher nuclear waste , employee's
would have to be highly paid, highly skilled, in *UNCLEAR WORD* construction and
would probably come from Holland/ Germany/ who have these skills and equipment.
Why dont you invest in tourism, holiday camps heaven for a bit !! But a Tesco's would
employ more local unskilled workers than a nuclear site. Unfortunetly, we will now be
voting UKIP! we think you have lost the plot!! never voted for any other than
conservative, Good bye.
As I my self commute to work and agree that once the dungeness B shuts down wwe
will need more employment in the area but I myself would not want to see this here. I
support the Lydd Airport or even the off sure wind farm ot wind farm on Romney
Marsh as i think this is the way to go.
As I my self commute to work and agree that once the dungeness B shuts down wwe
will need more employment in the area but I myself would not want to see this here. I
support the Lydd Airport or even the off sure wind farm ot wind farm on Romney
Marsh as i think this is the way to go.
This is a very bad thing for the Romney Marsh.
Definitely a project for West Cumbria
We do not want the nuclear waste on our Romney Marsh. We do nor want it stored on
our Romney Marsh. Why should we be used as a dumping ground, for the nuclear
waste material. Thank you.
Sounds extremely alarming.
A third nuclear powerstation station was not approved - we don’t want this instead
A third nuclear powerstation station was not approved - we don’t want this instead
Look it is simple, we need a Dungeness C Powerstation the infrastructure is all there.
How can we get turned down for C station because of birds and bees ect and they
want to build a facility the size of 20 wembley stadiums! ''FIGHT FOR A NEW
POWERSTATION'' Never give up!
We fully support the councils initative. The proposed facility will provide for more long
term, quality employment than any other development at Lydd Airport. Type of jobs
will be varied from highly skilled scientific and engeneering is the less skilled types of
work. The negative comment in that Shepway will be in direct compettion with
Sellafeild which already has extensive facilities for reprocessin nuclear materials and
must therefore be a vary strong catend for proposal facility.
No
Page 119
Appendix D
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
LYDD RESIDENTS
The very idea of a nuclear waste dump in the heavily populated south east of
England it total folly, and to propose Dungeness as a site for this scheme a lack of
common sense. Dungeness and the Marsh is a unique enviroment as well as a SSI.
,so to even begin to build the underground site would upset the fragile enviroment as
well as well destroying the surronding roads by requiruing hundreds or lorry
movements each day to move the spoils of excavation, should it take place. it would
sslo present a very high securtiy risk by being on the coast, and offer easy access via
English channel P.T.O for any fringe group wishing to aquire nuclear material illegally.
This would in turn require 24hr. high level security, which in turn would require a much
larger area of the marsh with very restricted access to the genral public, having
already lost a large area to H.M forces between Dungeness and Camber. To even
think of proposing such a scheme in this area showes lack of intelligence by the
people we ellect to look after us. If you wish to increase employment, then make it
easier and cheaper to park cars in the district, then when trade expands, so jobs
follow.
There marsh should not be disturbed.
This dumping of waste under Romney Marsh is fundamentally a bad idea. i) The area
has already had the burden of 2 nuclear power stations. ii) The Marsh already has the
unsightly wind turbines. iii) This initiative does nothing to enhance the safety of the
Marsh. iv) This initiative does nothin to enhance the beauty of the Marsh. v) It is a
false perspective to talk of the "heritage" of the nuclear industry - it is not a "heritage"
but a burden. vi) The job market may well be served by a new airport or other types of
industry. The unique Marsh will be indelibly spoilt under.
With the running down of the nuclear power stations at Dungeness, Romney Marsh
needs new employment opportunities or ur youth will need to move out of the area to
seek employment.
I know we need more employment on the Marsh so I am not totally against this
proposal, but would prefer to see another power station.
No thank you! I do not want to live near a nuclear waste site!!!!
As a local Estate Agent, I would be delighted to see an influx of people coming to the
Marsh. Bring it on!
No thank you!! I do not want to live near a nuclear waste site!! No!
The Romney Marsh needs investment but this is the wrong solution.
The Marsh is not good enough to have a power station but they are happy for us to
have the rubbish here instead!
It should go up north give it to some one else not hear!
I do not feel that I should be committing a generation of children to living on top of a
nuclear dump.
I think the area needs to create jobs so therefore I think it’s a good idea!
We need jobs on the Marsh. Otherwise this area will die. We need investment for our
generation and for the next.
It would be more employment were it is needed in Lydd.
It may save our delightful little town from total extinction.
Not a chance!!!
Totally unsuitable
Totally unsuitable
Absolutely no!!
Absolutely no!!
I do not want it so close to where I live.
Page 120
Appendix D
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
LYDD RESIDENTS
If it was a question of the UK waste I would be undecided but I expect we would
accept waste world wide. Any pledges saying it would only be UK I would not trust
because I do not have any faith in the proberty of these politicians either local or
national.
Even if it never happens the possibility will block any choice of a new power station
and/or expansion of our airport. Sellafield "buys in" nuclear waste from around the
globe. Dungeness would become the worlds dumping ground! Despite Shepway
negative attitude there is still a strong possibility of a 'C' station at Dungeness in the
future unless this scheme gets approved.
No! My family and myself are firmly against a nuclear disposal facility in this area.
This is a place for wildlife and peace. Unique. People come here for this leisure and
peace. Do not destroy this environment with this proposal. I have just bought this
house. Every week it seems the area is under threat. If this proposal is accepted I
will sell this house.
Give us the airport that’s what we all want the whole community is in favour of this.
The geology of the Romney Marsh makes it unsuitable for the deep burial of nuclear
waste. Besides which there are fault-lines in the channel, that trigger earthquakes
from time to time. Although the Romney Marsh is sparesly populated by SE England
standards, it is still too heavily populated for such a risky scheme. The transport
system for bringing in the waste is unsuitable. Employment opportunities are
probably exaggerated. At best the scheme might provide some low skilled jobs suited
to local people, while the more skilled and better paid jobs would go elsewhere.
No - completely impractical
I feel that as we already have the power station on our doorsteep we should not have
the disposal facility as well. The area is valuable to the birds and wildlife. The heavy
traffic would not be welcome in the area the roads would not be suitable.
It is essential we have something to replace A and B and this could be a good
opportunity for the area. We need more information to decide. Alternatively we should
fighht to have Dungeness C.
I work within the current facility. I used to work at Pfizer, Sandwich. I believe that a
facility as described would keep and support a skilled work force in the area. This
would continue to support the local economy long into the future. Sandwich and
Thanet have declined following the loss of such a big employer. Shepway could avoid
this effect.
Completely agree that this would be beneficial to our local employment for future
generations.
There are so many unanswered questions. It would be good to hear them. For
example, who could be trusted to guard to the site for the next 10 million years? Why
would it be OK to build the proposed facility but objectionable to build Dungeness C?
Would Romney Marsh become the dumping ground for the world's nuclear waste?
What sort of movement in terms of quantity of waste is expected to be travelling
through Kent. What about Lydd Airport? What would happen to our property prices?
As part of a new power station only.
The Marsh will need new jobs and a major local employer, hopefully a lot quicker than
15-20 years time, if not the local towns will turn into ghost towns.
Page 121
Appendix D
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
LYDD RESIDENTS
My husband and I moved to Lydd in 2004. We love the town. Back then there were
regular influxes of contractors for Dungeness A and B. All the pubs in Lydd and New
Romney which had rooms were always fully booked. They were all good men. They
never caused problems in these towns and everyone took them to their hearts. Lydd
is now a ghost town. Many businesses have closed. We lost the only bank due to a
ram raid on the ATM. We still see a few contractors but not in the same numbers.
However on the plus side it was announced by EDF to keep Dungeness B open for
more years than originally planned. It will never be at the height it was earlier in this
decade but will help. Also we are very pleased that Dungeness C may get the go
ahead and look forward to better times in the future.
This could be a new era for this area (not for me) and give work to our area,
customers to our shopping areas plus customers to the airport.
The idea is good to create work but I hope the water table is being considered as this
is a marsh with a very high water table and this would add considerably to the cost
and also could cause the risk of contamination.
The idea is good to create work but I hope the water table is being considered as this
is a marsh with a very high water table and this would add considerably to the cost
and also could cause the risk of contamination.
Will be great for Romney Marsh.
Forget nuclear promote windfarms and expand Lydd airport.
We need to find out more before any opinions can be made. I have reservations but
need more information.
In an area of outstanding natural beauty and conservation absolutely not, just
because the power station already exists doesn’t mean we shall continue down that
road. I believe we should be looking at other options if investment and employment is
needed within the area. I understand the need for employment but feel that people
can travel as I do rather than having it on our doorstep.
It would appear unlikely that the geological requirements for an underground facility
can be found in Kent. Chalk and clay are probably unsuitable. Contamination of the
chalk aquifer is obviously a consideration.
The Marsh is not the place for a disposal facility, power stations yes. I spent 35 years
at Dun 'A'. The Marsh is a water table.
Because need to know how safe it would be.
I SAY NO TO DUMPING ON THE MARSH.
There are no benefits to this dump site. Leave the marsh alone. You should be trying
to get another power station built. Not dumping nuclear waste here. Let somewhere
else have it.
NO
No
Someone from the council needs to walk along the beach now in the dark and see the
bright green waste rolling up the beach and on the crest of incoming tide God only
knows what it would be like with more nuclear waste being dumped here.
We regard this as a most unwelcome and retrograde step which would offer this area
in an injustious way quite apart from the fact that this is an SSSRI site and allegedly
protected from any form of development.
If the Romney Marsh is not good enough for another nuclear powerstation because of
all the enviromental issues & possible flooding why should the Marsh be turned into
Britains dumping ground for nuclear waste. We are an area of S.S.I. when it suits the
rules can be changed.
No way
Page 122
Appendix D
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
LYDD RESIDENTS
1) Flood risk in view of the Government, lack of investment (note an going talks re
house insurance). 2) No hard rock as in Cumbria to form barriers. 3) One step at a
time. 4) How wide an area of consultation? Marsh only or include Rye, Hythe,
Hamstreet or Aldington.
In principle I am in favour of the NRDF as we, on the Marsh, have lived in the shadow
of nuclear energy since the 1960's. However I would need much more information into
the proposed siting, safety precautions etc before I give this notion whole-hearted
approval.
If they can build a nuclear waste facility at Dungeness then they can build a C station
which is a far better option it would regenerate the area and give much needed jobs
as Dungeness A and B have as a retired employee at Dungeness A power station, I
had over 40 years continous employment and have had a good qaulity of life. I would
like to see a future in this area for my grandchildren. Not a nulcear dump.
We won’t live to see it but jobs are much needed for the next generations.
We won’t live to see it but jobs are much needed for the next generations.
Have you taken a leave of your senses! Whoever agrees should have it in their
garden.
At 80 years of age no decision or development is going to affect me. As we live on
land reclaimed from the sea, and the sea level is reported to be rising, I think that a
serious investingation into the practicality of deep and extensive tunneling would
conclude it is unsuitable in this area. An expensive and protracted activity resulting in
a negative decision is not in local residents interests. A revamped power station, and
a new one, built mainly on the surface, would make more sense.
Too risky considering this is a Marsh and all the water supply is underground. If the
terrain is unsuitable for a third nuclear power station, it is definitely unsuitable for
nuclear waste disposal.
The airport expansion would be far better for jobs, a so called research & disposal
facility would require expert scientific skills, which would not be local, these skills
would have to be imported in rather than a local workforce, again, I stress if Shepway
are so keen on this idea, the site should be at the Folkestone Civic Centre!!
We need more information on how and where the impact on the local enviroment.
No No No
Why build it on an area of high flood risk stupid idea a waste of council money where
the bed rock?
I wonder how many so called local jobs there are actually in this industry. I have
watched the cars leaving the powerstation and to me they are NOT locals. If this new
centre was built, would the jobs really be for locals? Would the waste start coming
from other countries, so we could earn extra cash. The area is a lovely peacful area, I
dont want it to look a mess. You mention that it is advised to build in rock below. Dont
imagine its in this area.
Romney Marsh is unique, lets keep it that way PLEASE
Romney Marsh is unique, lets keep it that way PLEASE
I don’t think we should build a nuclear research on Romney Marsh. Think about what
would happen in years to come. It might look good on paper. Things do happen as
same as the nuclear plant. It has run out of time.
We do not want this facility in our local area.
I think we do enough harm to our wonderful planet as it is without disrespecting it
futher in this dreadful way. Accidents will always happen whatever the project so
please forget the whole idea.
Page 123
Appendix D
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
LYDD RESIDENTS
No I do not think this is a good idea. This is a marsh and global warmings say the sea
will rise and in X number of years the sea may take back what the sea has given. No.
We love our Marsh and perish the thought of it becoming a dumping ground for other
countries waste.
No I do not think this is a good idea. This is a marsh and global warmings say the sea
will rise and in X number of years the sea may take back what the sea has given. No.
We love our Marsh and perish the thought of it becoming a dumping ground for other
countries waste.
Need a lot more information before we would consider making a choice. Would prefer
that Dungeness C got the go ahead though
Need a lot more information before we would consider making a choice. Would prefer
that Dungeness C got the go ahead though
Yes we should find out more!
I am concerned the disposal facility may cause a blight on housing prices locally.
I think it is imperative that there is some form of investment in the local community as
we have been in constant decline for the past decade with no investment from
Government. I think a local concesus should be held on the Romney Marsh.
A new powerstation or the airport runway extension would create more jobs so why
should we take nuclear waste?
No. The Romney Marsh already has power stations, without fully understanding the
long term potential problems for future generations. To continue to merely build/dig up
the wonderful landscape is not the way to a fair and sustainable future.
I would rather see a futher nuclear power station and the airport extension go ahead
but I think the council would be negligent if it did not find out more about the research
& disposal facility no jobs - no viable Lydd/Romney Marsh.
It’s a mad idea, we do not wish to become a nuclear waste bin.
It’s a mad idea, we do not wish to become a nuclear waste bin.
I think this is the most ridiculous idea yet!! Who would buy our famous 'Romney Lamb'
or 'Romney Potatoes' I do not think this is safe, we have little economy as it is here,
and the jobs may be a few to build it but will not be the same to support it. I do not
beilieve it is safe at all, this carries a great risk to health and economy. They said the
Titanic would never sink!! Totally against this idea.
We totally oppose any of theese possible plans.
We totally oppose any of theese possible plans.
If we cannot have a power station built because of enviromental issues, then we
cannot consider this proposal. It will give 1000 people jobs? Qualified scientists, not
the young people residing on the Romney Marsh. No way do we even need to
consider this. We need a new power station, as the wind turbines will never supply the
electricty needed.
Great idea! Futher information on this proposistion should be sought.
Much prefer Lydd airport expansion. Power station no 3
Is bad idea. No thanks
Page 124
Appendix D
LYDD RESIDENTS
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
Here’s the solution
1) Remove ex Lydd airstrip. A) Means closure of ex airport.
2) Get ex-Kentish miners to excavate hole at, say 500m deep 4km long x 1km wide.
B) Employ Betshanger & other Kent miners i.e. “Jobs for local people”.
3) Insert roadway down from ex airport buildings position. C) Ditto.
4) Make suitable containment arrangements to keep nuclear rubbish safe forever. D)
Additional staff from Dungeness power station could be transferred - result - Closure
of D/ness therefore no above ground nuclear.
5) Rebuilt new airstrip (large enough for all cargo jets only). E) See B + D above.
6) Rebuilt large airport buildings - as per ex planning application. F) Make all this a
pre commencement contract condition to approval of airport application. G) Use
PCANNOT READP extract from u/g mining - to built complete D/ness sea defences.
Job done - All nuclear + Airport all in one place.
Much needed employment.
10/10 *
NO we don’t want to be England's dumping ground. Kent is the garden of England.
I think that as we have had nuclear power stations in Dungeness for many years, it
would be entirely the wrong decision to have this research and disposal facility on
Romney Marsh, using up more land, which is at present a unique area, as a resident
of 22 years standing I am totally against it.
No we have had enough
If the ground isn't good enough to build on why should it be good enough to bury
under. Plus the water table.
If the ground isn't good enough to build on why should it be good enough to bury
under. Plus the water table.
This is my view about the above facility, and my idea for jobs creation, for your
perusal.
I believe that when persons and Companies look at creating Facilities like this, to try
to create jobs for the skilled workers of the area. They, in my opinion, do not take the
time to look at the whole picture before proceeding. As you may or may not know ant
Nuclear Waste material, is a very highly dangerous substance. That lasts doe
sometimes, hundreds of years. I worked in the industry for over 33 years. And, if you
look back at the incidents we have had in the past, Mile Island USA, the Japan
Nuclear disaster, and of course the great big disaster of Chernobyl.
Nobody at that time, knew what to do about it, it was hit and miss, because they had
not thought the process through, they thought it couldn’t happen, but it did, with
severe and great consequences, you have to go through everything that could
happen, and what Do we do about it, how do we control the situation. All these and
many more were Major Disasters. Chernobyl affected the whole World, and still is in
the Ukraine. They did, and have affected the people, and the environment, for years
and years to come.
There towns through contamination cannot be used for a thousand years. And also
what was in that environment. In Nuclear Waste, highly dangerous substances, which
you cannot see, smell or feel, until its to late.
I was one of the persons chosen by my Company, to go to the Ukraine in Russia, to
the Power Plant Cherbobyl, in June 1992. I wrote a book on the subject, with
wonderful photograph’s, forest destroyed, the Radiation, and then the Contamination,
and then the confusion, the people suffered enormously. I can tell you the mess will
not be cleared up for hundred’s Of years, the towns uninhabitable, The forests are
damaged, the under ground natural water table damaged, and the people as well,
Page 125
Appendix D
737
738
739
740
LYDD RESIDENTS
With different types of cancers and other discuses. It would have been worst in the
Russian Engineers and Workers, had not Done what they did, and gave up there lives
for it. Some, the Firemen within half an hour of being on site. I don’t believe the
Authorities gave enough thought to what could or might happen, will it ever happen,
what do we do.
The Chernobyl Town shut down completely, Pripyat Town shut completely, guarded
by the Army. Even the new Town Of Slavutich built by knocking down a forest, is
slightly contaminated, and that is fifty miles away.
There water table like the Romney Marsh six feet under ground, destroyed, possibly
forever, millions of gallons. Animals and The fish all gone, and the wild animals.
Forests completely damaged, there rivers near the site turned orange in colour. And
That’s what Nuclear Contamination does for you. And don’t imagine that it cannot
ever happen in any Nuclear facility, where Nuclear Waste is stored, it can. If you
really think about it, there are better ways of providing skilled and un-skilled jobs for
The Romney Marsh, and its surrounding villages. The un-skilled people are often
forgotten, And if you did at some point Build this facility, it would mainly be for Skilled
workers.
Let me try to giver you an idea to help more people, safely, and possibly discuss at
the same time, I believe you could build A Crisp factory on the Marsh, this would help
all types of workers and there families, and also the Kent and Romney Marsh Farmers
with buying up there Potatoes, also build on the end of the Crisp Factory a Produce
Facility, take all the Farmers Produce, and supply the likes of Tesco, Sainsbury and
Morrison’s and other outlets. Put up wind Turbines to provide the Electricity, build a
De-salinisation Plant to provide the water, why not, loads of Unskilled and Skilled jobs
for the Community, it would help build that up. The Greatest build facility can go
wrong, and lets face it The Marsh is a Natural Phenomenon, don’t destroy it, possibly
for all time, if an accident did occur. Think there are other alternatives for everyone.
It is a big area to discuss, and decide on. AND THE CONTAMINATION- NIL.
I hope my letter helps you in your discussions, to decide the best way forward. And
what the people would like in your Discussions. Don’t leave for our children, and
there children, what happened in Japan, and other Major Disasters, Chernobyl is a
thousand years of Legacy for the Ukraine people.
At previous meetings with respect to the proposed Dungeness C, we were led to
believe all new nuclear power stations would have the facility for on-site storage of
waste. We would therefore like clarification as to the need for the proposed bulk
storage at Dungeness.
We will need the jobs for local youths. But what would be the affects on tourism
because I work in a small shop.
The area around Lydd requires some new ventures in order to generate employment.
The nuclear power station has never presented problems and the infrastructure
enables a new station to function with minimal effort. The wildlife around flourishes
because the area is clear enough to support it. Airport expansion would also bring
benefits to the area. The railway could be improved to provide a connection to
Ashford. Unless something is done to generate new ventures the area will decay and
no longer warrant efforts to stop coastal erosion. The sea may then reclaim the
Marsh during the next century. The vast areas of water on the marshes could be
used as tidal lagoons. Has anybody ever considered this? Dungeness has some of
the most extreme tides in the UK. Far more reliable than the wind, even on Romney
Marsh!
Want to be kept informed but I am totally against it. NO thank you
Page 126
Appendix D
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
LYDD RESIDENTS
Jobs or no jobs do not want this near where I live.
Please don’t waste any more money on something that will end up as another public
enquiry Please send our money on promoting the Romney Marsh as a tourist
attraction and creating real jobs for people that live here.
We should no more about what would happen if this did go ahead.
Thinking of the earthquake we had 2 or 3 years ago - what happens if another quake
creates a rock fissure which enables seawater to invade the vaults?
I think it would be good for the area as long as question can be answered. Health
Risks, Jobs it would bring for all groups long term. Traffic it would bring to area and
how safe are the lorrys they use in an axe. Safety and plans what to do if something
happen at plant. Environmental consequences on wild life etc.
I am in agreement that we need to do all we can to help secure long term jobs and
investment of The Romney Marsh.
Not against Nuclear Power - Live in Dengemarsh vertically next to Dungeness A & B.
In favour of Dungeness C Power Station. But Dungeness C has been "stopped" some
of the reasonings given were flooding and the environment sensitivity of the area. I
cannot believe that planning would allow a facility anywhere on the marsh because of
the above 2 reasons. In my opinion The Environment disruption during construction
would be for than that required for a new station over a wider area. I strongly believe
that any further time or money spent on this proposal would be wasted.
We need to maintain the countryside and marsh otherwise Romney Marsh will
become a concrete urban sink which would be a shame disaster for the environment
and the people.
No we don’t want this
I have no wish to see Dungeness/Romney Marsh become a nuclear waste dumping
ground for the rest of Britain. From local new meridian I understand there is still a
possibility of a third nuclear power station at Dungeness if this happens ,This will help
the employment situation.
Future protential problems not yet quantified by storage here are not worth any risk.
Tourism is a large part of this area, bringing in much money both for people of kent
and for the local authority tourism is a much more sure source of renenue and needs
more encouragement with advertising Kent's Beauty and facilities further afield. Fear
of possible results of atomic storage likely to drive people away in droves leadingto
great improverishment of the whole area.
No nuclear waste - it would bring chaos to the wildlife and landscape, and risks to the
health of people living here. With no benefits to anyone. An eyesore to the landscape.
No
Large numbers of jobs are promised and this will not happen, most specialist staff
came from the north of the uk and very few local jobs will last.
Its always worth finding out more information
Total madness crazy idea!!!!
Total madness crazy idea!!!!
Page 127
Appendix D
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
LYDD RESIDENTS
I would like to know more about it. If this were to go ahead and be aproved than we
should have no trouble getting the go ahead for a new powerstation 'C' if not & 'D' as
well. If the local councils accept this than surely 2 or 1 new stations must also get full
support. Given that it would have less of an impact than this proposal. The site is
crying out for a new powerstation over this idea. The current site was designed for 2
new plants to be fitted between 'B' and the coverter building. The site already exsits
and the infrastucture is in place. This will minimise any enviromental impact and will
not use a fresh site and cause more concerns. We need new powerstation 1st and
then we can have a treatment plant to work along side it. This would please all partys
and I would be happy to support that. We need to look at the bigger picture, if the
building of this went ahead with no new powerstations being built and the older ones
gradually closing. How much waste will there be - without new plant surely this will
close down too? I can totally understand the need for such a facility. If we are building
new powerstations, but they must come first. Is this plant going to be owned and
operated by Great Britain or is it going to be built and sold too or owned by a French
company (like a lot of our electrical equipment) we need to keep it British and start
taking control of our own energy future. This new site must not be sold abroad!!. Lets
make it a great venture for the people of the South East - not the south of France! We
need new jobs in the area but I am concerned this could close down too if having
closed the current power stations in the next 10/20 years the supply of spent fuel runs
out too. We need to build power plants for ourselves not for for the companies abroad.
Thanks for reading this and I look forward to hearing more about the proposal.
We agree with the powerstation staying, but not so keen on the disposal & nuclear
waste, as this may bring hazards, both chemical, & health. Keep the powerstation
going.
Another nuclear powerstation would be more advantagous.
Yes the Marsh does need more jobs for the people, but can we be sure that it would
be 100% safe & will the value in our houses go down.
1) Unstable ground. 2) Transport costs. 3) Diposal should be closer to present
storage. 4) Very few local jobs.
I am concerned about the safety aspects. Romney Marsh is not a stable enviroment,
with possible seismic activity and tidal variations, which could result in unforseen
damage to under sea level constructions. This could cause potential catastrophic
destruction. The area apparently is not safe for new nuclear powerstation and/or
airport so should not be suitable for high grade nuclear waste.
Fault under Dungeness 'A'? It was said that there was when area was surveyed in
the 50s/60s.
This is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard in my life! Invest in tourism to create
jobs - that’s why people come to the Marsh and it would create more jobs for local
people.
My choice would be for a third power station.
I feel that most of the local population have lived quite happily with Nuclear Power and
would like another. Therefore Romney Marsh Nuclear Research and Disposal Facility
would fit in very well to the area.
To maintain employment in the area. We've had association with nuclear power
since 1965
How mcuh space above ground will be needed for this facility?
Would the new facility be on the Dungeness shingle or on the current agricultural
land? If the latter, where would it be?
Can you build safe tunnels in shingle?
Page 128
Appendix D
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
LYDD RESIDENTS
We do not want this you have it in your back garden first it is a nature reserve but
when the council want to make money it is a wasteand. We do not want it we need
something that will give people job. Not danger. How long do you think what you put
there will last and not have leakage and contamination. If you go down this road there
will be nothing left for the future
I do not want this facility. Cumbria can keep it. If people want work they can travel to
other places. It is a hard job market for everybody. I thought that the Marsh also has a
high water table
A new Nuclear Power Station would be a lot better idea
We don't agree with a nuclear disposal facility on Romney Marsh. It will completely
ruin the area and people will not want to live here, house prices will drop and it will be
quite difficult to sell a property. There is also a possibility of the health danger with
nuclear disposal
We don't agree with a nuclear disposal facility on Romney Marsh. It will completely
ruin the area and people will not want to live here, house prices will drop and it will be
quite difficult to sell a property. There is also a possibility of the health danger with
nuclear disposal
We don’t want a nuclear disposal facility on the Marsh. What a ridiculous idea, it
should all stop at this stage.
We don’t want a nuclear disposal facility on the Marsh. What a ridiculous idea, it
should all stop at this stage.
Nuclear power is not the way to go.
The fact that you are even asking this question shows a total disregard for the Marsh
and the people who live there. I would question the number of long term jobs created,
but the councils obsession with jobs seems to mean that if there is any suggestion of
job creation however dubious and the all other factors are disregarded.
As a relative newcomer to Romney Marsh I understand that local employment is vital
to the local community. If we/you don't then more local amenities/shops will close.
No - I only live in the area as it is where my ancestors were born and raised an my
family have stayed. I do not understand people moving to an area which already has
a nuclear power station and airport - with such hazard and still unknown dangers
already in the area I disagree that this area should have another
controversial/potentially dangerous facility of the Romney Marsh regardless of the
jobs it is thouht it may bring to the area -.
Please do not persue this. We already have an infamous research and storage facility
in Cumbria which after a series of accidents had to be 'rebranded' Sellafield. It has the
highest incidence of various cancers and problems with brain deformities etc in the
UK. Most of the facts relating to these issues are quietly filed away but are available
with a little research. So please do not inflict these risks on the local population of the
Romney Marsh and surrounding area. If you wish to provide employment
opportunities I suggest you work with the operators of Lydd Airport which by the way I
have no connection or vested interest.
When we first came here 30-odd yrs ago the power station seemed a minor
consideration, plus we were assured (by housing agent) 'the Ferry Field' would never
be more then just a ferry field. Look at it now! I'm filled with dread at the thought of
Romney Marsh becoming a depositary for nuclear waste. I would move away if I
wasnt so blooming old.
I Cannot imagine that the geology would allow such a project. Once a site is sealed
up, is it just forgotten about like a ticking time bomb?
Page 129
Appendix D
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
LYDD RESIDENTS
I Cannot imagine that the geology would allow such a project. Once a site is sealed
up, is it just forgotten about like a ticking time bomb?
I do not think the area is suitable, mainly geological reasons.
Good farm land should not be used. Only which is not productive.
I do not feel it is right that any interest of nuclear waste should be even thought of nor
in nuclear research. What ever we feel it is the government who has the say and
never listen to the common man. More solar panels are needed on all housing old and
new and get rid of nuclear power.
The thought of this is frightening
Dear sirs My wife and I are completely opposed to the siting of a Nuclear Waste
Disposal Facility on the Romney Marsh for the fllowing reasons. - Only five years ago
an earthquake in Folkestone was large enough to cause damage to buildings and is
proof positive that there are seismic activity in the area so not if, but when a quake
occurs on the Marsh such a facility would be breached and dangerous radiation
released. - The Marsh is a unique area of beauty and such a project would destroy
the beauty and its delicate eco sytem forever - The stigma attached to a nuclear
waste faciltiy would put other compaqnies off setting up there businesses on the
Marsh and buying and selling homes would become more difficult for the population
living in the area. - The condition of the roads in the area are already in a deplorable
state. The infrastructure just would not cope with the lories and extra traffic assocaited
with such a project. With other major road projects in the news already on hold, the
funding would clearly not be available to finance improvements. - Badly needed tax
payers money will be spent just investigating the possibility of the project and would
be better spent elsewhere in the present economic climate for example, rebuilding
schools that are falling to bits. (that would at least give the youngsters a sense of selfworth) or on getting 'the deficit down'.
I have very serious concerns about this proposal. Our water comes from the shingle
aqifers of Romeny Marsh. There is no assurance that with global warming the area
will not be even more vunerable to flooding. The coatline where the power station
exists is unstable and constantly shifting. As a local resident, our health has always
been subject to possible risk and this will increase. I do not believe that the relatively
few jobs made is sufficient justification for possible health hazards and environment
pollution. Finally I consider the phrase 'state of the art' nuclear waste facilities to be a
vacuous phrase which clearly gives the impression that the District Council wish to
pursue this irresponsible plan regardless of the wishes of the local residents.
- But think there will be enormous geological problems, also tranporting difficulties and hazards
C station should be thrust by SDC together with our MP. This would not invovle
tearing the Marsh apart and could create jobs much sooner
C station should be thrust by SDC together with our MP. This would not invovle
tearing the Marsh apart and could create jobs much sooner
Romney Marsh is one of the areas of outstanding natural beauty - it would be a total
tragedy if this dump proposal was to go ahead. Kent is rapidly turning from the
'garden of England' into the concrete dump of England!!
The map isn't clear as to where this will be put and it is not clear as to the impact that
this will create to the environment and public. I would definitly want to know more.
But do understand the need for jobs. This needs to be 100% safe to the area and
people. Expressing an interest is only an interest and does not stop the council
looking at something less risky!
Page 130
Appendix D
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
LYDD RESIDENTS
Yes, yes and again yes. This area needs jobs and of course it should be explored.
What is there to lose? Nothing at this stage and potentially everything to gain further
down the line. Risk? Nil.
Shepway District Council should make a priority of completing the Folkestone to Cliff
End sea defence project without which no future entrepreneur or inward Romney
Marsh investment proposal will survive due diligence.
The sooner we get it the better. We need it for work.
I do not think we should have any nuclear waste put under the Marsh, the Shingle
moves, with the tides so does not matter how much you try to bury waste, it is not
sae. Let the politicians have in their back gardens not ours.
I can't believe that the geology of the Romney Marsh is suitable for this project.
At present we are waiting decisions on the expanding Lydd airport that I am against
because of noise polution and terrorism concerns. If the council had not gone ahead
with the airport matter (that has gone on for 5 years) I would be more willing to find
out more about this project. I have lsot confidence in the council as 2/3 of locals voted
against airport but this was dismissed by the council. We have also had windfarms
built recently. The Marsh is only so big, and I feel we are being overwhlemed by it all.
I live on the Marsh becasue it is quiet but work in Ashford.
We should not be considering such a dangerous facility near any areas of population.
There are so many safety factors to consider and the technology is not proven in this
country. We are a small area still waiting for government decision on the airport
expansion. I have been to the exhibition and still can't believe our geology would be
suitable - far better to store the waiste in granite. We have to find other ways to create
employment here.
We have been subject to an application to progress land at the rear of our house
(Quarry). This land is open fields and the proposed plan allows the quarry to be within
3 meters of our back fence. Do you really believe we could sanction any furthur
proposals to turn Romney Marsh into a dumping ground and ultimately reduce
property prices
We would oppose such a facility on Romney Marsh, where we reside.
We would oppose such a facility on Romney Marsh, where we reside.
This application should absolutely not be proceeded with. The safety dimensions of
this whole concept are totally untested, given the longevity of the facility, and
regardless of the approval of 'international bodies', there can be no real guarentee of
safety over a period extending many centuries into the future. Even a minor breach of
safety during the period would have catastrophic consequences for the area and its
population. The potential for the development for green tourism on the Marsh should
be prioritised for investment as a way of creating long term employment for local
people.
This is a must for Romney Marsh
If this area has any chance of expanding Lydd Airport, we must not consider any
nuclear facilities. With the M20 completed and the 2070 road access to the airport is
in place. The airport was a far bigger employer in the area before the power station
and should be again.
Will ruin the Romney Marsh
Page 131
Appendix D
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
LYDD RESIDENTS
The government would give the community a benefits package. Would that be the
same as Chernobyl? We are not good enough to build Dungeness C. but we can be
their dumping ground - No thanks? I'd like to know who has paid for the costs of this
survey! - glossy leaflets, prepaid envelopes. You know what - if Cumbria have
expressed their interest - let them have it! What about Romney Marsh's underground
water supply . We might be on a hosepipe ban now but who knows - in 50 years or so
we may not even be able to use the water due to contamination. I am definately
against the proposal.
I feel that the Romney Marsh, is a wonderful almost unspoilt, part of the UK. We have
many SSSI sites and lots of history. Also beauty abounds this area. It shouldn’t be
spoilt in any way by more development whether it be nuclear, airport expansion or
housing. Leave the Romney Marsh be!
We should like to see a new power station but not a nuclear dustbin
We should like to see a new power station but not a nuclear dustbin
Where on the Marsh which is all below sea level is there a suitable rock formation?
Surely the geology should be invstigated first. This facility will do nothing in the short
term to create jobs for the current generation, their children and even grandchildren.
We need employment opportunities now. Where are these?
Having read as much info as I could find on this matter I do not think we should be
exploring this avenue futher. Although we definitley need and answer to the lack of
jobs in the area. I do not believe this is the way forward.
No! No! No! it should not be given one thought whatsoever.
If the site was to be considered suitable for a disposal facility, then surely it must be
even more suitbale for a Dungeness 'C'.
Definetly not - We do not need or want this.
The Romney Marsh and in particular Dungeness has done more than its far share for
the nuclear industry in this country. Any regeneration projects in this area should
concentrate on preserving its many unique and protected areas. A development of
this nature and the infrastructure needed to support it would ultimately lead to the
systamatic destruction and urbanisation of this precious part of our country.
Everything should be done at this early stage to prevent this from going ahead.
How deep underground would it go? Would it be able to pass the water table which is
very high at Dungeness? How will it pass through the shinlgebank without it all
caveing in.
Its obvious to me that of there is a possibilty that if there is a possibility that this facility
is feasible for Romney Marsh, than a nuclear power staion is also feasible,
considering that a waste dump for irradiated splitters from the fuel elements already
exists at Dungeness A station.
Having been in the public exhibation I do feel we all need to know more.
A possible nuclear research and disposal facility beats having a large airport on our
doorstep in everyway, number of jobs created, air and sound pollution to name but a
few.
Emphatically No
in the not too distant future thorium reactors will utilize most of the nuclear waste from
existing fission reactors. More thought, therefore, should be dedicated to this research
rather then spending astronomical sums on storage facilites (underground) from
where it will need to be extracted for future use as a neutron source for thorium
reactors.
It is an absolultly absurd suggestion. I am totally opposed.
Page 132
Appendix D
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
LYDD RESIDENTS
However it is essential to protect the beauty and heritage of this unique marshland.
Once changed we cannot go back.
If nuclear power means that we can have more electricity in the country, then I'm all
for it, as I believe we need it. So research into the disposal facility would be a good
thing.
Can't believe anyone would seriously consider this idea! Catergorically no!
A simple preliminary check on the nature of the geology of the proposed site might (if
the geology is clearly wrong) have saved the cost of the consultation. Was this done?
I am worried about safety on this issue, and also I feel that jobs at Dungeness are
more likely to number more from 'Outer regions' than to give any benefits to the
Romney Marsh areas. already there is a problem at the top of the Lydd to New
Romney Rd with traffic issues which I believe could do with a mini roundabout there.
traffic lights just cause further delays. I was unable to attend the listed exhibitions
because of the dates given (holidays)
IF DUNGENESS 'C' IS NOT AN OPTION, THEN WE CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT
TO CONSIDER DISPOSING OF RADIO ACTIVE WASTE FROM OTHER
FACILITIES!
Don't spend another penny on this. Drop it like a hot potato. I'm certain that whether
it were to be at the point or further inland, eg. Appledore/Brenzett, the land would not
be suitable for such depths to be excavated. Press for Dungeness 'C' with extra
vigour.
If the unthinkable were to happen, where would the soil go? Another Samphire Hoe?
More likely it would be used to resurrect the old idea of building a port at Dungeness
C ("Dungeness Port at Dungeness Point") as was mooted eighty years ago.
Repeat - NO.
IT WOULD BE UNSUITABLE AS IN THIS AREA WE HAVE A PRIMARY SCHOOL
AN AIRPORT AND HOLIDAY PARKS.. WE WOULD SOONER HAVE A NEW
POWER STATION, NOT A DUMPING GROUND. LET THOSE THAT HAVE
SHOWN AN INTEREST HAVE IT.
I think if the Dungeness Power Station does not come in the Government
recommendations for future development. Most Certainly not does a Nuclear
research and disposal facility belong on the Marsh.
I AM SURPRISED AT SHEPWAY COUNCIL BACKING THIS PROJECT WHEN
THEY CANT EVEN COME TO A DECISION OVER A AIRPORT.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT ALSO THAT THEY WERE THE COUNCIL
THAT DID NOT WANT PZISER ON THERE DOORSTEP AND WENT TO
SANDWICH INSTEAD
The Romney Marsh is a unique area and should remain so. The water table is high
with a possibility of flooding in the future due to sea level rises. The shingle is an
unstable mass!.
we have water tables here leakage into that would be a disaster
I am concerned regarding any possible health risks. Does it mean that Nuclear
materials would be stored for many ears?
THIS COUNTRY URGENTLY NEEDS NEW NUCLEAR GENERATING CAPACITY.
EVERY FACILITY NEEDED FOR THIS IS ALREADY BUILT AND RUNNING AT
DUNGENESS AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF LOCAL RESIDENTS WOULD
WELCOME "C" BEING BUILT. KENT AND SHEPWAY COUNCILS SHOULD BE
INCREASING THEIR PRESSURE ON GOVERNMENT TO GO AHEAD WITH
GENERATION, NOT TRYING TO GRAB AN UNSUITABLE OPTION JUST TO
SHOW THAT THEY CARE.
Page 133
Appendix D
844
845
846
847
LYDD RESIDENTS
THE "NEW LABOUR" GOVERNMENT SPENT 13 YEARS DECIDING HOW TO
INCREASE ELECTRICITY CAPACITY BUT ACHIEVED NOTHING. THE
CONSERVATIVE/LIB DEM COALITION HAS DONE THE SAME THING FOR 2
YEARS WITH EQUAL RESULTS.
IN THE SIXTIES, LABOUR SOLD OUR NORTH SEA OIL FOR A QUICK PROFIT.
IN THE EIGHTIES, THE TORIES CONVERTED POWER GENERATORS TO GAS
AND THEN PRIVIATISED THE GAS INDUSTRY CREATING VAST PROFITS AND
UN-CONTROLLED PRICING, NONE OF THIS MONEY HELPED WORKING
PEOPLE, BUT NOW WE IMPORT OUR GAS AND BUY MUCH OF OUR OIL. THIS
IS NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT, BUT MILLIONS OF BRITISH PEOPLE ARE IN
"FUEL POVERTY" AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE DECISIONS OF EARLIER
GOVERNMENTS. THE ACTIONS OF TODAY'S M.P.s ARE CONTROLLED BY ONE
CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS:- "I MUST BE RE-ELECTED, IT IS MY CAREER".
THIS INTERPRETS AS "I MUST NOT MAKE AN UNPOPULAR DECISION", WHICH
BECOMES "I MUST NOT DECIDE IN CASE I AM WRONG".
SHEPWAY DISTRICT COUNCIL ARE ELECTED BY THE MAJORITY OF
RESIDENTS SO THAT THEY, WITH THE HELP OF KENT COUNTY COUNCIL CAN
MAKE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DO THE RIGHT THING ABOUT PROBLEMS LIKE
DUNGENESS. PLEASE, FOR GOODNESS SAKE, DO IT AND DO IT AS THOUGH
YOUR LIVES DEPENDED UPON IT. OUR LIVES DO.
AS FOR YOUR QUESTION, I WOULD SIMPLY ASK THIS:- "SHALL WE BUILD THE
BIGGEST NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP IN THE WORLD ON THE EDGE OF THE
BUSIEST SEAWAY IN THE WORLD, WHERE THE PREVAILING S.W. WIND WILL
BLOW ANY ACCIDENTAL SPILLAGE STRAIGHT TO LONDON?" NO. BUT DON'T
WORRY ABOUT IT BECAUSE NO MODERN POLITICIAN WILL DARE TO
AUTHORISE IT.
Please do you best for us.
I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND ANY MEETINGS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW:1) WOULD IN BE PROCESSING ONLY UK NUCLEAR WASTE OR WOULD WASTE
BE SHIPPED IN FROM OVERSEAS?
2) WHAT ARE THE TRANSPORTATION PROPOSALS, LAND;- ROAD OR RAIL,
SEA?
AT THE MOMENT - NO OBJECTIONS
WE ARE AGAINST PROPOSALS - VERY MUCH SO.
PLS RESPOND VIA POST
EMAIL IN OUR AREA IS A JOKE! NO SIGNAL!!
Exploring this project would only increase the area's dependency on the nuclear
sector. You have already identified this as a "significant concern". The district council
should be exploring other routes to long term job creation and boosting the exonomy
by this we do not mean "get quick rich" ideas such as this and developing Lydd
Airport but developing the assets the area already excels in such as it's natural beauty
and as an important area of natural flora and fauna, and exploring the leisure sector
more generally.
On plus side it would create more jobs which are needed in this area.
On down side it could create too much impact underground which could create
problems i.e. earthquakes!
Page 134
Appendix D
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
LYDD RESIDENTS
Nuclear facilities are short term solutions.
- we want the airport expansion
- long term employment
- re-opening of train station
- improved transport/infrastructure.
We keep being warned of the sea flooding, so why build something so dangerous in
the area, surely this is really a mistake. Also the road network is not suitable for the
amount of heavy traffic which would be coming into the area.
Totally unsuitable, would not produce the employment for the Marsh, ie under 21
should consider Folkestone cheaper already have road structure and ports. What
about obsolete coal mines, or your non used farmland. You refuse other
developments on the Marsh so why consider this.
It will keep people employed at the area? Safety first always, and it has to go
somewhere, will it make money for the area?
I have no problem with a nuclear research facility at Dungeness. I do find concidering
underground nuclear waste disposal to be completely imbecilic. Putting aside that fact
that this corner of Kent is heavily populated, and much of the areas drinking water
comes from bore holes barley a mile away. The fact that for decades the
environmental agency and before it the rivers authority have spent an ever increasing
battle with the sea, to safe guard Dungeness power stations from being flooded.
Since they ceased dumping shingle the rate of coastal erosion means flooding at
some stage is a certainty
Born in Lydd 1940. I now worry about its future as since we cam Shepway Lydd is a
dying concern. So for God's sake give my future family something.
The railink would obviosuly have to be upgraded considerably to be able to deal with
more frequent traffic, at what cost? And to whom? Also what impact would any
upgrades have to the Marsh?? Also there is the problem of frequent nuclear trains
crossing the A259 at Brookland. A good idea in principle, these would be the main
questions I would ask.
Worried about house prices + heavy goods veichles using the roads. However agree
that the area needs investment of some kind.
Worried about house prices + heavy goods veichles using the roads. However agree
that the area needs investment of some kind.
No, No, No to the disposal facility. What we need is a new power station at
Dungeness.
Is Romney Marsh a dumping ground? For the world. We should have a new power
station, does this give home owner's here or is just a Council (we are doing things
right?) Ploy. It seems that the Council do as it wishes on everybody.
Having seen the public exhibition this has not changed my view. To have such a
disposal facility here would be disastrous for the area. This shingle bank is unique
and no further development should be built to spoil this lovely corner of our wonderful
country. i understand Scotland are anxious to build this facility so i cannot
understandwhy Romney MArsh is being suggested.
Can't email as broadband is so bad, can't receive emails satisfactorily. Very against
proposals to make a nuclear research & disposal facility on Romney Marsh.
You must be out of your minds to consider it al all. We are not a dumping ground.
We are special.
There may be a positive impact on employment but a definite negative impact on the
local area in numerous ways - many of which would no doubt be ignored in the
decision making.
Page 135
Appendix D
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
LYDD RESIDENTS
How do you dig a hole in a marsh and kep the water out? Where does the spoil go?
We've lived with nuclear power for 50 years with no real problems. It would bring jobs
to the area and may just protect our coastline for the future. A good move all round!
Fewer objections to the proposal here than is many other areas.
For the good of the area and all the people employed at the nuclear facilities who face
unemployment, strenuous efforts should be made to progress the application.
Anything that would being employment to the area has to be a good thing, also if it did
come to fruition, it may improve transport links.
Development is badly needed in the area due to lack of employment.
While we are in favour of the idea in principle, it would be helpful to know the precise
area that is regarded as 'Romney Marsh' - are there clearly defined boundaries to the
area?
Romney Marsh is unique, and we are totally opposed to its destruction for a nuclear
disposal facility.
Yes would like to know more and would probably support.
A dumping ground, I don't think so.
Have you forgotten earthquake risk & flood risk.
Have you forgotten earthquake risk & flood risk.
This idea is preposterous, we do not want to be a dumping ground for toxic sludge
that no one else wanst. There are plenty of uninhabited Scottish islands that would
be better suited for toxic waste. Romney Marsh does not need this, lets focus our
efforts on Lydd Airport for jobs. The guy who owns the airport has got millions of
pounds he is willing to invest in the MArsh, lets take the opportunity now for gods
sake!!!
We should build Dungeness 'C'. The facility all ready provides work for many. A lot of
people are in favour of this & it provides a lot of power into the National Grid. A
disposal & research site, no matter where it is put, will absolutely ruin a vast area of
this beautiful part of Kent which is quite unique to our country. Apart from the above
comments work would not be provided until 2040. Many years from now & is not the
point to provide employment now, not some vague date in the future?
Anyone in their right mind would not want this disposal facility. Regardless of what
the public think, Shepway will act as they decide, just as they did with the Airport!!
This is a terrible idea. Surely nuclear waste should not be buried under people's
homes. House values would decrease. This would pose a health risk.
It would be an environmental disaster for the area. I do not think it would create the
number of jobs for local people. Others already experienced would be drafted in.
Marsh = SSSI area is a site of special scientific interest. Why ruin it???
For the sake of future generations and us.
I do think this facility would provide Romney Marsh with jobs. It will help keep current
jobs in retail, restaurants, airport etc. I do think this is a good idea how to keep the
Romney Marsh growing.
An absolutely ludicrous idea in an area subject to flooding - a typical Shepway District
Council Idea.
I think the Council has a duty to ensure the local Community has employment locally.
We have the infastructure to have a nuclear disposal facility on Romney Marsh and I
feel it would be safer them running the dirty waste up north.
Page 136
Appendix D
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
LYDD RESIDENTS
1) A referendum by Shepway Council about nuclear waste dump. HA HA, what about
the referendum on Lydd Airport which was totally ignored by Shepway Council. 2)
Shepway Council only want to foist dirty projects on Romney Marsh such as lydd
airport with jets and the nuclear wste dump which could easily be sited under The
Leas or Radnor Park Gardens or The Rotunda. 3) I would not trust Shepway Council
with my Granny! 4) what a bunch of Hypocrites! 5) The sooner Romney Marsh can
get away from Shepway Council clutches the better off Marsh residents will be. 6) So
much for Mr Cameron's big society, when you totally ignored the referendum on Lydd
Airport.
1) A referendum by Shepway Council about nuclear waste dump. HA HA, what about
the referendum on Lydd Airport which was totally ignored by Shepway Council. 2)
Shepway Council only want to foist dirty projects on Romney Marsh such as lydd
airport with jets and the nuclear wste dump which could easily be sited under The
Leas or Radnor Park Gardens or The Rotunda. 3) I would not trust Shepway Council
with my Granny! 4) what a bunch of Hypocrites! 5) The sooner Romney Marsh can
get away from Shepway Council clutches the better off Marsh residents will be. 6) So
much for Mr Cameron's big society, when you totally ignored the referendum on Lydd
Airport.
I believe we should invest in any options that will provide local jobs for local residents.
We do not believe that Dungeness would be a suitable Location for a nuclear waste
facility. Our water supply comes from there and we are not comfortable with the
protential for contamination. This would also prevent any future development in the
area (Such as a new station) while not significently increasing employment for the
area.
We are totally against any further nuclear activity in our area and will strongly object to
any such proposal
We are totally against any further nuclear activity in our area and will strongly object to
any such proposal
No we should not find out more, There is no good reason to find out about any project
such destruction to both environment and population. An untenable idea which would
only bear to line pockets to the total destuction of the Marsh. This has no benefits to
the locals.
Instead of using marsh as a disposal facility, might as well build another nuclear
power plant instead.
Build waste facility on airport grounds as this is more needed than airport.
The marsh is nota suitable burial ground fro nuclear waste - It is what it says it is - A
MARSH - and who knows how solid the ground is under it to cope with such an
excavation? No Nuclear Waste Plant on the Marsh
Page 137
Appendix D
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
LYDD RESIDENTS
We oppose the proposal for the following reasons, The nucleqar wste storage would
be deep below the adjacent sea-bed. Can we ensure that the sea is not
contaminatedby nuclear waste? The nuclear waste storage facility would be deep
below the shallow shingle aqifer at dungeness and could depending on final depth of
the installation be below the deep crack aquifer. both of these aquifers provide much
of the drinking water provided by these aquifers would not be contaminated? If this
nuclear waste facility is installed it would attact nuclear waste from all over the world
thus increasing contamination risk divine transportation. baering in mind that nuclear
waste remains radio active for thousands of years once the storage facility has been
filled with waste and sealed in it is likely that future generations of the human race
would be aware of this terrible hazard lurking below the ground and sea bed. We are
sceptical about the volume of employment the project would provide to local people
the constuction work would require a specialized labour force not many locals as we
already have numerous nuclear establishments at Harwell and Alderasaston etc is it
likely that would need reasearch centres and that goverments would fund them.
We oppose the proposal for the following reasons, The nuclear waste storage would
be deep below the adjacent sea-bed. Can we ensure that the sea is not
contaminatedby nuclear waste? The nuclear waste storage facility would be deep
below the shallow shingle aqifer at dungeness and could depending on final depth of
the installation be below the deep crack aquifer. Both of these aquifers provide much
of the drinking water provided by these aquifers would not be contaminated? If this
nuclear waste facility is installed it would attact nuclear waste from all over the world
thus increasing contamination risk divine transportation. bearing in mind that nuclear
waste remains radio active for thousands of years once the storage facility has been
filled with waste and sealed in it is likely that future generations of the human race
would be aware of this terrible hazard lurking below the ground and sea bed. We are
sceptical about the volume of employment the project would provide to local people
the constuction work would require a specialized labour force not many locals as we
already have numerous nuclear establishments at Harwell and Alderasaston etc is it
likely that would need reasearch centres and that goverments would fund them.
Not suitable ground.
The water table at Dungeness and the local area is very high. A number of people
have wells in their garden s. Seepage and the difficulty of stabilising tunnels on the
largest in road of stones in Europe.
This proposal will blight the whole region for generations to come. There is no
guarentee that any future government will adhere to any financial promises. A nuclear
dump beside the worlds busiest shipping lane, the decent population area, in the
region subject to earth tremours is an absolute nonsence - Dungeness c supported.
This proposal will blight the whole region for generations to come. There is no
guarentee that any future government will adhere to any financial promises. A nuclear
dump beside the worlds busiest shipping lane, the decent population area, in the
region subject to earth tremours is an absolute nonsence - Dungeness c supported.
This is a totally unexceptable proposal. It seems EDF (A french company) want to use
us as a dumping ground for waste made by not only us but other countries. Puttingit
under the sea ( a global disaster in the making) is foolhardy. In addition if a nuclear
power station is at risk of flooding how will they stop. Water going down into the
tunnels and creating a disaster for everyone, A new power plant would have been
ideal. However a massive No!! to this ridiculious idea. Hope the idiot who is wasting
time with our council tax money on this project is sacked.
Page 138
Appendix D
901
902
903
LYDD RESIDENTS
Romany Marsh is already under threat of the area being irretrievably damaged by the
proposed expansion of Lydd Airport and this is ill thought out Proposal would be yet a
further nail in the coffin. Why do you think that people on Romney marsh would want
the area compleately destroyed? Its uniqueness and protected habitats should be
treated with utmost respect - As should its residents - which this hair-brained
irresponsible proposal does not do. Why isnt there a form for every resident's opinon .
Not just one household ?
This is the ultimate insult, Why suppose that Romney Marsh should become a nuclear
waste dump - why not Hythe and Saltwood ? Why don’t the tories at SDC put more
pressure on the Torys government to support the building of Dungeness C?
This has to be the most silly idea that any council could have come up with.
In the first case there is clearly no safe answer to nuclear waste and no financial gain
should be considered against the cost to life. In the 50s we were promised cheep
clean safe electricity. It has been none of that and the legacy of that mistake will be
with the human race for hundreds of years to come. Let us not be dragged into
something under the impression that there is financial gain, whether for the minority or
the majority. The safe disposal of nuclear waste is something that should have been
considered soon after nuclear power was started and when no safe dispersal was
found, nuclear waste should not have been implemented into the main source of
providing power, especially as it has never provided it hyped benefits. Fast breeder
reactors should never have been built and the excuse for nuclear weapons is now
something the whole human race has to live with.
Why has Shepway decided to interest in this proposal now, why did they not show
interest in this years ago when it was first started. Is it because those area the
government hoped to place it are not as interested as the government/local
councillors’ hoped?
Should not Shepway have some idea as to the geology of the south coast? If
councillors had to pay for this would they have spent £40,000 much needed cash on
this? Who decided to put this idea forward?
1: the geology of the channel : earthquakes
If waste storage is to be considered it should not be with in several hundred miles of
ant tectonic activity, as Japan has shown us, man is no match for nature’s power
Three mile island was human era, but how can that be removed as you want it to
provide jobs. The two are not compatible
Chernobyl, total disaster that effects so many and cost so many lives
Where as the wind farm graceful does not leave masses of deadly wast. How about
using the power of the sea that BNFL spend so much time fighting with or developing
the airport and making the southeast of England a centre for aviation maintenance
and lets say, Manston large planes, Lydd small to medium planes
And developing Kent as a centre of excellence, maybe Shepway and KCC could
encourage investment in engineering that is to create jobs
2: all transported waste would need to come via Ashford how does the rest of Kent
feed. In-fact, how would the rest of the country feel about the amount of nucleat
waste being transported around the country, first to Sellafield to be ‘cleaned’ and then
on to Dungeness coast to be, basically ‘buried at sea’. With the Dungeness waste
making a two way journey - up to Sellafield and then back ‘home’. Or is a cleaning
facility also going to be included in the underground waste dump?
3: newts: why is it newts and unick plants, wildlife and habitats are used when
something like airports and wind farms are being proposed, to try to get people to
‘hate’ those ideas, but a waste dump underground is ok?
Page 139
Appendix D
LYDD RESIDENTS
Dungeness power stations spend hundreds of man hours (and money) to constantly
put the shingle back after the waves have moved it. If it had not been for the power
stations being built her, the coast line would have changed considerably along the
coast towards Hastings.
4: holding back lives whilst it takes years to decide not to go ahead (airport) and other
businesses, helps to stop tourism, yet a nuclear waste dump site is suppose to
increase peoples desire to want to live on the marsh and encourage tourism
You state that £46.5m a year is put into the local economy from the power stations
and they employ around 1000 staff. As not all power station workers live on the
marsh, is the local economy: Shepway? Kent? or the whole country? so if they put
£46.5m into the local economy, they must pay their staff way above local pay scale,
and for a safe work environment, they appear to pay their staff very well (danger
money?)
Whenever officialdom wants to make something sound good for the area, they always
put a monetary value on it, but rarely provide the breakdown of how that money
benefit’s the area, hoping people only concentrate on the £££’s.
How is this money brought into the local economy - as you state it is, therefore you
should have all the relevant data, and how is it spent in the local area?
Surely when Dungeness A, then B, was built, there must have been surveys done?
Did they only deal with the ground level suitability or did they actually do a proper
survey to see how the underground standing for the buildings would be suitable?
Will not the tunnel be dug by professional tunnel builders? Therefore, will they not be
outside (the area) contractors? How many staff will need to be employed when the
underground station starts - as Sweden already has one the answer should be within
your grasp.
As the amount of underground area needed to accommodate the nuclear waste
already in existence and the waste that is still being produced will take miles of
‘tunnelling, should this subject not be a national one as no doubt once started
(wherever it may be placed) the tunnels will just be extended without the ‘above’
populous even knowing that they are now sitting on the new tunnels
5: who will pay long term? As British Nuclear Fuel has been sold off/disbanded, who
will be responsible for the financial costs of building and running the project. how long
will they be responsible before they are allowed, like BNF, to take the profits and
‘pass the buck’ to private ‘investors’
Also as the government is stating that the Romney Marsh is at flood level and is likely
to flood if the sea rises by 1 metre, then how can Shepway councillors even be
considering the possibility of an underground nuclear waste site, as the amount of
above ground buildings for sea defences would need to be on the scale of very large
‘Martello Tower’ structures in order to counteract any sea rises and waves produced
by high tide and strong winds and would put to shame all the protests about ‘unsightly’
aspects of any wind farm!
What will be happening to the soil waste that will be being produced from the
underground facility? When the Channel Tunnel was built, it made Samphire Hoe.
As the underground waste facility would be being continually dug all the time there is
nuclear waste, that will mean a constant stream of soil and rock being transported
away (?) by road or sea, or was the idea to narrow the Channel along the Dungeness
power station point be just dumping it into the sea.
As my property is, according to OS maps, 5 metres above sea level, how can I flood
while Dungeness Power facility, which is about 3 miles away, not flood as government
Flood information states, especially as I look down on Dungeness point. If the waste
facility was built on the marsh how would the worker get to the site if the marsh floods
Page 140
Appendix D
LYDD RESIDENTS
904
- by boat?
What about ventilation?
What about using the heat waste from nuclear fuel to provide power/heating for local
schools/business to use, as Sweden already provides this in it’s site, but the
representatives’ who were available on your open days had no idea about this simple
fact and said it could always be implemented at a later date if viable. Surely this
should be one of the first steps taken especially as there is already a ‘blueprint’ in
operation in Sweden. Why was no one who had worked on or was working in the
Swedish site not available on these days - is it that the waste dump would be started
from scratch in Britain and no input from the builder of the Swedish site, or is it that as
it is still in it’s infancy no-one really knows how this is going to work?
Jobs: how many jobs are going to be produced by this waste dump. Short term and
long term.
Short term: building the above ground buildings, ports (to load/unload waste by boats)
and highway/railway infrastructure.
Kent roads are already in bad repair, and it only takes the wrong rain/snow/leaves on
the railways to disrupt services, so how will hundreds of tonnes of nuclear waste and
soil waste being transported benefit other road or rail users?
Underground tunnelling: professional tunnel builders? Or anybody who fancies ago?
Will there be apprenticeships for budding locals who wish to learn the skills needed?
As the tunnelling would be on going.
Long term: above and underground job opportunities.
Would the jobs be given to those already in the nuclear work place, or would they be
open (and given) to anybody whom applied? After all maintaining millions of miles of
pipe work should be applicable to all.
Medical and hazard job opportunities’?
Metal works. Where would all the metal piping be coming from. Would it be from a
steel works within Great Britain or would the pipe works be being brought in from
abroad. Thereby providing work for other countries but not Britain.
Where would the building materials be being sourced from?
As there is already a ‘waste dump’ in operation these should not be too hard to
answer!
Closing point: if Shepway wishes to continue along these lines is it prepared to but up
the homes and businesses of those who do not wish to live neat/on top of such a site,
and cover the coats of relocating so that people could move away without financial
lost.
And should something as potentially dangerous as a nuclear waste dump ever be
sealed, as your information states, who would look after it or monitor it. Would there
be workers accessing the underground dump site or would it all be done by remote
monitoring? What would happen if there was an accident within the site. After all,
there has been some major tunnelling disasters’ in recent years and they did not have
to contend with any nuclear waste within the tunnels.
Our supposition the following - Marsh wrong region prone to natural seismic at
substratum level possibly leading to contamination - ground level water sources and
sea life etc. Jobs health care and security an overrated fallacy > doomsdsay for the
future generations.
Page 141
Appendix D
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
LYDD RESIDENTS
I am absolutely and totally against the idea of any nuclear dumping site on The
Romney Marsh. How can anyonme even contemplate burying toxic waste under an
area of natural beauty and farmland? It is frighting to consider farming land that may
even remotely - become nuclear reactive surely the water table is to high anyway. As
for jobs now My family have lived on Romney Marsh for hundreds of years and it
would be really upsetting seeing it being used in this way.
My husband and I would like to see another nuclear power station but not a disposal
facility in the area.
I say no because the council should put all its time and effort and money intoi
supporting the effort to have Dungeness C built.
The plan to put this nuclear waste facility in an area of such environmental
uniqueness and importance in quite insane. To leave such a deadly legacy to future
generations to live with and clear up is not within the gift of a local authority of any
kind. We do not have any evidence of any research being carried out by Shepway
District Council prior to this letter landing on everyone’s mat. Therefore this appears
to be a ‘made on the hoof’ decision. To pursue this totally inappropriate scheme for
this internationally important area appears to be based purely on the promise of large
amounts of money for the depleted coffers of SDC. The plan is totally inappropriate,
dangerous, porely researched (none existent) for its suitability for the Romney Marsh
and should be stopped immediately. Furthermore to try and sell this nuclear waste
facility with the promise of much needed jobs is underhand and morally deceitful, if
not downright dishonest because not enough information about the long term dangers
and downsides have not been conveyed to anyone.
SDC have promoted and encouraged attractive headlines such as ‘1,000 jobs for
Romney Marsh’ without clarification that this is only during the construction period.
People will only find out when its too late that the area and the wider county of Kent,
will be irrevocably blighted for a generation before the facility is even built. Nobody
will be able to sell their houses because nobody in their right minds will choose to live
next door to this ticking time bomb. Stop this madness now.
This is disgusting putting this facility anywhere on the Romney Marsh, an exceptional
area of the Britsh Isles, would be an disgraceful act by Shepway. I can only think
Shepway is thinking of money.
The council is to be commented for being open minded enough to consider this issue
and to seek views, while I doubt whether that such a facility is ultimately likely to be
found feasible for Romney Marsh further consideration in a measured and balanced
way would seem justified.
Romney Marsh has been involved in the nuclear industry for approx 50 yrs. It has
also been recognised as an area of outstanding natural beauty and although the two
have been living together quite comfortably I think this is now time for change. To cut
loose from this nuclear heritage and try to have the confidence to go down another
avenue. Many tourists visit this area throughout the year not only just in the summer
months but there are only a limited amount of options open to them as to where to
stay and enjoy what we have to offer. Why not invest in tourism instead? I do think
that if this was given the go ahead it would only benefit the existing workforce involved
in the nuclear industry and the options of others on the Marsh (and although the
package you are selling looks very enticing and is ticking all of the boxes of many
people on the Marsh but most importantly in Lydd!)would be significantly irrelevant.
Therefore as I am sure you have gathered myself and my husband quite strongly
object to this. Thank You
I believe a wise man checks out his options before deciding.
Page 142
Appendix D
913
914
915
916
917
LYDD RESIDENTS
Having worked at Dungeness Power Stations for 35 years, I have no problem with
another Nuclear facility on the Marsh.
Supporting this proposal will cost a lot of money and time, and it will be a long time
before any employment opportunities are created. In the meantime, Romney Marsh
will continue to appear in the media as a potential site for a nuclear waste dump, with
a local council in support. Whatever the arguments about nuclear waste safety,
people thinking of nuclear waste every time they think of Romney Marsh seems likely
to damage our existing tourist industry, and may put off other incoming businesses.
£40,000 has been put aside for the campaign: we have much better places we could
be spending money, like improving transport links and creating more leisure
opportunities locally, areas where the council could make an immediate and positive
impact.
I am sad and angry that Shepway Council has posed the question about nuclear
waste storage. Our councillors have again demonstrated that they are not qualified to
execute their duty of care to the community (in all senses of the word – social,
economic, environment, security, current and future etc.).
The paperwork states that the Council does not have a formal view but its informal
position is clear. Councillor Godfrey’s letter refers to the invitation as a “significant
opportunity”. The supporting material identifies a range of benefits but there is no
reference to the disadvantages. Note is made of the interest of West Cumbria but fails
to explain that this authority already has a big problem with the storage of nuclear
waste.
In short, the Council’s proposal (for that is what it is), is like a mother asking her misinformed children for their views on the storage of petrol in their bedroom, with the hint
that sweets and extra pocket money might result from their support.
In due course it will be interesting to see just how many local authorities have spent a
large amount of their tax payers’ money on this so called democratic process.
I am in favour of appropriate economic development and for “out of the box” thinking
about how this might be achieved but I do not want our wonderful back yard to be
blighted forever as the country’s most toxic dustbin.
My only concern is whether the sub strata of Romney Marsh is sufficient for this
purpose and have noted that this would not be known until an extensive survey could
be carried out.
However, in an area where there is high unemploment, the two nuclear power stations
being decomisioned by 2025, I am in favour of the Marsh being considered as the
dispersal site.
In fact I think it is a pity that we will have to wait something like 15 years before in
depth explorations of the rock strata would commence, as this would leave a
considerable gap between the closure of the nuclear plants and the new facility, if the
marsh was to be deemed suitable for this facility, particularly if there is no chance of
Dungeness C being built.
The policy of Shepway DC appears to be to create new jobs at all costs, regardless of
the consequences to existing residents, many of whom retired to the Marsh for peace
and quiet in a pleasant rural environment.
We now have a large Windfarm and no doubt more to come, may well have a major
expansion of Lydd Airport with the large increase in noise and vehicular traffic that
would accompany it and Dungeness C back on the Agenda.
Your letter of 14th May appears to be seeking to sell the idea to the community rather
than obtain the views of residents. The Council should be resisting such development.
Page 143
Appendix D
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
LYDD RESIDENTS
I think the Airport would be a better option to create a long term future on the Marsh
and bring much needed boost to the local economy with people spending money in
the local area
(1)The proposed development would destroy the much valued character of the
Romney Marsh. The large site, the excavation of materials, the necessary new road
and rail developments would urbanise an essentially rural area.
(2) Romney Marsh is a valued asset which Shepway Council should protect for the
enjoyment of all, and future generations.
(3)Such a proposal is incompatible with the importance of Romney Marsh as a valued
wildlife and plant habitat and its cultural and historical heritage.
(4) The proposal would destroy Romney Marsh as an attraction for visitors and
tourists, thus depriving it of a major source of economic activity and prevent the
development of sustainable tourism in the future.
(4)It would make the Marsh unattractive to the sort of small-scale business and
employment which Shepway Council should be encouraging-not wasting money on
an exercise like this.
(1)The proposed development would destroy the much valued character of the
and rail developments would urbanise an essentially rural area.
wildlife and plant habitat and its cultural and historical heritage.
employment which Shepway Council should be encouraging-not wasting money on
an exercise like this.
Since when did the Garden of England become a rubbish dump
We should spend the billions of pounds for crazy schemes like this on renewable
energy ie: solar & wave. Besides the nuclear energy is going to make the French rich
not us.
not for me or romney marsh thanks
this is an insane proposal for the Arden of England to even contemplate
This is not something that we think will be good for the local economy. Any necessity
to continually transport waste comes with significant risks associated. The area can
benefit from tourism, local investment is what is required in partnership.
THE PEOPLE ON THE MARSH NEED A THIRD POWER STATION NOT A
NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPING GROUND.
Brilliant idea, we need nuclear and we need the facilities to dispose of it. Lets do it.
Page 144
Appendix D
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
LYDD RESIDENTS
I moved with my husband to Lydd on Sea because of the natural surroundings of the
area. The Marsh is known for being low in Light Emissions together with Noise
Emission we also have the lowest crime rate. I feel that to allow a Nuclear Research
Centre in Romney Marsh would greatly harm the house prices and credibility of this
area together with the surrouding areas. I feel that across kent and through London
would be at risk through the transport of the waste. Your paper states that Jobs and
the economy would benefit from the Site I do not believe this. The paper states it has
sought to identify other ways of providing skilled employment, why are we depending
on something that is being decommission why not look into newer areas.It seems to
me the Government feel that this area is not worthwhile of something more than a
dumping ground. Believe me it is.
What are Shepway councilors thinking?
Do you actually live here? Why would we want the nation's nuclear waste dumped on
the beautiful Romney Marsh..? We are already under threat from flooding with most of
the area at or below sea level.. NO! NO! NO! to a nuclear dump!! Why not ask the
people of Shepway what they would like to see happen here, instead of coming up
with these ludicrous ideas and wasting our precious council taxes.
I feel that the proposal for Romney Marsh to become a Nuclear Research and
Disposal Facility is ludicrous. I chose to live in Lydd on Sea knowing that the already
Nuclear Power Station would be de-commissioned. Although Dungeness is well
known for the Power Station I do not feel as threatened by the Power Station as this is
above ground and does not have the same risks as an underground storage for
nuclear waste ie. the natural water line there is also the animals to consider i.e.
rabbits badgers foxes geese and other various birds . I chose to live in Lydd on Sea
for the following reasons:- It is an area for being quiet, calm,but at times harsh and
desolate which adds to the natural environment and habitat it is known as a cinique
port many fisherman from across the country come to Dungeness for the fishing in
particular the bass I know of people coming from London for the weekend just to
escape the hassle and bussle of city life for the above reasons which has been
unchanged for numbers of years. I feel to allow a Nuclear Research and Disposal
Facility would disrupt not only Romney Marsh but towns and cities across the country
wherein train lines would have to be looked at across the country and putting extra
strain on our already pot holed roads. I also feel that with regard to Employment that
the Local people would not benefit as I do know that people from as far as Leeds rent
premises to work at the Dungeness Station.
Shepway Council seems to have no idea of the Treasure it is sitting on: an area of
outstanding natural beauty, one of the very few oases in the increasingly concreted
over South East. Why don't they explore the employment possibilities inherent in that
instead of trying to destroy it?
We where told they are shuting the power station down one reason flooding,but how
strange that it will be ok to put a NUCLEAR dumpping station, i think im lossing the
plot.ALL IM SAYING IS NO NO NO WE DONT WANT IT
The Marsh needs this to secure future employment for our youth, help families stay
together.
Storage of Nuclear Waste underground in a Water Catchment Area, No, I don't think
so. The consequences as a result of a major disaster don't bear thinking
about,.."Radio Active Drinking Water " !!!!!!............Years ago a Geographical fault was
found in Dungeness, making Dung C Power Station s then location to be rethought....has it gone now ? ...
Page 145
Appendix D
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
LYDD RESIDENTS
Utterly against it! Whoever came up with this plan needs shooting. So bloody angry
that SDC tried to keep this quiet. Well done whoever leaked it to Tweeter so that SDC
had to come clean.
Chernobyl 2 comes to mind!
No consideration has been given to the people on Romney Marsh at all which is
typical of SDC right now.
LYDD BUSINESSES
I am totally against the idea of being a nuclear dumping ground. The Marsh is a
special place, with too much to offer to even be considered for such destruction. The
unique infrastructure of the area would make it a difficult place to dig, being full of
shingle and water pockets, not to mention the fault line runnning beneath the "now"
power station. We want a future for the next generation - NOT DOOM!!!
DED Ltd - Believes ithis would be good for the area.
I would like to know whose idea this was and who is to pay for this poll. Also what
criteria for judging the outcome? We need a more positive future than this. (Stop
building houses on industrial land).
I think this would be very good for the area and hopefully create much needed
employment for the area.
I think it is a very good idea as this brings investment to the community. With the
close proximately of the nuclear powestations the enviroment impact of travveling will
be limited.
Global warming will flood the whole area!
Would rather see Lydd airport get their expansion
The jobs created would be taken by skilled operators and not by local people.
Romney Marsh and particularly Dungeness would lose its hard won status as a
tourist and holiday area. Many businesses shops and small attractions would close
leaving thousands of low skilled shop staff unemployed and unemployable. As the
owner of the Old Lighthouse Dungeness I would be forced to close due to lack of
revenue and then demolish the building as I am bound by covenant to Trinity House
to do. Should this take place I shall look to Shepway for compensation.
NEWCHURCH RESIDENTS
We don't think this is a good idea, we think it is putting more and more people at risk
to unknown side effects of nuclear waste.
We don't think this is a good idea, we think it is putting more and more people at risk
to unknown side effects of nuclear waste.
The marsh needs employment. We already have a nuclear presence, we have the rail
link. Ideal solution.
No!! Homes and lives will be blighted!!
I am very strongly against this.
No No No. Haven't we got enough already, ruining our countryside!! Windmills, fast
train tracks, tunnel, new housing estates.
The Romney Marsh should be a National park not a nuclear dumping ground.
Tourism = £££
Do not want this on the Marsh.
Page 146
Appendix D
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
NEWCHURCH RESIDENTS
I think our size, our landscape and our travel links would make the proposal
impractical and work against the nature of the Marsh.
I think our size, our landscape and our travel links would make the proposal
impractical and work against the nature of the Marsh.
NUCLEAR DUMP NO THANKS
If we cannot have a power station, we do not become a dumping ground for other
power stations. When you dig on the Romney Marsh you are using some of the most
fertile land in the United Kingdom. Please think of food supplies for the future.
Romney Marsh is a unique and beautiful place. Something like this proposal is
outrageous. It is a complete waste of money. The upheaval and desecration of
landscape would not be worth the few jobs provided. The transport of dangerous
radioactive waste from all over the country onto Romney Marsh? No unthinkable!
This is definetly a none goer, so why is SDC wasting our money on this stupid survey.
I would not like the disposal facility on the Romney Marsh.
We are led to believe the sea will reclaim the marsh due to global warming. A friend
of ours has a caravan park and they have to put life belts around the park. A lot of
insurance companies will not insure a house if its near a dyke, sewer (so I'm led to
believe). Thats just for starters or will it be built up stupidly high like the ridiculous
estate at Hythe is apparently going to be.
We need to know what this means to the people of the Romney Marsh and our
childrens health! What will happen to the waste, how will it be transported and other
information that we should be aware of. The government are too quick to say it
means jobs but nobody puts their necks on the line when we talk about the health of
the people and any implications!
I AM MUCH AGAINST THE WHOLE IDEA NO.NO.NO IT COULD LEAD TO A
DISASTER
A very well written communication well done!!
This is such a huge debate, much more time is needed to make a informed decision.
The proposed surface area of the facility appears to be larger than the area occupied
by the current nuclear site. There is insufficient space on the Marsh for such a large
industrial site. So the proposal falls even before we find out whether the geology is is
suitable.
No futher queries now - as a matter of principle I believe investigation for a potential
should go ahead.
I have no 'anti' feelings against nuclear power, in fact I am in favour. I cannot however
all why a Dungeness 'C' has been rejected, yet we are expected to house a disposal
facility.
Go for it - don’t let KCC bully you! The Marsh needs this facility!
Definitely against any such proposal. The bribe of maybe reinforcing the sea wall is a
very cheap thing to do. The sea wall should be done irrespective of this suggested
proposal. We do not want more heavy lorries on the Marsh. A terrible suggestion from
any aspect let alone the horrific idea of the waste being under our soil. There is
absolutely no justification for this. Some businesses and workers will make a lot of
money at the expense of people who are living here
We are against.
We are against.
If we can't have a power station we certainly do not want their watse. Its to risky.
Page 147
Appendix D
972
973
974
975
976
977
NEWCHURCH RESIDENTS
Storing nuclear waste is inherently dangerous and could have a devastating
consequences to not only Romney Marsh but the whole of south east Enlgand. There
will be few jobs for specialists and some clerical staff but not hundreds you claim, the
majority will be for security gaurds. Most of the skilled staff required will have to be
sourced from outside Kent, This is not local jobs for local people. The Dungeness A
and B station sites will be contaminated ground for millennia to come, why add to this
contamination. Fukushima in Japan shows Murphy's law still applies - what can go
wrong will go wrong!
1. It's very difficult to get our house insured just because we live on a low lying area
with the possibility of tidal flooding. Surley this proposal would make it impossible?
2. In the winter months the water table here is literally inches from the surface. We
live on a sandbank that shifts all the time.
3. Recent earth tremors in the channel.
As with Dungeness nuclear power station most of the jobs go to people from all over
the country. Not Romney Marsh, as can be seen by all the workers that use bed and
breakfast in the area. Apart from this I strongly object to the Romney Marsh
becoming a nuclear waste dumping ground.
Threat from potential flooding due to rising sea levels, due to Romney Marsh being
below sea level.
No
I have carefully considered the issues surrounding Shepway DC’s proposed
expression of interest into siting a nuclear waste disposal facility on the Romney
Marsh, and conclude that there is no justification for pursuing it.
Contrary to the headline on the Council’s leaflet entitled “Have Your Say” the Romney
Marsh has no nuclear heritage. Dungeness has 2 nuclear power stations (which
hardly make a nuclear heritage), and the implication of the leaflet was that the waste
disposal facility could replace the proposed Dungeness 3 nuclear power station and
be sited in the part of the Dungeness nuclear site on which the station could have
been built. However, this is not possible as the area required by the facility’s surface
works is greater (1km sq.) than the area of the whole Dungeness nuclear site.
Accordingly the facility would have to be sited elsewhere on the Marsh.
Nowhere else on the Marsh is remotely suited on environmental grounds to a 1 km
sq. industrial site. Moreover, unless the waste disposal facility was sited next to the
existing rail facility additional transport facilities would be needed to take the waste to
the facility. Local roads are wholly unsuited to the vehicles required to move the
wastes by road while the construction of a new railway would also cause significant
environmental damage - the further from the current rail facility the greater the
damage in either case.
The implied employment benefits have also been overstated. Dungeness A’s
employment levels will drop between now and 2018 and then stabilise, while
Dungeness B’s employment will decline from 2018 to 2023 depending u[on when it
ceases generation. However, the earliest that construction work on the waste facility
could start is 2025 (end experience is that this date will slip substantially). The
periods between these dates make it unlikely that workers leaving Dungeness A and
B will benefit even from jobs created by the building of the waste disposal facility and
almost impossible that they could benefit from operational jobs which would not begin
until 2040 at the earliest.
Moreover, the types of work involved are likely to be significantly different. Although
there may be some similarity between jobs at Dungeness A and B and operational
jobs at the waste disposal facility, work on disposal facility construction is highly
Page 148
Appendix D
978
979
NEWCHURCH RESIDENTS
unlikely to replace more than a few jobs lost at the power stations. And even if the
types of work were similar, the minimum of two years between them - which would
almost certainly be much longer in practice - means that the likelihood of the facility’s
jobs replacing those at Dungeness A & B are minute at best.
I understand that three District Councils in Cumbria, the area of which include the
current Sellafield nuclear site, have already expressed an interest in having the
proposed facility. Given that most of the waste destined for the proposed facility is
already stored at that site it is much more sensible on environmental and transport
grounds for the facility to be sited there. Sellafield is already a large industrial site yet
also has a large area of unused land well suited to be the site of the 1 km sq. surface
facilities. Shipway DC should support these councils’ efforts thereby minimising the
nugatory expenditure it will otherwise incur by pursuing its misconceived and illinformed proposal.
Yes but with sonme reservation bearing in mind the Romney Marsh is reclaimed land
and therefore geology must be taken into account/consideration. What safe guards
will be used to protect the people against the ingress of salt water and corrosion? For
instance subsequent to this proposal it has been announced the isle of grain has
been named as a possible storage for other hazardous waste. Material is kent likely
to become a dumping ground?
Shepway DC should NOT submit an Expression of Interest into siting a nuclear waste
disposal facility on the Romney Marsh for the following reasons. The Romney Marsh
has no nuclear heritage. Dungeness has 2 nuclear power stations (which hardly
make a nuclear heritage), and placing a picture of these stations on the council's
leaflet was no doubt to imply that the waste disposal facility could be sited where the
proposed Duneness 3 nuclear power station could be built. However, as the area
required by the facility's surface works is greater (1km sq.) than the area of the whole
Dungeness nuclear site, the facility would have to be sited elsewhere on the Marsh.
Nowhere else on the Marsh is remotely suited on landscape and environmental
grounds to a 1 km sq. industrial site. Even if such a location existed, additional
transport facilities would be needed to take the waste to the facility. Local roads are
wholly unsuited to vehicles required to move the wastes by road while the
construction of a new railway would also cause significant environmental damage the further from the current rail facility the greater the damage in either case. The
implied employment benefits have also been overstated. Dungeness A's employment
will drop between now and 2018 and then stabilise, while Dungeness B's employment
will decline from 2018 or 2023 depending upon when it ceases generation. However,
the earliest that construction work on the waste facility could start is 2025 (and
experience is that this date will slip substantially). The periods between these dates
make it unlikely that workers leaving Dungeness A and B will benefit even from jobs
created by the building of the waste disposal facility and almost impossible that they
could benefit from operational jobs which would not begin until 2040 at the earliest.
Moreover, the types of work involved are likely to be significantly different. Although
there may be some similarity between jobs at Dungeness A and B and operational
jobs at the waste disposal facility, work on the disposal facility construction is highly
unlikely to replace more than a few jobs lost at the power stations. And even if the
types of work were similar, the minimum of two years between them - which would
almost certainly be much longer in practise - means that the likelihood of the facility's
jobs replacing those at Dungeness A & B are minute at best. I understand that three
district councils in Cumbria, the areas of which include the current Sellafield nuclear
waste site, have already expressed an interest in having the proposed facility. Given
Page 149
Appendix D
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
NEWCHURCH RESIDENTS
that most of the waste destined for the propsed facilty is already stored at the site it is
much more sensible on environmental and transport grounds for the facility to be
located there. I have visited Sellafield on several times. It is already a large industrial
site yet also has much unused land well suited to be the site of the 1km sq. surface
facilities and is therefore greatly preferable to the agricultural Romney Marsh as a site
for the proposed disposal facility. Shepway DC should support these council's efforts
and stop wasting its Council Tax payers' money by pursuing its own proposal. In
doing so it will recognise that in the Romney Marsh it has an environmental and
landscape asset of far greater value that the possible proceeds from hosting a
nuclear waste disposal facility. I also understand that the Government has recently
announced that it intends to give further consideration to the construcation of
Dungeness C nuclear power station. If sited on the existing nuclesar site this would
be much better for the Romney Marsh eon employment and environmental grounds
than any waste disposal facility, and if the council has any spare resources available
for lobbying it should direct them to encouraging the Government and EdF to commit
themselves to building Dungeness C as soon as possible.
I would rather see a new power station at Dungeness rather than a waste facility.
Whilst I appreciate the need for long term sustainable employment on the Marsh I
don't believe this project warrants the risk of nuclear incident, increase in HGV traffic
and potential to spoil our wonderful environment.
NEW ROMNEY RESIDENTS
Anything that will bring work to the area can only be good so many young people can
maybe look forward to work even if it’s a long way off theres always young people you
know there is going to be a lot of opposition but you as the council must make the
best decision.
We Need Jobs
NO
The Future prospect of continued employment in the nuclear industry warrants further
investigation.
I think anything that would give employment in this area is a good thing there is
nothing else here for our younger generation.
The only reservations I would have would it affect property prices. Anything that
creates jobs is more than welcome for future generations. I worked in the nuclear
industry for 22 years and it holds no fears for me
If Dungeness is not a suitable location to build a third power station it is definitely not
a suitable location to process and store radioactive waste from around the world.
I feel we should find out more, as we will eventually loose Dungeness Power Station.
And to secure local ecomny + provide jobs we need to do all we can. We live with a
power station down the road why not have a disposal facility. It can only be a plus! for
the area.
No way no how NO no thanks
I am concerned that we do not know what effect it will have on the well being of the
thousand or more school choldren attending schools on the Romney Marsh. N.B. I
would prefer to see the expansion of "lydd Airport"
Anything that helps the local communities has to be looked into
Page 150
Appendix D
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LOW LEVEL ACTIVE WASTE OR HIGH ACTIVITY
WASTE. WE NEED EMPLOYMENT ON THE MARSH, AND PREFERENCE
SHOULD BE GIVEN TO LOCAL PEOPLE AND NOT LIKE THE POWER STATIONS
NOW THAT SEEM TO EMPLOY MANY AGENCY STAFF, MOST OF WHICH ARE
FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. LOOK AFTER THE LOCALS.
It will become a dumping ground for nuclear waste and there would be work, as it will
not need many people to run the site.
Absolutely the right thing to do for the Romney Marsh.
Too Dangerous.
The "Garden of Kent"* would become a nuclear rubbish dump. Also the roads and
railways would become more hazardous when transporting the waste. *"The Garden
of England"
Yes. We should find out more so that we can make a fully informaed decision before
making any sort of stand. I am hoping that we have real choice in the matter and are
not just being put through the motions when a choice has already been made.
I am opposed against this and will object to any planning application.
We need a business in this area to take over from the power stations when both have
been decommissioned. Why can't we have a new nuclear power station as all the
infrastructure is already in place and it also has a low carbon footprint.
Anything to inprove job prospects on the Marsh. People who complain shouldn't live
near a powerstation. Like people complain about the airport. Buy a map you can see
the powerstation and airport on that!
We are all for more investigation into this project. Romney Marsh is dieing due to all
these NIBYS. We are desperate for work in this area. This project has been in use
for a long time Selafield for example and believe its ok we are 100% in favour.
We are all for more investigation into this project. Romney Marsh is dieing due to all
these NIBYS. We are desperate for work in this area. This project has been in use
for a long time Selafield for example and believe its ok we are 100% in favour.
Hopefully the project would incorporate a much needed by-pass for New Romney.
As long as the safety to the area is top of priority and not financial reasons I think it
would be a welcome facility.
We badly need the associated employment and maybe the local package of benefits
could include the Romney High St. bypass that was cancelled by the labour
government circa 1989.
With both of the power stations being decomissioned the Marsh needs an employer.
It makes perfect sense for the marsh to explore this process in detail. Perhaps the
Leader of KCC, who is, I understand ardently against this idea and "will move heaven
and earth" to stop it should keep his nose out!
Anything that brings more jobs/employment to Romney Marsh can only be positive.
With such a facility on the Marsh the local infrastructure would have to be improved i.e
road network, emergency services etc. Would the government pay for this.
Sounds a jolly good idea!
Page 151
Appendix D
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1) Geographically is this wise? The prevailing winds are S.SW. Any leakage would
see 1/2 of Kent affected. 2) Reference is made to the loss of jobs when the power
stns close. How many of the current staff actually are locals? My experience is that
many live outside the Romney MArsh and any new facility won't change this. 3) Will
local residents be compensated for the drop in value to their properties? Why don't
SDC do something more radical. This is a wonderful piece of English coastline and
has the potential to provide many jobs (& generate income) in the leisure & tourism
industry. A bit of encouragement & investment could see major things happen here.
Use your imagination a bit!
Information is the key to good decisions!
Much more information must be establised regarding the nature of the deep layers of
rock.
What about the high water table level across the Marsh
It might be great for the economy but not for residents on the Marsh. Especially with
the risk of flooding and work for local people I don’t think so. It looks like highly skilled
work and why should it spoil the look of Dungeness, I only moved here several years
ago and I do not think I would like it and I absolutely think it should not go ahead.
This disposal facility is something that the people of Romney Marsh do not want now
or for the future. Let it stay where it has always been at Sellafield. The people of this
area deserve something better.
This would not be acceptable for the environment and we do not have the
infrastucture. There would be too much damage to the Romney Marsh for short-term
job reward.
I am a blind person living in New Romney, I can only reply to your question by using
my talking computer. My answer is a definite no to a nuclear waste put on the
Romney Marsh. As for it making jobs for the unemployed, the government made all
the unemployment in the first place buy making the overheads so expensive that
companies and shops are having to close down causing unemployment. So now you
are trying to persuade people that by having a nuclear waste site or even a great big
airport will benefit the local unemployed I think people will move to the country for a
different reason from being unemployed. Why are you spending so much doing our
lovely seaside town lovely to entice tourist. I think they won't be very interested near
a nucliar waste plant. I hope you can undestand me as I can't see what I have
written, but I just had to let you know how and why I feel as I do.
This is probably the most impractical idea the council has had for some time
I think this idea will discourage anybody moving to the Romney Marsh area. My
house is on the market for sale. If a nuclear disposal facility is installed I don't think
anybody would want to buy my house. Are we going to be compensatedfor any loss?
Think back just a couple of years ago with the earth tremours off Folkestone. We
don’t need the filfth on our door step. Dig a hole in 10 Downing Street and put it
there. So it its a no no for me. Also the Shepway Council should name their tune,
gutless. Already damaging the Marsh by growing grass year after year taking inch
after inch each year.
Idiot suggestion, like the original power stations, which have been built on a moving
peninsular also as usual a waste of money with all the public exhibitions etc.
We don’t want any interest to do with Nuclear Power.
We don’t need everyones waste here on Romney Marsh, to spoil a natural area of
countryside.
Page 152
Appendix D
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
I think Shepway District Council have done enough damage to the Romney Marsh
with many doubtful decisions taken with out turning the Marsh into a nuclear dust bin
so I am not at all in favour of this proposal.
We would not agree to this facility.
If we are not suitable for Dungeness C then why should it be OK to be a dumping
ground for others. To me it’s a bigger risk!
Although I would agree to the building of a Dungeness 'C' I do not agree that we
should be a dumping ground.
With the power stations shutting in the next 15 years, what's left on the Marsh. This
would be great news for the future generations.
A definate no to the Marsh becoming a nuclear waste dump!
Try for Dungeness C. What about the fault line off the coast & consequence of further
earthquakes?
Both my wife and I feel that such a facility of disposal of Nuclear Waste in an area
such as Romney Marsh, where theer are so many village communitoes fairly close to
each other, would be dangerous to the health of both human beings and animals.
Why should such an area be disrupted when in other parts of the country there are
areas, already with undergound tunnels etc caused by coal mines no longer in use.
Both my wife and I feel that such a facility of disposal of Nuclear Waste in an area
such as Romney Marsh, where theer are so many village communitoes fairly close to
each other, would be dangerous to the health of both human beings and animals.
Why should such an area be disrupted when in other parts of the country there are
areas, already with undergound tunnels etc caused by coal mines no longer in use.
Thers is no way we want a nuclear disposal facility on Romney Marsh, especially if it
is anywhere near the catahcment area for our valuable fresh water supply. The
contamination of this, or even the thought of the chance of this, would spread panic in
the area. The construction of such a facility would considerably lower the value of
property in the area, the Marsh would become known as a nuclear dumping ground!!
No thank you very much!!
Most defiantly against every aspect of this proposal.
No comment. Do not want it
No way!!! Green energy all the way. Don’t dump nuclear waist on the Marsh
I moved to Greatstone on the 17th August 2011. I feel I do not know enough about
the community to voice my opinion. Although if? this does go ahead the residents of
Greatstone could be completely differerent. Seeing as most people who live hear are
elderly. In 2030 I will be in my 80s myself. Is this deep disposal facilities for
radioactive waste detrimental to people's health? If not yes find out more about the
possibility.
After seeing what can happen in Japan I do not want anything nuclear near to me. I
would consider moving out of the area. I am for the airport but not this - jobs or no
jobs.
No no no no no no no no
What a stupid idea. Please explain how a site built on shingle by the sea could be
returned to farming - forestry or anything else. It is shingle and seashore.
What a stupid idea. Please explain how a site built on shingle by the sea could be
returned to farming - forestry or anything else. It is shingle and seashore.
We need to replace Dungeness power stations by building new ones as our
population increases in the future, therefore more employment (eg electicity). Romney
Marsh is not a dumping ground for nuclear waste for all of the UK and other parts of
the world.
Page 153
Appendix D
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
Romney Marsh is totally the wrong area geographically, given the land here abouts .
For instance the USA buries large amounts of nuclear waste in a vast site called
Yucca (mountain in Nevada) it is under thousands of tons of rock. Where do you
bury it? in a dyke?
No! No! No! You'll got to be joking putting a nuclear dumping facility near local
residents plus a primary school and 2 caravan parks. Would you want your little
children going to school near a nuclear dumping facility plus all our house prices
would hit rock bottom because no one would want to live here.
West Cumbria are very welcome to your plans. I am absolutely amazed (or
'gobsmacked') at what you have all been planning for under our feet. We are already
fighting plans against Lydd Airport ... in the area. Leave us alone. Why can't there be
one quiet little area in Kent left to those who want to enjoy it. Go away!!!! (Tell those
in Lydd who want jobs, on your bike, lile the rest of us who did not have jobs brounght
to our doorsteps.
This should be nipped in the bud before it gets out of hand.
No never, Romney Marsh is a special place and when Dungeness is closed
completely, it should be allowed to revert to Romney Marsh and the original
Dungeness.
No No No
I believe Shepway have had enough disruption with the Channel Tunnel - High Speed
Train Link and the cost of development A1270. And still low employment in the area.
Keep Romney Marsh as it is and develop tourism.
1. Coastal defences should be the main priorrty, building on the good work done at
Dymchurch. 2. Better transport in the early 90s there was a programme to improve
the road system from Honiton to Folkestone 2 places at East Guldeford, 2 lorries
cannot pass safely a second road from Rye to Brenzett Green should be built (2 roads
help with closures). 3. Employment at this time is very important.
I believe there should be serious interest in this venture if it means people will keep
their job or other jobs for local people will be created.
Safety must be 1st priority, as we have so been, since' A' & 'B' has exsisted. This
should prove a plus. Employment, thru training local people, also to be a priority.
Thank you for giving us a chance to advise. Hopefully the votes will give you
permission to bring more employed to area.
Please justify the job losses whilst having to rebuild enventually
1. Insufficent attention has been givien to the quality of the English used, particularly
in the introduction on the front page. 2. Could not some idea of time for which the
facility would be expected to be receiving waste have been given? 3. Some indication
of the radioactive half lives involved would have been helpful
A facility such as this is long overdue in this country. Lets have it!
The Marsh is a very nice place. Dont turn it into a dumping place.
I'm interested to see that there is already a facility in sweden can we see more about
this? What do the Swedish community feel about it ?
If it means employment and growth, then go for it.
Yes! We should really go for this Research and Disposal Facility. Before the airport at
Lydd and Dungeness power stations at A and B we had nothing! Undreamed of
prosperity came our way via the Lydd Airport and the two power stations at
Dungeness. Let us go for it & not listen to the usual doubters!
I am undecided - more information please
Page 154
Appendix D
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
We are concerned that this may be political play to divert attention from the idea of
having nuclear power station C. West Cumbria has shown interest. Survey the
geological viability of a Nuculear Disposal Facility will be far better there than on the
shifting shingle and marshland of Romney. This may well turn out to be very
expensive exercise with no favourable outcome.
We are concerned that this may be political play to divert attention from the idea of
having nuclear power station C. West Cumbria has shown interest. Survey the
geological viability of a Nuculear Disposal Facility will be far better there than on the
shifting shingle and marshland of Romney. This may well turn out to be very
expensive exercise with no favourable outcome.
Most unlikely I will be around when (if any) final decision made, so the 'Marsh Future'
is to others, they must make its decisions!
BUT. THERE SHOULD DEFINITELY BE A DUNGENESS C STATION ON THIS
SITE.
NO NOT ON THE MARSH. THIS IS NOT FOR ARE DISTRICT, LOOK TO THE
NORTHING. NOT THE SOUTH. MARSH IS NOT A DUMP
The idea fill's me with horror. I'm shocked that any such proposal would even be
considered!!!
EXCESSIVE RISK FACTOR TO HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
Would not be able to sell our house. We need another power station.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to express our views. I would prefer that the
Government build a new Power Station at Dungeness.
Our drinking water comes from underground - Would only take a leak from the
radioactive matter. NO thank you
O.K LETS RUIN MARSH FOR EVER 10 - 000 + YEARS LETS PUT A NUCLEAR
DUMP ON IT AND NOT EMPLOY ANY LOCAL PEOPLE BECAUSE THERE ARE
NO NUCLEAR WAST EXPERTS ON THE MARSH. LETS TOTALLY DEVALUE ALL
PROPERTY ON THE MARSH. AND FINISH ONCE AND FOR ALL THE MARSH AS
A HOLIDAY VENUE WOULD YOU GO TO TENERIF IF IT HAD A DUMP ON IT, NO!
I do not want it. How will this reflect on house prices, badley I think!!
TRY DOVER, WE HAVE ENOUGH CRAP IN THIS AREA:- THE AIRPORT, KCC TIP,
MOUNTFIELD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SOUTH LANDS, ACADAMY FOR YOUNG
OFFENDERS.
Definatly not a good idea
As Romney Marsh is considered a flood risk area (sea defences in-complete) and
there are contingency plans to allow certain areas to flood if invaded by the sea, any
area on the Marsh is therefore suspect to inundation! Also the natural water table is
high and would be serious to water supplies to residents if the installation became
flooded.
Definitely NOT, we do not want nuclear waste here
Definitely NOT, we do not want nuclear waste here
I don’t like the idea at all
We think it’s a waste of money and a stupid idea
We think it’s a waste of money and a stupid idea
All very obvious
No to nuclear waste on the Romney Marsh!! *Danger! We have enough to deal with
as it is. Being on a flood plain and the threat of the expansion of Lydd Airport, what
next?? Oh joy to live here.
Page 155
Appendix D
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
I have recently joined the staff workforce at Dungeness nuclear power station and
where as I was always of the opinion that their operation was safe, it has been
thoroughly affirmed with the safety procedures I have learnt and see implemented
every day. So why should we not want this new facility? I doubt it would be able to be
built on the exsisting site but any employment opportunity on Romney Marsh should
be welcomed with open arms! It is sad that a large majority of residents who will no
doubt objeect will have had their employment oppertunities and will probably be
departed from earth when/if this project should ever come to fruition. thank you for
giving us this opportunity.
I have recently joined the staff workforce at Dungeness nuclear power station and
where as I was always of the opinion that their operation was safe, it has been
thoroughly affirmed with the safety procedures I have learnt and see implemented
every day. So why should we not want this new facility? I doubt it would be able to be
built on the exsisting site but any employment opportunity on Romney Marsh should
be welcomed with open arms! It is sad that a large majority of residents who will no
doubt objeect will have had their employment oppertunities and will probably be
departed from earth when/if this project should ever come to fruition. thank you for
giving us this opportunity.
Mankind should always be looking for new ways and methods of doing things to
establish truth. Nuclear benefits and disadvantages need to be understood in my life
time. I am now 89 years of age. I have seen a lot of development take place. If it
has not been for generations of enquiring minds we would still be in the dark ages.
The nuclear age is now upon us, we need to know a lot more about it. This new
knowledge in years to come is essential.
Notwithstanding this facility we should continue in our efforts to secure at Dungeness
'C'.
The likelihood of employment for Romney Marsh should be a priority.
Have been out of work for 3.5 years. I do hope it brings job into the place. We need to
get people back into work.
If viable - who knows? Questions such as what would happen to the 'spoil' from such
an undertaking. Could it be recycled to the good of the area ie aggregate etc? Would
there by scope for improved rail, road facilities, would there be a written assurance
for a good percentage/
Having ben a duly authorised person to run Dungeness 'A' powersation and having
been to chernobyl I feel I have an informed opinion. A research and disposal facility
would be a god send to Shepway and to the nation. When the economic realites of
the renewal energy policies are understood then a nuclear power programme will
become like France, the major source of energy for this and most other countries.
The sooner a disposal facility is available the better, whilst Greenpeace provide some
intersting questions their track record shows they are not informed.
We need another powerstation not a disposal facility. Fight for a power station the
infastructure is already there.
Future employment a must for this area.
No nuclear waste on the Romney Mash. Do you know the Marsh is under sea level.
What about if sea breaks through no jobs and no house or people. Water level not far
under grounds. What do grave digger have to when water is in the bottom of grave, it
only 6 foot. Also airport needed we got use to it in 1950s
What about the flooding
Page 156
Appendix D
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
Much of the Marsh is reclaimed land. Hardly ideal for underground storage of
dangerous toxic waste. Dungeness closed down so we no longer generate power so
why would we want the waste?
This is a great opportunity for young people
It would 1) Destroy landscape - habitat. 2) Damage wildlife - habitat. 3) Be useless for
jobs as it would need specialist people to run it. 4) Open up the marsh for otheer
detrimental buildings.
Surely the fact that Romney is a Marsh this would rule out the possibility of any
underground work. If we show an interest in this project will it deter any other
employment possibities from looking at this area. We desperately need jobs for the
Marsh but not further housing developments. If we cannot find employment for the
existing community why build houses and bring in more people. By all means learn
more about it without commitment.
I feel that we should be looking into making Lydd Airport as our new main thing in this
area. After the terrible natural event in Japan this highlighted just how dangerous it is
that this power station is so near to the sea. We should learn from this and NOT
invest in another.
Also I’ve lived here in the Marsh area for many years, I found that most who work at
the power station come from other areas and are not locals.
I do not feel that this area should be used as a disposal site or have any future links
with power stations. If you want to create a future for the area it will be with the
Airport which pose’s less danger, less long term issues than anything related to
nuclear.
The Airport would create jobs.
Bring people into the area from afar.
Give our area a future, a long term safe way to develop.
I’m fully against anything nuclear!
This area should not be used as a dumping area for everyone’s nuclear waste, give
us a good future and not one filled with a ticking time bomb of nuclear.
This idea would be a terrible mistake for the area. I can’t even believe its being
considered.
I feel that if this area is to make any progress for the future this needs to be stopped
right now. The area is the largest shingle bed in the UK. Shingle moves, it caves in
easy, to build under it has disaster written all over plans.
Environmentally this would have a huge impact, nature reserve would be affected, the
water table is too near, and then there’s the sea for mass carnage to happen!
A dumping station would mean house prices totally crumble, meaning locals loosing
everything due to a dumping site.
Why can’t the local government and councils come up with nice ideas to improve our
area instead of trying to ruin what little we do have here.
This would totally destroy the future of Romney Marsh.
I am in favour if it brings employment to the Marsh
Disposal Facilities near the sea is not very good
I myself won't be around to see it. But I strongly believe it’s a great risk no body really
knows what harm it could cause on the area and enviroment and it certainly wont
bring employment in the near future.
No. No. No
This is a riduculous idea! Even at present, the labour at Dungeness is from out of the
area, (I don’t know any locals that work there!) So how, will this help, the local
community?
Page 157
Appendix D
1106 Stop wasting money!!
1107 Romney Marsh and the surrounding area does not need an international airport or a
nuclear fuel dump. Why doesn’t the council leave the area as nature intended!
1108 I have no interest in having radioactive waste on, or under the Romney Marsh. End of
story.
1109 We are against this
1110 We are against this
1111 I fully support this proposal. It provides an ideal alternative source of local
employment and best utilises the existing nuclear site. I also support any new nuclear
build proposals.
1112 This would be another blight on an exceptional area of England. No, No, No.
1113 It is to near the sea. The next thing will be contaminated sea etc. Why don't you use
PFIZERS at Thanet for dumping Nuclear Waste
1114 We are definitely not wanting nuclear waste deposited down in Kent, a no no as far as
we're concerned. We should find out more about the proposal, we need employment
yes. But not nuclear waste disposal.
1115 We are definitely not wanting nuclear waste deposited down in Kent, a no no as far as
we're concerned. We should find out more about the proposal, we need employment
yes. But not nuclear waste disposal.
1116 Why did you not do this for Lydd Airport expansion? It took residents to fight for a
referendum to show we were 2-1 against expansion, only for you to ignore a public
enquiry, therefore doubt residents. Trust your judgement this time. What a shame as
I support this disposal facility over airport. Excellent job prospects for my sons with
good salaries within nuclear idustries not however in airports...
1117 I have been visiting the Romney Marsh for 40 years and moved my family here 11
years ago because of the beauty and tranquility of this wonderful area, I do not wish
to see another scar on this wonderful landscape.
1118 Shingle based landmass. Too many 'Aquafers' water courses etc. Leaching
radioactive contaminated waste would have a devastating effect on the biosphere.
The land would become untenable - and the effect on the food chain incalculable.
Why risk it for one thousand jobs - that will probably got to cheaper foreign labour
anyway.
1119 I am in favour of maintainig a nuclear precence in the area but I am aprehensive of
the outcome. There are 3 main issues to address. 1. There is a geolical fault in the
area. 2. Large parts of the Marsh are areas of SSI 3. Drinking water under is supplied
by drinking wells
1120 My daughter works at Dungeness A and my grandchildren will be looking for work in a
few years. Yes I think it is a good idea if we can bring employment into the area.
1121 Yes, we should continue with the power station because there are no where near
enough jobs in this area already.
1122 I totally oppose this idea, it is fine for government to suggest the Marsh is a wild life
haven & why do we need it, we live here, were not a dumping ground for nuclear
waste & damage to the environment, this must not go any further, the decision must
be no!
1123 NO
1124 As long as site is away from housing areas and wildlife sanctuary
Page 158
Appendix D
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
Building a new electricity generating powerstation has been turned down by
government. The reason given was it was considered to have a negative impact on
the surrounding area and enviironment. This proposal would be a hundred times
worse. It would effect house prices negatively and be a real danger to the local
population in the advent of leakage or radio activity accident.
Wipe billions off of house prices and the job benefits are mainly from transient
workness and mainly in the build phase. Everyone I have spoken to is outraged and
very worried. One of the worst things to come out of Shepway District Council
With the closure of Dungeness A site I feel that Shepway District Council should
explore further any initiatives that will ensure continued employment for Marsh
residents.
I believe that this would be a major benefit to the area
As I am one of the 260 people who will be losing their job - I think it’s a very good
idea.
I am opposed to the transporting of radioactive waste from all over the country to the
Romney Marsh area. Let Cumbria have it!!
This Idea is completely unsuitable for the area
1. We do not want Romney Marsh used as a dumping ground for nuclear or any other
waste material. 2. The so called 'skilled workers' will obviously come from outside the
area anyway. 3. This area is designated a natural ...CANNOT READ... of outstanding
and unique beauty. Any development of this nature will destroy the area. 4 I would
suggest in regards to the future of Romney Marsh employment, why not go ahead
and develop Lydd Airport? (and not Boris Island!) 5. And Finally - in the famous words
of Mrs Thatcher NO! NO! NO! to any form of waste here on the Marsh.
Have we forgotten Chernoble Russia? Have we forgotten Japan. No to dumping
nuclear waste from this country or abroad to low lying and could flood. No to nuclear
spillage and accidents. Generate windfarms and solar power. Think about legacy for
the future of all the local children.
How dare you even think of siting a nuclear disposal facility on Romney Marsh. Just
the idea is appalling. You seem to be intent on ruining the Marsh. What about the
holiday industry? Have you ever heard of anyone taking there kid on holiday to
Sellafield? No I dont think so.
Any development which provides jobs is well worth looking into.
All for it - get craking - say YES. Then demolish Lydd Airport!! There would be better
oppertunties with a nuclear plant.
All for it - get craking - say YES. Then demolish Lydd Airport!! There would be better
oppertunties with a nuclear plant.
I think its too higher price to pay for protentally 1000 jobs. First we have wind
turbines, which don’t provide enough energy anyway. Now it appears that this is the
start of a new project back to nuclear energy. I think nuclear energy is the way to go,
but I don't want depleted urainium burried here.
But I also believe there is a desparate need for a new nuclear power station to be built
at Dungeness to provide power which no way can be provided by stupid wind farms.
A storage facility (for UK only) could prehaps be combined with the new facility. Other
than this NO.
Proximity to sea and unstable nature of beach bank and high water table
Nuclear Waste has to be disposed of. It might as well be this area which benefits
from the employment created.
Nuclear Waste has to be disposed of. It might as well be this area which benefits
from the employment created.
Page 159
Appendix D
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
I think it would be too dangerous and property would be devalued.
There is no chance of a disposal facility off Dungeness as it is only shingle under the
sea. The water intake and outfall for the power stations were done by high pressure
holding back the water while the tubes were installed . The geology is totally different
to the channel tunnel area.
The order of these questions is loaded finding out more is a must and should be done
forst! This PROPOSAL is putting the "Cart before the horse" - Firstly you as a council
should do in depth (extensive) research on the "DANGERS" and PITFALLS that can
and have occurred to individuals working in that industry resulting in their deaths from
nuclear contamination. What would happen under similar circumstances to the new
employees taken on and exposed to contamination - even by accident (or otherwise).
Get your heads together with RUSSIA? NOT JUST THE POWERS, but workers who
have come so close to the dangers ALSO speak Chinese. No one will thank you for
the finding extra work, not least their dependants. THEN COME BACK TO THE
PUBLIC and not until.
We would rather have had an airport at Lydd. We object greatly to deep disposal
radioactive waste and research on Romney Marsh.
The Idea of converting Romney Marsh into a nuclear dustbin for the country, or even
the world, is completely unacceptable. There is a world of difference between a new
nuclear power station, which most local residents would welcome, and the proposed
facility. Maybe this hideous idea was part of the goverments plan all along. Perhaps
they regard the residents of the Marsh as a soft touch.
Surely we could find something better for this lovely area. Why turn it into a waste
dump that no none will want to come near. We have lovely beaches, that could be
made more accessible. Why cant we have another power station?
Surely we could find something better for this lovely area. Why turn it into a waste
dump that no none will want to come near. We have lovely beaches, that could be
made more accessible. Why cant we have another power station?
My husband thinks its a good idea but I do not. What we both agree on though & very
strongly is that a 3rd nuclear power station is built - Dungeness C.
As Romney Marsh is not considered suitable for another power station. I feel its
wrong to expect us to take others nuclear rubbish. Also with the area below the water
table, it will be difficult to build underground areas if its anything like drainage in our
lake with the dreadful smells which come through the drains it does not say much for
workmanship
1. I am concerned that an area of land reclaimed from the sea can be even remotely
suitable for the creation of an underground cavern/chamber. 2. Remember the recent
Folkestone Earthquake?? By good luck that was in mid channel!!
Yes! I think this is a great idea. Its about time we addressed the issue of radioactive
waste and we can lead by example and proove it can be done practically and safely.
We have the expertise in the area to take this on.
Waste of time even thinking about it. Once again government has come up with an ill
thought scheme with no idea, in this particular case of the geographical structure of
Romney Marsh. This are is not called Romney Marsh for no reason! We have only
have to dig a 20'' hole to find it filling up with water. This scheme is not even worthy
of consideration and should be dismissed utterly. No!
Page 160
Appendix D
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
Waste of time even thinking about it. Once again government has come up with an ill
thought scheme with no idea, in this particular case of the geographical structure of
Romney Marsh. This are is not called Romney Marsh for no reason! We have only
have to dig a 20'' hole to find it filling up with water. This scheme is not even worthy
of consideration and should be dismissed utterly. No!
What proportion of the workforce will be from local residents? Is it true that the
geologists will be "attempting" to find bedrock? If so will they have a higher level of
intelligence than the official who expected a soakaway to be dug besides a dwelling at
Dungeness? A simple basement of a new build was denied because of the high
water table. If the information given to us years ago we are living on a flood plane.
Where exactly is this to be positioned.
This part of Kent is always the spot chosen for these massive ideas. Leave the power
station as it is and build a new reactor. Which will do more good. The nuclear waste
of the country is not wanted on our doorsteps. The people who come up with these
grand schemes do not have to live here. We do!
Press for a new power station only and develop Lydd Airfield as an industrial centre
with free trade status.
A couple of years ago we had an earthqauke a few miles from the Romney Marsh!!
Japan is still suffering from a nuclear disaster due to local earthqauke and tsunami. It
seems only too obvious that this area is unsuitable! With rising sea levels the marsh
levels will inevitably rise. Nuclear waste takes many centuries to degrade and who
knows what the sea levels will be in years to come.
Surely we can find a better use for the countryside in Romney Marsh than for nuclear
waste. The idea is propostrous, will deter people from visiting the area and may even
have an impact on other areas such as house prices. How many people from the
local area realistically would have the required skills and expertise to work in such a
facility? This would not secure work for the local community, people will commute to
work there. If you're planning for the future, build something for the people of
Romney Marsh or that will bring people to the area. We don't have any hotel chains,
restaurant chains, the nearest cinema is Ashford. Even looking to open a free school
would be better for local people.
Flood area and earthquake risk - Ex Dungeness 'A' Ops foreman
Long term 'radioactive waste' storage on a low lying area at risk of flooding, I think
not.
I am amazed that your council could ever contemplate/consider becoming a nuclear
dumping ground. You should fight for investment in a 'C' power station and not be
distracted from it. The country needs nuclear power. The area needs to keep the
current jobs. You neeed to find the investment.
No we should not find out more
We don’t want nuclear waste dumped on our area. The sea (already encroaching)
will eventually reach it and the damage to sea/fish/environment will be ruined for
years to come.
A bad idea even contemplating building a nuclear research and disposal facility on
marshland. I am very much against this build.
Romney Marsh is an inferior location to Cumbria. Logistically this cannot work. Don't
destroy Romney Marsh.
I don’t believe any of the generated income would be used to benefit people on the
Marsh. The power stations certainaly havent improved the area or generated any
improvements in close proximities. Our rates are as high as Folkestone with
absolutely no amenities.
Page 161
Appendix D
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
Romney Marsh should not be used for this purpose, there must be more suitable,
uninhabitated areas in the UK?!
I was horrified at the prospect of airport expansion in this rare, unique area. I am
totally appalled that this proposal should even be made let alone allowed to happen.
Shepway Council is on a different planet to the residents of the Marsh and
surrounding areas.
No I would not like a nuclear waste stored on the Romney Marsh
We are not wanting a nuclear dump in the area. Improve job prospects with tourism &
festivals. Also improve links to Ashford for the young buses regular - train line opened
to Lydd. Transport to Canterbury. All helping young people to access futher/longer
...CANNOT READ... Links to jobs.
It would ruin the Romney Marsh forever. Please leave it as it is now.
Hallo. I do not wish to have a nuclear disposal plant on my door step? Thank you very
much. They are having a laugh I hope. I thought the Romney Marsh was supposed to
be a unique and fragile nature area. And should be kept that way. Also people come
to this area to retire. It is basically a farming and fishing community not a dumping lot
for the rest of the country
We believe something like this could be vital to the community if the power stations
were to close and another one not built.
No way should we be a dumping ground for anything, This is a place of beauty and
wildlife. As well as a nice place to live we don’t want some one elses rubbish plonked
here.
I feel we should certanily explore this opportunity for the provisisin of long term
employment in this area. Unlike the proposed expansion of Lydd Airport, there are no
noise pollution problems or dangers to overcome. My late husband worked at
Dungeness A station for many years and this industry's safety track record in the UK
is exemplary. People should embrace this chance to create jobs with both hands.
We have supported and benfited from nuclear powes generation & construction since
the 1960's as a community. As we will not be invovled in the nuclear new build it
make sense to support another essential part of the industry which is the passive
storage of spent fuel and waste which has for less inherant risks than nuclear
generation.
This is a SSSI area and we cannot believe that any right minded official would
contemplate bringing this kind of facility to this area. Along with the Lydd airport
extention another crackpot idea from Shepway D.C
The most stupid idea I have heard of putting it near residental areas there could
always be a mishap long term or short term it is still stupid.
Will be of great benefit to the 'Marsh'.
Whilst it is extremely important to secure employment on the Marsh for future
generations its also important to safegaurd the residents. One major concern I have
is the transproting of the waste and the effects it will have if there were to be an
accident.
As a retired physicist I can say these installations provide little/no danger to the
surrounding population, although for complete safety they are normally stored in
granite areas where there is less tectonic movement. It is a pity you could not have
offered this type of construction about Lydd Airport expansion. You whould then have
seen what the local people really think about it. Instead we have people voting this
though live nowhere near it or under the pathway of the aircraft!
I would like to know what effect this disposal sight would have on the surrounding
area.
Page 162
Appendix D
1185 NO WAY
1186 Absolutely not - geology not suitable. Romney Marsh is unique. Why can't we have
Dungeness 'C' because the Enviroment Agency & Natural England plus English
Nature say it will affect the flora, fauna - flood defence etc not being built. A vote loser.
1187 The very fact that it is even being considered will blight the area's housing &
investment markets until it is rejected.
1188 I am totally opposed to any further development of anything to do with Nuclear power
that creates ‘Radioactive waste of any level of radiation, Low or High’ that has to be
disposed of or safely stored and securely for millenniums of time. I am particularly
opposed to any suggestion of storing radioactive waste anywhere on the Romney
Marsh or Dungeness peninsular, because as the name implies, the Marsh is a lowlying area that is obviously prone to severe flooding, as in the past, and comprised
largely of alluvial soil over sand and shingle. While Dungeness itself was only formed
during the great storms of the thirteenth centaury, as such it does not have the
Geological subterranean rock formation stable enough, or suitable for secure
excavation and containment of any level of radioactive material. Best solution is to
stop using England, and the Marsh, as a dumping ground for other peoples rubbish
and send all the Nuclear waste to another country, (preferably America who escalated
the whole Nuclear programme in the first place).
The Nuclear Industry is not, as your documentation suggests, Romney Marsh’s
Heritage, no matter what Shepway DC may think. Nuclear power stations were
located down on Dungeness in the nineteen fifties because, at the time, the area was
virtually desolate and almost devoid of habitation. Habitation that has only grown and
spread since the erection of stations A & B and the employment they provided.
However, this in no way means that the existing inhabitants of the area, are inherently
or irrevocably tied to working only in the Nuclear Power Industry, far from it, and in
reality if given the opportunity would prefer working in a less potentially hazardous
environment than nuclear power.
If Shepway DC could stretch their imagination a little bit further than the boundaries of
Folkestone when it comes to improving the economy. Then by thinking outside the
box a little, they might realise that even before the two power stations are
decommissioned the whole Dungeness peninsular would provide a wonderful
’Industrial Site’ for numerous industries completely unrelated to nuclear power. For
example, if Lydd Airport became just a little more international, by attracting the
smaller private and commercial airlines to the area then, as with other relatively small
but busy airports in the past, such as Croydon, other related industries would springup and develop around the airport, such as Aircraft Engine Repair and Maintenance.
Servo systems, Interior upholstery, In-flight food supplies, Car Hire, Hotels, Electronic
control & guidance systems, Sheet metal works, Hydraulic controls, and a whole
range of Highly Skilled Industries far wider than any related to the nuclear power
industry.
Unfortunately, Croydon Airport closed because there was no room to expand, (a
situation unlikely on the Dungeness peninsular) but when it did, most of the industries
that had developed and thrived in Croydon’s Purely Way Industrial Site dies along
with it, leaving the area devoid of productive industries and to some extent a ghost
town. But then one has to remember that Croydon Airport was one of the first ever
built then open countryside just south of London; and we should have learnt a lot
more about Industrial inertia since then?
With Dungeness and the peninsula area encompassing Lydd Airport a forward
thinking council, with an eye to really developing this part of the Romney Marsh, has a
Page 163
Appendix D
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
truly remarkable opportunity to create a productive and thriving industrial community.
A community which, besides employing vast numbers of skilled and semi-skilled
labour from the surrounding area, would boost the local economy beyond anything
ever seen here before.
All it needs is for local councillors to grasp the metal, use a little imagination, stop
sitting on their hands and with a little help and advise from practical ex-industrialists
and entrepreneurs, think positively about the remarkable opportunities that exist for
the area.
Expansion of Lydd Airport & better shopping facilities would be a better future for the
community. Young people would have better employment oppurtunities rather than
another nuclear power station. The community needs to retain the younger generation
and the only way this will hapen is to provide decent employment which a nuclear
power station will not provide. Also improve the public transport to allow people to
move around more freely. Not just catering for the retired and elderly people.
As a business that relys on visitors to the Marsh we should investigate all avenues.
Total madness, cannot even believe that you are even contemplating the idea.
I believe this would be inappropriate for the region.
You do not build an a geological fault, on which the site PCANNOT READP
I have often wondered why abandonded coal mines, which are extremely deep, do
not have nuclear waste dumped in them? It seems ideal to use them for such a
purpose?
We desperatly need more employment in the area, nuclear has been safe so far so
lets continue to believe.
I have no problems with a waste facility being built at Dungeness
What is going to happen when the facility is full up? No one is going to want to live
here. Out of sight out of mind untill it all goes wrong.
What is going to happen when the facility is full up? No one is going to want to live
here. Out of sight out of mind untill it all goes wrong.
We do not want this facility built on the Romney Marsh
We do not want this facility built on the Romney Marsh
No to dangerous
We know so little - where it would be? What will be the immediate impact as it is built.
Why is this ''area of outstanding natural beauty '' unrecognised? Bleak, beautiful &
peacefull!! We abuse it for our peril !! The short term need for jobs & income in the
community should not overide the need to protect the enviroment. Perhaps it would
be good to push for a continuation of using the existing nuclear facility at Dungeness.
Discuss.
Jobs is the requirement. Airport or Disposal facility. One or the other?
I fully support this proposal, for the employment of the next generations of children on
the Romney Marsh
Any site for radioactive waste would not be safe for approx 100,000 yrs. The
proportionatley small amount of jobs created in the area would be of little significance.
No nuclear waste has yet been disposed of permanetly anywhere in the world so this
is untried & untested. Romney Marsh is home to many species of birds, plants &
insects which makes it one of the most important nature conservations in Europe. It
will depress property prices in an already depressed area in terms of employment.
My first option would still be a power station, but if that is unlikely, then I think this
would be a good option. - greater improvement to the infrastructure - we need a
bypass - safety - how will this effect house prices - will it make people leave the area.
Page 164
Appendix D
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
We are totally against this idea. Even with the safety reassurements it still is a very
uncomfortable thought. Jobs is not enough to allow this. Most people involved in decommissioning can carry this on elsewhere or retire. It should be built somewhere
where the population is sparce. We already have enough of a nuclear threat with the
two power stations
Apparently experts believe it would be unsafe and dangerous.
The power stations are a blot on the landscape and already put people off from living,
working and opening business here. We don’t need to become a dumping ground for
the worlds nuclear rubbish. Keep it out of Romney Marsh, let Cumbria have it with our
blessing.
The power stations are a blot on the landscape and already put people off from living,
working and opening business here. We don’t need to become a dumping ground for
the worlds nuclear rubbish. Keep it out of Romney Marsh, let Cumbria have it with our
blessing.
We simply cannot understand the absolute idiocy of this idea, you only have to look at
the gravel pit that is being excavated on the Romney Marsh to know that water level is
mere 2 metres below ground level, we will vigorously object to any plans appertaining
to this idiotic idea. However, what we won't object to our plans to build a secure
"Mental institution" on the marsh to house mentally disturbed councillors from
Shepway Council, this secure institution can be run by the people that the councillors
are so concerned about that will be made redundant. Also we wont object to plans to
have this sort of material buried in concrete beneath the civic centre council offices in
Folkestone. We also would like to see any counting of ballot papers to be undertaken
by an independent party.
Don’t need any waste put in Romney Marsh.
Despite statements made that the community will prosper through employment I
would throughly disagree that local people will be employed. As with the power
station employment a small percentage of local people are employed and many
positions are highly skilled and therefore employment and positions are filled outside
the areas of the Marsh. The local area has suffered as a result of having a nuclear
power station in many ways and by having a further nuclear waste disposal unit etc
would further damage the area of farming, nature conservation, natural beauty and for
many local residents a further devastating factor in trying to sell property and dare I
say further de-valuing of property. We are already blighted with potential 'Flood Risk'
and nuclear power station, not to mention a developed airport to add negative points
in attacting people to move to the area. A definite no to this project.
Underground chambers (manmade) do distort i.e. seen when I visited a coal mine.
Correction of distorted chambers with a high radiation background may not be
possible. Towns water supply systems are found north of the power stations site
fences ie suction pipes. It is not a good idea to live near disposal chambers. Disposal
chambers can be monitored for their containment features very easily when above
ground level.
We do need jobs but not this
Good Idea. It will bring more jobs to the area!
I do not believe this will be good for Kent and the environment
I do not believe that Dungeness, as a place of outstandng natural beauty & a nature
reserve is the right place is the right place for a facility such as this. I am totally
against any development including this and the quarry proposal at Dungeness.
Page 165
Appendix D
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
"NO" We do not want or need any information on anything to do with a nuclear power
stations, research, or disposal. I'm sorry for the folks who may be unemployed, but
we are dead against the idea. Let's have some more reasearch on solar energy. Don’t
forget what happened in Tokyo recently.
We totally object to this idea. We have never worried about the power station but this
will mean move transportation of nuclear material. Also digging underground
somewhere like Dungeness seems unsuitable
We totally object to this idea. We have never worried about the power station but this
will mean move transportation of nuclear material. Also digging underground
somewhere like Dungeness seems unsuitable
Have you forgotton the earthquake in Folkestone? What about the transport of the
waste here along the busiest roads and rail network in the country?
The infrastructure would need to be upgraded massively and that would spoil the
countryside that we know and love.
Do not believe we have the geology to support the underground vaults required.
I think it’s a good idea in general as so many people are against the airport (us not
being one of them) the area needs more jobs, better transport connections etc, as
long as this is a controlled idea and its not a head strong panic idea. Only minus is
how many years it would take.
Dungeness area already attracts lots of visitors who want to experience the
uniqueness of this shingle bank and its mini-culture of housing and hospitality, also
the special nature of its bird reserves. All the Marsh should be preserved in as natural
a state as possible as it it vital "spiritual" resource for people of the South East. A little
entrepreneurial vision should be forthcoming! N.B Populn of Sweden is about the
same as Greater London but with a bit more space!
If we don’t create work for our youngsters this area in the Marsh will be finished in
years to come.
A Powerstation 'YES' a Disposal facility 'NO'
Romney Marsh is an area of outstanding natural beauty with the most important bird
reserve in Europe. Whoever thought of a nuclear disposal here should be certified as
insane.
Romney should not be a dumping ground for nuclear waste, jobs are not the issue it is
risk. Have we learnt nothing from Japan.
Absolutely no way.
This cannot be considered in anyway The UK (England) is steaming the junkyards of
Europe if not the world! Definetly no
Until a very safe method is developed (ie vitrification) this project should not proceed.
The area is part of our drinking water extraction. The dungeness site has a major
geological fault running through it.
I am totally against this proposal. Once this process begins it will get harder and
harder to stop. This area is totally unsuitable for this type of development- its too
populated, it also has recognised natural beauty that needs protecting. A thousand
year nuclear legacy for our kids, FORGET IT! i would add that most people in the U.k
were led to believe that sellsfield/tworp/drigg was our reprocessing/ storgae facility.
We know thorp has had all sorts of problems and that any reinforces my concerns. Its
highly likely this project would escalate to military and foreign waste.NO WAY!
We need the employment and sea defences!
I find it inconvievable that you should think its necessary to ask! More to the point will
our opinions even count? Would you like its line next to one?
This area desparetly needs jobs and improved infrasturcture
Page 166
Appendix D
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
This area desparetly needs jobs and improved infrasturcture
If you want an income for the area how come we didn’t get approval for the airport
expansion.
There are many pros & cons. I am therefore undecided.
This is a crazy idea. Who wants to live where underneath them is a terrorist threat and
not enough research has been done too make them safe.
Kent (the garden of England) has suffered more than its far share of upheaval much
of which has destroyed much of the natural beauty that used to exist . We have been
badly affected by the hi speed train track and the heavy traffic of very large lorries that
fill our motorways daily, destroying the road surfaces. The marsh is a flood plain that
thousands of people have toiled and fought to save over hundreds of years, and is
nor suitable for this proposed project. Select a much more remote and less populated
part of the country and that would be much more suitable; not Romney Marsh or any
other part of Kent (pto) The introduction of this site on Romney Marsh could result in
Kent being renamed 'the rubbish dump of England'. it is a well past the time to stop all
these projects and start to refurbish our motorways and roads, plant trees to screen
areas where land beauty has been destroyed by developments. Provide suitable
facilities for lorry drivers who pass through the country so that they dont have to use
roadsides and gardens as outdoor facilitys. Lets do all we can to reverse present
trends and get back to being a civilised society once again before its too late. By all
means try to bring some manufacturing businesses into various parts of Kent that are
suitable for the purpose and will provide long lasting employment. Please, please as
the people we voted into the development and protect our society dont sell us short.
dont not just think of to day and tomorrow- think of the long term future and the
generations to come. If you feel that you cant do better than than to introduce this
nuclear dump than perhaps the time has come for you to vacate your present position
of high level of responsibilty and let someone else take over.
Due to proximity of the sea, and rising sea levels causing instablilty , surely this kind
of instillation should be on higher ground?
We would be a dumping ground to the worlds nuclear waste. So I am saying a BIG
FAT NO send it to Sweden. NO! NO! NO!
I consider that the Romney Marsh is a totally unsuitable area for this facility. Having
worked in the nuclear industry in a senior position for mcuh of my working life I am
well aware of the problems associated with nuclear waste.
If it is unacceptable to build a dungeness 'c' nuclear power station because of flood
risk, etc then it is certainly not the area to consider constructing a waste
storage/disposal facility.
Seems good for employment on the Romney Marsh, but we await for further info.
Page 167
Appendix D
1248 We cannot believe any council would consider such a ludicrous proposal for a
Romney Marsh nuclear research and disposal facility. A very fancy tittle for something
nobody elese in the country wants. Perhaps we need to bring a few points of concern
Considering that Folkestone suffered an earthqauke, of which shocke waves were felt
where the water should be. Water may indeed find its own level, but one assumes this
must mean flooding of the surrounding area and beyond. it has been said that this
proposalwould cover and area of 250 acres, this would accomodate 22 football
pitches the size as wembely stadium! This said how many villages and their
communitys would be obliterated? Often in press releases the marsh is refered to as
the 'jewel in the shepway crown of Shepway' some jewel, as at every oppurtunity
Shepway counillors see this area is a desolate space , just waiting to be monoplized
1249 We cannot believe any council would consider such a ludicrous proposal for a
Romney Marsh nuclear research and disposal facility. A very fancy title for something
nobody else in the country wants. Perhaps we need to bring a few points of concern
Considering that Folkestone suffered an earthqauke, of which shock waves were felt
where the water should be. Water may indeed find its own level, but one assumes this
must mean flooding of the surrounding area and beyond. it has been said that this
proposal would cover and area of 250 acres, this would accomodate 22 football
pitches the size of Wembely Stadium! This said how many villages and their
communities would be obliterated? Often in press releases the marsh is refered to as
' The Jewel in the Shepway Crown of Shepway' some jewel, as at every oppurtunity
Shepway counillors see this area is a desolate space, just waiting to be monoplized
Page 168
Appendix D
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
No comments or questions at this stage
Don’t even consider it in the time scale you are talking about, the sea could have
reclaimed the marsh.
It is important to get all the facts and ensure a fair review. Work for the area is
important.
This would cause more concern than benefit to residents & business and I think it
would result in mass exodus leave well alone.
Please do not use this part of Kent as a dumping ground for nuclear waste. I do not
believe it would bring 1,000 jobs? This would be a dreadful legacy to leave our
grandchildren!
Romney Marsh needs jobs otherwise it will become one huge retirement home.
1) Presumably this wouuld have an effect on the aiport at Lydd, i.e. enlargement
leading to more noise and pollution. 2) Also will the old railway line recommence? 3)
How safe is it? 4) It will mean lorries bringing the waste from all over England
blocking/filling the roads around New Romney. 5) Will it bring new jobs or will the
people already working at Dungeness change over? 6) Will a greater numbe of
workers be needed thus leading to a need for more housing and building? 7) How will
it affect house prices?
1) Presumably this wouuld have an effect on the aiport at Lydd, i.e. enlargement
leading to more noise and pollution. 2) Also will the old railway line recommence? 3)
How safe is it? 4) It will mean lorries bringing the waste from all over England
blocking/filling the roads around New Romney. 5) Will it bring new jobs or will the
people already working at Dungeness change over? 6) Will a greater numbe of
workers be needed thus leading to a need for more housing and building? 7) How will
it affect house prices?
Do not want this here. Not a good idea. Enough damage on Marsh already. Give us a
hospital and youth services.
We need a new power station - please
We need a new power station - please
I do not think we should be the dumping ground for the country's nuclear waste. A
new nuclear power station should be the answer - If it is an ideal site which has been
accepted by everyone for many years.
But who will pay for all the research involved in this "EXPRESSION" starting from this
letter
I have been a resident in New Romney for a while and my views on possible having a
nuclear and disposal facility on Romney Marsh is a no and we should not be
discussing the idea at all for the further and they should think very strongly finding
another place to have a nuclear research and disposal facility.
It may be a good proposal but it must have a good help for Romney Marsh. It must be
safe and bring employment as well also there must be road improvements to the
Marsh area.
I still feeel a new power station should be built at Dungeness.
This is yet another attempt to 'dump' an unpopular development on our area of
outstanding natural beauty and yet again the tired old mantra of more jobs for local
people is trotted out, unemployment is a national problem that is not unique to this
area, in reality very few jobs would be created for local people. Tourism is the
lifeblood and future of Romney Marsh and its coastline but we must concentrate all
our on it. Building and operating your proposed facility would turn people away from
the area, not encourage them into it. You proceed with this plan at your peril.
Page 169
Appendix D
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
This idea is neither desirable nor practical. The employment would be most desirable
for the younger generation, but the opposition from people such as the RSPB, English
Heritage etc would be immense not to mento "nimbys". A more practical use of the
money to be expended would be to get Dungeness C up and running and the airport
expansion approved and underway.
No
No thank you.
Dungeness was not considered for the proposed new nuclear power stations due to
the sea defence and geological suitability. Therefore we are not suitable to store the
extremely dangerous nuclear waste from other sites in the UK or other countries.
None of the above. Just no. don’t waste any more money.
Definitely not. There is no space.
I don't know who thought about putting the wast underground, it’s a daft as expanding
Lydd airport. If the waste was put inside a hard rock mountain it would be less
expensive and more important than that there would be no chance of it getting
flooded. As far as work goes there should be a C station.
This is a potential nuclear disaster waiting to happen.
The 7 residents living within the home had a meeting to discuss the proposal. All 7
have expressed their concerns and feel it is of no benefit to them and do not want it. 3
residents were very concerned over the safety, all agree that there should be more
info that's easyer to understand. We helped 3 residents in accessing the website and
found it confusing. With all the care homes around the area we find it hard to
understand why there is little easy read info with pictorial booklets.
I am not in favour of using Romney Marsh as a dumping ground for nuclear waste.
1) At what depth do we reach the water level on the Marsh surely the nuclear
research disposal unit will have to be dug very deep? 2) What ideas would you have
for a transport system to get the nuclear waste to the unit? 3) Where is the site to be
placed (Dungeness)?
I was quite shocked by the opening sentence in the covering letter, which immediately
presents a one-sided argument. Coming as it does on Council headed note paper, it
is hard not to believe that the Council is coming at the issue from am slanted point of
view. The impression is borne out by the summary leaflet, which contains only three
sentences suggesting there might be counter-arguments (p.2, column 3 ref. to
Greenpeace & p.3, column 3, paragraph 3). After these brief mentions, the narrative
quickly returns to the original theme.
A few evenings ago on local TV there was someone who appeared to be a competent
authority giving very powerful argument why having a nuclear waste facility would not
be good for the area.
It may well be a good idea to learn more, i.e. submit an expression of interest. But it
does not inspire confidence in the Council that it has set the ball rolling in such a onesided way. In ‘what’s in it for us?’ the Council, in addition to pushing the impression
that it is solely interested in employment should communicate to the people it
represents that it has at least its long-term interests: security, well-being & survival.
We will be better off with another power station than a nuclear research and disposal
facility on Romney Marsh
There should be no dumping of waste on the Marsh full stop
No it would be madness. We would rather have an airport than be a nuclear tip.
No it would be madness. We would rather have an airport than be a nuclear tip.
We think that this potential health hazard could be a disaster for the future of the
people of the Marsh.
Page 170
Appendix D
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
We think that this potential health hazard could be a disaster for the future of the
people of the Marsh.
We are totally opposed to this proposal.
We are totally opposed to this proposal.
No. We should not consider this being built here on the Marsh.
No. We should not consider this being built here on the Marsh.
Roll on the next Council so we can get rid of this ridiculous council. Everything the
council have agreed to is against residents wishes - parking charges!! Planning
(Nicholls Quarry) Lydd Airport expansion (66% against) and now to top it all a nuclear
waste dump!! Shepway will be a no go area for day trippers and holiday makers.
I can't believe anyone could even consider such a scheme! I have voted tory since I
got the vote in 1956 but if this crazy idea goes ahead I will never vote tory again.
Romney Marsh unsuitable for nuclear disposal facility due to being in a floodplain.
Earthquake area? Destroy the uniqueness of the Marsh.
NO NO NO NO
No - Not at any cost
Keep the nuclear station - people are used to it + have jobs there + have made there
homes here. We do not need to be a disposal ground for the waste!
NO NO NO NO
No. There are more suitable sites away from residential areas. 1) Keep Dungeness
B operational for longer or build a C station for better sustainability on the Romney
Marsh, ensuring jobs for the future. Thank you.
Do the council only think of the marsh when they want to dump something? The
ground as the name suggests is wet and water is found very close to the surface, so
totally unsuitable for bunkers. If it is now considered suitable for a power station it
would certainly not be suitable for this project.
NO NO NO
"The schem is CRAZY". We as a community voted to reject the expansion of Lydd
Airport. The vote was 70% in "rejection". Shepway Council completely ignored the
people. So why do you ask the public when you will make your own "decisions". I'm
to understand that the land on which the airport stands is onlt on a lease, the actual
land belongs to the people of Shepway. Revoke the lease and return the land to
produce industry and generate employment.
I disagree completely with the idea of the local authority approving a situation which
supposedly would produce a great number of jobs and ultimately the means of killing
every human being in the South East.
Romney Marsh is not a dumping ground.
Romney Marsh has been blighted by nuclear power long enough. To encourage jobs
it should concentrate on things like high speed broadband.
We do not want this on Romney Marsh
For the same apparent reasons for not allowing a third nuclear power station this
would apply to any such storage facility. Dungeness is a Site of Special Scientific
Interest, RSPB at high risk of flood from the sea. In addition there are underground
watersources - a relatives friend works at the current station and says there are
already a small amount of sources kept on site and these have to be constantly
checked and monitored because the radioactvity can seep through the layers of
protection they have. Dungeness also lies on a fault line if you bury the dump deep in
the ground will it be earthquake proof!
Page 171
Appendix D
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
No Romney Marsh does not need any more poisoning nuclear decaying waste. The
two power stations are enough and no more nuclear material needs to be brought
here. The effects of any leakage in to the water table or food chain would be
catastrophic.
The priority should be the building of a new power station. The fall back option would
be an extension of use of the present facility. Stating that the proposal would provide
jobs is a form of bribery.
Hasn't the Marsh been blighted enough with nuclear 'facility'?
I think we should concentrate efforts on tryng to get a Dungeness C station built.
Think geographical area totally suitable for disposal facility.
With the future of the Marsh hanging in the balance, it seems a good idea to at least
explore this idea. We have a son who is a nuclear engineer, so we know how strict
everything is, with regard to nuclear practice and how ill informed much of the
opposition are. I remember years ago a gang of hippie 'rent a mob' protesting at the
power station and they hadn't taken the trouble to spell Dungeness correctly!
As I currently work at Dungeness 'B', I think keeping the nuclear industry within the
Romney Marsh would be great for my generation (25-35 yrs) and the future
generations. I love living on the Marsh and would not want to up-root my family in
years to come, in order to sustain my career in nuclear energy.
The idea of a disposal facility is terrifying - I believe house prices would plummet and
the area would become a no go area for many. The research side I find very exciting.
I have 2 sons both interested in science (both graduates) and their friends who are
struggling to find work in this specialist area. This could encourage a new wave of
people to the Marsh.
Having 2 children, 1 of which is a year from leaving school we need employment like
this in the area to help our youngsters get work.
As I am in my eighties, disabled and partially sighted anything regarding this idea will
not affect me but, there is very little work in this area. It should be 'find out further
knowledge'.
I am not in favour of the implementation of a possible nuclear research and disposal
facility on the Romney Marsh and am worried about the effects it could have on health
and welfare of humans and animals and the environment.
My wife and I are totally against this scheme. This will seriously affect the tourist trade
and house prices (I live in Greatstone). Also this location is in a high flood risk area
and on soft marshland. We do not believe a facility can be safely built in this
environment. Why build this next to a rural community? There will be devastation if
something goes wrong.
My wife and I are totally against this scheme. This will seriously affect the tourist trade
and house prices (I live in Greatstone). Also this location is in a high flood risk area
and on soft marshland. We do not believe a facility can be safely built in this
environment. Why build this next to a rural community? There will be devastation if
something goes wrong.
May I voice a resounding No. It seems very strange that a third nuclear power station
was deemed as not an option and to a thought as to the area suitable for a
countrywide dumping site for nuclear waste is an option. There are vast areas of
moors and open countryside all over Britain so why our little unique peninsula.
We need 'C' Power Station urgently for the future of Romney Marsh and not what you
have proposed.
This would blight the area. The argument for a power station should be strengthened
by this suggestion.
Page 172
Appendix D
1320
1321
1322
1323
What a fracking stupid idea. How much tax payers money has been wasted on this so
far?? i.e. Members expenses, printing postage etc.
Shepway Council is being indocrinated by the nuclear industries propaganda
believing that such a facility is safe. The whole site should be shut down. All
councillors, MPs etc (lay people) are being guided by nuclear "experts" who have
vested interests to make sure that England is being used as a dumping area for world
nuclear waste. In reality it is not safe in spite of reassurances, as is proven by the vast
amount of leaks and accidents which have occirred over the decades in the UK and
around the world. If you are as certain it is safe, no doubt you will give me a personal
guarantee the that effect! The proposed facility would be in the wrong area as
Romney Marsh is the largest coastal wetland on the south coast (marsh meaning - a
low wet land; morass; swamp or fen) having been reclaimed from the sea and due to
its complex nature gives rise to variable geological deposits. Such a facility should be
built, of course, on solid foundations such as granite, or in another country, and not
rely on a 'concrete float' which will deteriorate quicker than the toxic nuclear waste.
Can you guarantee that there will not be a massive storm as was the case in 1287 or
that there will not be a large scale earthquake (Folkestone is on a geological fault
line). Are you really relying on the nuclear industries scientists 'leading you by the
nose' with their 'vested interests' confirming the facility is safe for thousands of years?
After all the climate change scientists, so called 'experts' keep gettng it wrong time
and time again! So why beleive the nuclear 'experts'. It's unproven they have got it
right. In addition it will not create hundreds of jobs. The work force construction team
are only temporary, all will go when it is completed. The facility itself will need minimal
highly specialised staff. Indeed many shops/businesses in Hythe, New Romney and
Lydd have/are failing - just look at the empty properties, including the empty units on
Mountfield Road Industrial Estate to name one. Lydd airport was once a thriving
business bringing plenty of proper jobs to the ordinary rank and file workers plus
through traffic who were using the hotels, B&Bs amd shops. It is these types of jobs
you should be assisting and encouraging, these are the work engines of employment
which will also bring employment to the school leavers and the young. Get rid of
nuclear power etc on the Marsh. By the way I never believe politicians, policies or
statistics. You can do anything with figures! The nuclear industry profiteering on
minmal jobs. Let's have jobs for all.
We do not need to be used as a dumping groud, especially as enviromental aspects
warn us about servere flooding of the Marsh, pushing house insurance premises up.
We know the water table is high on the Marsh so how can the authorities warrant
going down so low with contaminated waste. With regards to jobs, yes, some, of the
manual joints might got to the locals but the research side and monitoring side will
probbaly be given to outsiders, qualified in that field and who have been in the
industry sometime.
The Romney Marsh and Dungeness area are a unique site and habitat as well as a
national nature reserve. The building of underground facilities and associated
groundworks will affect the delicate natural balance of the water tables, flora and
fauna that have exsisted for centuries. This will inturn affect our future in ways we do
not yet understand. I have no objections to wind farms and alternative forms of energy
production but having just spent a lot of money on forming an eco-friendly business in
the area, I am dead against the proposals. If the only way we can raise employment in
the area is to destroy our unique habbitat, there is something very wrong with our
mordern way of life. The area benefits from tourism. This would not be helped by the
retrograde proposals. My wife and I will fight this in every way possible.
Page 173
Appendix D
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
To take a fool in the country you take one there (An old somerset saying). No power
station, No nuclear research and disposal facility on Romney Marsh. Why not build it
under Folkestone Civic Centre. To high up to flood no flora and fauna to kill off just a
few short sighted councillors. I have lived in the marsh for 50 years my late husband
worked on both power stations and many more in England and Wales.
Flood risks and dependant on geological survey and safety aspects.
This is a rural area not an industrial site!
The Marsh lies below sea level and is listed as a flood risk area. Why site a nuclear
waste disposal site on this rural area, farmed and area of unspoilt beauty? The
proposed details at this present time have cause a futher reduction in house sales
and property will be futher devalued as a result. With the vicinity of the sea and the
movement of tectonic plates we have registered an earthqauke and with gloabal
warming are running a more risk. Lets preserve our area of outstanding beauty.
As this proposed facility would be built on a site of special scientific interest, I see no
reason why a new nuclear power station couldn’t be built also!
I am very decided and against this proposal, as we all say not on our doorstep, it
would kill off what tourist trade we have among the other things.
We should also be given the opportunity to approve or disapprove any government
plan for the area involved.
This is not the right sort of area for building tunnels and underground workings.
The idea of more jobs on the Marsh is good but all that building below the water table
is a great worry. The water will be pushed else where mainly inland.
Please it no to just dumping and disposing of nuclear waste as it putting people health
at risk. So it a big no.
What a stupid idea with the high water table. In 1949 when I was working for the
Lyddite chicks at Dengemarsh we never gave the chickens water out of the lakes as
they were brakish, the sea on long high tides came in under the land. Is it the same
party that would not listen to the fisherman and built the first power station the wrong
side of the Dungeness Point so shingle has to be carried forever and put so the
powerstation doesn't fall in the sea. DONT be again so stupid so please listen to the
local people this time.
I am 100% against this proposal for nuclear research & disposal. It is one thing to
produce our nuclear power on the site but a completely irresponsible suggestion to
dispose of everyone elses, no doubt including other countries nuclear waste in an
area such as this on unstable shingle banks. With regard to bringing employment to
this area, the majority of employees currently working at the site are from outside the
area, I myself have to travel over 20 miles daily for my employment - it is a complete
misconception to suggest it provide jobs. Property prices will fall, it is already difficult
to obtain housing insurance as this is supposedly a designated flood zone - again
completely inappropiate area for this type of scheme. You only need to look at recent
events with the Japanese reactor to see the impact, let alone on an underground
waste disposal site. The longer term health risks need to be considered, given that the
storage vessel containers only have an expected 100 year life, seepage of nuclear
waste in to the water table, soil etc is a very high possibility. The fact that it takes so
long to decommission a power plant and that the site cannot be used for anything
else after decommisioning is enough to say a research and disposal site in itself is full
of potential health & enviromental risks that would impact on the local enviroment and
residents, for outwaying any supposed 'employment benefit'. To be clear, absolutely
no way should the counicl be expressing an interest and neither should they be
wasting any futher tax payers money on canvassing this ridiculous suggestion. No
Page 174
Appendix D
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
doubt this is a smoke screen of extending the Lydd Airport runway plans - expecting
residents to accept the lesser of two equals. Dungeness nature reserve has no call for
the lesser - spotted two headed seagulls floating to our shares when it all goes wrong!
Geologically unsound. High level waste should be stored in granite areas eg. Scotland
I am a local estate agent and I can tell you that this will devalue all our properties and
prevent the migration of London buyers to the area. This is the worst possible idea
you could possibly consider & I do not expect you will get any support. I am disgusted
with the council!
You continue to use Romney Marsh for a dumping ground spoiling the natural beauty
of the Marsh. Leave nuclear waste disposal for another area please.
No
Will watch the progress/interests of residents with interest.
I do not want my grandchildren living on top of a nuclear dump.
I feel that the Marsh area is already suffering from being on the fringe of Shepway
District and a futher nuclear facility of any sort would be ill advised. If this massive
finacial input proposed should be put to a more congenial use, and options for that
investment could be sought from local residents.
Dangerous to our community as with any climate change we are told the Marsh could
be the subject of flooding. The council should do everything possible to atrract tourism
& business to our area not make everyone move away. Cumbria is a far more suitable
area.
Dangerous to our community as with any climate change we are told the Marsh could
be the subject of flooding. The council should do everything possible to atrract tourism
& business to our area not make everyone move away. Cumbria is a far more suitable
area.
We do not want this here, it would make the value of our houses drop and do not
know what affect it will have.
What a ridiculous idea!! Siting a nuclear waste disposal facility on ground that is so
unstable. Its laughable!!
A definate no
Yes to a power station but NO to a nuclear dump. Its bad enough with the proposed
airport enlargement at Lydd.
Anything to do with radioactive and nuclear waste is frightening how ever state-of-the
art facilities there are. Not for my generation but for future ones.
We have no desire to live next to a nuclear 'dump'
We have no desire to live next to a nuclear 'dump'
Whlist I don’t think Romney Marsh has the right geological conditions for this facility,
being mostly on a flood plain and not having a rock based sub structure, it would be
worthwhile finding out more about the plan.
This project will blight the whole idea of the area. It should never go ahead!
Yes please, we need to secure jobs for the future, as new build has not been agreed
for the Romney Marsh, a low level waste repository would have a brilliant impact in
this area, job creation a sustainable local economy, without this the Marsh would be
the ghost town in the winter months, totally reliant on seasonal work.
very much against idea
Would they consider putting an underground railway on a floodplain? So why put a
nuclear research and disposal site?
Page 175
Appendix D
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
No!! Enough is enough. Let us just enjoy our natural surrounding and use it to
encourage employment, not keep bombarding us with such ideas who gains!! Not the
environment. No dumping here please!!
The Romney Marsh is not a suitable place for a Nuclear Disposal facility. It is too wet,
also at risk of flooding.
Why should the Romney Marsh become a dumping ground?
Why ruin a lovely area with a Nuclear dump. The roads are not built to take extra
lorries and the value of property will devalue as nobody would want a nuclear dump
on their doorstep. Would you?
We should not accept plans that even the worlds best experts don’t fully understand.
Living so close to the area of Dungeness, I am not in favour of the idea of nuclear
waste disposal there, due to the risks of radioactive leaks and also the impact it would
have on the natural environment (bird sanctuary etc) if contamination accidently
occured.
I worry that we could become the dumping ground for the world. Plus, that ownership
and control could be lost by the UK.
The area is not suitable for this type of facility - the water table is too high and if built
at Dungeness could be unstable due to the shingle. We do not want 'jobs at any
cost'.
I need to know more before being able to decide.
Definitely not want this on the Romney Marsh. It will be the worlds dumping ground for
nuclear waste.
100% for it - would back it all the way. We desperately need employment in this area
(and I was born here)!
Depends upon the alternatives to present roads and lanes in March and Dungeness
to accommodate heavy plant etc
This is a wholy unthought about strategy, below the soils of the Marsh the structures
of the soils are not fully tested, requiring considerable excavation and disposal,
existing sites like the now redundant coal mines near Dover are existing, tried and
tested and have infrastructure readily available they also need jobs in that area.
We do not wish for this project to go ahead at all. We do not wish to live in an area
that will possibly be a dumping ground for nuclear waste.
We do not need to raise money by storing the worlds rubbish.
To blight the beautiful Romney Marsh this this appalling idea would be horrendous.
I can not think of a more unsuitable place to have a nuclear disposal facility than the
Romney Marsh. The terrain is unsuitable and it is too near the sea.
My wife says no, I say find out more
My wife says no, I say find out more
As employment is so scarce on the Romney Marsh I think the opportunity for any
work has to be investigated. Engineering expertise has greatly increased increased
and over the next 20-25 years who knows what safety measures will come forward. I
am sorry to say the outcome will not concern me as I am my 93 year.
Romney Marsh is a beautiful rural area. The nuclear research and disposal facility
could be located on any sitewhich is deemed suitable. This would therefore, alter the
landscape and destroy the community as we now know of
No not interested. The idea is utter madness
Page 176
Appendix D
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
The Government is short sighted in that it is not allowing "Dungeness C" to be built on
the site in Dungeness. If the Marsh isnt good enough to house "Dungeness C" Then it
certainly should not be used as a nuclear dumping ground. I say an astounding
No..No..Never to this proposal.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES PLEASE LEAVE DUNGENESS AS IT IS
I would like to see Britsh owned and help and british contractors as opposed to most
of our current services.
We are constantly being told that Romney Marsh is a high risk of flooding so how can
the area be considered safe to build such a facility. The water table is high and people
cannot be buried two deep in the cemetories. It will not bring work to local people
other than a few labourers. as contractors on such construction bring there own
staffwith them. who would want to visist or move into the area when there is a
2nuclear graveyard ! There is a lot more open space in Cumbria for such a facility and
why not use the closed mines. Shepways enquires would be better directed is
supporting our local M.P in lobbying for a third power is supporting our local M.P in
lobbying for a third power station which was always intended at the current site. We
moved to New Romney in 1966 when my husband started work on A Station. I
worked on A Station and B Station as did my daughter and son-in-law My son on B
Station and has worked there ever since he left school. We always thought there
would be a fair chance that our Grandchildren and great Grand children would be able
to follow in our footsteps we would not want them spending there working days
underground in a nuclear graveyard.
The Marsh needs to be regenerated, we have families that need jobs in the future.
Whatever it takes we need something for them.
Tourism is the biggest employer on the south coast. A nuclear dumping ground would
have a negative effect on that, a lot more would be lost through that, than gaining a
few construction jobs.
If we were to use the "old" dungeness site. Iw would be in favour of finding out more,
but I believe that is not the case and the marsh will be dug up elsewhere.
How stupid can you get
Per se, I believe that any underground (or deep sea) "permanent" storage is a flawed
solution. Sooner or later, groundwater solution/leave/earthquake will either become
polluted or exposed . This is the human race frantic to find a "quick fix" for the mess
we are all in. Its no use voting for freedom, wealth, health or apple pie becauce all
these (and nuclear waste) are beyond wish fulfilment. The solution will be off planet in
the forseeable future too expensive and probably to hazardrous now but in 50 years it
is likely to be much easier and safer to export it to space. Please see to it. In the
meantime make it temporary 200 year storage from which it is retrievable oh and
Cumbria finds your right.
My goodness, this is a fantastic place to live , why are we being bombarded by money
making schemes to spoil it apart from that who honestly wants to live near a national
or even global dumping ground for nuclear waste. PLEASE HAVE A HEART
Don’t mind the power stations, need a new one built there. Don’t want the worlds
nuclear waste dumped in the area. Get The New Power Station
Keep It In Cumbria!
Time to move on from very dangerous nuclear fuel. If germany can so can
wew.cumbria has far smaller population and far more space - let em have it if they
want - we don’t!!
Page 177
Appendix D
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
This must represent the most ridiculous scheme to have come from Shepway in many
a long period. As a former kent mine surveyer your proposal should be treated with
the contempt it deserves. You are wasting our hard earnt money on hair brained
schemes
This must represent the most ridiculous scheme to have come from Shepway in many
a long period. As a former kent mine surveyer your proposal should be treated with
the contempt it deserves. You are wasting our hard earnt money on hair brained
schemes
Shepway council in the past described the romney marsh as the jewel in the crown of
shepway. Why do they conside. Now only good enough to use as a tip for waste.
Surely this is just an ego trip for them. Why cant they get together and provide
something for imediate future, and stop the young people rearing the marsh. The
marsh was once a beautiful place.
Thank you for your letter of the 14th May, Ref RM -NRDF/2012 and opportunity to
comment on the expression of interest for a nuclear reaseach and disposal facility. I
am unable to support this initiative for a number of compelling reasons. Radioactive
waste is not benign product. It comprises some of the most volatile and hazard
material known to man. Its mismangement can have the most devastating impact on
biological and environmental systems. The proposed method of geological storage is
unproven and represents a long-term commitment to a hazard with uncertainties in its
control. It would need perpetual management and surveillance for hundreds and
thousands of years, longer if the transuranic elements in higher active waste are
considered.
New Romney should not be used as a dumping groun. And blackmail of jobs should
be used.
Thank you for considering The Romney Marsh for a radio active dump site!!! I would
like to suggest that they use the waste to fill in all the pot holes in the roads on the
Marsh they are big enough and deep enough and would last forever. Alternatively put
it somewhere under Folkestone sure it would attract visitors and house prices would
surely rise. Needless to say no thank you please leave Romney Marsh as it is.
Shepway Council would be wise to have nothing to do with this.
The recent japanese nuclear disaster ...CANNOT READ... from a facilty to near the
sea. It would be difficult to think of a worse place for a nuclear disposal facility then
Romney Marsh. Is it a fact that our planning dept have banned bungalows & only
allow houses to ...CANNOT READ...
We are concerend about the wild life, the enviroment and the water table.
In my opinion not a good proposal for this area. Romney Marsh deserves a much
better future than being a dumping groud. Sure will keep the visitors away. Will never
take off. Too much water underground.
If there really is a geological fault line under Dungeness - is it a good idea to have
deep disposal facilites at that location? Why not build Dungeness 'C' and support local
employment - with much needed electricty production - - Rye Battle & District News
copy of article dated April 23 1997 (enclosed) . This mentions fault line in Dungeness.
I will have questions only when I find out more. Forming an opinon before saying
''Yes'' to the question above, would indicate great ignorance.
If Romney Marsh is chosen as a site does this mean waste from all over the country
would be transported here? If so would this be by rail or road?
This is a pie in the sky idea. Are Shepway completely mad? We are on a flood plain. If
Marsh residents face not getting home insurance because of this then how can an
underground nuclear facility be even considered!!
Page 178
Appendix D
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
Jobs in nuclear established. Employment for area. But would a decision for be totally
honest? Known issues are: Site has faults geologically. Build would have to be below
water line - Leakage. Issues to resolve sea level rise. Impact - serious issue.
Would prefer that we fight for a new nuclear power station.
I deplore Shepway Council's attitude of more jobs regardless of the consequences for
Romney Marsh. First Lydd Airport expansion, now a nuclear waste dump; the
concept, let alone the reality, is enough to deter people from visiting or moving here.
Along with farming, tourism is the only sustainable industry in this area, and the
Council should do everything in its power to promote it. I resent the use of council tax
income to investigate the possibility for this nuclear facility.
to who it may concern, I have lived down here for 53 years, my father help build A
station and I work on B, station for 10 years, I don't want to see the environment spoilt
and lose all the nature in the area, Build C station , and upgrade the airport, which will
bring employment to the area, if you build houses we have not got the ...CANNOT
READ... i.e. schools, hospitals and no sea defence but shingle putting waste
undergruond will only attract people and their groups to stop this, and I would not
want to see that and I don't think anyone else does. I serve the general public
everyday in my job and they dont want it
Romney Marsh is a clean and pleasant palce, please do not allow nuclear waste in
our back yard, Nuclear waste is an unknown quantity and the effects of a leak could
be catastophic, another earthquake similar to the one in Folkestone a few years ago,
the fault line west of Dungeness 'B' and we could have a situation worse than
Chernoble.
Romney Marsh is a clean and pleasant palce, please do not allow nuclear waste in
our back yard, Nuclear waste is an unknown quantity and the effects of a leak could
be catastophic, another earthquake similar to the one in Folkestone a few years ago,
the fault line west of Dungeness 'B' and we could have a situation worse than
Chernoble.
The waste should be stored above sea level
The site would be better employed with a C station for power than a dumping ground
for Nuclear Waste.
We should all push for a new Nuclear Power and not waste time on something that
will not happenas natural England would put objections as they have with the nuclear
power station
This would be madness. We have wonderful airport facilities why don’t we use them?
I will be surprised if we have the appropriate geological conditions for this facility
No way. I don't know anyone who would want to live near to a nuclear waste disposal
facility. How can you even consider this? With erratic climate change and geological
movement, unpredictable weather conditions and the history of man made errors - no
one can guarentee safety. Let's look after our environment for future generations to
live safely!!!
1) Road structure and maintenance is deplorable at this time: Question: would this
help the Marsh maintain a decent structure to cope with the traffic flow. 2) Would this
really create local jobs? 3) How long to fill this disposal point and what happens to the
Marsh when full - Question is it a case of no more jobs - back to square one? 4) Will
our youngsters be trained to take on the tasks needed? 5) Will coastal defences be
put into place definately or is this just a suggestion? 6) I urge you not to commit to this
unless we are sure every aspect of safety is 100%
Page 179
Appendix D
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
If you get then go ahead well done. I am well relieved but believe the jobs are
important for the Marsh as I support the airport as well, it would be great to have both
for the future.
Although I have ticked yes it would depend on whether Lydd airport goes ahead. To
have both in close proximity has to be illogical and dangerous. I would say no to the
airport and yes to the waste facility
NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.
I believe this would be very good for the area. It would also be nice to see a C station
build along side this.
I would welcome the possible new Dungeness 'C', but I cannot support the proposal
for a Nuclear Research and Disposal Facility at Romney Marsh. I am not a geologist
or a geomorphologist but over a period of 15 years I heard an eminanet expert in
these fields discussing the Romney Marsh/Lydd Ranges/Dungeness/Hythe
Rnges/The Ranges, where there was significant land slip/the earthquake in
Folkestone etc. Lessons learned in creating the Channel Tunnel also point to the
unfeasability of the proposal for the Romney Marsh.
Too many people living in and around New Romney. This disposal facility should be
built where nobody lives. Any employment benefit would be lost as people (tourists)
would not come here anymore. Nuclear waste is very dangerous, why do you think
they use 2 railway engines to take it from Dungeness. Lets have an airport and a safe
Dungeness 'C' station. If you want some employment.
It would be good to see household waste being burnt to make electricity. This seems
to make perfect sense if we cannot have another nuclear power station.
I cannot see anything positive for going ahead with this project - only negative results.
If we can not have a new power station due to possible flooding. How can we have a
nuclear disposal facility which I would imagine would be below sea level? All you use
to justify airport etc is new jobs - why cant you be more creative re jobs eg ecotourism. You had a referendum re airport majority against but you ignored the local
view and tried to go ahead anyway. Guess you will do the same over this. Such a
facility would put a stigma on the area and destroy housing values. It's all about
money! More for the council to waste!
This project might or might not prove to be the long-term salvation of the Marsh. It is
therefore essential that the council should submit an Expression of Interest in order to
find out more. That decision must be informed by the views of the local Marsh
residents, and not under any circumstances by the determination of the leader of
KCC, and his fellow members of the great and the good, few of whom live here. KCC
has cried wolf on how many occasions, and the reality is that it has achieved little or
nothing for employment on the Marsh. As the SDC cabinet member for localism it is
essential that local people should make the decision whether or not to pursue this
option further. Those who seek to deny them this fundamental right should hang their
heads in shame. It beggers belief that they do not even accept the right of Marsh
residents, businessess and stakeholders to find out more, and subsequently make an
informed judgement. Given the uncertainty over the Lydd airport expansion and the
continuing unlikelihood that Dungeness C will ever come to fruition, we need to
explore this new option. Nobody who has the economic prosperity, infrastructure and
long term employment prospects of the Marsh at heart could possibly come to any
other conclusion. It may all come to nothing, but it is imperative that Marsh residents
make the decision - not those at County Hall who have done next to nothing, despite
all the ...CANNOT READ... words, from them over so many years. Regional Growth
Fund - Ha, Ha, Ha! Where's the beef? Where's the priority? Where's the money?
Page 180
Appendix D
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
I say definitely no to using the Marsh as a nuclear dump. NO NO NO and no more
power stations
I say No No No to the nuclear dump. Stuart Bartons views replicate my views. Please
read enclosed newspaper cutting. Why not build factorys on the site to provide work
for the local people.
In my opinion it is the councils duty to investigate all possible economic opportunities
Taking into acount the position of the proposed site, we strongly object on the
grounds of close proximity to the water table, possibly resulting in severe leakage,
plus destroying SSI land and lack of infrastructure for planned site. A more logical and
viable proposition would surely be a third Power Station plus expansion of the existing
airport, which as being suggested, would provide far more employment for the local
population for many years to come!!!
Taking into acount the position of the proposed site, we strongly object on the
grounds of close proximity to the water table, possibly resulting in severe leakage,
plus destroying SSI land and lack of infrastructure for planned site. A more logical and
viable proposition would surely be a third Power Station plus expansion of the existing
airport, which as being suggested, would provide far more employment for the local
population for many years to come!!!
A very good idea. Would help the Marsh for years to come
Will it be UK waste or other countries as well
Would love to see more jobs, but not sure about the rubbish!!
We have had nuclear facilties for all the time I have been on the Marsh (1996). With
improvements in technology there is little danger to the community. We need nuclear
power to keep the lights on and disposal of waste is part of this process. It will provide
much needed jobs.
Definitely no we already have enough in this area
No No No, enough is enough, think of our future generation.
Not sure if it will be good for New Romeny as most of the workforce will come from
outside of the area.
Another nuclear power station - yes. But not disposal facility! Romney Marsh is a
natural shingle bank and totally unsuitable
Lots to think about
Having only moved to this area last spetember (2011) I am appalled at this project. I
only wish I had had prior knowledge of this possibility as I certainly would not have
entertained the idea of moving here. I realise that the mere idea of this will already
have made my property unsaleable and worthless and feel very sorry for anyone
currently attempting to sell property in this area. The idea of living on a nuclear waste
dumping ground with lorries carrying toxic waste rumbling past my door daily is
horrifying. Waste should be buried deep under the sea or perhaps you are more
worried about the welfare of fish than humans in the event of long term harm or
accidents.
Since living in Littlestone, both my mother and wife have died of leukaemia. Now if the
insidence of this illness is no higher in my area than nationally then I am for going
ahead. Otherwise NO.
Would like to see Dungeness C being built. But if not the a Research and Disposal
Facility could bring much needed work into the area
Page 181
Appendix D
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
We do not think a Nuclear Disposal facility would be appropriate for the
Dungeness/Marsh area. 1) We have a very high water-table. 2) An RSPB site - apart
from the danger to migrating birds, there are other projects such as the introduction of
bees to the area to help pollination. 3) An airport - this could help the locoal economy
if planned properly. 4) A devestating effect on property prices, and of course, kill the
tourist industry in this area
We think this would be good for the area, it would also be good to see a Dungeness C
station build. Maybe the government would reconsider a Dungeness C if we had this
disposal facility near by. I would like to see the rail link between Lydd and Ashford
reopened, maybe this could be considered for communters being that the line would
be used for the transportation of waste.
If you put nuclear waste deep under the sea eventually it may leak out to affect the
fish and the area. It could possibly leak into our drinking water also. We are told that
there will not be a third power station to preserve our natural habitat. When you dig for
this project. The area will look like a building site for years and years. What happens
to the birds and bees then. I believe in nuclear power, my husband came to work at
Dungeness A in 1966. I think there should be another pwoer station, but I do not think
that we should be a rubbish dump for all the rest of the country it is too dangerous.
Possibly an earthquake or tsunami. Our earth is changing. I hope that you will take
some of these points into consideration.
No madness
Do you seriously want to bury any waste in a Marsh. Are this council competent to
decide. They wasted £2million on wheelie bin programme! Why waste more money
on consultants - rates are high enough now. Get life of Dungeness B extended
instead.
Yes go for it. We need the work. 31 years in the nuclear industry. Now retired.
My choice above is given on the express that is is agreeing to a fact-finding exercise
and not to anything extending to design/build etc. For my agreement to that I would
wish to see the results of geological surveys etc.
1) I do not think there is a need to find out more. 2) Romney Marsh is not a barren
wasteland. It is predominantly rich arable land used for rearing sheep and growing
crops. 3) For a rural area it has a relatively high density of population. More so if the
adjacent urban areas are taken into account. 4) Romney Marsh has a high water table
level. Whilst do doubt the engineering problems can be overcome the extra cost
would be extremely high. 5) Unemployment will be a problem. The current national
financial problems make it difficult to foresee future employment proposals of any
kind.
How many jobs & how long will they last? Development of the area? Increase in
amenities locally?
It would be good to find out more! Then we could make a informed decision.
Totally inappropiate. Council should be looking for ways to exploit tourism of area, not
ways to destroy it!
Dungeness is a SSSI , I am not aloud to flower growing there. It has already been
severly blighted by two nuclear power stations. Another large scale development
would be most unwelcome and would have a catastophic affect on the local
enviroment. Also the inhablitants in the locality would be subjected to a considerable
increase in motor vehicle activity. Call my a nimby but I would like to think that there
would be no more acts of vandalism by Government local or otherwise to spoil the
unique landscape.
Page 182
Appendix D
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
You need to concentrate on station C via the government, not underground storage
that will remain active for generations, we do not know the long term effects of
radiation as it is was only discovered in the 50'S and knowledge is currently limited.
Thank you for giving local people the chance to have a say in the future of Romney
Marsh. I have been living here since 1961 since then my father, father in law and
husband were involved with both power stns here. I think the way forward would be a
C stn to be built but for whatever reason it doesn't seem forthcoming at this stage. We
should concentrate on tourism and keep this unique part of the world as near as
possible for our future generations. If Cumbria want the business, then let them. They
already are familiar with it. I'm sorry for people needing jobs, especially the young.
but this isn't the way for jobs.
Having been invovled in the nuclear industry since the 1990's I am 100% in support of
this project for the Marsh.
Absolutely not. The area is probably geologically unsuitable - as it was for the
construction of the 2 existing stations. Disruption of an area of special scientific
interest would be unacceptable. Devaluation of local properties is also probable. Any
construction on the Marsh would be far too close to habitation & we cannot imagine
an estate agent attempting to sell an expensive property "only 4 miles away from the
biggest nuclear fuel dump in the UK" The water table on the Marsh - self explanatory.
Instead - why not improve connections to Ashford (& London) to make it more
attractive for job seekers. Historically we all had to leave the Marsh for work - make it
possible - more buses, re-open the rail connection. Get the airport going!!
Absolutely not. The area is probably geologically unsuitable - as it was for the
construction of the 2 existing stations. Disruption of an area of special scientific
interest would be unacceptable. Devaluation of local properties is also probable. Any
construction on the Marsh would be far too close to habitation & we cannot imagine
an estate agent attempting to sell an expensive property "only 4 miles away from the
biggest nuclear fuel dump in the UK" The water table on the Marsh - self explanatory.
Instead - why not improve connections to Ashford (& London) to make it more
attractive for job seekers. Historically we all had to leave the Marsh for work - make it
possible - more buses, re-open the rail connection. Get the airport going!!
We have lived by nuclear energery for a long time, alwaus under the threat of
explotion and certain death. I think we have our share, enough is enough!
1) Disruption from vehicles and lorrys on the roads plus inconvenience for years to
come. 2) The area would be down graded people would want to move away. House
prices would drop and would not be able to sell. 3) The waste would come in by road,
a danger to other road users. What if a lorry has an accident? 4) Leakage Health
and safety to residence, present and future generations. The sea and wildlife would
also suffer. 5) Employment - Not necessarily local people. Most of the people are
retired. At present there are Italian pilots flying in and out of Lydd airport!? A large
part of the young move away to live their own 'lives'. I myself lived at Chiselhurst and
travelled to Heathrow Airport to work for many years every day! 6) Financial gains From this pipe dream the Government would take there amount leaving the KCC and
Shepway Council looking for their pickings. I would not think New Romney and
surrounding area would not benifit. Location I feel sure that there are other parts of
England and Wales were this bunker could be placed. I know of other parts of the
country areas miles from civilisation. This is not wanted at Dungeness or in fact in
Kent at all. No No No dont dont want it. County of Kent: - Is already being called the
concreat county because of all of that is going on, villages turned in to towns and
towns turned in to cities.
Page 183
Appendix D
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
I am totally against this proposal.
I feel it is your DUTY to enquire further. I am also in favour of development in the
Romney Marsh area.
This could be just what the Marsh needs.
I WORK IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AT DUNGENESS A SITE AND HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED WITH STAFF REDUCTION AND THE DEVISTATING EFFECT THAT IT
HAS ON PEOPLE
NUCLEAR WASTE IS SAFE AND WE SHOULD EMBRACE ANY TYPE OF
INDUSTRY WHICH WILL SECURE OUR LONG TERM FUTURE
SHEPWAY DISTRICT COUNCIL MIGHT MEAN WELL WITH IT'S SUGGESTION OF
A NUCLEAR WASTE FACILITY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT WOULD BE DOING
THE AREA UNTOLD DAMAGE REGARDING PEOPLE WANTING TO BUY
PROPERTY AND WANTING TO LIVE IN THIS AREA.
IF THIS FACILITY GOES AHEAD WE WILL ALL BE LIVING IN A SECOND CLASS
SOCIETY, I HOPE THE COUNCIL IS NOT GOING TO SPEND LARGE SUMS OF
RATE PAYERS MONEY AS THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE TRYING TO JUSTIFY
THE EXPANSION OF LYDD AIRPORT.
To consider this is madness. The technology & understanding is in its infancy.
Consider dumping the waste in a desert area, not a populated area. Why would
Romney Marsh want to be considered as a dumping ground for toxic waste to be in
place for up to 1 million years. This was mentioned in the exhibition - we cannot
forsee 100 years - 1 million!! is absolute stupidity.
IF THE THREAT TO BUILDING ANOTHER POWER STATION IN THIS AREA IS
STOPPING THE PLANNING OF ONE WHY IS A DISPOSAL FACILITY ANY MORE
SUTIABLE ------------------ SAY NO!
I THINK THIS IS A TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE PROPOSAL FOR THIS AREA IN
EVERY RESPECT AND THAT NO FURTHER COUNCIL TAX PAYERS' MONEY
SHOULD BE SPENT ON IT.
WHILST I AM SURE SUCH A FACILITY WOULD BE SAFE, I DO NOT THINK
ROMNEY MARSH IS THE MOST SUITABLE IN TERMS OF ACCESSABILITY.
SOMEWHERE NEARER THE CENTRE OF THE UK WOULD SEEM A BETTER
CHOICE.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS WOULD ADD TO THE PRESSURES (ALBEIT IN A SMALL
WAY) ON THIS UNIQUE COMMUNITY AND GEOGRAPHICAL AREA.
I HAVE BEEN TO EXHIBITIONS AT DUNGENESS WHICH I FOUND VERY
INTERESTING BUT STILL FEEL THIS WOULD EFFECT THE AREA AND
PROPERTY PRICES WOULD FALL. ANOTHER POWER STATION WOULD BE
FINE.
MAD
AS MAD AS AIRPORT
* & what is intended to make access easier
& not clog our, already busy, roads?
& how long do you envisage the building to take?
& Can any of the men (& their families) who came here for the Power Stations, be
employed?
I believe that Shepway should go ahead with the submission because not only would
such a development bring benefits to the area but would demonstrate that Shepway is
an area with a future and help attract further businesses.
Would need to know a lot more about the proposal before making any decision.
Page 184
Appendix D
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
WE ARE AN AREA PRONE TO EARTHQUAKES DIGGING TO 3,000' COULD
TRIGGER AN EARTHQUAKE
No, we should not spend money finding out more. It is an unbelievably bad idea. No
tourists would want to come here.
I think it would be a disaster for the life style of the Marsh - The Fifth Quarter of the
globe. We would have world wide deposits of Nuclear waste by all route which would
ruin the Marsh.
It would be much more important to have a third Nuclear Power station at Dungness.
You will need a much fuller publicity programme to persuade people that a "DUMP"is
a good thing! The local press and MP seem to be offside for now.
ANY EXPRESSION OF INTEREST IN SUCH A FACILITY WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE
EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES AS NO ONE WANTS THIS TYPE OF FACILITY
IN THEIR BACK GARDEN.
NO MORE MONEY SHOULD BE SPEND ON THIS.
It seems so unfair that we can't have our own power station but we can have
everybody elses waste!
I HAVE ALWAYS CONSIDERED THE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS AT
DUNGENESS TO BE GOOD NEIGHBOURS.
I WAS DISAPPOINTED THAT A NEW POWER STATION WOULD NOT BE BUILT.
THE NUCLEAR FACILITIES PROVIDE A GREAT MANY HIGH QUALITY JOBS ON
THE MARSH.
IN CONTRAST DEVELOPMENT OF LYDD AIRFIELD WOULD BE A VERY BAD
NEIGHBOUR DUE TO NOISE AND POLLUTION ON A DAILY BASIS. JOBS AT
AIRPORTS ARE FEWER AND MOST WILL BE LOW WORTH.
MY OWN SONS ARE STUDYING PHYSICS AND GEOLOGY AT UNIVERSITY AND
THEY WOULD BE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE EMPLOYED AT A NUCLEAR
FACILITY THAN AN AIRFIELD.
WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE LONG TERM FUTURE OF THE MARSH ANY TRY
TO ATTACT HIGH QUALITY JOBS RATHER THAN AIRPORT JOBS.
I HAVE SEVERAL RELATIVES WHO HAVE WORKED OR ARE WORKING AT
HEATHROW AND I HAVE SEEN THE DISADVANTAGES OF EXPANDING
AIRPORTS.
NUCLEAR FACILITIES ARE AN IMPORTANT AND EXCITING DEVELOPMENT I
WELCOME THE PROPOSALS.
No way on. Romney Marsh. What a terrible idea!! For us and our grandchildren No!!
Insufficient information available to make a reasoned decision.
Romney Marsh is a unique area and should not be used as a nuclear disposal facility
I feel the peace and tranquility of the Marsh will be lost. The infrastructure needed
would cause untold misery if the proposal was to go ahead. As many of the residents
in the area are elderly, it would affect the whole community.
I very much 'doubt' this will encourage the use of local labour, most will be highly
skilled or sourcd externally via the construction partnership.
Page 185
Appendix D
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
Romney Marsh is a unique historical area, having a nuclear disposal facility would
ruin this and deter visitors. Road links bad, so would need to build new roads carving
up the Marsh. Transporting waste to an area on the edge of the country rather than in
the centre, would be foolish and could be an increased risk to health and safety of
other road users at a greater distance. The water table is high and the area is in a
high flood risk area. A geological survey will cost £100s of thousands of pounds and if
not suitable would be a waste of tax payers money. Jobs are needed on the Marsh,
why not use this money to encourage small business and large businesses to move
here. This survey is unsound, what is to stop anyone filling out multiple forms on
behalf of their neighbours etc, without their knowledge.
Putting a nuclear dump below sea level by the sea is idiotic. Put it 1) Far from the
coast. 2) Far from seismicly unstable areas. 3) Far from populated areas. 4) Deep
underground in solid rock.
Our lovely rural area, should not be even concidered for such a toxic and potentionaly
dangerous business. There are several reasons why not. Below sea level. Disruption
of local people for a very long time, and others. We have 3 generations living here all
against!
Our concerns would be of health issues. What dangers could this have on locals in
the Romney Marsh area.
I have no problems with this proposal we all need electric power. I see no problems
with safety. Good for future employment. Good for future of Shepway. Lets get on and
apply. Quickly!
I would not want to live anywhere near a nuclear waste dumping ground & I'm sure it
would put off holiday makers.
Will ruin the appeal of the Romney Marsh.
Good idea, we need jobs in the area.
I have lived in New Romney for 35 years and my wife and I have been very happy on
the Marsh. I don’t see the point of making the Marsh a dumping ground for G. Britain.
What next a dumping site for Europe or the World no thanks.
We need Dungeness C to be built, not just to use the Marsh as a dumping ground
with the proposed 'Disposal Facility'.
Will there be a similar 'public vote' when any proposals are finalised?
This scheme is unadvisable for reasons of safety - disturbance and upheaval in a
unique place of wildlife and access for heavy vehicles etc.
I am definitely opposed to a disposal facility on Romney Marsh. This area is unspoilt lets keep it that way!
I found the presentation in New Romney interesting and infromative. The idea of an
initial feasibility study with no other commitment at this stage is the right strategy. As I
said on that day, I am convinced that we need a nuclear energy programme, and
therefore must have waste disposal facilities. I did also say that my observations are
based on educational activities within this field in several countries. My wife is in
agreement. Deep underground storage in appropriate geological conditions seems
the best way.
Romney Marsh, should use this proposal in a 'positive way' forward for the area's
'poor employment' status - improvement on ideas for travel and local infrastructure are
desperately needed in a rural environment where buses are at a premium hourly
service!! Dark age travel!!
Having worked at Dungeness 'A' for the past 36yrs I would welcome any proposals in
the future.
Page 186
Appendix D
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
To even consider investigating this matter further would be ill advised in the extreme
for the following reasons: 1) The environemtnal impact on the people and wildlife
during construction and operation would be considerable. 2) The instability of the
geological structure of the Romney Marsh, as evidenced by the recent earthquake
activity which so affected Folkestone and the surrounding area, should preclude any
thought of such an undertaking. 3) The forecast threat of rising sea levels due to
global warming which when it happens will have a devestating effect on the Romney
Marsh and surrounding areas would certainly overwhelm any structures below ground
level. 4) The future threat of leakage into the water table and general environment,
which however far in the future, is almost inevitable. 5) The detrimanetal effect on
visitor numbers and busniess lcoation to this area if there is a perceived threat or
anything radiologically hazardous to health. 6) Even a cursory investigation into the
possibility of siting these facilities here on the Romney Marsh will involve time and
expenditure that would be better spent elsewhere within your area of fiscal control.
Have heard it could be in the sea. If this is a possibility (?) let us know please. How
about our high water table level?
Romney Marsh is unique and I do not support an expression of interest.
Unacceptable: Increase in traffic. Increase in pollution. Natural flora and fauna
adversley affected. Would deter visitors & holidaymakers. Property prices would be
decimated. No. No. No!
Better to have this as the area has many nuclear trained personnel from the power
stations and would provide many job opportunities and a much better project than the
proposed airport extension which would ruin the Romney Marsh area.
Persuing this scheme will have a negative impact on tourism.
We have to explore all nuclear opportunities if it is for a research & disposal facility or
a 'C' site at Dungeness for job & skill prospects.
The Romney Marsh needs long term employment prospects for young people & those
currently unemployed.
We are a Marsh and as such do not feel the area or ground suitable for such a
project.
I have no objection into exploring the possible job and infrastructure improvements for
the area this may or may not produce.
Geology not appropriate.
No not on Romney Marsh.
1) Most people I have spoken to assume this installation will be at Dungeness. The
chances of this are almost nil. What site could be used? Before the expense and
upheaval of soil testing etc. this should be clarified. 2) Will it be only Marsh residents
involved in the consultations or all of Shepway? 3) The word 'Nuclear' immediately
gves a negative response I suggest 'Radioactive' is a more suitable term.
Does the word Marsh not indicate the unsuitability of the site? Instead of wasting
money on this survey it would have been better spent on keeping the public toilets
open.
We do NOT want a nuclear disposal facility we should have a new nuclear power
station rhis would be better for us in the long term I think. We need power not waste
(nuclear)
Nuclear research and disposal facility Not wanted on the Romney Marsh
Page 187
Appendix D
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
I do not think geology of this area is suitable for nuclear disposal. In the event of an
accident it would not absort dangerous materials. There are other areas in the UK that
would be safer. I think Shepway District Council should look carefully at other ways of
increasing jobs in this area. Surely there must be people with imagination to help with
job creation.
I do not think geology of this area is suitable for nuclear disposal. In the event of an
accident it would not absort dangerous materials. There are other areas in the UK that
would be safer. I think Shepway District Council should look carefully at other ways of
increasing jobs in this area. Surely there must be people with imagination to help with
job creation.
This can only be good for the economy of the area.
Concerns about safety aspects. Poss radiation leaks or accidents occuring during
transit of radio active waste to site.
If nuclear waste facility can be considered and money spent on the research of this.
Why cannot the same time and energy be put into attacting "c" station to the
Dungeness Site. The experience workforce for a third station is already here. A waste
Facility will make properties in a large area worthless.
Too early to say impossible to give precise details, Likely there would be only be one
such facility. All thee negatives in your proposal about a very big issue mangaging
radio active by products from the countrys nuclear industry! NO THANKYOU NOT ON
THE MARSH.
We are totally against this suggestion. Ads councellors would you like this in your
back garden?
A definite No to nuclear disposal. The marsh is a very small area of britsh isles and
there must be considerably more suitble places to put it. We should not mar our
beautiful small landscape as a dumping ground
All the concrete spread around "The Garden of Kent" has fast become the garden
path of kent, now it is to be turned into a disposal facility, IE a Rubbish Dump.
All the concrete spread around "The Garden of Kent" has fast become the garden
path of kent, now it is to be turned into a disposal facility, IE a Rubbish Dump.
Definitely opposed to this facility on Romney Marsh. Rather not the power stations
either. Wish an alternative to nuclear power could be found and alternative ways to
invest and keep area alive also. Be nice not to be known for nuclear (New Romney)
also for safety and be great not to have a nuclear environment.
The diasters that have happened to nuclear industry throughout the world in the last
few years surely is a warning of the high risks being taken not only from accidents but
from natural disasters.
Far better to build a new power station. This would bring more jobs. Not developing
the airport which would bring us a lot fewer by comparison
To go ahead will significantly reduce the value of all housing on the marsh and make
it very difficult to sell, what's left of the tourism industry will further destroyed - who
wants to visit anywhere near a nuclear dump? Locals will be living in fear of leakage
which if happened will cause an ecological disaster. The dump will not create any
decent jobs, most of which will go to experienced people in this area of expertise from
outside the area. The dump will end up taking waste from anyone /any country and
we will be helpless to prevent it. This is a disaster waiting to happen and an insult to
suggest even the possibility of having a dump. Whoever thought it would be a good
idea should resign as they are clearly not fit to be in any position of power.
Page 188
Appendix D
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
To go ahead will significantly reduce the value of all housing on the marsh and make
it very difficult to sell, what's left of the tourism industry will further destroyed - who
wants to visit anywhere near a nuclear dump? Locals will be living in fear of leakage
which if happened will cause an ecological disaster. The dump will not create any
decent jobs, most of which will go to experienced people in this area of expertise from
outside the area. The dump will end up taking waste from anyone /any country and
we will be helpless to prevent it. This is a disaster waiting to happen and an insult to
suggest even the possibility of having a dump. Whoever thought it would be a good
idea should resign as they are clearly not fit to be in any position of power.
PLENTY OF SPACE ON MARSH!!! BUILD IT ON THE ****** AIRPORT SITE. MORE
NEED FOR WASTE THAN AN AIRPORT TO NOWHERE
No Thank you, Blight our area we woukld become the countrys lepors av house
prices, tourist trade blighted when was the last time someone went to selafield on an
holiday?
Poor Romney Marsh, whoever thought this one up needs to be more aware of the
beautiful area we live in, why risk losing it? Perhaps it was the same idiot of idiots who
went to wild life and precious shingle banks, no suitable road or rail links and superb
primary school at the end of the runway No! No! No! oh for someone with a modicum
of common sence!
Its not a good thing to be indecisive. Although it is very serious thing to think about. A
nuclear waste disposal facility on THE Romney Marsh, However it would create jobs
but would make a lot of people very unhappy. This made me think of my sister in law.
She moved from Cornwall to Dungeness in the 80s she later discovered that there
was a power station had she had know she would never have moved. As soon as was
possible she sold her property to return to cornwall of course! had i known of her
aversion to nuclear power stations i could have stopped her moving to Kent. It made
me wonder how she would have reacted.
I don’t think many people on the Marsh will like the idea of nuclear wastedisposed
under Romney Marsh. If it will bring jobs and work for the younger generation so be it
we will see.
Shepway should consider redeveloping Dungeness B/C station and Lydd airport to
conserve the little investment that the marsh has managed to cling on to. This is just
another excuse to use The Garden of England as another dumping ground for nuclear
waste. we already become the concrete Garden of England with more and more
developments being proposed without a thought for the people who live here or
impact on the beautiful countryside we are desparately clinging onto. I expect that
irrespectively what the population of the marsh think i sure shepway will continue to
absorb as much as possible. It's a shame that more money is not put into investing in
more appropiate facilities that this area lacks. The Marsh should be made into a SSSI
area of outstanding natural beauty. Maybe it would stop outragous plans like these
and develop the marsh in more key areas using your limited funds wisely.
I feel we should not take this proposal any further for the following reasons:- The land
of Romney Marsh is a reclaimed area from the sea and therefore geologically an
unstable area prone to flooding. Nuclear waste from other parts of the country would
have to be transported by road or rail through the densely populated and congested
area in and around London, Therefore being exposed to and at risk from unforseen
incidents of a hazardous nature
Having been assciated with Dungeness since 1960s, I would be pleased to see
further developemtns. The proposal for storage and disposal site seems to be
uneconmic at this location. Another power station would be ideal.
Page 189
Appendix D
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
Better to keep the nuclear power station running. A Nuclear waste disposal facility on
Romney Marsh would be alarming.
I don’t want a nuclear waste facility on my doorstep, if this happens The Council can
give me the full price of my property and I would move away as no one will want to
live in this area.
We need jobs in the Romney Marsh not nuclear disposal facilities that will stop people
coming buying house here nor investing in companies that will provide jobs.
I am very much in favour of this proposal as a Romney Marsh resident and
Dungeness A employee. I would suggest the Lydd Airport site would be a good
location as it is well placed to update rail and road infastucture. I would also expect
flying over the site to be limmited anyway.
We should not consider such a proposal for the area that is subject to flooding. Sea
water is more corrosive that fresh water.
My concern is the effect it will have on the water table and drinking supplies of the
area. When a request for a new cemetry in church road nr was suggested - one of the
objections was the effect on water table plus the usual objections of wildlife issues What we need is the latter unless of course we all carry on living!!
Romney Marsh is an area of scientific interest. With very fertile soil that should be
used to produce more food insead of importing so much. Why waste time and tax
payers money on a scheme which is unworkable. Any child who has dug holes on the
beach finds they fill with water. As we can not have a new cemetary on the marsh
because of high water table. How can we possibly bury Nuclear waste ??
We are definite NIMBYS on this. How any councillor or any person who expresses
love, affection and affinity for Romney Marsh can even think about disgracing the area
with something like this is beyond comprehension The area is supposedly Shepways
Jewel in the crown but with this facility in the area there would be no crown jewel. The
facility would not really bring that much local employment as it would require
specialists to build and run as with the power stations labour would be brought in.
Apart from that our young people need jobs now not in 15 years timeas a person born
on the marsh what is Cllr Godfrey thinking about then he doesnt live on the marsh
now, as with the majority of District Councillors.
We are definite NIMBYS on this. How any councillor or any person who expresses
love, affection and affinity for Romney Marsh can even think about disgracing the area
with something like this is beyond comprehension The area is supposedly Shepways
Jewel in the crown but with this facility in the area there would be no crown jewel. The
facility would not really bring that much local employment as it would require
specialists to build and run as with the power stations labour would be brought in.
Apart from that our young people need jobs now not in 15 years timeas a person born
on the marsh what is Cllr Godfrey thinking about then he doesnt live on the marsh
now, as with the majority of District Councillors.
Page 190
Appendix D
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
The NDA's Safety case is not proven. The full facts concerning the nature of the
proposed geological disposal have not been made known to the publioc eg that the
prosed host rock is day. There is no existing facility in this type of sedumertary rock.
There is an unresolved conflict between the heat generated during radioactive decay
of HLW and the proposed host rock. The need to cool the metal containers above
ground for 50 years before they can be safety stored in vaults in the day is not
referred to. The fact that ventilation of cavern and passageways will be by natural
means regarding a network of ventilation shafts across the marsh is not mentioned.
The fact that the storage facility is not designed to be monitored post closure is not
refered to. As a consequence any leakage of radioactivity from the metal containers
into the permeable host rock and then by pathways to the external environment will go
undetected.
No should be buried at some lnd a long way from New Romney
We think that as the area is a high flood risk area it is entirely unsuitable for nuclear
research and disposal facility on Romney Marsh. There are many othrer reasons that
we are firmly against a nuclear research and disposal facility.
We are entirely in favour of this project.
We are entirely in favour of this project.
I have read the leaflet that your team have sent to local residents regarding the
potential to develop the long term storage facility for nuclear waste. I should express a
personal interest. I used to be the *JOB TITLE REMOVED FOR REASONS OF
CONFIDENTIALITY* at Dungeness B.
I strongly support Shepway Council expressing an interest in developing this facility.
Clearly, many questions need to be answered before any project could begin, but the
long term benifits to both the local area and the Country as a whole may be
enormous. We should not pass up such an opportunity.
If I can be of any assistance, given my knowledge and experience of the industry,
please do not hesitate to contact me either by e-mail or telephone.
With Government and electricity providers seemingly unwilling to build a new station
at Dungeness 'C' I object to the proposal that this area should be used as a nuclear
dump. I find it difficult to visualise that, in the long term, employment prospects in this
area would be aided by such a construction.
Any possibility of employment opportunities should be investigated. Nuclear power is
accepted as a safe option and we are used to the power stations at Dungeness which
are already storing spent fuel in the A station, I am informed. I doubt that the geology
will be suitable but we should find out more.
No! No! No! Please do not ruin the marsh, thinking of having an airport is bad
enough, this is just going too far.
I run an engineering company in Lydd but really can't see why we would want waste
buried here. The effect of tourism would be bad and the job argument is not
convincing as there are many other ways jobs can be created much sooner by
companies such as mine. What is needed is a greater investment locally in
engineering education and training and I am pleased to see the new apprenticeship
scheme. It's a pity there are so few local courses relevant to electronic or electrical
engineering and virtually no local adult education. SDC (and KCC) could be much
more helpful with many of the issues which affect small businesses, such as general
waste disposal.
Page 191
Appendix D
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
From the May 2012 "Have your say" information sheet, it would appear to me that the
only part of the facility on Romney Marsh would be the access area at Dungeness.
The storage area would be under deep under sea in the channel. I have no objection
against this provided that improved sea defences are provided against the risk of
flood or Tsunami, and adequate security is provided for transport and the facility.
You should be looking to preserve and promote the Marsh as it is unique. These
hideous plans that Shepway Council keep coming up with to destroy the envirionment
is detering people from investing in the area and if Shepway Council have money to
spend it would be better invested in the envirionment and infrastructure than
destroying it. The roads on the Marsh are an absolute disgrace, none more so than
Queens Road, Littlestone.
There is a geological fault running through Dungeness. In recent years we had a
local earthquake centred on Folkestone, the risks of this happening at Dungeness
must be high. The Marsh deserves better than this, with employment now and not in
25 years time.
I don't understand how this repository can be considered and a new Nuclear Power
station can be declined so easily by English Nature. The statement that they are
willing to work with any proposer to find a way around the issues is weak, no proposer
will come to Shepway with a proposal when other sites are available without such
caveats.
The proposed site only has a small section which is SSSI and there would be no SSSI
at Dungeness without the protection the habitat has received by having two Nuclear
power stations there.
Shepway Council are to be commended for their enlightened and responsible
approach to a subject of nuclear waste disposal.
Nuclear waste is a by product of the power industry, the health service, and other
industries. We all benefit from these industries, either directly or indirectly. I believe
that we must be responsible for taking an informed decision on the disposal of nuclear
waste and not just leaving it for future generations.
At this stage, having seen the exhibition and read other material, I am in favour of
finding out more information as to the suitability or otherwise of Romney Marsh as a
nuclear research and disposal facility. Further, if the preliminary geological studies
find that Romney Marsh could be a suitable site, then I would favour the possible
development of such a facility here. It would provide sustainable jobs at all levels, and
the transport infrastructure would certainly be improved
I am discouraged by the words coming from our MP and from the Leader of Kent
County Council, which demonstrate either a lack of understanding of the issues or a
short sighted political stance that is not worthy of our elected leaders.
I cannot believe that SDCllrs could even consider turning Romney Marsh into a
nuclear waste dump. The underground tunnels could run under houses or schools,it
will not be built at Dungeness as substrata is unsuitable. There is no guarantee that
the stored waste fuel will not leak,if our councillors think there is they are delusional.
Does the council really think that this would encourage people to live here or visit the
area as tourists?
It is time to stop building nuclear power stations that will produce more nuclear waste,
no one knows what problems this is going to cause for many future generations.
When the first nuclear power stations were being designed, the design should have
included how to safely dispose of the spent waste fuel, but it did not because no one
knew the answer and still doesn't know the answer to this problem.
While we want jobs, we do not want them at any price and risk to many future
Page 192
Appendix D
generations.
Instead of nuclear power the country should be working on wave and water power,
this is an island surrounded by moving water,we could be producing enough fuel to
export. The wave power turbines could be produced and assembled on Romney
Marsh, there could be a power station at Dungeness as the wave power needs to be
fed into the national grid or exported.
Why did councillors decide to spend £40K on a survey for something that is not going
to benefit residents of Romney Marsh? Surely they could have found better things to
spend this money on during a recession.
Can our our cllrs guarantee one hundred per cent that there will never be any leaks
from the storage facility or from a Dungeness C nuclear facility? I believe the answer
is no.
Other areas where spent nuclear fuel has been stored have seen a higher percentage
of child leukemia in surrounding areas, can our councillors guarantee one hundred
per cent that this is not connected to the nuclear waste and would not happen here?
I learned about the dangers of the storage of nuclear waste as a young girl, I am now
in my 7th decade.
Other areas are laughing at our council, even considering this proposal. The more
we learn about this the more our councillors appear to have jumped on a band wagon
and not thought about the people they represent.
We need jobs on Romney Marsh but not at the cost of generations of lives as once
there is a leak it will take hundreds and hundreds of years to make the area safe. If
our cllrs had ever met Chernobyl survivors, as I have, they would know the effects of
radiation.
Why not encourage the expansion of Lydd Airport it would encourage other
companies to take on employees.
It is time to encourage people who have the ability to design new products and start
new businesses on Romney Marsh. Ask the Government to subsides companies
moving into the area, help our fishing industry that is dwindling.
We do not want this nuclear waste dump.
As for the above ground facility how many local residents do they really would gain
employment from this? I would suggest it is very few and it certainly wouldn't help
youngsters leaving school without scientific qualifications.
Regards
1572 I am exceedingly annoyed that the proposed public meeting arranged for Thursday
21st June has been given NO PUBLICITY at all in the local area. BBC Radio Kent are
not aware and the press release I have seen was issued with less than 10 days
notice.
This gives local people virtually no notice or time to attend the meeting, another KCC
whitewash.
I would therefore suggest that this meeting be cancelled so that local people can be
given the chance to air their views and hear what you have to say.
This is NOT democracy in action!
1573 A more ridiculous scheme could not be found to support. Our tax payers money
should be spent on more feasible schemes within the region. This is a carrot to the R
Marsh population that will have turned rotten before any theoretical benifits
1574 I suspect that the government wants to get some competition going with Cumbria on
this and that in the end the Marsh would be too close to London to be selected. Also I
think having the prospect hanging around will not do anything for tourism or other
possible developments.
Page 193
Appendix D
1575 Totally inappropriate development for Romney Marsh - leaving aside all aspects of
hazard risk.
The exercise is an unacceptable waste of public money. Shepway District Council has
failed to undertake even the most basic level of research and has openly admitted this
to be the case. Nirex screened out (as unsuitable) Dungeness, Hythe Range, Lydd
Range and camp when investigating government owned sites aroubd the UK,
presaging that Romney Marsh as a whole is unsuitable.
Considerably higher rail movements through London will be required by a Southern
based facility suggesting fierce opposition from this area.
1576 We do not want hazardous waste buried on this SSSI site
1577 One should not have a closed mind to such an important issue. We should embrace
the project and learn as much as possible about both the opportunities for the area as
a whole and any potential damage that may also be caused, not least potential blight
to property prices if New Romney is seen as a no go destination due to such a facility.
However this could also have a very positive effect for the area and as residents we
should take an active interest and ensure that should such a facility be built it is
strickly managed and with all the necessary precautions that go with it.
1578 This is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion for the following reasons: 1. 1000s of years
of potential pollution within a SSSI area. 2. Will put people off visiting the area, when
tourism is so important to the local economy. 3. It will not create significant numbers
of jobs and, in fact, if tourism is affected, it may lead to job losses. 4. The marsh is a
high flood risk area 5. Romney Marsh deserves better: improved transport links and
infrastructure will enable people to travel to nearby Ashford and Folkestone for work.
They can still live on the marsh, they just have to travel a bit further (like most of the
UK population). 6. Investment in tourism will also create more jobs. Nobody will want
to visit a nuclear waste site.
1579 I do not believe that a nuclear research and disposal facility would benefit the area,
nor that it would create a significant amount of jobs for the local community. Although
a number of jobs may arise during the construction phase, I doubt very much that
there would be a significant amount of jobs created for the longer term. Instead we
should continue to look into the possibility of a 'Dungeness C' power station which
would benefit the area significantly.
1580 1) Looking around Europe, nuclear storage is one of the most controversial topics.
Even the most eminent scientific opinion is completely divided on safety and long term
impact.
2) The Romney Marsh infrastructure has been unfit for purpose for many years
without transportation of this kind of material.
3) The area has already been considered unsuitable for another nuclear power
station. Why should it then be suitable for nuclear storage?
4) Romney Marsh already has 'deprived' status - let's not add to it.
1581 Please look at other natural power.
1582 There is no harm in finding out more information
1583 There is already an area in cumbria that is set up to deal with nuclear waste and do
not feel that there is a need to have these facilities dotted around the rest of the
country.
1584 We need this for obvious reasons of employment and finance to the local community.
We also need further action on Lydd Airport.
Page 194
Appendix D
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
Romney Marsh is a totally unique area in terms of flora, fauna, landscape and history.
It is also quite unsafe in terms of geology and the likely effects of climate change to be
used as a dumping ground for hazardous nuclear waste.
Romney Marsh is totally unsuitable for this facility. Both the geology and the
geography (flood plain) make it the wrong place to store long term radioactive
materials of this type. It is also an area of outstanding beauty, not an industrial
development site.
I am very much in favour of this propsal. We have managed all these years with the
power stations there so do not see any safety problems. With out local employment
this area will just continue to decline.
An unmitigated disaster
for goodness sake leave the area as it is
This is like some Al Quaeda plot! I cannot believe that my Govt. in UK could have
spent thousands of pounds already on planning something like this under our homes.
I felt quite sick when I heard the news on TV and received your extraordinary letter.
The answer from me is certainly a NO! How can you even be wasteing money on
producing all this paper work on such an act of ludicrous lunacy! Its like some
"horror" movie! HANDS OFF THE MARSH! Go away and leave us alone!!!
I do think this is one of the dafter notions to be put forward!
Have they realy thought this out? The Romney marsh is a high risk of flooding
area.The land used to be under the sea & this situation could arise again in the
distant future. So they intend building a shaft up to 100mts deep with tunnels to store
radio active waste for 100s of years.The mind boggles
I can't believe you guys are even considering turning Romney Marsh in to the UK's
nuclear dump. Have you not thought of retaining the peace, tranquility & beauty of the
Marsh & encouraging sustainable tourism, rather than wanting to drive our visitors
away?
Good idea
We need to safeguard employment in this area for our children.
This idea would be a terriable mistake for the area. i cant believe that its even being
considered.
I feel that if this area is to make any progress for the future this needs to be stopped
right now. The area is the largest shingle bed in the UK making it the only area of the
UK named as a desert. Single moves, it caves in easy, to build under this would have
disaster written all over the whole project.
I grew up in this area and i remember thinking this is the end of the earth, nothing
here no prospects at all, then the airport was proposed and hope came. this area
could be great, a thriving place with a wonderful future if only the right things were put
into place. this proposal of a nuclear waste dumping site would mean that there is
totally nothing here forever! this would ruin any prospects that this area could have ,
we will condem the future of this area. the nuclear dumping centre would mean the
end for romney marsh, NO FUTURE AT ALL!
Enviromentally this would have a hughe impact, there are nature reserves in the area
which would be affected by this as well as the very high risk of leakage into the
ground. The water table would also be too close for comfort. Then there is the sea,
what carnage could be afflicked onto that if a leakage occured!
I didnt agree with a new power station, i wanted the airport, but in contrast with this a
power station would be much safer and a much better thing. In all fairness the Airport
is the only way forward for this area to creat new jobs and give Romney Marsh a good
future. The area need's to be updated yes and yes we need change but good change
Page 195
Appendix D
not a change that will cause major issues for the future putting a blight on the area for
good.
What we need is a good shopping centre, with a some entertainment in it like a
cinema or bowling alley. This with an airport bringing in vistiors from far away would
improve the area make us a vistor attraction not kill of the area totally by distroying
what little we have got here.
Having this dumping centre would mean house prices will crumble, meaning every
house owner in the area will loose everything. Waht about these poor people? they
have spent good money to live here and then bam a nuclear waste site takes all that
away with no compensation just broken dreams!
Did we not learn from japan, a natural disaster would mean mass deversation with
this proposed idea!
This is the worse idea ever for our area im totally in shock at the idea and hope that
this idea is stopped!
Why cant the local government and coucils actually come up with any good ideas that
would be friendly to improve the area, why nuclear? why a dumping station? what
about all the nice things that could be done to give real improvement a real future and
real prospects for the area?
1596 1. Cumbria already stores nuclear waste in solid rock yet there is much evidence
suggesting leakage and causing health problems to residents in the area. Romney
Marsh is situated on the worlds largest shingle bank, hardly comparable to the solid
rock in Cumbria.
2. The work force will be largely sourced from outside the area, much as it is now. It
would have little effect on the lack of employment in the area.
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
NEW ROMNEY BUSINESSES
Construction of storage under the sea might sit better with locals.
Why such a long time scale '15 to 20' years before the start of construction - surely
we can speed up the process.
We need a new powerstation not a dumping ground, will not be able to sale property.
The area needs something, I wouldn’t be happy if I lived on the Marsh, personally I
would rather back the airport. Safety would be my main concern. Effect on house
prices (negative).
Send the **** back to France EDF.
1) Where is it to be sited? 2) Will the skills required for the jobs created be catered for
by the local residents? - no point creating jobs to benefit others. 3) At what cost the
enviroment will creating a whole new infrastructure bring? 4) What are the real risks
to bringing large qauntities of nuclear waste to the area? 5) Where does the 'waste'
from digging such large hole get deposited?
While long term job prospects have to be considered to the Marsh Community, any
project should not have a detrimental impact on the unique landscapes, wildlife &
qaulity of life of residents.
A big no. We don’t need our beaches spoilt even more with dump shingle. Consider
water table environment local people living here. You don't know its safe we have
never had 1000 years of nuc waste. We will end up with oversea waste in time as
Britain is ruled by over seas. Just build a C station
not wanted
No further money/effort to investigate this proposal. (Make sure the results are
printed/published fairly, with no spin - please).
Page 196
Appendix D
NEW ROMNEY BUSINESSES
1607 No further money/effort to investigate this proposal. (Make sure the results are
printed/published fairly, with no spin - please).
1608 I am pleased the Romney Marsh is on the map in terms of long term employment
prospects for the Marsh, but importantly also, that a 'C'station needs further
consideration as well.
1609 Due to the area being marshland it would be unsuitable for installation.
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
OLD ROMNEY RESIDENTS
I am a Romney Marsh Man and lived on The Marsh most of my life and I do not wish
to see the thing put there.
We are not allowed many things on the Marsh because of the water table and nature
reserves so why are they disregarding these situations now.
Should be building Dugeness C!
The decision not, in all probabilty to build a 'C' staion still perplexes people here. Why
not have both instilations! People on the Marsh have lived with nuclear energy since
the 60's. You have, for the most part, a symphathetic public. And if the refusal of a
station is based on natural elements and concerns ref. what happened in Japan, how
do we justify an underground facility. Perhaps one could be use as a lever to secure
the other. We really do need a far reaching joined up policy on this: and waste from 'B'
and 'C' sites needn't be sent hundreds of miles for disposal either.
A unanimous NO from all at this address
I vehemently oppose this proposal. To even consider building this facility on
marshlands is insane to say the last. Please do NOT submit and expression of
interest on our behalf.
I absolutely appose this absurd plan!
Not in favour
Not in favour
Why is it the S.D.C are talking about having a nuclear dumping site? When they still
can't give the airport an answer? What will happen to the traffic build up at
Hammonds corner, will anything be done about it? The airport are willing to do
something about it but the council don't seem bothered. The airport was there before
the power station was an the development will create jobs but people seem to think
that it will have an inpact on the enviroment but a dumping site wont I don't think so.
The speed limit was supposed to be reduced at Hammonds corner but at present this
still has not happened. The outcome to the future of the airport has not been released
yet so before you look to the future it may be an idea that S.D.C look at the present or
are we just meant to rely on tourism for our local economy. Yes it will bring jobs but
people can't wait 15-20 years people need jobs now. something needs to be done
now. What will it have on the impact on the enviroment surely the RSPB and Natural
England agree with this but then again they don't want the Airport expansion to go
ahead but said nothing about the power station. To sum up Yes to the airport No to
the nuclear dump.
Why would we have the countries hazardous waste dumped on our doorstep. It
would also be no go area to live and would effect the house prices. You said know to
the the expansion of the airport which would have been less damaging to the
environment so please say no to this.
Obviously this is just the first instance but we can't let the marsh die for future
generations (workwise) it just must be jobs for local people which hopefully it would
knock on from.
Page 197
Appendix D
1622
1623
1624
1625
OLD ROMNEY RESIDENTS
The power station provides so many jobs in the New Romney Area. We would be
pleased to keep it going we definetly in favour of the power station.
The power station provides so many jobs in the New Romney Area. We would be
pleased to keep it going we definetly in favour of the power station.
Due to the enormity of this project I would not like to see it happen. Romney Marsh
was a famous and well loved area for inhabitants and visitors and is no longer as
lovely due to crammed in housing, Windmills and the New Road. Please don’t
damage the Marsh any more!!
Due to both the scale ie size and nature of this project the possibility of flooding on
The Romney levels due in some part to the over extraction of Beach. I do not feel this
project is suitable for this area (If it is then why not put it in the or under the north sea.
OLD ROMNEY BUSINESSES
1626 No to nuclear disposal unit. Money should be used to build a new powerstation at
Dungeness using the infrastrucure already in place!
1627 Do not need more damage! to this area
1628 Following the receipt of the Looker in May, detailling the above subject - I would like,
as a business owner and Business Rates payer on the Romney Marsh, to state that I
wish Shepway District Council to submit an Expression of Interest on behalf of the
local community.
We have run a business on Romney Marsh for over fourteen years now, employing
one local person who has been with us from Work Experience at school and is now in
his eighth year with us! So many youngsters around here do not have such
opportunities of employment locally now. For too many years, the Nuclear Stations
have been "the" employer around here, followed by Derek Linch Haulage and the
Potato Company.
This possible Facility would provide local training and employment for the area,
ensure that sea defences for our part of the coast are kept up and improve the
infrastructure on the Marsh. The "safety" factor is always going to be an issue but the
proceedures employed by the Nuclear Industry have suceeded in working at both
Dungeness A and B sites for a long time, with a very low "accident" rate.
I do not purport to know anything about Nuclear Technology, Research or Disposal of
the end product but what I do know is that if employment is not brought to this area by
some means, the local residents will struggle to find any employment eventually and
businesses, like myself, will eventually have no choice but to either close down or
relocate to a "richer" area, which would be a shame because we have been made
very welcome on the Marsh, both by residents and other businesses and we do wish
to stay!!
Thank you for reading my email and wish you the very best in the future with this
endeavour for the local community.
SNARGATE RESIDENTS
1629 In my mind it would be insane to build a nuclear disposal Facilty on the Romney
Marsh. We have already be declared as being a high flood risk area which has
devalued our homes as its expensive and difficult to find a company that will give
insurance. Sure a high flood risk area is NOT a good place for nuclear disposal. I feel
this would futher devalue our home as people understandable panic at the word
Nuclear.
Page 198
Appendix D
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
SNARGATE RESIDENTS
In my mind it would be insane to build a nuclear disposal Facilty on the Romney
Marsh. We have already be declared as being a high flood risk area which has
devalued our homes as its expensive and difficult to find a company that will give
insurance. Sure a high flood risk area is NOT a good place for nuclear disposal. I feel
this would futher devalue our home as people understandably panic at the word
Nuclear.
The common aim for any community must be to make their area prosperous and by
doing so create a pleasant place in which to live. Employment is undoubtedly the
strongest factor in achieving this goal. An “Expression of Interest” to find out more
about a possible Nuclear Research and Disposal Facility in a small haven of peace in
the overcrowded south east of England is not the way to go about it. All this will do is
cause BLIGHT. Blight is caused mainly by uncertainty. In the many years that it will
take for decisions to be made young men who are offered promotion elsewhere or
who are in need of work will be unable to move to another area because no-one will
want their houses. In the same way the elderly, who become widowed will not be
able to move nearer to their sons and daughters.
There are many attractions in this almost unique part of the world that bring tourists
and holiday makers. The service industry will fall by the wayside as businesses will
be unable to invest in a blighted area. There is no compensation available for
uncertainty. Recently I overheard a conversation in an estate agent’s office in which
someone was already asking about the advisability of buying a property in the area.
What can an agent say? His answer was tactful saying that for many years we had
lived with the power station and that hadn’t done us much harm and that we should
not be alarmed at the possibility of a Nuclear Disposal Facility had not yet even
reached the consultation stage. But there’s the rub - it is the consultation stage itself
that will ruin us.
We need employment and we cannot say no to everything. The estate agent was
right we have lived with the power station for many years and another power station
is what we should be pushing for - better the devil you know!
This will put a blight on the community and I cannot forsee any long term sustainable
jobs.
This will put a blight on the community and I cannot forsee any long term sustainable
jobs.
NO Romney Marsh needs a living future.
Build powerstation 'C'
I am totally opposed to any nuclear facility being built. Waste is dangerous in its
movement to the facility notwithstanding a terrorist threat. 250,000 years before it is
safe (not radioactive) No thanks!
Please don’t dump any more waste on Romney Marsh. This beautiful area is already
littered with windmills, pylons, an ageing power station - just because of its low
population Shepway seems to offer its space to any disagreeable cause. Most of the
nuclear waste will have to travel a great distance to get here. As for job possibilities
these will not go to local people and your comment that it will enhance tourism is a
farce - in fact it will drive visitors away. All the photographs of lambs is an insult to
peoples intelligence, why are you planning to hide the construction behind a 'bund'?
Because will be an eyesore and need a disguise. No, no and no again.
Page 199
Appendix D
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
SNARGATE RESIDENTS
Romney Marsh is designated as an Area of Scientific Interest which surely means it
must not be disturbed. The future proposed for it is disasterous. It would be madness
to inferfere with the ground because the soil is too weak to take the sort of
constuction suggested. The government has no right to endanger people's live by
putting this very hazardous material under the ground where it will remain active for
thousands of years. This is a dreadful thing to even contemplate. It would have been
a good idea if these "clever" people had worked out the conseauences before they
started messing about with life threatening things beyond their control in the first
place. THIS MUST NOT HAPPEN!!
Romney Marsh is designated as an Area of Scientific Interest which surely means it
must not be disturbed. The future proposed for it is disasterous. It would be madness
to inferfere with the ground because the soil is too weak to take the sort of
constuction suggested. The government has no right to endanger people's live by
putting this very hazardous material under the ground where it will remain active for
thousands of years. This is a dreadful thing to even contemplate. It would have been
a good idea if these "clever" people had worked out the conseauences before they
started messing about with life threatening things beyond their control in the first
place. THIS MUST NOT HAPPEN!!
Bringing nuclear waste through Kent at an increasing rate is not acceptable. The
South East of England is under ever-increasing pressure, and it should not be
required to accept this facility. It is mad. Better to put it in a depressed former
industrial area. Easing unemployment is a canard. Those unemployed in this area
will not qualify for jobs at the facility. They will remain unemployed. Only one of the
proposed sites for nuclear power plants is in the home counties. 8 of the 12 are in
the north of England and 2 in the West Country. It is mad to move all the resulting
waste from those plants long distances to rail to Romney Marsh in Kent. The idea
should go no further.
I think it is a good idea as it would be good for employment in the future.
We have read widely the pros and cons of this proposal and strongly feel this site
should not proceed as a research and disposal facility for the nuclear industry.
We have read widely the pros and cons of this proposal and strongly feel this site
should not proceed as a research and disposal facility for the nuclear industry.
ST MARY IN THE MARSH RESIDENTS
We need continued employment in a low growth area. Nuclear waste disposal is a
growing industry for the long term!
Yes Anything to keep employment in the area but with safety
I am in my 79 year, I enjoy unspoilt countryside, resident here for 43 and half years
Employment Employment Employment
I think SDC should look into travel and tourism for this area for its extra income. It
seems like money is continually wasted on the power station and now nuclear waste.
We have a fantastic area down here and should be enhanced and promoted to entice
vistors which would improve business
We need jobs for the young and old on the marsh. There has been a power station on
the marsh for years people new that when they moved here lets get the jobs and
work for the people for once
I am retired and no longer need to work but I am of the view that the project would
bring much needed employment to this area. I feel we should move with the times
and go ahead with this venture
Page 200
Appendix D
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
Just think of the accidents that has happened in U.S.A Russia and Japan! They
thought they were safe! I do not want our part of England polluted.
No! No! No. Don’t spoil a unique area. This would kill the tourist industry and I
doubt very much if local jobs would be at a premium in such a project. We should
also take note of the problems in Japan and Russia with nuclear disasters. Also
would make the idea of Lydd airport expansion even worse of a hazard. lets try to
preserve what we have and make commuting easire by a Railway service from Lydd.
Definitely No! Health issues regarding long term effect of burying nuclear waste.
Effects on tourism and environment. Property prices would plummet. Definitely No!
I would only be interested in any any long term harm which could come to the ground
surrounding the facility. With a view to children growing up in Romnet Marsh! Could
this material ever leak into ground soil? Etc. Otherwise jobs & financila gains are
good!
Anything that will improve this area should be considered. Not for my age group but
for our grandchildren. What a great opportunity for years to come. Don’t miss out on
it.
Jobs are an important consideration but equally important is safety and suitability.
The employment situation is dire, so anything that would create jobs would be
welcome.
Being retired now I will probably not be around in 20 years time. So lets get some
cash in Kents coffers and at the same time help the unemployed. Most people worry
about the waste being dangerouse, for what, 1000 years, but in a couple of hundred
years time, the people around then will have invented a different of disposing of it.
Even if they are still living on this planet.
The earlier preliminary geological studies are carried out - the 'interest' issue can be
determined in more definitive terms assuming a favourable/feasible conclusion is
reached in the studies.
Great idea as long as all safety measures put in place
Great idea as long as all safety measures put in place
No!! No!! No!! I don’t want my grandchildren growing up so close to a nuclear dump!!
With everyones radioactive waste arriving from all over the place! This is a nice area
to live in with lovely beaches and the best weather in the UK. Please don’t let this be
ruined.
No!! No!! No!! I don’t want my grandchildren growing up so close to a nuclear dump!!
With everyones radioactive waste arriving from all over the place! This is a nice area
to live in with lovely beaches and the best weather in the UK. Please don’t let this be
ruined.
I cannot believe the project is even being considered for Romney Marsh, a world
renowned area, considering there must be so many more suitable areas in the
country. Its bad enough we have wind turbines spoiling the vista, but to have a
hazardous nuclear waste site here is totally unacceptable. As an employee of
Dungeness B Power Station, together with my partner, of course we accept the need
for nuclear power and certainly employment on the Marsh, but this would be better
met by the government overturning their decision and going ahead with Dungeness
'C'. Of course there is also the option of expanding the airport to provide work and
considering Lydd was once a thriving one, I do not buy the concerns of expansion
causing danger and environmental problems. I know I'd sooner have that than a
nuclear waste disposal facility and I'm sure tourists to the area would also, in fact, I
think this would be very detrimental to the tourist trade on the Marsh.
Page 201
Appendix D
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
Rising sea levels, earth quakes, existing power stations decomishoning until God
knows when! No! No! No!
I disagee with this proposal. Not a good idea. This is marshland and viable to
flooding. To dangerous.
By all means build another Nuclear Power Station But not a disposal site, with all the
hazards it will bring. If you (Shepway Council) cannot agree weather your going to
allow expansion at Lydd airport, how can you contemplate this very foolhardy
scheme.
Defintiely not wanted. No disposal on Romney Marsh.
Either build another power station or leave well alone. Seepage from salt water
doesn't bode too well for the long term future, and we mean "long term". Cumbria
sounds like a far better bet! And as for using the carrot "investment in coastal
defences"? Romney Marsh's farming production warrants the above on its own and
well you know it.
It will blight the area and be a legacy future generations will condemn us for.
We as a family all agree no further action should be taken. Dungeness is losing
ground to the sea and care must be taken to make sure the existing nuclear buildings
are kept safe in the future, once they are no longer in use.
Dungeness is not the correct site for this facility. 1) with climate change and sea level
rise the Marsh area is under long-term threat. The facility would mean enormous
expense of flood defence for a very long time. 2) Is the geology - both surface and
deep undergroound stable enough? 3) What would the effect of such workings have
on the surface drainage, bearing in mind the environmental status of Dungeness SSSI, Nature Reserve, RSPB Reserve. 4) Further industrial development at
Dungeness would have a negative impact on the fragile ecosystem that remains in
the area. 5) Would the transport infrastructure - relatively narrow roads and a single
track railway line, be able to cope with the increased traffic, albeit mainly during the
construction phase? 6) I am puzzled how the construction and manitenance of an
underground storage facility would retain power station workers whose skills are
mainly those concerned with working with extremely high voltage electricty. If this is
the case, surely it woud be far better to persuade the government and electricity
companies to upgrade Dungeness B and construct another nuclear power station on
the exisiting site. 7) If the intention is to provide long term employment for the existing
unemployed of Romney Marsh then occupations that can cater for unskilled and
semi-skilled women plus the young school leavers should be considered instead. 8) If
Shepway District Council is still seriously considering such a scheme then it should
look at sites further inland away from the probable danger of sea level rise and not in
an area of great environmental significance.
The Marsh area including the beach has issues with the water level - it would be very
difficult to hold back underground water table to a dry area underground.
No
Page 202
Appendix D
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
We! The people don’t what a dumping ground on the Marsh./ we need to try to new
attractions on the Marsh to bring in other type jobs. For old and young people alike
we need more growth in our community. Blue flag beaches in Dymchurch? Not a
mension four shops in St Marys Bay its a joke! There's more life in the cremetorium.
No the idea is madness
Let Cumbria have it and send all Shepway councillors up there with it for thinking of it.
Buy the way who's paying for all this ie Printing and all exhibitions. Not me I hope.
Location, means of access? Railway, not roads, as means of transportation from
origin to final depositing. Appearances above ground leveland during the infilling?
Appearance above ground level upon completion? Farmers to be compensated
100% for any loss of their land use.
I think the proposal is a good idea. Anything that can help employment and safe
environment problems to be solved has got to be good for the local environment.
I don’t think we should other cuntrys waste. Just our own, and only at the last resort
Geologicly unsound ideal what a foulness island ex mod land
Geologicly unsound ideal what a foulness island ex mod land
I think we should find out more
My Wife thinks we should not find out more
If it is unsafe for a new power station then it is unsafe for a dump site.
I am more than happy to see the development of a nuculear research facility here on
the Marsh but a Nucular disposal facility is a definite no!
Are you guys trying to commit political suicide?
I would be very surprised if anyone wants to live near a nuclear dumping site
this is also the opinion of my wife
We got enough poisen. No prepaid envelope supplied
I am outraged to think of Romney Marsh being used as a dumping ground for nuclear
waste. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty we do not want the danger of toxic
waste being buried underneath it. First they want to put an airport down here now
this, just leave shepway and the marsh alone. We want jobs that are not going to
damage and destroy the environment. Bury this idea quick.
Dungeness' has never done anything for us in 20 years of living here. Not interested
in creating work now, too late!
The word nuclear is frightening to me. But if its safe for future generations and can
create jobs then its worth looking into as long as it doesn’t spoil the marsh. At 69
years old I don’t really think my say should count for anything except the Romney
Marsh has to look after the future generation so I just ask please don't do anything to
jeopodise their future.
I just don’t think is a good idea.
No Way do not **** Romney Marsh just for money
There is nothing to loose in finding out more, in particular the safety aspects to
wildlife, nature and the community.
Anything to get more skilled jobs in the area for locals and also jobs for my children
and other children in the area.
This is the most ridiculous proposal, Dungeness is a very special place, it is unique in
its stucture and theregfore must not be destroyed, also house values in this area
would be down graded because of the recesion and this proposal can only damage
them further.
This government is always wasting money on schemes that never get off the ground.
Leave the Marsh Alone
Page 203
Appendix D
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
This proposal has a touch of desperation about it. Movement of this toxic waste from
all parts of the country into Romney Marsh through our not great road system seems
to me a very risky buisnes indeed, with the risk also of sea/weather future problems
(climate changes). I believe expanding Lydd airport/investing more in the tourism
industry (building a pier at Dymchurch) is safer and better way to go.
No waste on The Marsh
As a supporter of non-fossil energy, and a firm believer in "better the devil you know",
I would much prefer Dungeness 'C' station to be more actively persued, and, of
course the Lydd Airport expansion to be kicked into touch.
Against Dumping ground far away from London. House prices fall due to ruined
ecological area. Years of misery as heavy plant uses our already out moded out
dated local road network. For Not much, better to utilise airport, as a new
infrastructure will be the only benefit. Build a new Power Station, and dump the old
waste under somebody elses backyard. There are so many new housing projects in
Shepway with the new influx of so many people this proposal pales into
insignificance.
You have been saying for years we cannot have Lydd Airport expanded because
planes are dangerous but now you wish to put a dangerous nuclear disposal facility.
No thank you
We still do not know what sort of footprint the power station will leave behind, without
even thinking about putting more nuclear waste on this patch of land. It will certainly
have an impact on price of housing around this area and it will probably deter
investment down here which is much needed. I think the area has done its bit for
nuclear power.
No I do feel I personally would like any further nuclear facilities developed on our
Romney Marsh.
The nuclear industry has provided work on the Romney Marsh for years. It has an
outstanding safety record. This proposal merely develops an existing industry. For the
future success and prosperity of Romney Marsh residents this proposal should be
investigated further.
No way do we want a nuclear disposal on our doorsteps, a ridiculas idea.
This is not an attractive industry for people to move into this area for jobs. If anything,
it will lower the value of houses further, despite jobs that it may create. It will isolate
Romney Marsh and label it a Nuclear Waste Site..!
Consideration should be given to the fact that the whole of the Marsh is below sea
level and salt water, concrete and metal do not mix over a long term.
Against the idea totally - NO - NO & NO
It would be a much better if we built a plant that makes sea water into drinking water.
Firstly there is not the access across the Marsh. Secondly it seems to me it would be
a very undesirable area for underground storage vaults and tunnels. How lying
ground next to the sea cannot possibly be a good location for this type of structure.
It will employ very few local people. If we want to create employment in Kent there is
safer oppertunties in other industrys
Yes. We need projects like this to generate more employment in this area.
We would be very unhappy to see a facility of this type on Romney Marsh. We feel
there are far too few benefits to be gained by this community.
We would be very unhappy to see a facility of this type on the Romney Marsh. We
feel there are far too feew benefits to be gained by this community.
We need Dungeness 'C' now
Page 204
Appendix D
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
We do not want the rubbish here. We will finish up having other countries dumping
their stuff on us as well.
1. Will we only be disposing of our own waste or will we have to take all Europes or
even the World's. 2. Will this be a government facility of private where profit may
come before safety. 3. Is there any guarentee that during planning/building or running
of the facility local people would be used.
Further investigation need but anything that helps to bring employment to the area
should be encouraged providing the facility satisfies all safety and health concerns.
There must have been just as much apprehension for Marsh residents when
Dungeness Power Stations were still on the drawing board, but no ill effects have
happened and it is certainly the biggest employer in the area. The mere mention of
Nuclear Disposal Facility sends shock waves. Not in our back yard!! But it cannot be
dismissed out of hand as the effect in the community in loss of jobs would be
catastrophic. We hve to be re-assured in simple terms that everyone can understand
what risks, if any there are.
Let Cumbria keep it. "NIMBY"
We are below sea level and not a dumping site for the rest of the UK
After watching troubles in Japan I am totally against nuclear installations. Also I
worry about having an airport so close to one. It is an accident waiting to happen. I
know jobs are important but surely it could be put to better use. I am all for wind
farms and the area would be capable of providing them.
Lets look for more people friendly projects. The Marsh has been 'nuclear' long
enough.
Will be The same as when the power station was built. All the workers come from out
side the town.
JOBS FOR PEOPLE!
Surely it would be better to focus on persauding the government to stop
decommissioning of Dungeness B rather than waste on on finding more about the
disposal of nuclear waste. The amount of time wasted will cost more money than the
council can afford. We are also concerned about the inconvenience we will have to
go through when (or if!) you win this facility, as the upheval will mean heavy lorries
etc going through our towns and villages causing chaos on our already overloaded
roads as the traffic on the A259 already shows.
Surely it would be better to focus on persauding the government to stop
decommissioning of Dungeness B rather than waste on on finding more about the
disposal of nuclear waste. The amount of time wasted will cost more money than the
council can afford. We are also concerned about the inconvenience we will have to
go through when (or if!) you win this facility, as the upheval will mean heavy lorries
etc going through our towns and villages causing chaos on our already overloaded
roads as the traffic on the A259 already shows.
Its a good idea to create more jobs in the Marsh area providing the jobs go to people
in the area. Also not sure about living with this disposal facility faciltiy in the same
area that we live in. But I suppose it has got to go somewhere. Rather have this than
an aiport on the doorstep.
Such a facility would give the whole area of the Marsh a damaging impression. Focus
on the nuclear rather rather then the beautiful area we are lucky to live in. Hence I my
view properties would be difficult to sell & fewer would want to move to the Marsh
area.
But please ensure jobs available are given to local people
But please ensure jobs available are given to local people
Page 205
Appendix D
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
I don’t want this facility on the Romney Marsh.
I had thought the area was prone to earthqaukes?!
This should not be built here. We have had a nuclear powerstation for too long. To
have to have waste stored here is not acceptable. No one knows the long term affect
on people and the enviroment. No job is worth someones life. Also the jobs wont go
to the people who need them so thats not a valued case. KCC dont want it so listen to
someone with more authority then a local council. It’s a stupid idea!! We live on the
marsh - it will affect the surrounding areas.
No
If it brings work to the area go ahead. Also expand Lydd Airport.
Not for me but for future generations to come. Nothing is 100% safe. Don’t take away
what is there. Think of other Nuclear accidents
For all the right reasons Shepway it’s a definate NO. And although I can not make the
meeting, my hand is up for a a NO vote.
No No No to nuclear power
This the Garden of England, not a rubbish dump. Nuclear waste and disposal would
ruin the Marsh irrespective of the employment it could generate.
Such a facility is surely something that belongs in a remote, unpopulated region, not a
decently populated one with distinctive natural features, plants and wildlife. I,
personally, do not want to be living anywhere near nuclear material, however much
concrete you put around it. Surely money and jobs should be invented in green,
sustainable energy resources, not created by making the Marsh a radioactive tipping
ground for all & sundrey.
Years of contamination of drinking water which is taken from the area, and we would
possibly become 'the dumping ground' of European and even futher a fields' nuclear
waste. Employment will only be high whilst its being constructed. Lastly but not least.
it is another target for terrorism.
A new powerstation - YES A dumping ground for the rest of Europe - NO!
More jobs to the area.
Im too flabberglasted to think of anything coherent.
Nuclear waste site - im leaving
I am against any nuclear storage facility in our area
We think Romney Marsh is the wrong plase especially as it is low lying ground an the
water is not far downy
We think Romney Marsh is the wrong plase especially as it is low lying ground an the
water is not far downy
We are not permitted to proceed with either powerstation or airport so why should we
be interested in hosting a nuclear dumping ground!!
Kent the Garden of England, not a dump for nuclear wast, and radioactive compost,
travling through Kent. I could not tell the next generation of children I agreed to this.
Could you. This wast will come from all over europe and will go ahead with or without
our consent.
Kent the Garden of England, not a dump for nuclear wast, and radioactive compost,
travling through Kent. I could not tell the next generation of children I agreed to this.
Could you. This wast will come from all over europe and will go ahead with or without
our consent.
Page 206
Appendix D
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
Romney Marsh is totally unsuitable. We do not have rock structure but silted
up/reclaimed land and the water table is too high - we are below sea level. West
Cumbria seems more suitable. But I would be in favour of a Dungeness C nuclear
power station. The current objections are ridiculous. I am not against the nuclear
industry.
We shall be moving if this goes ahead.
We shall be moving if this goes ahead.
Presumably routes would be out under the sea.
I would assume that the high flooding risk has been taken into account. We are
constantly reminded by our insurers that due to this, our premiums are higher than
they should be. If sea defences are to be made stronger for the future and maintained
at the highest level, then the case for the installation would be made stronger.
With an area that is the flood risk part of UK I should forget any underground disposal
or above ground.
We are all for the idea go ahead.
I don’t think the Marsh is suitable for such a large digging venture because where
they have tried to dig up before it has always been a disaster. It would be totally
unsuitable.
We strongly disagree by having a (poss) nuclear research and disposal facility. Why
spoil our beautiful Romney Marsh, also our valued wildlife. Even though we're told it
will be safe, how can we trust your word, just look at the state of the country. We live
in a beautiful surroundings, so please don't spoil it. Leave things alone.
Better water provision as we are in a drought area which seems to be getting worse
year by year.
Areas like Romney Marsh will be rare places in England in the future. It is unique.
Leave it alone.
I do not think this is a good idea. The Marsh is a beautiful place that should not be
turned in to a toxic wasteland.
Forget nuclear dumps! Please concentrate more on the expansion of Lydd Airport.
This will increase tourism to Shepway and consequently bring more jobs across the
region. Jobs are needed now for everyone and not just for the few in 10 or 20 years
time.
The Romney Marsh could flood anytime and to think of nuclear waste being put
underground its stupid. As an expert said on TV there is no safe way to get rid of this
waste.
We have got rid of power stations ands don't need to have nuclear waste in our home
ground on the Romney Marsh.
It is important to keep all options open - however, the current level of media coverage
does not bode well for the future.
In our view it would be more sensible not to decommission Dungeness B. As West
Cumbria is interested in the research and disposal facility this would be the best
solution for all.
In our view it would be more sensible not to decommission Dungeness B. As West
Cumbria is interested in the research and disposal facility this would be the best
solution for all.
Please do not waste too much money on this project as the water table in the area is
very high making this a 'no go' project.
Absolutely not.
I suppose the most important question of all is - will it be safe?
Page 207
Appendix D
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
Following the delays over Lydd airport and its expansion, I feel this will never get off
the ground. The site in Cumbria is already news (national).
Being running sand a few feet down would not be a very good thing to do.
Say no!! To nuclear facility would you want it on your door step. Do you know how
many people died in Japan? (They said it was safe) Now there are dead! There are to
many reasons: 1) We will receive no benefit from this facility nor our kids. 2) We
worked hard for our house It won't be worth 1/2 the price - who would buy a house
next to a disposal facility? Would you? 3) Jobs, manufacturing units would be better.
4) Road links to busy as it is. 5) What about the bird sanctuary. Have you spoke to
the RSPB? No I bet. 6) Underground, hide it away don't mean its safe. Can you know
its safe 100%? Show us you care say NO please.
I would prefer a Dungeness 'C' to be built but if that is not possible then I would
support this proposal. It is imperative we have employment for the future generations
on the Marsh and ongoing help these facilities give the Marsh communities. Hopefully
alongside an expanded airport!
We feel building the disposal facility is counter-productive and totally unnecesary.
Sellafeild takes care of all British waste, plus a lot of international waste, too. The
money invested into this project would be much more better spent building
Dungeness C - at least we would all benefit from electricity - of which there is a
increasing demand, and decreasing numbers of power stations.
Most people would shudder at the thought of a nuclear waste disposal unit on their
doorsteps - But - we have lived with two nuclear power stations and pylons for
decades and we all want Station C to become a reality. First fear of your proposal for
most, but it would supply work for local people which is a priority. I favour this rather
than airport expansion which will rob us of the peace and quite of the area. I do not
believe Folkstone residents should have a say. It does not directly affect them. Marsh
folk need to work - this would help - But please still fight for the power sation C.
No No No No No We recently had a pilot to talk to us from Russia who was
responsible for sealing up the nuclear explosion in Chernobyl. For over 25 years land
is no longer used for crops and the people miles apart are still really suffering. Do you
want this to happen to us? It is a flood plain in this area so really anything
undeground would affect our water. We also have wonderful wildlife here. As far jobs
its about time small manufacturing companies came here. Not nuclear.
We think this is a very bad idea to bring such a very dangerous thing to the Romney
Marsh.
It is a very unpleasant thought that we could contaminate this area of natural beauty
for generations to come. Also could it contaminate the water table if there were
earthqaukes like the ones a few years ago. Many questions to be asked.
I don’t agree with this
I do not think we should have a nuclear waste disposal facility on Romney Marsh as
our houses are drastically going to be reduced in value. Also it is a potential health
hazard for our children and grandchildren in the future. Why should we have a
nuclear dump on our doorstep, why not put it somewhere else.
Absolutely NO
Anything is worth looking into if it will help provide jobs for the community of Romney
Marsh.
Romney Marsh is a beautifull and unique area and we do not want it to change. WE
DO NOT WANT THE AREA TO BE A DUMPING GROUND FOR NUCLEAR WASTE.
Please do not submit an expression of interest on our community's behalf. WE DO
NOT WANT IT. Let West Cumbria have it.
Page 208
Appendix D
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
I'm inclined to the view that we don’t want or need this transfer of nuclear waste from
Cumbria to the opposite end of the country - best left where it is! But am happy to
await any futher information before finally deciding
We've had a nuclear employer in the area for many years, its safety record is
exemplary. I would wholeheartedly support a similar facility in this area.
We should not find out more - that would be the thin end of the wedge that could lead
us into trouble. We already have an airport next to a nuclear facility! - In othe words
we have the potential for another Chernobyl disaster already. Do you wish to put us
in position where the whole of Western Europe ...CANNOT READ... untenable?!
...CANNOT READ... you listen to the so called experts you realise that all they want is
promotion, more money! logic, safety & reasonableness fly straight out of the
window!
Whats wrong with another power station as we already have two to maintain for the
next 100 years.
There must be a better way of bringing skilled employment and investment to the
area besides making it in to a 'glorified' dumping ground for nuclear waste. Romney
Marsh deserves better!
This would be a very poor area with no power station. A third or even fourth station
would not become a blot on the landscape.
We do not think it’s a good idea putting nuclear research here our properties will go
down. We need more houses here as we all have children we could have another
power station in Dungeness for more workplaces for them. Building the Lydd airport
which we could do with and passing it instead of people moaning about it.
As a resident I do not want this facility. I doubt that it would give 1000 local jobs.
Infrastructure disruption would be an inconvenience traffic disruption unacceptable
No! No! No!
The Romney Marsh is a unique habitat for wildlife. Despite assurances from The
Nuclear Power Industry that this new plant would be very safe, I beg to differ as noone knows how the encasements will last under ground and could live the marsh a
radioactive desert for deckades to come.
I am totally against this proposal. Nuclear waste takes 1000s of years to dacay and in
that time will contaminate the ground no matter how deep. No
I would not like a nuclear research and disposal facility any where at all on the
Romney Marsh. It would take nuclear waste from everywhere not doing much for the
residents of the marsh, Work wise or for property prices making it impossible to sell
and move away. As for work for local people, even the power stations employed
agency people from up north rather than residents of the marsh, so I cant see local
people having the skills needed to provide work for them, at the disposal facility.
We are constantly told this is an area at high risk of flooding - which is always cited by
sdc in planning application refusals and insurance companies even refuse cover
beacause of this so how can it be worth even considering making Romney Marsh into
a nuclear dumpinmg ground?
Our beautiful marsh land should be left for folk to enjoy not used as a dumping
ground for dangerous waste. Research yes.
Absolutely not.
Page 209
Appendix D
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
SDC & parish councils seem to forget Romney Marsh is just that - a 'marsh' - and
long may that remain so. We are allegedly 'at risk of flooding', and the amount of soil
displacement necessary for such an undertaking would be enormous - futher
upsetting the enviroment. The 'assumed' jobs created would be filled by already
trained skilled operators - can't be many of them on the 'Marsh'. Add to this wrecking
the wildlife and habitat - no thanks. Why don't SDC look at the hills surrounding
Folkestone, or is that be a case of NIMBY?
I can't believe this idea is even considered on or either under a marsh. The
enviromental impact doesn’t bear thinking about in an area with nature reserves &
SSSIs. Jobs created would be neglible compared to damage caused. NO NO NO.
Why is Romney Marsh being considered for nuclear waste being buried on marsh
land? When a discussion took place for another powerstation being built it was not
viable as we are below high tide. It is the impression of local councillors and papers
that this will bring work for the young people of the Marsh. Having lived here with my
children and granchildren over many years I know for a fact that you are only
considered for such a highly skilled position if you are educated to a high standered.
With the infrastructure of the Marsh the construction of such a large project would
play havoc on our already busy roads. Please, please reconsider burying something
so dangerous below the water table. It is our grandchildren and their children we
need to protect. Economy and jobs do not come into the equasion when nuclear
waste being buried over 100 years has not been tested yet.
No we do not want nuclear waste dumping on Romney Marsh.
We have all beneffited form nuclear power stations (light and heat), therefore we
need to get rid of our waste. Enquiries & tests should go ahead asap.
I believe that a new powerstation should be built - as the news indicated 'in 2015 The whole area will be in blackout!' Also, I do not want nuclear waste on my doorstep
- no proven evidence as to side effects and possible seeping of nuclear waste. The
area and its wildlife will be affected long term. And this lovely holiday resort will be
blighted forever! Also, what about the future of our children and family if this goes
ahead. Too many unanswered questions about if the nuclear waste gets out into our
enviroment . People won't be able to sell our houses as we will be penalised for the
nuclear waste. Too many enviromental issues with wildlife etc.
I have abosultely no confidence on the safety of any nuclear waste waste locally to
the residents or the enviroment.
Need to know more about the safety issues.
A nuclear research and disposal facility should NEVER be located on Romney
Marsh.
I think it is diabolical that Romney Marsh should ever even be considered as a
dumping ground for any nuclear waste.
How deep is the Marsh before solid ground? How many earthqaukes have occurred
since the start of measuring? Coast orosion is only built for next 50 years what
happens next.
Why bring nuclear waste across the country when they have nuclear power stations
in the north leave it there. Doon Ray has plenty of land around it put it there.
I object strongly to the proposals burying nuclear waste can only destroy the area in
the future. My main concern is how the nuclear waste be transported to the site = on
our lovely unsuitable country lane!!! I think not.
Please make it clear where it would be sited (and less horror stories from local press
(sensationalism))
I am strongly against this proposal I don’t think we should have anything to do with it
Page 210
Appendix D
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
NO! NO! NO! We totally object to this damamging facility which would, in our opinion
be devastating for Romney Marsh. It would damage tourism, environment, wildlife
and perception of the Marsh. Would you want it in your area of natural beauty?
Not on a flood area
Romney Marsh!! For tunnels and vaults are you mad?
I think we should concentrate on renewable energy, so no need for nuclear power.
Why should we be the dumping ground for everybody else's waste, most of it coming
through built up areas.
Ridiculous idea of bringing nuclear waste across the country and depositing same
when this part of the country is on a fault line. Whole idea should be scrapped.
As I am too old for this to affect me, I do think that the teenage generation should be
asked their views. Also, if Dungeness 'C' becomes an option, I think this would be
preferable.
I was very dissapointed at the decision not to build Dungeness C power station, as it
would have created a lot of needed jobs in this area. I would welcome a research
facility as I have worked in the nuclear industry and realise the strict safety guidlines
and would welcome more job prospects for people in the area as well as maybe
apprenticeships for school leavers.
Romney Marsh is special - leave it alone. What about flooding?? If you want
employment for the Marsh fight for Dungeness 'C' - we are used to the power
stations.
My Concern is about flooding, as Romney Marsh is a flood plain.
If the area cannot have another powerstation because it will affect the wildlife then a
nuclear dump of waste from all over the world should also not be allowed. If a plane
from Lydd crashes on Dungeness who knows what could happen and London is only
90 miles away.
It is beyond me why every suggestion for employment in the area is in dangerous
activities. As the fault that covered the 4.3 level earthquake is connected with the
area around Dungeness contemplation of a store seems at best irresponsible. It is
common knowledge that Dungeness is a risk site of high maintence. We don't want to
pay for decommisioning by a futher error. Did we learn nothing from Japan. Glossy
presentations regarding 'Romney Marsh and its nuclear heritage' are about right. Its a
heritage of not listening, putting things in the wrong place, disregarding local advice
and paying a heavy cost (like years of having to prop up a sinking power station). If
you go ahead with this one you will certainly be continuing the heritage. No to this
and any new power station.
I remember what the area around Sellafeild looked like - grey & dead with whole
villages moving out. Do we need to kill off areas of natural beauty and create health
hazards. I think not.
Dungeness is unique, why posion it?
I'm sure a new Nuclear Powerstation would be of much more interest to the Marsh
residents than a disposal facility.
There are no containers that have been tested for 1,000 yrs. And if the sea levels
should rise due to global warming the site could be under water.
There are no containers that have been tested for 1,000 yrs. And if the sea levels
should rise due to global warming the site could be under water.
Not wanted here. Huge health issues!! Please do not submit an expression of
interest, not on my behalf anyway. This will be a big mistake, if it goes through.
MY FAMILY AND I DO NOT WANT THIS IN OUR AREA
Page 211
Appendix D
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
No, to your question above. We do not want a Nuclear Research/Disposal Facility on
Romney Marsh. All the expense of this so project is not welcome, the money should
be used elsewhere on something that is more needed. After all , we have to live here
and this could cause devalue of our properties. "No, No, No, we do not want this."
But no matter how many no's you receive, if you decide yes it will go ahead anyway.
So why bother asking all of us for our opinion.
NO! NO! NO!
Need to know a lot more. A Dungeness 'C' Power Station is the thing SDC should be
making every effort to achieve to keep work in the area.
NO.!! THIS IS NO RIGHT FOR ROMNEY MARSH it's lifeless - like a cemetary. I
HAVE VISITED THE Roadshow.
YES. we do need jobs here.
YES!! We need the Airport before its to late. Airport will bring jobs and life to the
Marsh
Romney Marsh is a tourist area!
I am concerned about the effect this may have on our health, there seems to be a
high cancer rate on the Romney Marsh. I appreciate the need for jobs in the area but
is it worth risking our health.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Much more information needs to be available before any final decision could be made
- even if the geological survey proves to be favourable - Concerns for me would be
exact location - Management of the heavy transport coming into the area as existing
roads are not adequate - Environmental impact - The younger generations are the
ones that will reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of the project - I think at
this stage more need to be investigated.
Do not bring this poison to this beautiful area - We should make more of the areas
natural beautiful landscape, Eco development is what is required, we have nature,
history and the seaside on our doorstep, lets use it wisely for our childrens sake.
No I don't think we need a nuclear disposal facility my husband and myself are totally
against it. As far as jobs are concerned we have a perfectly good airport which could
be improved upon which would bring much needed work to the area.
We do not want this in 'our backyard'. We have to think of the future generations.
I think the area could do with the extra employment, but it depends on the sub-soil
and how many other areas apply for the facility, obviously safety is of paramount
importance.
As we has a serious earthquake a few years ago it would be ridiculous to even
consider a nuclear waste dump under the Marsh or sea. The jobs created would be
from the Sewdish/German constructors and not from the Marsh population anyway!
The present nuclear industry here doesn't employ people from the Marsh, they travel
in by road. there is no benefit to the local community and we strongly oppose it.
I believe we should press for the development the present nuclear site, Dungeness
'C' & 'D'.
Do not want any disposal facility on the Marsh.
You cant bury much on the romney marsh water table is to high plus rising sea levels
forget it. NO
I think it is misleading to say "facility would employ hundreds of people" as locals may
think this means them. I understand most of the jobs will need experience in the field.
Page 212
Appendix D
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
Question? Why not use the already deep mines at Snowden and Timilstone nr Dover.
They are 2 miles deep and long, so why not open these already made nuclear waste
storage disposal units giving work locally and repayment for the closing of the mines
which caused such family and local vicinity problems and upset. repay there great
faith again. Dungeness and Marsh has all they want build 3rd station instead granted
by thatcher regime in 1973there is 21 nuclear sites on coast oppersite France, Spain
Etc.
The geological make up of the Romney Marsh is unique to dig big chambers
underground would be highly questional. The effect on the water table withg
sceepage through out the marsh would destroy how the marsh looks, works, plus
health of the population. If manston Airport cant make itself pay how the hell do
expect Lydd to become economically viable one doogie air insident and BOOM no
more Romney Marsh.
The geological make up of the Romney Marsh is unique to dig big chambers
underground would be highly questional. The effect on the water table withg
sceepage through out the marsh would destroy how the marsh looks, works, plus
health of the population. If manston Airport cant make itself pay how the hell do
expect Lydd to become economically viable one doogie air insident and BOOM no
more Romney Marsh.
Do not think this is a good idea at all. Have been verty satisfied with dungeness
nuclear plant and am very sorry to see it going, Hope that possibly we can see
another plant c arrive but definitly no disposal facility. The marsh is not a suitable
burial ground for nuclear waste - it is what it says it is - a marsh - and who knows how
solid the ground is under it to cope with such an escavation? no nuclear waste plant
on the marsh.
We cannot have a new power station, but can become a waste dumping area. More
housing, more people conming to the area for work. But nothing said about our
hospitals who are burstng at the seems. Water for new housing it is short now and
transport for the new site lorrys everywhere and will we start to get rid of other waste
like france for profit? housing prices will drop.
No.
The facility will have a huge visual impact on the area. I am not convinced about the
safety of underground nuclear waste disposal in close proximity to residential areas.
I am very elderly and really don’t think it will be a danger in my life time but I want
what is best for the future gererations I know it will bring work for the young which is
really needed, but health comes first if there is were another earthquake in the area
would or could it affect its people theres a lot to think about before saying yes.
Yes we think we should find out more.
Your suggestion that the Beautiful Dungeness area should be turned into a nuclear
dump is utterly shocking and totally irresponsible. It’s a typical example of cheap
politics which offer short term benefits in return for likely long term diasters. Are
Tchernobyl and Fukashima no writings on the wall for you we believe that the
development of an up-to-date infrastructure for tourism and the development of small
enterprises would be better investment for the future of this area than the road to hell
you are actually toying with.
NO
NO
Page 213
Appendix D
1870 Romney Marsh is an unique area which I have known and loved all my life. I cannot
begin to imagine the effect of such a massive undertaking on the marsh - taking up
the equivalent of a 10Km square. It would not only mean the spoilation of that amount
of land but depending on where in the marsh it was sited, new access routes for
heavy machinery would add to the disruption of farm folk and others.Being a long
term project in the construction phase may mean considerable disruption.
It has been stated that the marsh has a nuclear heritage; I hardly think that 50 or so
years qualifies for the term heritage.
I for one totally disagree wwith the proposed developement.
1871 No way is this going to be built on the Romney Marsh. It's high water table is just the
first thing that needs to be overcome.
1872 NO, a million tons of nuclear NO'S
1873 Please do not even consider it. A dreadful idea. We do not want a nuclear dump.
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
ST MARY IN THE MARSH BUSINESSES
As far as creating employment & thereby wealth for local population would be
undeniable. However the long term effects on the area which the development would
be placed should be carefully assesed.
I think it would be totally detrimental to the area.
With more buildings we are short of enough water, and the damage to the
environment I mean the wild life as this area is outstanding in wildlife another concern
is that the given depth of construction of this facility is too vague. i.e. 200m to 1000m I
think if this goes ahead it will be nearer 200 than 1000 i.e. cost
Please do not consider this facility. Shameful in such a beautiful area - bad for
Shepway and for everyone within a 30 mile readius. Please do not even consider.
No Nuclear DF. No Airport. Why not a new nuclear station
In all areas outside Romney Marsh no information was provided to indicate
whether comments were from residents or businesses
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
NORTH SHEPWAY (all Shepway parishes outside Romney Marsh)
I think that we should find out more because until we know more it is difficult to decide
if the area is a suitable location, also by finding out more we can find out more about
what the exact development could be in the area, and all the safety aspects involved.
i also think that it would be a good opportunity for the district and we should go as far
as possible with the project which could re-invent the district, more jobs abd more
funding.
I think we should find out more information this could be good for the area, insuring
safety is implemented.
SDC should submit an EOI as we cannot make a judgement until we know if the
ground is suitable. We have nothing to loose by asking for more information and long
term benefits for the district could be positive
I am very disapointed that Shepway District Council would even consider any interest
in a Nuclear Disposal Facility kent should not be a dump.
Go for the next stage = survey lower ground if ok find out more.
Page 214
Appendix D
1884 We would like to register our total opposition to a possible Nuclear Waste storage
facility on Romney Marsh. As residents of West Hythe, on the edge of Romney
Marsh, we are also greatly concerned that residents of our village have not been
formerly consulted on this, unlike other residents on the Marsh. The area is totally
unsuitable for an underground storage facility being prone to saline intrusion and
rising sea levels are likely to exacerbate this problem. It is about time Shepway
District Council started thinking about alternative and less environmentally damaging
technologies than nuclear (whether for storage or power plant).
1885 We would like to register our total opposition to a possible Nuclear Waste storage
facility on Romney Marsh. As residents of West Hythe, on the edge of Romney
Marsh, we are also greatly concerned that residents of our village have not been
formerly consulted on this, unlike other residents on the Marsh. The area is totally
unsuitable for an underground storage facility being prone to saline intrusion and
rising sea levels are likely to exacerbate this problem. It is about time Shepway
District Council started thinking about alternative and less environmentally damaging
technologies than nuclear (whether for storage or power plant).
1886 I wish to voice my strong opposition to the completely ridiculous proposals to site a
major nuclear waste dump on/under Romney Marsh.
Firstly, whilst some of the waste may be low or mid level material from which radiation
decays fairly rapidly; high level waste, such as plutonium, can take up to half a million
years to decay. The human species might not even exist by then!
Secondly, though of course the problem is jobs on the Marsh, in my view this could
better be done through setting up renewables tech businesses (Solar panelling/ wind
and tide/wave componants etc etc) and related small scale factories on the Marsh.
These could be sited near an unexpanded Lydd airport, and/or on the site next to the
decommissioning A and B nuclear stations, as I have long previously suggested.
They would also be a valuable local asset in the increasingly urgent fight againt manmade climate change; an issue which will be in the worlds media again during the
forthcoming major debates at the Rio+20 conference in Brazil in June.
Further, as nuclear expert Dr John Large has pointed out, incoming nuclear waste
trains would have to travel through London; or via Reading/Redhill lines etc; then via
Tonbridge or Maidstone to Ashford Intl where they would have to run right past
platforms 1 & 2 as there are no connections from bypass lines to the Marsh rail lines
This inevitable routing putting many densely populated areas at risk as Kent County
Council leader Paul Carter has also highlighted in his welcome opposition.
Dr Large has also highlighted the fact that Romney Marsh geology, even a mile
below, is in no way suitable for such a facility; and that the likelyhood of the eventual
flooding of the Marsh area, even if coastal protection slows this down, would badly
affect the huge receiving site proposed on the surface.
Finally it should be remembered that whilst Romney Marsh may be fairly sparsely
populated, it is a site of a major RSPB bird reserve, many SSSI's; and several nearby
military firing ranges. The towns of Hastings, Rye, Camber (East Sussex,) and
Folkestone, Ashford, Tenterden are also nearby, being only 5-15 miles or so away,
and could also be affected by damage from this proposal or any accidents resulting
from it.
I therefore urge these proposals be dispensed with as soon as possible.
Page 215
Appendix D
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
Whilst I do not see any harm in asking the question I do not believe we should be
imposing this legacy on future generations due to the short term whim of politicians to
find jobs in the relatively prosperous (nationally) area of the Romney Marsh. Being
spoon fed an idea by the NDA/DECC does not to me show strong creativity or
leadership.
There are other areas of the country which are of a far lower population density,
located away from the prosperous south east that would benefit from such
investment. Equally these areas, particularly on the west coast of the country are
better located with regards to the existing storage facilities in Cumbria and any future
generation.
The South East of England is under considerable pressure to increase housing
numbers and is the focus of the UK economy. Within this area it is important to have
areas of natural beauty and open space to meet the needs of the inhabitants. The
Romney Marsh is one such area with huge potential over the next 20 to 30 years to
expand as a place for visitors.
Nuclear Energy has in my opinion provided a stop gap between carbon intensive
means of producing energy and green energy. As a nation we need to ensure
government is not guided by think tanks funded by the nuclear and gas/coal energy
producers and look to the future - how we can be carbon neutral. Whilst this may
need considerable investment now it leaves no burden for future generations, unlike
the last 50 years of Nuclear generation. If Germany can move to a nuclear free future
why can't we? Particularly if a European Supergrid is established.
Finally - Whilst I appreciate NDA scientists believe this method of disposal is safe it is
entirely untested at a global level. The areas of Sweden, Finland and the USA
chosen for such a facility are remote and lowly populated. Any risk to the wider
population is therefore reduced by distance. The Romney Marsh is located in close
proximity to significant centres of population. It is not an appropriate location for this
facility.
I am 69 years of age. I came to Romney Marsh age 11 and love the area-painting
the many aspects of this unspoilt countyside. Despoiling it in any way would be a
sacriledge against all concepts of beauty and principles of conservation particularly
as Shepway seems intent on many other development schemes set to alter the
character of our area for ever! In short, I am vehemently against this latest proposal!!!
Sincerely
Crazy idea.
The Romney Marsh is absolutely not the place for a nuclear dump. The tourism
industry should recover from the damage caused by 2 nuclear power stations as the
buildings are decommissioned, so let's not be a destination for everyone's poisonous
rubbish in years - centuries - to come.
The idea of having a nuclear waste dump on Romney Marsh is utterly preposterous.
Shepway would find itself inhabited only by half-wits. Anybody in their right mind
would leave - even though we would only get half the value for our houses.
This was considered previously and was ruled unsuitable then. The Government
undertook studies in the 1980's and ruled out this are of Kent. This is therefore a
waste of money during these diffuclut economic times. The proposal will also only
create very limited local employment opportunities and is more likely to have a
negative effect on the tourist trade which is currently seen, thus overall there is a
potential to adversry affect the visitors we see and in turn this will reduce the
empolyment currently available in those services supporting tourism.
Page 216
Appendix D
1893 This is an utterly appaling suggestion, you will put blight on the area for the next 25
years or more - I simply cannot understand why you would consider this and put such
a serious and concerning proposal before us - please withdraw your expression of
interest and get on with supporting sustainable secure and meaningful employment
based on the great qualities of the Marsh.
1894 This is completely and utterly unsuitable for this area. A low lying area such as the
Marsh should not be considered for an underground storage area for any waste, let
alone nuclear. Then add in the infrastructure, access roads etc plus increased
commercial traffic and you have a nightmre scenario. The people of Cumbria support
such a facility. Let them have it!
1895 I am against the idea of using Romney Marsh as a nuclear waste dump, we already
have more than our fair share of nuclear facilities. There are also nuclear power
stations along the french coast and it will increase the health risks to the local
population.
1896 I am totally against this. Already friends and collegues from outside the district are
laughing about Shepway becoming a nuclear waste dump. I do not think it will have
positive benefits for the district or its image, there are other ways of creating jobs.
1897 Clearly we should find out more so that a more informed decision can be made and at
the very least to find out the answers to FAQ's that are currently circulating e.g.
flooding, geology, contamination etc
1898 I believe this to be a brilliant idea, and something for the future generations of the
district!
1899 I am pro nuclear and have canvassed for a third power station we cant have one
because of the fauna and flaura.
Nuclear waste needs carefully considered storage.
Now Dungeness and Romney Marsh are a part of the same place and I really do not
think that its good to have waste facility under Romney Marsh.
This is for good reason:
Romney Marsh is below sea level.
and there is an active siesmic fault that runs along the north downs. From Folkestone.
This waste dump belongs in somewhere in the side of a granit mountain were it is
very stable like the Swedish and Americans have. I totally ageed with Damian Colins
and Paul Carter the Head of the KCC.
Also there is a fragile tourist trade and this will cuase the loss of long standing
businesses people incomes linked to nuclear waste.
It was discusting how the wind farm was imposed on the marsh, the whim of some
MP for Croydon. All the locals got was a base ball court.
I really think it wrong that DECC/NDA are pressuring a really vunerable depressed
area.
Lets hope the geology proves wrong and the enviromentalists do something useful for
once and stop this. Shepway listen to the indegineous people of Romney Marsh.
Would you want under the Civic Centre.
These big construction projects brings an influx of workers because the local
goverment are not thinking about gearing up local people for the specialist
engineering skills needed for this. Local people end up with all the lograde and low
paid work.
1900 Nuclear is dirty and far too expensive to install and dispose of.
Page 217
Appendix D
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
Romney Marsh seems to be a poor choice of site given the instability of the terrain,
and likelihood of flooding. Recent weather events have shown in other parts of the
country that flooding is an unpredictible and often catastrophic event that is occurring
with increasing frequency. It seems ridiculous to build this on an area that was
underwater less than 3 centuries ago and that would, without continual and
increasingly expensive coastal management, easily return so.
It is an outrageous suggestion that our area should be exploited in this way. We do
not know the long term effects of radiation and we do not want waste from all areas
being disposed of in our back yard. Nor do we want research into potentially
hazardous material taking place on our doorstep. It may be a rural area, but Romney
Marsh does not deserve this.
Romney Marsh area is unsuitable for a high activity nuclear waste disposal facility. It
is an area of very recent geology laid down in the last 2000 years, prone to inundation
by the sea (Broomhill Church was lost in a great storm circa 1300?) and vulnerable to
earthquakes (not only the one on Folkestone circa 5 years ago but there was one
recorded in the Dover Straights circa 500 years ago). The solid geology of older
geological formations either side of the marsh is heavily faulted, indicating a general
instable nature.
Having researched considerably in to this project I am undecided whether it is
appropriate to the area for a wide variety of reasons. That said, to be in a position to
make an informed decision requires further information and investigation. I would
therefore like to find out more, in the knowledge that upon finding out more there is an
appropriate opportunity at stage 3 for the host and wider community to determine
whether to participate or not.
The Romney Marsh area is prone to earthquakes.
Historical records tell us of an earthquake on the Marsh causing many thousands of
fatalities.
Is this not reason enough to deny such a scheme taking place.
Because of substantial new infrastructure over Romney Marsh undoubtedly a reason
for tourists not to come in the area
I believe the council would fair more if they offered free solar panelling along our
coastline. Another nuclear site is defeating our concerns ref natural resources. Solar
panels will also offer new job prospects.
1) The last government turned down a new power station at Dungeness on
environmental grounds, which has never been adequately substantiated and now
makes no sense in the light of this new proposal. How is a nuclear dump
environmentally acceptable when the power station supposedly wasn't? Shouldn't the
power station case be reopened in the light of this new proposal?
2)Is there a British Geological Survey report on the subsurface of the proposed
disposal site, what is the proposed target disposal strata, what is the associated fault
structure, what is the future earthquake prediction probability for the area? At least 40
years of research has been carried out on the volcanics of the Cumbria site, is there
the same thorough study of the Romney Marsh proposed site showing that adequate
containment is possible? there needs to be before this proposal goes any further.
I have many concerns over this proposal and believe that it should be rejected
without further ado. Even the employment creation argument is flawed, I believe, as
there would be a housing and business location blight as a result of the proposal.
Page 218
Appendix D
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
The promise of creation of jobs and community benefit package in the area will only
be a temporary incentive and we will be left with a legacy of high level radioactive
material and spent fuel being transported across the marsh with all the risks that
involves and environmental damage to this beautiful area. I am appalled that this
should even be considered. We should be trying to protect our environment for the
future generations not always looking for an easy fix to combat the lack of work
available in the area.
I know that we need to have a nuclear waste disposal somewhere but there must be
a much more suitable area which will be much further away from the public.
Nuclear waste is a product of energy generation. The Nuclear industry is the only one
that owns and attempts to manage all of its own waste, Other just let it free into the
enviroment. We have to store and continue to look after this waste. This is an
opertunity for the local community to continue to benifit from this issue. We should
take advantage of this and ensure that we have some local benifit from this.
Although technically I do not live on Romney Marsh, I was brought up in Brenzett,
educated at Southlands and have always lived on or very near to Romney Marsh. I
have two Grandsons who live in Lydd, I think it would be a bad thing to dismiss this
out of hand without looking into it further. If everything is safe and well managed
surely it has to be a good thing? Romney Marsh's future isn't just sheep, when the
power stations finally close, the area will become even more depressed. Anything
that could turn Romney Marsh's future around has to be worth investigation, after
which, when more is known, an informed decision can be made. Lets hope for a great
future - thats what I want for my Grandsons!
My partner works for a local estate agent. The day after the article was printed in the
Guardian a prospective buyer called to pull out of her purchase of a property on the
marsh, citing the possibility of the dump as the reason. If this site goes ahead
thousands will see their homes lose much of it's value. The fact that the area is in a
quake zone and that the straits are vital to the economy of the country should have
been enough to mark this down as a no brainer. Do not waste any more ratepayers
money investigating this ridiculous suggestion. It is already having a negative effect
on thge area. Kick it into touch now!!!!!
Fracking at Dover, we're on a fault line and have had an earthquake fairly recently;
Nuclear power station; proposed expansion of Lydd Airport to be as large as Luton;
the South East has a high population in all and therefore siting of disposal facility
would not just be a concern for Romney Marsh; terrorist target (2 nuclear sites for the
price of one!); flood plain - soil content shifting? Increase in housing developments,
roads etc., to accommodate new developments. I don't think it's a good idea?
The idea of using Romney Marsh - or any area in Kent - for nuclear waste is
horrifying. Please do not let this matter go any further. Throw it out immediately.
Totally stupid idea.
Poor Reomney Marsh. It seems the 'powers that be' just can't leave beauty alone!!!
The Romney Marsh has survived through world wars, greedy landowners and
property developers and now this! I disagree with the whole project. Please leave
the Marsh as it is. Already councils have tried desperately to urbanise this tranquil
part of the world - but somehow, the inhabitants are made of stronger stuff. WE don't
want an airport, or lots of busy roads or even any more inactive windmills. It would be
much better for the Marsh to remain a tourist attraction for people who long for peace
and tranquility - if you want London, then live in London! I am totally against even
wasting taxpapers money on finding out more, quite frankly - spend the money on
developing nature instead.
Page 219
Appendix D
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
I fundamentally object to this proposal as it is both dangerous and economically
unsound .Highly toxic waste should not be transported over any lengthy distances as
it could be subject to accident or attack.This project will damage the tourist industry
on the Marsh permanently as fewer people will wish to visit. the size of the
development alone will certainly not enhance the visual impact of this delightful
area.This suggestion to build a recycling plant on Romney Marsh must be challenged
on all levels. I am pleased to note that our local MP, Damian Collins has already
come out against it in this week`s Hythe Herald in well argued article. SDC please
think again.
To build the site they will have to remove an amount of earth equivalent to that of the
channel tunnel excavations - where will it go? The site will cover 250 acres - bigger
than 22 wembley stadiums - that's an area bigger than Lydd. The disruption to the
local wildlife and flora caused by the site will be terrible, that area has some of the
rarest birds and plant species in the UK, the proximity to the site will lower house
prices in an already deprived area because of peoples perception of the site, they
would have to build new rail links to transport the waste across the country from
cumbria, the list goes on and on, and for what? potentialy 1000 jobs in the year
2040?
It seems Shepway Council is determined to wreck Romney Marsh, first with with the
airport and now a Nuclear Waste Facility. It's an SSCI - could you not come up with
some eco-friendly development plans?
Not only am I concerned about long term storage facilitiies but more importantly about
the transportation of the waste in a highly poplulated area of outstanding natural
beauty.
However safe underground nuclear storage may turn out to be (time will tell), the
nuclear material will have to be transported across the highly-populated south east
before it's stored. Risks of accident and malicious interference are only too real. To
despoil the area and put thousands of lives at risk for the sake of 550 long term jobs
is irresponsible. Sometimes I despair of Shepway District Council.
Although I understand that nuclear waste does need to be stored somewhere I do not
believe that Romney Marsh is the right place. With the flood risk I wonder how safe it
would be and such a large development would be a huge blot on the landscape and
do no end of environmental damage to a very sensitive area. Not to mention the harm
done by all the lorries during construction and bringing the waste for storage.If we
can't have a third power station why we would we be allowed a nuclear waste facility?
Romney Marsh needs jobs but surely the council could be more inventive - how about
some more renewable energy businesses? A nuclear waste storage facility will
destroy most of the tourist business on the Marsh and so probably lose as many jobs
as it might bring. I really hope Shepway doesn't waste to much money on this as I
really don't think it is a viable plan even if local people did want it.
AS well as being a seismically active area. There is also clear evidence of severe
coastal erosion and flood risk.
There are already a fleet of digger trucks working 24/7 to maintain the beach spit to
protect the existing nuclear facilities.
Are you really that desperate to create local employment, that you would be willing to
sacrifice those concerns or even acknowledge them during the public consultation
process?
Page 220
Appendix D
1925
1926
1927
1928
I would just like to remind the council that the vast majority of the Romney Marsh is
made up of silt and not rock. Much of it is below sea level and is likely to be reclaimed
by the sea one day. Isn't this the reason given for not building a new power station?
Which would provide more jobs than a nuclear dump? Therefore would it not be
prudent to consider more stable areas of the country? Or not at all.
This is a ridiculous idea. This is an area famed for its sheep and wildlife - how can
we consider a nuclear facility here. The increase in lorry traffic on the M20 would be
unbearable - they already cause a massive nuisance.
Kent is known as the garden of England, and I moved here because of its beauty and
lower traffic polution than Essex. It already amazes me that there is so little done to
combat litter waste in our 'garden' and now we are contemplating nuclear waste as
well.
I think this would totally ruin the whole image that Kent has as "Garden of England"
This proposal may create a few short term jobs and fewer long term jobs (many of
which will be specifically skilled and not from local sources), but ultimately turn the
area from the garden of England into the nuclear dumping ground of England, with
the potential for it to be the dumping ground of the world. Kent should be an area
supporting sustainable energy - not the national mecca for unsustainable, expensive
and dangerous fuel waste products. The broader effects of this proposal will be far
more damaging to the area that any benefit from jobs.
The damage to the reputation of the Romney Marsh as an area of outstanding natural
beauty and associated nature reserve containing rare, endangered and diverse
species of fauna and flora will be immense in irreversible, and only the start of the
problems. “The area around the site is environmentally sensitive, designated as a
Special Protection Area (SPA), a Special Area for Conservation (SAC) and a Site of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is proposed as a wetland of international
importance under the RAMSAR convention and is home to the largest shingle
peninsula in Europe. Continuous shingle replenishment is in progress to maintain the
reactor site and British Energy’s Dungeness B power station.” (quote from NDA). This
is not the place for a toxic dump!
The possible pollution issues, effects on house prices, tourism etc will be FOREVER.
A few visitors a year to a visitor centre will be miniscule compared to the mass
exodus of tourism, trade and residents. Who would want to live or visit an area with a
vast nuclear dump.
The channel is one of the busiest shipping areas in the world. Creating potential for
any new nuclear issue in this area is beyond belief. Terrorism will always be with us.
Having a pollutant that could potentially bring one of the busiest commercial routes in
central western Europe to a halt is unfathomable. The current power station has a
finite lifetime and its future is known. A nuclear dump will be forever, and by that very
nature, will only grow if established.
The south east is an earthquake zone (with recent significant shifts in faults deep
under the Channel). The Hastings Beds are sandstone and silts - totally inappropriate
(even for consideration) for any form of extreme pollutant storage. Sites based in
granite should be the first options to be explored, not porous unstable beds. Why
spend millions researching and conducting underground studies and construction,
when there are already thousands of miles of deep mine tunnels in the UK, with
known geology, in far more remote and stable locations? Why, because it appears to
be an easy option for the proposers.
The global trend has been to move away from nuclear power, and if we are to truly
look to the future we should be investing in long term sustainable non polluting
Page 221
Appendix D
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
solutions to our power needs, not burying our heads in the sand and for the sake of a
few jobs and corporate profit. Time and time again nuclear fuel has been proven to be
unsafe and a danger to life. There are no long term benefits only long term
headaches and problems for communities. This proposal should be opposed at all
costs.
No way, how many years will our descendants have to put up with the fear of having
this nuclear waste underneath them, also the effect on the local wildlife would be
catastrophic.
It is a resounding NO, it takes thousands of years for nuclear material to be made
safe. This should not even be an option and those councillors who are backing it or
asking for more info should in my opinion be dismissed from their jobs. They do not
have the authority to decide something so detrimental for a whole area. They must
be getting back handers as a normal rational person would never agree.
There should definitely not be a nuclear waste facility on romney marsh, and the
council should not proceed with this idea.
Research = Yes
Disposal = No
It is a NO for me!
It is criminal to destroy our beautiful Marsh, its wildlife, its fresh water reserve and
more.
People thinking of dumping nuclear waste there are uneducated!
Unable to comment until I know what is proposed.
This proposal is insane. Why on earth should we even consider Shepway becoming
the nuclear dustbin for the entire country? We deserve better than that: Kent
deserves better than that.
The environmental impact would be monumental, the impact on confidence in the
local area devastating and the impact on tourism incalculable.
For example, who would think of moving to the area if they thought they were going to
watch 20 years of construction of the UK's only major nuclear dump, and then watch
all the highest level nuclear waste in the country pass their door before being stored
under their feet for millions of years?
I entirely agree with both local MP Damian Collins and Kent County Council Leader
Paul Carter on this: the suggestion is irresponsible, outrageous and madness.
Safety, safety, safety. Why do you think a High Court Judge ruled that it was not in
the publics best interest to release the levels of childhood leukaemia around
Sellafield. And you want this for Romney Marsh and your Grandchildren? No, no, no.
Tourism is the future of Romney Marsh
I have no reservations about asking the residents for their view. I would like to find out
more. Until I learn more I cannot say whether this is right for the Marsh or not.
An absolute NO NO. Preserve the Marsh for what it is - green with numerous forms
of wildlife and build on the ecological and countryside aspects for future growth.
Nuclear Power Stations are a thing of the past and certainly no more nuclear waste
should be placed on or under any area of the Kent marshes.
No way
ASHFORD
1940 Any such facility would involve the whole of kent, Not just the people where the front
door is. Looking at the cost of this facility so much for cheap power.
1941 We need something to retain the jobs and skills.
Page 222
Appendix D
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
ASHFORD
I have waited for the letter that supposedly was going to be sent to all houses on
Romney Marsh. I live on the marsh but come under Ashford Borough Council so I
presume my comments and wishes are not relevant although I live closer to
Dungeness than some of the members of SDC
I disapprove 100% of the proposal to inflict a dumping ground here in one of the most
beautiful and unusual parts of Kent. I would have thought enough mindless
degrading of the area had already taken place I will not bother to list the various ill
judged schemes that have been inflicted on this area. If the whole motivation for this
site is money and jobs, which is a very short sighted view, it obviously hasn't occurred
to you that you will be irreparably damaging this area for generations to come. Jobs
are important but not to sacrifice unique landscapes and to possibly endanger lives. I
know all sorts of rigorous checks will be done but they cannot allow for human error.
It cannot be beyond the collective powers of Shepway District Council to find other
sources of income for the region without permanently blighting Romney Marsh. You
are voted in and out and if this scheme becomes reality what a dreadful legacy you
will leave behind you.
I would like to be informed of meetings and developments regarding this proposal as
this is my home and I care deeply about this particularly beautiful part of the world
I am sending copies of this letter to Ashford Borough Council and Kent County
Council
I think it is very interesting and excellent idea. So much job creation.
Fully support the whole concept. Good for jobs (scarce in area)
Given the limited liklihood of a Dungeness C power station being constructed, I
believe this project would benefit Shepway and South - Kent in general in terms of
future employment and other socio-ecconomic benefits.
This is a ridiculous idea. The marsh is a unique site of scientific, social and cultural
interest. We have had Dungeness power stations for the past 40 odd years with the
attendant risks. The UK is becoming a dumping ground for the rest of the world's
nuclear waste. We do not need this anywhere in Britain, let alone our beautiful
county of Kent which has been the victim of the Channel Tunnel development and
vast amounts of concrete over the past 50 or so years. The Garden of England has
become its dustbin. NO! NO! NO!
I am opposed to SDCs proposals for a Nuclear Waste Dump on Romney Marsh. The
risks outweigh any benefit.
I am deeply opposed to this:
I am concerned about the risk of contamination of food and the water supply;
I am concerned about the risks of transporting the waste;
I am concerned about the effects the image of the area, on tourism and sustainable
development through attracting business investment in the area. I prefer Kent to be
thought of as the "Garden of England" not the nuclear waste dump.
Don't sell off the area's prospects that cheaply.
what a great idea, more jobs.
There is considerable confusion about the risk associated with Nuclear Radiation. I
am aware that the science around fission and fusion is well advanced and it seems
likely that the risks will be well managed.
I believe that we should find out more about the suggested facility in the light of the
job creation of the potential project. I fully support that any decision must be with the
agreement and mandate of the all of the local population.
It will ruin a beautiful and valuable ecological part of our County and our Country.
Needs full geological survey before making a decision and comments from EA
Page 223
Appendix D
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
ASHFORD
This is predominantly an agricultural landscape, a unique natural habitat for so many
species of fauna and flora.For this to remain so, careful management, sensitive
developments which cause little disturbance are the only ones to be encouraged.
Anyone who knows the area and has that very special bond with its character, would
never wish to see the developemnt proposed. Surely those proposing the idea have
little or no understanding of the special ecological/conservational importance of
Romney Marsh.
My family and friends have been regular visitors to the marsh for well over thirty
years. There are many, many people like ourselves who enjoy visiting and exploring
the Marsh, patronising its local businesses : such a horrifying dump beneath the
marsh landscape would certainly dissuade any further visits. The serenity and unique
sense of open space when visiting the marsh would be destroyed by the
infrastructure associated with such a development.
This project if succesful, or if unsuccessful and A & B close down, will have an inpact
on a far greater area than Shepway. I do appreciate that Shepway is at the hub of
the action, but should not be left to go it alone, what ever and when ever the final
decision is.
Dangerous and environmentally unfriendly..
Disposal of nuclear waste as a storage solution is a ridiculous idea....and the bury
solution is even worse. I am opposed to nuclear energy from the outset because of
the obvious environmental problems.
This ideas is based on a lazy and short sited view of the problems of nuclear energy
in general and its need to be disposed of. Its a viscious circle of government laziness
when it comes to understanding and developing a sustainable energy solution. I am
appalled at the stupidity of this solution when the majority of thinking in todays world
is for an holistic approach to the issues of energy and environment. Yet again the UK
will be way behind and far back ion the development of human/environmentaly
friendly energy solutions.
We cannot make an informed decision until we find out more.
I think that this very idea of a nuclear waste site when there is already nuclear leak
risk sight at Dungeness power station is poorly thought out. This will double the risk to
residents and to a very important trade route for the whole UK.
Please keep me informed in all aspects of this process
I have concluded that a subteranian nuclear dump has undefined risks and I wish to
be fully advised of all decisions and currently oppose its formation at Romney Marsh
D Marriott Chartered Engineer & Chartered Scientist
Member Ashford Borough Council
You may and I wish to publish my details in full as I encourage debate on this matter.
Email [email protected]
Myself and my young family live on the edge of the Romney Marshes. It is a truly
wonderful location and the huge diversity of wildlife and beautiful scenery never
ceases to amaze me.
Although "The Marsh" has long been involved in the nuclear industry, the ending of
this era with the final decommissioning of Dungeness B in 2018 brings an excellent
opportunity for a new start without the ever present associated risks.
Recent events in Japan have shown to the world the real dangers involved with
nuclear power and whilst other developed countries such as Germany now fully
recognise the need to look at safer methods of generating electricity, it appears that
Shepway District Council are fully prepared to embrace the bi-product from the
industry that nobody else wants. The measures suggested in the proposal to try and
Page 224
Appendix D
ASHFORD
contain the risks associated with nuclear waste when "in-situ" underlines just how
hazardous the product is. The idea of having a steady traffic stream of such a
dangerous material constantly flowing into the Marsh and the associated risks that
this poses to everyone is just too scary to contemplate.
Even with the best possible protections put in place 'freak events' do happen. It is
irresponsible to think that longer odds justify such dangerous exposures. Surely the
lessons to learn from the Fukushima disaster should be to enforce on us the fact that
man is not able to fully control or predict nature. Nor should we think we can.
Shepway District Council should embrace the opportunity that the final closure of
Dungeness B will bring to the area in order to build a new Marsh with no nuclear
presence. Fresh-thinking is not a bad thing, afterall where would we be today if
Galileo had not challenged the conventional geocentric thinking of his day? Shepway
District Council too now need to start thinking outside of "the bunker" that they appear
to have become accustomed to.
Those of us who live on 'The Marsh' understand and appreciate the beauty of the
area and truly believe that many opportunities abound without the need to be the
world’s most dangerous rubbish dump.
Although the opportunity to discuss the idea is very much appreciated, the Council's
decision to even consider it at a proposal level demonstrates little imagination and
suggests a degree of disconnection with the larger Marsh area and a severe lack of
understanding. It is a worry that most of us really do not need.
It is without argument that the economic impact of the closure of Dungeness B needs
to be examined and mitigated but the current proposal will not help those people
being affected now and many will be long retired by the time the current proposal
would be up and running. Does Shepway District Council think that the best
aspirations of the people living on the Marsh are for their children to grow up to work
in an underground nuclear rubbish tip? It is certainly not the aspirations I have for
mine. Fresh ideas should be sought for a longer term sustainable future for the
Marsh both environmentally and economically.
Shepway District Council should embrace the opportunity to prepare for a nonnuclear Marsh future. The Romney Marshes are a rare gem in a part of the world
that is becoming increasingly over-developed. That fact alone should present the
District Council with a very good and easy place to start their re-evaluation from.
1961 Whilst I live in the neighbouring borough in Ashford, I do work in Shepway and have
an understanding that the closure of the two power stations at Dungeness will have a
devastating long term effect on the local economy; even greater than that felt in
Thanet as a result of the closure of the Pfizer site. I therefore congratulate Shepway
District Council for considering the long term impacts on the local economy and for
coming up with innivative ways of offsetting the eventual job losses and for bringing
this to the attention of the local community for consideration. Having researched the
views from the leadership at Kent County Council and from the local MP, who appear
to have rubbished this idea without even having the time to have a sensible debate or
consider the view of the local community re the issue of future job losses, I ask the
question what other alternatives can they suggest that will bring as many long term
jobs and investment to this area?
1962 There are plenty of disused mines in this country one of which could be one thinks
be made suitable for the purpose without digging a hole and erecting buildings in a
globally unique and environmentally sensitive area.
Page 225
Appendix D
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
ASHFORD
Having seen the nuclear power stations erected and lived in the area for >70 years, I
have considered all the arguments pro and con. I do not see any more danger
arising from the proposed facility with the storage of nuclear waste >200 metres
below ground than there has been from Dungeness A, B & C over the years. We
should have a new nuclear power station on the Dungeness site as well. All are
opportunities for more employment in the area.
Yet another proposal to use Romney Marsh as a dump for waste. It is far to precious
and fragile a site for nuclear waste, airports and large scale movement of the shingle.
Even without the benefit of detailed plans of the proposal, it is clear that the impact on
Romney Marsh and the surrounding area would be seriously detrimental, in terms of
the infrastracture required.
Utter madness to have a nucleur waste facility that close to hastings, ashford,
folkestone
That the idea of a nuclear waste disposal and storage on Romney Marsh is even
being considered is evidence of the complete moral, economic, and social bankruptcy
of Shepway Council . They view the Marsh solely in terms of short-term economic
gain . The result of any such development, set alongside such schemes as the airport
extension at Lydd, would be irrevocable damage to Romney Marsh . Given the
geological structure of the Marsh, and its position at sea-level or below, it is difficult to
see ANY scheme to dump nuclear waste, with a half-life of hundreds, even thousands
of years, as anything but criminal madness. Shepway should sort out their own brown
field sites and pathetic town planning .They must stop this relentless drive to expand
the population and economy of the Marsh at any cost , and recognise its unique
status , ecology, and community.
Does shepway council have any respect for the area. The marshes have had thier
turn of nuclear in one form or another. Now its the turn of the wild life and the people
to be considered. So my answer to the new DUMP.is NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
and NO
ROTHER (within 30km of Romney Marsh)
1969 Even an initial enquiry would be a waste of public money, which should be reserved
for the investigation of viable & acceptable sites - which Romney Marsh clearly isn't.
1970 Stupid idea ~ stop it now.
1971 I strongly oppose any such 'mad-cap' ideas.
1972 This is not a logical place to put it. Has everyone forgotten that Romney Marsh is a
very important agricultural area. Tourism is growing year by year in the area and, in
my opinion, a nuclear waste dump, would increase unemployment considerably.
Would holiday makers really chose to come and spend a couple of weeks near a
nuclear waste dump, I think not.
1973 Romney Marsh is a year round tourist area and if we look after it the industry will
grow and therefore there will be less unemployment. It is also a very valuable
farming area which is absolutely vital for UK food production.The nature of a marsh,
which is below sea level, would be an extraordinary place to 'bury' nuclear waste
1974 This is dangerous, destructive and stupid
1975 One of the last unspoilt areas in the South East and yet another proposition to help
destroy this beautiful area. This ranks alongside the application to extend Lydd
Airport as insane, unrealistic and totally inappropriate.
Page 226
Appendix D
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
I am utterly and vehemently opposed to considering the Romney Marsh or any of the
surrounding countryside as a destination for Nuclear Waste or so called "Research
Facilities".
I do not want to insult the Councillors of Shepway who have sanctioned this
consultation but I find it incredible that they are prepared to consider such a
desperate solution to the acknowledged economic problems of the area. Please could
they ask their residents to come up with sensible suggestions as to how to develop
the local economy. I am sure there are many people that would be happy to help with
this if necessary.
This idea should be rejected out of hand because:
1. It is totally inappropriate for this unique landscape
2. The area of surface buildings will be enormous (many acres)
3. The strain on local infrastructure, not only during construction but permanently,
would be enormous.
This is madness as the marsh is an SSI,larely waterlogged, at the edge of magor
populations, too close to major connerbations, i.e the very heavily populated SE of
England and an area with dire transport facilities.
To make the historic and important marsh a dumping ground for nuclear waste is
unecessary vandalism, with no benefits to the local community. Better to extend the
Nuclear plant and retain the skills and work for the employees and protect against
extension of Lydd airport,than take on the very doubtful benefits of nuclear waste
storage for the whole UK.
NO NO NO!
It is unbelievable to even consider desecrating this unique environment with a
nuclear 'research'! and waste facility.
The greater Romney Marsh extends beyond Shepway and into Rother. Any
development on The Marsh affects us just as much as you, so our views should be
given equal weight. It is time Shepway recognise Romny Marsh for the unique area it
is, and to stop promoting incompatible large scale development simply to create jobs.
I find it hard to believe that you seriously think the majority of marsh residents would
vote to have nuclear waste buried near them. I am heartily glad that I am not a
Shepway taxpayer if you waste money canvassing on such a ludicrous proposition.
I don't know whether having a nuclear waste facility on Romney Marsh would be a
good idea or not overall as I don't have enough information to assess all the pros and
cons. I therefore support the proposal to find out more, provided that this is without
any obligation or commitment and that a more informed opinion can be given at a
later stage.
We will fight this. This will never be allowed to happen.
I do not think this is a good idea, leave the land alone and stop using lovely places as
dump sites for anything.
almost speechless at the thought. It must never happen.
This idea must be a joke, though not a funny one. Romney Marsh is close to the
biggest urban centre in Europe (greater London); it is on prime agricultural land; and
Sellafield, after all has been an economic blight on the whole of the UK and has
brought neither wealth nor long term jobs to its locality. This idea must rank as one of
the very worst in the history of Kent and Sussex.
I believe this to be an appalling idea. Romney Marsh already has the Dungeness
nuclear power stations and the airport at Lydd, quite apart from the disfiguring wind
turbine farm at Little Cheyney Court. The Marsh is a unique landscape: the rest of it
must not be disturbed, for the sake of generations to come.
Page 227
Appendix D
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
This is an appalling idea, I hope the Shepoway residents have been reminded of the
prevailing wind directions which are unlikel;y to change in a million years either. Do
not let this happen
What a terrible idea and at what potential human cost DONT LERT IT HAPPEN
This proposal is ludicrous, it is on geologically unstable land, near an airport, to say
nothing of one of the most important wildlife habitats in the south of England. It is not
a safe option.
The Council seems to have a 'death-wish' when it comes to the natural (and unique)
environment of Dungeness and Romney Marsh.
Shepway Council apparently neither respects the unique nature of Romney Marsh
nor the lives of those who live there or in the immediate environs They clearly regard
the Marsh as a large waste space in which they can dump anything, from large
airports, nuclear waste, whatever they fancy, just as long it makes them a few quid.
We don't want a nuclear waste site in Romney Marsh - this is one of the last natural
habitats in the SE of England and should not be mutilated with nuclear waste. I 100%
oppose this ludicrous idea.
We don't want a nuclear storage site built here - this area needs tourism; not nuclear
waste!!
Why don't the leaders of Shepway Council spend some of their effort and energy into
getting employment into the local area based on green industry, tourism etc. as
opposed to desperately trying to wreck and ruin Romney Marsh forever by supporting
the nuclear industry, Lydd airport expansion etc. Why are they so intent on wrecking
one of the last natural habitats in the SE of England forever? What do they have
against this part of the world? I am 100% totally against any sort of nuclear waste
storage facility being built here - this sort of thing needs to be built in an area with
very low population as opposed to the densely populated SE of England. Also, surely
if this was UK wide, a more central Midlands based location would make more sense
(although I am sure that Shepway councillors are not concerned about the CO2
emissions involved with transporting this waste down to our corner of the country,
which is completely out of the way and inaccessible for vast majority of the country)!!
Can we say NO to all this nonsense once and for all and please can the councillors
find a more green and less controversial ways to get jobs into the area???
HASTINGS
1996 This proposal is absolutely crazy; despite the fact that modern nuclear fusion reactors
are supposed to be the ultimate in security.
I'm completely and unequivocably against nuclear energy and nuclear power due to
the devastation, contamination and damage that they reak when they leak into the air
and water and on to the land.
1997 When sea levels rise Romney Marsh could well be underwater. To put any nuclear
waste there is misguided and dangerous. We cannot continue to punish future
generations for our own short term gain
1998 This is a unique and timeless area, unspoilt unlike other sea adjacent countryside,
probably vulnerable to future climate change and I do not consider it a suitable place
for excavating and burying nuclear waste.
1999 What a mistake it would be to go ahead with this development. Romney Marsh is a
unique environment, visually, culturally and for the animal and plant life that lives
there. Don't destroy one of your greatest assets.
Page 228
Appendix D
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
HASTINGS
I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSAL OF ROMNEY MARSH OR ANY
AREA IN THE SOUTH EAST BEING USED FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH AND
DISPOSAL. IT WILL BE AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN.
Comforted to know the intended underground storage facility would be designed for
breakdown in society and even an ice age. Much safe than the current nuclear power
station which the local community wanted to retain.
This cannot be allowed to happen it will be a catastrophe for wild life & for people
health.
This plan for dumping radioactive waste on Romney Marsh is ludicrous. One of the
last bastions of natural beauty and peace. Doesn't anybody out there get it? We are
destroying the planet daily. Look at what is going on in Fukushima Japan. You are
nuts. Look at the bigger picture. Stop thinking about the money.
Since nuclear power is going to be essential to our energy needs the country as a
whole must manage the waste produced. The proposed site on Romney Marsh
would employ 500 helping to balance the loss of 1,000 when Dungeness Power
Station closes. Fear of nuclear waste are understandable but bear no comparison to
the risk accident to a power station above ground from aircraft or sea invasion.
No way we should ban all nuclear weapons and power.
Romney Marsh should be protected.
CANTERBURY (within 30km of Romney Marsh)
2006 (1)The proposed development would destroy the much valued character of the
and rail development, would urbanise an essentially rural area.
wildlife and plant habitat and with its cultural and historical heritage.
employment which Shepway Council should be encouraging -not wasting
money on a nonsensical project like this.
2007 Since 70% of all of the nuclear waste that needs to be disposed of in a geological
facility is already located at Sellafield in West Cumbria I would suggest that it is
pointless to transport it to Romney Marsh. The facility should be in Cumbria.
DOVER (within 30km of Romney Marsh)
2008 IS THE GEOLOGY / WATER TABLE OF ROMNEY MARSH SUITABLE FOR A
STORAGE FACILITY?
2009 I think the future job prospects that this would bring to the area can not be ignored.
Also the storage facilities underground would be a lot safer than the current
overground storage system.
Page 229
Appendix D
EAST SUSSEX (further than 30km from Romney Marsh)
2010 In a beautiful and populated part of the South East of England, it's unthinkable that
waste could be buried. Eventually, accidents and leaks could and probably would
occur leading to catastrophic damage to future inhabitants and the lovely land that
now exists.
2011 We should not need to find out more as it should NEVER NEVER happen. It seems
there is no end to the destruction of our countryside. WHY carry it across country, at
great cost and potential danger, to the innocent people of Kent. What have they done
to deserve this on their doorstep. For goodness sake, let some common sense
prevail.
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
KENT (further than 30km from Romney Marsh)
We should not have Nuclear Research or waste at Romney Marsh. Long term
nuclear is not safe and a costly form of energy when the full costs of storage and
decommissioning. As we have seen in Japan, the dangers of flooding are real and
increasing with sea levels rising. It pollutes for generations as waste remains active
for years.
I WAS SERIOUSLY thinking of moving to the area next year (summer 2013) but I'm
now in 2 minds and would like to know more and be kept fully informed of what is
going on, particularly whether the residents of The Marsh are in favour or not. I
personally wouldn't want to see it built on the Romney Marsh.
One of the original salt marshes and cinque ports-a place of outstanding beauty in
one of the busiest counties in Kent...has the world gone mad? Sun or wind farms to
capture natural sources of energy would work well on this terrain--please consider
other possible sources
I am strongly opposed to this proposal. It would destroy natural habitats and alienate
tourism. Very bad idea.
These projects are getting more and more short sighted. The idea of burying nuclear
waste is bordering on insanity. It actually sounds like the storyline for a hollywood
disaster movie. Profits are not the only thing to chase.
Far too dangerous total madness I have never agreed with nuclear power the sea sun
and wind should be the goal having a facility to conveniently hord away the waste will
just mean more nuclear plants.Show the world what we can do for renewables if we
set our self to it.
Very bad idea, storage of nuclear waste underground is not the way forward, jobs can
be generated in other ways in Kent. Jobs will be short term, not long term. Other
areas of the country/ offshore would be better. if no other alternative is found a
surface based storage facility would be preferable. Burying material underground
doesn't work for landfill, and is equally, if not more so, unsuited for nuclear waste. we
should not just bury and forget our waste.
On the surface it's seema a foolish & dangerous idea
Page 230
Appendix D
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
REST OF THE U.K. (outside East Sussex and Kent)
We should absolutely not entertain any investigation at this stage of our Nuclear
Policy. It may be very difficult to resist political pressure and the force of vested
interests once you embark on any discussion about Geological disposal on Romney
Marsh.
Nothing has been said about the volumes of nuclear waste to be disposed of at any
one site, or whether the site will be used to facilitate storage of waste from much
further afield, whether nationally or internationally. The nuclear waste which has thus
far been produced is evidently posing many problems. I think that resorting to
nuclear fuel to provide our energy has shown itself as a quick fix solution.
Unfortunately, the disposal and management of nuclear waste is not such an easy
one to 'sell' to the general public. It was extremely irresponsible to have not thought
through the consequences of using such a fuel in the first instance. Let us phase out
the use of nuclear power as quickly as possible, and then find a complete solution to
the waste problem, at a national level, rather than a partial solution at a local level.
I live down the coast from Romney Marsh. In my opinion there is no safe disposal of
nuclear waste and nuclear stations should be scaled back until there is. It would be
especially dangerous to process and store nuclear waste close to the sea in light of
possible raising sea levels and extreme weather events. regards
Nuclear waste should not be stored underground - it could leak and remain a hazard
forever.
Research, money and efforts should be put into renewable energy.
I think the nuclear waste site should NOT be sited on Romney Marsh. It is an area
which hosts a lot of wildlife. It is also an area of recreation. The reason I am objecting
even though my address is in Herts is because I have looking at a house in Lydd with
a view to buying. We really like the house and would love to come to Lydd, where we
could contribute to the local economy as we both are working. But our decision to
buy is being hampered by the lack of a decision one way or another about this
nuclear waste facility.
I find the prospect of nuclear waste being deposited on the Romney Marsh very
distressing. The marsh is a beautiful, wild and unique place with birds and plants that
you find nowhere else, unique to its eco-system. It is a very peaceful place to visit
and walk in of outstanding beauty. Such a special place should be valued and
preserved, not destroyed by such an outrageously detrimental proposal.
This is another idea to overpower the existing infrastructure and doesn't make sense
as the requirement to bury this waste should take place in mountainness areas,
where it can be buried in hard solid ground. The Romney marsh is not firm enough at
depth to accomplish this.
Given the location of Romney Marsh and the fact that it is mainly reclaimed land,
surely there would be very real dangers associated with this plan, especially around
safety when the sea level rises (a definite factor in such a long-term storage facility).
Equally there are arguments against this plan as it would ruin a unique part of the
country and potentially risk several SSSIs. I appreicate there is an argument to be
made around jobs, but as a frequent 'tourist' to Romney Marsh, I think following this
argument would be short-sighted as it would impact greatly on one of the other major
sources of jobs in this area, tourism. I am very surprised that opinions are even being
sought on this idea given these points. The council has a duty to preserve the unique
and very special place that is Romney Marsh for future generations of inhabitants and
visitors and this is not the way to do that.
Page 231
Appendix D
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
REST OF THE U.K. (outside East Sussex and Kent)
I am not a local resident but do know the area well. I am a firm believer that we have
to do something to make our radioactive waste safe for future generations and that
we should therefore manage its safe disposal in a appropriate way, in my opinion the
the best of which is deep geological disposal. Radioactive waste will be disposed of
far more carefully than any waste that we currently send to landfill and in a way that
will isolate it from the surface environment for very long time periods. Personally I
would be happy to live close to such a deep disposal facility (while not near a toxic
waste landfill site) and think that the opportunites for the area hosting such a facility
would in the long term be highly beneficial to the area in terms of jobs, other inward
investment and infrastructural development of benefit to teh whoel community.
Thank you for having the courage to ask the question of your local people.
Irrespective of where the final repository is sited, the process of choosing the site is
immeasurably strengthened by the involvement of more communities and areas.
As I'm not in your area, I have chosen 'undecided' above so as not to skew your
responses. However I did want to let you know that while you'll doubtless get flack for
your position, there are many like myself that want to see a solution to this problem
and acknowledge the courage of local politicians who raise the questions.
Is this the price we have to pay for nuclear energy. To have high level waste on the
dump is unbelievable. What about all the unknown risks to future generations. The
whole idea is a nightmare and should never be considered.
It seems absurd to choose Romney Marsh a as the place to put nuclear waste. With
global warning, sea levels will rise, and te access to the site in 100 years time ( a
short time for the materialtosit there and decompose) will become impossible as it will
be flooded.
If the technology exists to work under water, then why not the Goodwin Sands?
Better the Prime Minister's Witney, or St Kildas an uninhabitated island but with a
decent harbour.
The MOD nuclear dump at Chatham does not bode well for any future facilities.
http://milconrandc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chatham-urban-nuclear-waste-dumpand.html
Page 232
Appendix D
REST OF THE WORLD
2032 Five years ago, I invented the safest way to store all types of Nuclear Wastes, my
idea answers all of the related problems, as well, is safe in ones back yard, so to
speak. Your site is ok, but it will fill in 2025 where if you used my idea, four to five
years to build, and one million years of safe storage. The United States was
interested, but are playing a game for votes to stay in power, I have the answer
without problems from the public, for a surface facility with a deep basement. If you
are interested please call? Thank you!
UNKNOWN LOCATIONS (addresses not given)
2033 I am not in agreement with this due to the threat it will have on the surrounding nature
reserves. And feel that dungeness should be kept unspoilt. I aslo think that it is not a
good idea because of its threat of the terrorist attack when the waste is being
transported from other areas.
2034 IN THE 1990'S I WAS CONTACTED BY CONTRACTORS WORKING FOR BRITISH
NUCLEAR FUELS WHO WISHED TO CARRY OUT A GEOPHYSICAL/SEISMIC
SURVEY ACROSS LAND I AS FARMING AT DENGEMARSH AS, I WAS
INFORMED "DUNGENESS POWER STATIONS ARE BUILT ON A GEOLOGICAL
FAULT LINE, AND WE DON'T WANT TO REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN".
PLEASE DO NOT WASTE ANY MORE OF OUR (TAXPAYER'S) MONEY ON THIS
IDIOTIC SCHEME - I BELIEVE ROMNEY MARSH DESERVES BETTER
GOVERNANCE!
2035 Yes this project should be persued as employment for future generations is vital in
this area. The locals are used to having power stations on their doorsteps so should
be possitive towards it. Plenty of space on the marsh!! Build it on the bloody airport
site more needed for waste than an airport to no where.
2036 Your "Could Romney Marsh become a nuclear dumping ground?" article today says:"It followed an invitation from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
to local authorities to find out if they wished to express an interest in finding out more
about the possibility of geological nuclear disposal in their area."
However it does not define clearly anything and although a couple of thegraphics
found via the website given show similar 'hard sell' photo's of literature used in
Cumbria I cannot find answers to these specific questions.
a) when this invitation was issued. Is it new or the one that has been around for a
number of years?
b) It does not seem to specify the grade of nuclear waste. Is it High level like in
Cumbria or Intermediate or what?
Could you please point me to where this information has been promulgated to the
approach made to you.
2037 have received your letter re above and would state that i am not in favour of the site
how can one be certain that if the majority are not in favour that the councillors will
not ignore them as they did when the three public meetings regarding the extention to
lydd airport and the large majority were against it and even the planning said NO to
the idea the councillors over rode and voted in favour so it seems as though your
letter is surplus .
2038 Can Folkestone residents participate in the online poll?
POLITICAL BODIES & REPRESENTATIVES OF ROMNEY MARSH
Page 233
Appendix D
2039 BRENZETT PARISH COUNCIL - We are strongly opposed to these proposals.
2040 BROOKLAND PARISH COUNCIL - It is the combined opinion of Brookland Parish
Council, that Shepway District Council should not submit an Expression of Interest on
the Community's behalf.
2041 BURMARSH PARISH COUNCIL - Burmarsh Parish Council believes that this
process is seriously flawed and does not believe that it should go any further.
2042 DYMCHURCH PARISH COUNCIL - The Parish Council agreed at its meeting on
11/6/12 that individual residents should respond to this communication & not a parish
council. No comment.
2043 NEW ROMNEY TOWN COUNCIL - Reasons: Visual impact of the development and
ventilation shafts would blight Romney Marsh. It has not been possible, despite
presentations, to establish full and accurate answers to questions raised. NDA
representatives have conceded that the scheme proposed for the Romney Marsh is
primarily experimental. There would be potential risks to: human health and
livestock; property values; tourist trade - and a devastating impact on high grade
agricultural land.
2044 ST. MARY IN THE MARSH PARISH COUNCIL - St. Mary in the Marsh Parish
Council decided at its meeting on 5th July, 2012, that residents should respond to this
consultation, and not a Parish Council.
2045 PAUL CARTER, LEADER OF KENT COUNTY COUNCIL - I am writing in response
to your letter of 17th July 2012. I am perfectly well aware of Shepway District
Council's position and my report accurately sets out the question that Shepway
District Council has asked the community of Romney Marsh. What Shepway District
Council fails to do in its 'Have your say' leaflet dated May 2012 is to offer the
Community an alternative future other than to say 'there could be very few jobs left in
the nuclear industry on Romney Marsh 20 years from now'. My report to the County
Council on 19th July 2012 offers a balance to the view as to the economic future of
Romney Marsh. I believe there is enormous potential in the area, but this potential
will not be achieved if a nuclear waste site is taken forward and blights the whole
area. And blight the area it will. I will respond to each of your comments on my
report in turn:
Paragraph 4(3) - The waste containers will not be surrounded by "thousands of
metres of concrete". The secure containers will be placed in whatever rock
formation exists although the detailed engineering debate happens much later.
Such a facility would be expected to be an international centre of excellence,
not just a national one. I fully understand that SDC's 'Have your say' leaflet states
'hundreds of metres of rock'. The construction of a facility measuring in the region of
three square kilometres uderground will require thousands of metres of concrete and
presumably rock if it is there!
Paragraph 4(4) - We have support from the districts mentioned for the sounding
we are taking. At the meeting in Ashford BC on 11th May 2012, Canterbury City,
Dover District, Ashford Borough and Thanet District Councils all expressed their
concerns and opposition to the proposal.
Paragraph 4(5) - The type of nuclear waste stored in a geolgical disposal facility
will reach safe levels of radioactivity in about 300,000 years (not 2 million).
Np237 (Neptunium), which is a spent fuel by-product and is just as radiotoxic as
Plutonium, has a half life of 2 million years. Spent fuel that has been used to power
nuclear reactors is not currently classed as waste, because it can potentially be
reprocessed. Spent fuel need not be reprocessed however, and could instead be
Page 234
Appendix D
packaged and disposed of directly in a geological disposal facility. Some spent fuel
from existing UK Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor Power stations and all the spent fuel
from Sizewell B Pressurised water Reactor is not currently destined for reprocessing
and may ultimately need to be managed in this way. The Government has concluded
that any new nuclear power stations might be built in the UK should proceed on the
basis that spent fuel will not be reprocessed. The Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority will factor possible inclusion of all these material into the design and
development of the geological disposal facility.
A NRDF would be approximately 12m high, whereas Wembley Stadium reaches
133m at the top of the arch. It is fair to say that the surface area would be
almost 10 times bigger (not 20). My report does not give dimensions, only says it
would be 20 times bigger. However, the circumference of Wembley stadium is 1
kilometre and the surface area is 11 acres. 10 times this is still an incredibly large
area - apologies for error.
The number of train movements from the area through London and the South
East will remain at about 2 per week. My report states 'it should be in a remote
area, not in a relatively densely populated area close to London and the Home
Councies that will involve transportinng of highactivity waste through London and the
South East'. I do not quote number of train movements. 'About 2' per week is 'about
2' per week too many if they carry high activity waste.
Shepway DC has continually pushed for an operating extension of the
Dungeness B reactor and for the build of a Dungeness C reactor. However
there are technical and commercial factors that make C difficult. And we have
always supported SDC in this and KCC are meeting with Ed Davey, SoS for Energy
and Climate Change, Damian Collins MP and yourself next week (25th July) to
support you and make the case for Dungeness C.
Your reference to seismic activity is irrelevant at this stage, as the NRDF would
not be built unless the geology was shown to be suitable to the satisfaction of
the Government and the regulators. No detailed assessment of the geology
has been undertaken, although the current view of some experts is that it could
be for such a facility. The fact remains that the area has a history of seismic activity
of 5 earthquakes in the last 432 years and existing fault lines make the area
geologically unstable due to the underground pressure that exists in an earthquake
situation. My report is therefore accurate.
As any such facility would be constructed at such a depth to have no impact on
shipping, nor shipping on it. My report is still accurate - the department for
Transport cite that the Dover Strait is the busiest shipping lane in the world. Many of
the ships passing through the Strait carry dangerous cargoes. These cargoes, if
accidentally released into the sea, could have disastrous effects on the environment,
marine life and the coastlines of England, France and the North Sea States. The
passage of ships through the Dover Strait is further complicated by the presence of
strong tides, sandbanks, shoals and a great deal of concentrated cross-channel
traffic. Much of the crossing traffic is made up of high-speed ferries carrying as many
as 2400 passengers.
The likely volume of any arisings is unknown at this stage. Equally the use of
any arisings could be the subject of detailed community discussions. The
channel tunnel produced 5 million cubic metres of spoil on the UK side. It is difficult
to see how an underground facility in the region of three square kilometres would
produce less than this. The job numbers you quote are particularly misleading.
Studies show the average numbers of jobs to be 555 over the 140 year life of
the facility. The minimum expected numbers are 437 before construction and
Page 235
Appendix D
188 during closure. SDC's 'Have your say' leaflet quotes that, if it went ahead, the
Romney MArsh NRDF would provide 'skilled employment for hundreds of people over
many decades'. My report stated around 100 people, it is helpful for SDC to provide
the additional clarification.
The emotive use of "blight" suggests desperation. There is no evidence to
support such statements, but the very use could damage confidence. Should
there be an expression of interest the consultants could be commissioned to
investigate the likely positive and negative impacts. If this proposal is taken
forward, it will blight the whole area. Cumbrian planning officers have stated publicly
the perceptions about any radioactive wastes lead to 'adverse social and economic
impacts'. I am surprised SDC do not seem to be aware of this fact.
Paragraph 5(2) - A totally unsubstantiated statement. It would have been more
helpful if the "far larger, wider and better alternative economic opportunities in
prospect both immediately and in the longer term" were quantified to enable
comparison. What SDC have failed to do is to talk about the many projects and
programmes which Kent County Council are already operating to deliver local
economic growth on Romney Marsh and in East Kent. My report to the County
Council meeting on 19th July 2012 offers a balanced view as to the economic future
of Romney Marsh. I believe there is enormous potential in the area, but this potential
will not be achieved if a nuclear waste is taken forward and blights the whole area.
My report, however, offersMembers of the County Council the full facts of what
economic alternatives and future opportunities exist in Romney Marsh and East Kent,
which SDC's leaflet fails to do. I strongly believe that this future does not include
hosting nuclear waste and this is reflected in my recommendations to my Council.
Paragraph 5(3) - This is simply incorrect. Although we have (correctly and
properly) focussed our attention on the potential host community on Romney
Marsh, we have sought views from a wide range of political representatives,
interest groups and potential key stakeholders beyond Romney Marsh; many of
whom have expressed views and made comments. My report states that 'this
proposal would have such an impacy on Kent as a whole, that residents and
businesses across Kent should be given the opportunity to have their say, should this
proposal be progressed further'. This has not happened and remains my view.
Recommendation 1: This is not a question that Shepway DC has asked; nor
would we consider such a question without significantly more information that
is currently available. i recognise that, my report expressed an opinion, which I am
entitled to do.
Recommendation 2: Should there be an expression of interest and potential
locations pass the first geological tests then the Government would fund a
process that would seek the views of the wider community interests across
Kent, East Sussex and beyond. Should KCC decide on a Kent-wide
referendum, I would urge caution about making any decision based on the
loose costings in the report. I have had many residents, including those outside of
the immediate Romney Marsh area, contact me who are horrified at the proposals.
My view remains that the residents and businesses across Kent should be given the
opportunity to have their say, should this proposal be progressed further. I do hope
that we can continue a constructive dialogue on this issue, my door is always open.
2046 KENT GREEN PARTY - Submission to consultation: Proposals for a Possible
Romney Marsh Nuclear Research and Disposal Facility
This submission is on behalf of Kent Green Party, a local party of the Green Party of
England and Wales, which covers Kent and Medway with a network of 10 branches.
Page 236
Appendix D
Kent Green Party has about 45,500 supporters in Kent, evidence based on the last
European Election results as the only proportional form of election covering our
County. Locality based-comments will also be supplied by Shepway Green Party, a
branch of Kent Green Party.
a) Extract from Green Party policy on nuclear power:
“EN600 A deadline for phasing out nuclear power would be set when we come to
office and all UK nuclear power plants phased out within this date.
EN601 All nuclear power stations and associated facilities for the production and
reprocessing of nuclear fuel and the storage and disposal of radioactive waste shall
be in public ownership to ensure the safest possible closure, decommissioning and
long-term management of waste. Any such facilities found to be in private ownership
will be returned to the public sector without compensation. Reprocessing at Sellafield
and other installations will be ended as soon as possible.
EN602 No more uranium would be imported into the UK and no licences would be
granted for the mining of uranium in the UK.
EN603 The unpredictable effects of climate change demand that the safety of UK
nuclear power stations and other sites handling and processing radioactive materials
require urgent review. Many nuclear plants are in vulnerable coastal locations which
face flooding by a combination of severe weather, rising sea levels and spring tides.
An action plan to protect these sites would be implemented and the most vulnerable
nuclear sites would be closed down and decommissioned at the earliest practicable
date.”
B) our analysis for this consultation:
1. The construction of any nuclear waste dump requiring tunnelling, exacavation and
the creation of secure underground structures will always be far more expensive than
storing nuclear waste above ground at current nuclear facilities. There is, in
consequence, no case for such spending. And such activities raise the question of
where the resulting waste from construction is going to go;
2. A comprehensive and effective alternative to nuclear industry employment paid for
or substantially subsidised by the State as under current legislation would be the far
preferable restoration of local government employment in Shepway to a level
commensurate with the needs of the area, with attendant training and skills
development in the long-term. A comprehensive outline Alternative Economic
Strategy for East Kent has also been developed by Kent Green Party, available under
Publications at www.kentgreenparty.org ;
3. Climate change is currently likely to lead to a gradual inundation of the Dungeness
and Romney Marsh area, beginning with significant penetration of salt water further
inland. Given poor results of cutting greenhouse gas emissions globally, it is currently
possible that temperatures could rise by 6 degrees C by 2100 relative to 1990. In
consequence, the coastal areas of Kent and Medway may well be altered
appreciably. Dr Geoff Meaden has spelt out the broad implications of adaptation to
climate change in Kent, since mitigation of emissions has made little progress
globally. His research note on this subject can be found at www.kentgreenparty.org
under Publications. In short, planning for any development throughout the Dungeness
and Romney Marsh area must take into account the extent to which this area is
destined to disappear under the sea during the rest of this century. Kent Green Party
suggests therefore that this area could hardly be less satisfactory as potential site for
a nuclear waste dump;
4. Following from the previous point, suggesting Romney Marsh as a nuclear waste
dump site before considering the geology of the area and the effects of climate
change is clearly unwise. Since the concerns of Shepway District Council relate to
Page 237
Appendix D
future employment in principle, there is no reason why nuclear industry employment
would be favoured – especially given the notoriously high costs of jobs in this
industry. We refer the Council to our point 2 above, since many public and private
sector employment alternatives do exist. Of these energy conservation measures and
microgeneration offer both useful work and a route towards cutting household costs.
To add to this, we do consider that all-weather leisure facilities as a replacement for
Lydd Airport is an initiative that might be considered as part of an employment
strategy for this area of Kent;
2047 KEITH TAYLOR MEP - I am writing to voice my opposition for a nuclear research
and disposal facility on Romney Marsh. This letter forms my response to Shepway
District Counci's current consultation on the issue. I oppose the proposals as I have
both deep concerns about the site's suitability for storing nuclear waste, and around
the safety of transporting waste to the site. I do not believe that nuclear power is the
answer to the UK's energy future and this proposal would create an unacceptable
toxic legacy for future generations. I would like to urge Shepway District Council to
step back from this project.
Flooding and climate change. Romney Marsh is flat and low-lying, prone to
flooding from rivers, streams, dykes and excess rainfall. It could also flood if the sea
breaches coastal defences. Even moderate estimates of climate change will see
significant increased flooding from extreme weather and sea level rises, let alone the
impacts we will see if run-away climate change is triggered. The latest study (2007)
from the International Panel on Climate Change, which is the most authoratative
assessment of climate change science, predicts that sea levels will rise by 18-59cm
by the end of the century. Most commentators, including the EU, recognise that this
estimate is extremely conservative, and that sea level rises are likely to be much
higher. Just this year the Committee on Climate Change, which provides
independant government advice, reiterated that extreme weather causing flooding is
likely to become more common in the future, due to climate change. The
Environment Agency estimates that fundng for flood defences needs to increase by
£20 million a year on top of inflation to keep pace with climate change. Given this
context, it seems extremely ill-advised to back any proposals for a nuclear disposal
facility in a location prone to flooding or sensitive to sea-level rises. The reason that
Dungeness was deselected as a site for a new-build replacement nuclear power
station was that it was too vulnerable to sea-level increases. We have to accept that
the marsh could change profoundly well before the nuclear waste has ceased to be
dangerous. The proposals suggest that measures to protect facility from flooding
could be incorporated into the design, but given the many uncertanties about the
extent of flood risk orr sea-level rises I find it impossible to believe these measures
could cover all eventualities in such a sensitive site for thousands of years.
Transportation of waste. A proposed nuclear disposal facility at Romney Marsh
would mean that highly hazardous waste would have to be transported through
densely populated areas such as London and the South East of England. This raises
many concerns about public safety which have never been adequately addressed for
current transportation of nuclear waste - particularly in relation to accidents and
terrorist attacks. I would be keen to know how Shepway District Council has come to
the conclusion in it's FAQ's that 'the goverment's preferred method of transporting
nuclear waste is by rail as this uses the existing rail network and has proven to be
safe'. Many experts contend that transporting highly dangerous material by train is
safe from terrorist attacks, derailment or collision. I am very concerned as to the
public safety of transporting nuclear waste by rail, particularly in built up areas across
Page 238
Appendix D
my constituency.
The wrong vision. Romney Marsh is one of the most precious wildlife-rich wetlands
in the country and home to many rare species. This is a common resource which
should be protected for people to enjoy. The proposal that it should be turned into an
out-of-the-way dump for this country's forgotten toxic waste is not a vision that I can
support, and is not one that I believe is in the best interest of local residents. Given
the many risks, the safety requirements needed to protect the disposal facility also
seem likely to be immense and change the character of the local area irreversibly.
Fundamentally, this proposal highlights one of the major problems with nuclear
energy generation - there is no safe disposal or decontamination method for nuclear
waste. The government is now compounding this problem by backing the creation of
new nuclear power plants and hoping they can offload the nuclear waste issue onto
the people of Shepway. The UK government would have us believe that nuclear is
necessary for a low-carbon future, but this isn't the case. Renewable energy is
affordable, safe and clean and the UK has some of the best resources in Europe. I
am fully aware of the urgent need for jobs in the area around Romney Marsh, but
these should come from investment in energy efficiency measures and clean
renewable energy generation which doesn't leave the toxic legacy of nuclear. Given
the extensive problems associated with safety and site suitability I would urge
Shepway council to rule out the proposal for a nuclear waste facility on Romney
Marsh. I do not feel that submitting an Extression of Interest to the Government is
appropriate at this time as the proposal is not a viable, positive or safe vision for
Shepway's future. It is therefore not a proposal which I feel warrants any further
investment in terms of time or resources.
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
POLITICAL BODIES & REPRESENTATIVES OUTSIDE ROMNEY MARSH
ALDINGTON & BONNINGTON PARISH COUNCIL - Aldington & Bonnington Parish
Council would like to find out more please.
APPLEDORE PARISH COUNCIL - Requesting more information is not a declaration
of support, it is simply a request for the purpose as stated. Whilst there is seemingly
commercial benefits to excavation costs in areas such as the Romney Marsh, would
not a rock strata type geology be more appropriate for this type of encapsulation?
CAMBER PARISH COUNCIL - We should fight for Dungeness 'C' on Romney
Marsh. An area where we take our water supply from aquifers.
HYTHE TOWN COUNCIL - Request that a public exhibition on the matter be held in
Hythe and that the Town Council be kept informed of any developments.
IDEN PARISH COUNCIL - Iden Parish Council request that it and its residents be
included as a recipient of an open meeting as soon as possible.
LYMINGE PARISH COUNCIL - Jobs on Romney Marsh needed now - not in the
future.
NEWINGTON PARISH COUNCIL – Newington Parish Council is against the District
Council progressing to the next stage.
The Parish Council also wishes to report that it was not formally consulted by the
District Council. Could the letter have gone to Newington Parish Council in Swale
Borough by mistake?
SALTWOOD PARISH COUNCIL - Saltwood Parish Council will not support plans to
develop a nuclear research & disposal facility on Romney Marsh.
Page 239
Appendix D
POLITICAL BODIES & REPRESENTATIVES OUTSIDE ROMNEY MARSH
2056 STOWTING PARISH COUNCIL - This represents the views of Stowting Parish
Meeting. It represents a belief that the proposals should be explored further. It does
not represent agreement to any future development.
2057
2058
2059
2060
POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS & INTEREST GROUPS
COMMUNITY ACTION SOUTH EAST (CASE) - We are in receipt of your letter
regarding the above, but wondered if you could possibly send us your letter by email
so that we can forward it on to organisations in the Shepway area that are on our
database – that is if you would like us to do this. It is the kind of issue we would have
included in our next Network meeting but the agenda for this has already been
finalised.
EDF ENERGY - With reference to your letter dated 14th May 2012 asking for my
views on a Nuclear Research and Disposal Facility. EDF Energy fully supports the
work which is being carried out by the Government to come up with a final disposal
solution for radioactive nuclear waste. However, it would be inappropriate for us as a
company to comment on the suitability of any of the proposed sites for this facility.
While we are proud of the contribution that Dungeness B makes to the local
community, both in terms of jobs abd community support, our focus remains the safe
operation of this site, in order to produce low-carbon electricity. The decision on
whether to take part in this project rightly rests with the local community and this
Consultative process is not something we should, or would, seek to influence.
FARMING MEMBERS OF THE ROMNEY MARSH NFU - Thank you very much for
your letter dated 14th May 2012, received 16th containing information relating to the
proposal for a possible Romney Marsh Nuclear Research and Disposal Facility. I
quote your own leafletP"we are at the very earliest stage of what could turnout to be
a fifteen or twenty year process even before construction starts...". Therefore I
merely write on behalf of the Farming Members of the Romney Marsh NFU in my
capacity as Branch Secretary. We have not completed the "Have Your Say" Leaflet
as it would be incorrect to do so without collating the general feeling of the Farming
Members in the area. To this end I would be grateful if you could contact me to
advise if there would be the possibility of you attending an NFU Business Meeting to
give some intiial comments and thoughtsd on your current proposals. It so happens
that we have a Business Forum scheduled for Wednesday 31st October 2012, to
which approximately 40-50 farmers will be in attendance. If there is a possibility that
you could attend this meeting it would an excellent opportunity for you to gauge
general feedback and thought from some of the members present in order to start the
debate. I look forward to hearing from you in the hope that you will be able to join us
during that day and in all future correspondence please could I ask you to correct the
details associated with our correspondence. Please direct all future letters to myself
at the following address, I thank you in advance of doing so.
HYTHE CIVIC SOCIETY - This response is on behalf of Hythe Civic Society that has
over 825 subscribing households. Members attended the recent KCC meeting in the
Marsh Academy to hear the discussion. The Society is convinced that this proposal
shold not be taken any further.
Page 240
Appendix D
2061 KEEP THE MARSH SPECIAL ALLIANCE - This is all about 'disposal' with 'research'
as a smokescreen! RESEARCH is the key to unleashing fusion and ending our
collossal fuel deficit. IT REALLY IS THE FUTURE! A FUSION RESEARCH
CENTRE and wider nuclear research incorporated into it. This is what we need.
Inter disciplinary tie ups & co-operation with home & international research and
university facilities is vital. MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN A WASTE DUMP (far too
close to sea incursion).
2062 KENT DOWNS AONB - Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this question.
‘Do you think that Shepway District Council should submit an Expression of Interest
on the community’s behalf, in order to find out more information about a possible
Nuclear Research and Disposal Facility on Romney Marsh?’
The Kent Downs AONB Executive advise that ‘No we should not find out more.’
Background and context:
The Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty partnership (which includes all
the local authorities within the AONB) has agreed to have a limited land use planning
role. In summary this is to:
• Provide design guidance in partnership with the Local Authorities represented in the
AONB.
• Comment on forward/strategic planning issues-for instance Local Development
Frameworks.
• Involvement in development control (planning applications) only in exceptional
circumstances. For example in terms of scale and precedence.
• Provide informal planning advice/comments on development control (planning
applications) at the request of a Kent Downs AONB Joint Advisory member and /or
Local Authority Planning Officer.
National and Local planning policies are very clear that highest priority should be
given to the conservation and enhancement of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The NPPF confirms that AONBs are equivalent to National Parks in terms of their
landscape quality, scenic beauty and their planning status.
The status of AONBs has been enhanced through measures introduced in the
Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000, which gave greater support to
their planning and management. The statutory duties state that in exercising or
performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land' in these areas, relevant
authorities “shall have regard” to their purposes (Page 3 of DEFRA guidance).
The Act requires a management plan to be produced, and accordingly the first Kent
Downs AONB Management Plan was published in April 2004. Subsequently the first
revision management plan (2009- 2014) was published in April 2009. This has been
formally adopted all the local authorities of the Kent Downs. The management plan
may be viewed on our web site: http://www.kentdowns.org.uk/plan.html
Relationship of the Management Plan with production of Local Authority LDPs and
Development Management (control)
• Under the CROW Act the AONB Management Plan must ‘formulate the (Local
Authority) policies for the management of the AONB and for carrying out their
functions in relation to it’. The policies of the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan
are therefore the adopted policies of all the Local Authorities in the Kent Downs.
Whilst these policies should not be repeated in the Local Authority LDFs, LPDs and
SPDs this relationship should be clear. Any KDAONB responses on consultations on
LDF and planning applications under the agreed protocol will reflect the policies of the
KD Management Plan and other Kent Downs AONB guidance as set out below.
Other Kent Downs AONB Guidance
Page 241
Appendix D
Kent Downs Landscape Design Handbook
Design guidance based on the 13 landscape character areas in the Kent Downs.
Guidance on fencing, hedges, planting, gateways etc. to help in the conservation and
enhancement of all corners of the AONB
http://www.kentdowns.org.uk/landscapehandbook.html
• Kent Downs Renewable Energy Position Statement
The purpose of this statement is to provide a clearly articulated position for the Kent
Downs AONB partnership with regards to renewable energy technologies. It
recognises that each Local Planning Authority must balance the impact of proposals
for renewables on the AONB with all the other material planning considerations.
http://www.kentdowns.org.uk/planningrole.htm
• Kent Rural Advice Service Farm Diversification Toolkit
Guidance on taking an integrated whole farm approach to farm developments leading
to sound diversification projects that benefit the Kent Downs.
http://www.kentdowns.org.uk/Farm_Diversification_Toolkit.htm
• Kent Downs Land Manager's Pack
Detailed guidance on practical land management from how to plant a hedge to
creating ponds and enhancing chalk grassland.
http://www.kentdowns.org.uk/Land_Managers_Pack.htm
• Rural Streets and Lanes A Design Handbook
Guidance on the management and design of rural lanes and streets that takes the
unique character of the Kent Downs into account. This document discusses the
principle of shared space and uses examples from around the UK and Europe. The
Rural Streets and Lanes Design Handbook has been adopted as policy by Kent
County Council. http://www.kentdowns.org.uk/StreetscapeDesignHandbook.htm
• Managing Land for Horses
National guidance providing information on equine development covering grassland
management, fencing, trees and hedges, waste management and basic planning
information. http://www.kentdowns.org.uk/ManagingLandforHorses.htm
• Kent Farmstead Guidance and Kent Downs Farmstead Guidance (DRAFT)
Guidance on the conservation, enhancement and development change of heritage
farmsteads in the Kent Downs based on English Heritage’s Kent and National
Character Area Farmstead Statements. Includes an Assessment method and Design
Guidance. http://www.kentdowns.org.uk/KentDownsAONBFarmsteadGuidance.htm
Comments:
‘Do you think that Shepway District Council should submit an Expression of Interest
on the community’s behalf, in order to find out more information about a possible
Nuclear Research and Disposal Facility on Romney Marsh?’
The Kent Downs AONB Executive advise that ‘No we should not find out more.’
The reasons for this are as follows:
1 The foot print of the facility on the Romney Marsh of over 1 sq km would irrevocably
change the landscape and environment of the special character of Romney Marsh.
The Marsh is valued for its landscape and biodiversity, farmland and special socioeconomic characteristics by many – those living and working there and the many
visitors. The local tourism industry in important part relies on these characteristics. A
small part of this landscape is within the Kent Downs AONB, the rest of the landscape
is important in its own right and forms part of the setting of the Kent Downs.
2 As noted above, the special landscape of the Romney Marsh lies in the setting of
the Kent Downs AONB, overlooked from the Lympne escarpment and would have a
major impact on the views and enjoyment of users of the Kent Downs AONB. The
AONB was designated in part due to the far reaching views from the escarpments.
Page 242
Appendix D
The facility would also impact on views OF the Kent Downs AONB from the Marsh,
impacting on the enjoyment of those visiting this very special marsh landscape for
generations to come. The importance of the landscape in the setting of AONBs has
been clearly established in national, regional and local policies.
3 The infrastructure needed to service the facility will need improvement. The impact
of the existing and any improved infrastructure could have important harmful impacts
on the Kent Downs AONB and its setting.
4 The Marsh is unconsolidated alluvium and we are advised that it is possible that
drilling works could have to be undertaken from land nearer, or even within the Kent
Downs AONB.
For these reasons we would urge the District Council to abandon plans to submit an
Expression of Interest.
2063 KENT WILDLIFE TRUST - Thank you for consulting Kent Wildlife Trust on this
proposal. I apologise for not sending comments before the deadline and hope you
can still consider our views. Kent Wildlife Trust would strongly object to such a
development. The technology is still very new ans there are still significant risks
regarding the containment of waste over the long timescales necessary, with several
risks identified that could lead to leakage of radiation into the environment. There is
concern that a number of scenarios exist in which a significant release of radioactivity
from a deep repository could occur, with serious implications for health and safety of
future generations, and for the natural environment. We would also be concerned
about potential habitat losss and the direct and indirect impacts, on the natural
environment, of the construction of such a large facility and from increases in access
infrastructure as well as the ongoing operatoinal impacts. The area supports
internationally important wildlife, with large parts of it designated as a Special
Protection Area, Ramsar site and Site of Special Scientific Interest. These areas are
highly sensitive to damage, for example from disturbance and from aerial and waterborne pollution. Whilst we fully appreciate the need for new jobs in the area, and the
council's desire to explore every option, we do believe that the benefits to the local
community would outweigh the environmental cost of these options.
2064 NATURAL ENGLAND - Thank you for your letter dated 17th May 2012 regarding the
community consultation on a possible nuclear research and disposal facility on
Romney Marsh. As the consultation does not propose a specific site we are limiting
our response to highlighting the various national and international designated sites
that will need to be considered. The Romney Marsh area contains the following
national and international designated sites: - Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye
Bay Special Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI); - Dungeness Special Area of
Conservation (SAC), - Dungeness to Pett Level Special Protection Area for birds
(SPA) - Potential Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SPA - Potential
Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay Wetland of International Importance under
the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar Site). Any proposal for a possible nuclear research
and disposal facility would need to take these designations into account and consider
the potential impacts and mitigation if required. Natural England will be pleased to
provide advice in the future should the proposal pass this stage of initial community
consultation. The following websites contain further information on the designated
sites: - http://magic.defra.gov.uk/ - for maps of the existing sites; www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/south_east/ourwork/dungenessconsultation/ - for
maps of the potential and proposed sites; www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/sssi/default.aspx details of SSSIs including interest features. -
Page 243
Appendix D
www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designated
area/sac/londonandsoutheast.aspx - conservation objectives for SPAs and SACs. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=4 - for details of international designated
sites including reasons for qualification. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you
require any further information at this stage or subsequently. For any correspondence or
queries relating to this consultation only, please contact ............ on ............ For all
other future correspondence of this and other proposals, please contact
[email protected]. We really value your feedback to help us
improve the service we offer. We have attached a feedback form to this letter and
welcome and comments you might have about our service.
2065 VEOLIA WATER - Thank you for your letter of the 14 May seeking our views. Veolia
Water Southeast abstracts water from underground chalk and gravel aquifers to
supply 160,000 customers. The Company is wholly reliant on groundwater sources
for supplies and these include the gravel aquifer on Denge Beach adjacent to the
existing Dungeness Power Stations. We therefore welcome the opportunity to
respond to your initial proposals for a nuclear research and disposal facility at
Romney Marsh as this could potentially affect these aquifers. As there are so few
technical details available it is difficult to cover likely effects as we do not know where
the repository will be, the surrounding geology, or its relation to our public water
supply sources. At this stage, our principal concern would be contamination of water
in either the gravel or the chalk aquifers, restricting our ability to supply our
customers' needs. Such contamination could come from a variety of sources,
including spillage of materials on their way to being delivered to the site, direct
pollution from surface storage and handling of the materials on the site or escape of
contaminants directly from the disposal itself. There is a risk that the new access
shafts could adversely alter the performance of the aquifers. The proposal has the
potential to substantially increase the demand for water in this part of our supply area
due to the increased activity. This may be partially offset by reductions in demand at
the existing power stations with time. It is critical that any change in demand is
factored into our future water resource management plans so, once the initial size
and likely water consumption of the facility has been determined, we can begin to
plan to meet this demand. We rely on the statutory authorities, including the
Environment Agency to evaluate and comment on the technical proposals as they
develop, but would request that you keep us informed and involved as the plans
progress. We would be very willing to meet, should you wish to discuss any of the
points raised.
Page 244
Appendix E
APPENDIX E TO REPORT A/12/22
MEDIA REPORT
This appendix contains a representative summary of coverage by the main media
on a weekly basis.
Week commencing 17 May 2012
This was the first week after the launch on 16 May, starting on the Thursday
publication date of both the Herald and Kentish Express. Subsequent weeks also
start on Thursdays.
Interviews were given to BBC South East Today, BBC Radio Kent, Meridian and
KMFM, all of which were broadcast.
Newspapers ran the following articles:The Kentish Express:Front page headline:- Dumping ground for nuclear waste.
Story summary:- A balanced three page spread following on from the
media briefing. Information on public exhibitions detailed. Contrasting
views from local MP and town/parish councillors also detailed.
The Romney Marsh Herald:Front page headline:- Residents say ‘no’ to nuclear dump on doorstep
Story summary:- A more negative slant than the Kentish Express, front
page leads with an anti opinion. Inside the paper a balanced and
informative piece outlines the proposals and public exhibitions, but is next
to another negative story quoting the Lydd Airport Action Group. Local MP
Damian Collins’ column also opposes the idea.
The Independent:Headline:- Romney Marsh set to become nuclear dump
Story summary:- A balanced and informed article that quotes Energy
Minister Charles Hendry and a local resident who is against the ideas. Cllr
Godfrey is also quoted. A factual piece with no obvious slant.
Page 245
Appendix E
The Times:Headline:- Council to ask: do you want a nuclear dump?
Story summary:- This article made the fact that the council was just asking
the question prominent in a fairly balanced and factual article. Opposition
from Damian Collins MP and Paul Carter is referenced as well as from
John Large.
BBC Radio Kent recorded an interview with Cllr David Godfrey at the Newchurch
public exhibition on 24 May 2012. It was broadcast on ‘Drive Time’, presented by
Dominic King, later the same day.
BBC’s ‘The One Show’ also recorded an interview with Cllr David Godfrey at the
Newchurch public exhibition on 24 May 2012. The item containing this interview
was broadcast on 30 May 2012. The item included interviews with nuclear
“experts” and coverage from Cumbria. Overall it was thorough and balanced.
Newspapers ran the following articles:The Romney Marsh Herald:Front page headline:- Nuclear dump – the people’s poll
Story summary:- Front page story focuses on the Herald’s work to produce
its own poll regarding the NRDF. The paper has a coupon that readers can
cut out and send in which give their response to the following questions:
•
•
Do you want a national nuclear waste disposal facility on the
Marsh?
Is Shepway District Council right to open the debate over the
possibility of housing the facility?
The first question is misleading as the question posed by the council was
‘do you want to find out more’ rather than ‘do you want a NRDF’? The
double page inside spread has a number of different stories, representing
both sides of the argument. One features Cllr Tillson arguing in favour,
another shows Protect Kent’s view. There are also several ‘vox-pops’ from
local residents and social media.
The Kentish Express:Headline:- Dump site plan could be godsend for jobs say Marsh councillors
Story summary:- Several stories on the NRDF over a two page spread.
One features all 11 Marsh councillors’ open letter. A smaller story focuses
on the CPRE’s message to ‘put a stop to waste centre’. Another larger
story features MP Damian Collins’ meeting over the future of Dungeness C.
Page 246
Appendix E
The Herald ran the following article:Headline:- Support for Marsh’s rival nuclear site
Story summary:- Story on West Cumbria’s positive response in an Ipsos
MORI poll to a nuclear site in West Cumbria. The page also features a
review of the first Marsh public exhibition in Newchurch and a small amount
of criticism that the council only sent one letter and response form per
household. It features a comment from the council in response. The paper
also has an opinion column from John Rees, Reader Emeritus on the
Romney Marsh. The headline is ‘Think of the children not just of
ourselves’. The opinion piece is fairly balanced, but leans slightly towards
a negative reaction.
Week commencing 7 June 2012
The Kentish Express ran the following article:Headline:- MEP urges residents to reject plans for nuclear waste dump
Story summary:- Story focuses on Green MEP, Keith Taylor’s concerns
over a possible NRDF.
The Herald ran the following article:Headline:- Confusion set to rule in split nuclear waste vote
Story summary:- Small story on what would happen if the outcome of the
public soundings were evenly split. The story features a comment from the
council that “if 51% of the people say no that’s a majority, so it wouldn’t be
pursued”. The story also reveals that in the Herald’s poll 57% of the 700
people that took part voted against the plans; however the questions they
answered is not the same as the one asked by the council.
On 17 June 2012 the BBC’s ‘Politics Show South East’ broadcast an open debate
with Cllr David Godfrey, KCC Leader Paul Carter, an economist and the MPs for
Dover and Rother.
Page 247
Appendix E
Newspapers ran the following articles:The Kentish Express:Headline:- Marsh ‘could be known as the National Dump’
Story summary:- KCC councillor Carole Waters speaks out ahead of the
KCC-organised public meeting being held that night (28 June)
Kent on Sunday:Headline:- Nuclear waste site consultation
Story summary:- Coverage of the KCC-organised public meeting at the
Marsh Academy
Week commencing 5 July 2012
The Kentish Express ran the following articles:Front page headline:- We should give you the choice
Story summary:- Part of the coverage of the KCC-held public meeting at
the Marsh Academy picking up points made by Cllr Tillson
Page 5 Headline:- We don’t want a nuclear waste dump built near us
Story summary:- Further coverage of the public meeting
The Kentish Express ran the following article:Front page headline:- Say no to this bad neighbour
Story summary:- Story looks ahead to the forthcoming meeting at Kent
County Council where KCC Leader Paul Carter and Environment Director
Paul Crick are asking members to reject the project. Page 3 expands on
the story with quotes from Labour spokesman Peter Wallace and Green
MEP Keith Taylor
Page 248
Appendix E
Newspapers ran the following articles:The Kentish Express:Page 5 headline:- Critic pours scorn on waste dump report
Story summary:- Article on Cllr Robert Bliss’ letter to Cllr Paul Carter of
Kent County Council, criticising the report about to be discussed by KCC at
a council meeting. Focus on the letter’s contents and only a small
response by KCC
Herald:Small filler story:- Council silence on waste dump.
Story summary:- Lydd Airport bosses refuse to support or oppose plans for
nuclear waste project.
The Kentish Express ran the following article:Headline:- KCC says no to nuclear dump plan
Story summary:- Results of KCC meeting
Week commencing 16 August 2012
Newspapers ran the following articles:The Herald (all editions):Page 5 headline:- Residents say no to nuclear waste
Story summary:- Results of poll and repeat of main points from front page
Page 249
Appendix E
Romney Marsh Herald:Front page headline:- Council ‘risking a riot’ over nuclear dump vote
secrecy
Copy of inner page article:-
Story summary:- Herald publishes the results of it own survey and claims
council is refusing to release the results of its own survey until the
councillors have voted in September. First pie chart shows 45.8% voted
‘Yes’ and 53% voted ‘No’ to their question “Do you want a national nuclear
waste disposal facility on the Marsh”? Second pie chart shows 48.5%
voted ‘Yes’ and 49.3 voted ‘No’ to their question “Is Shepway District
Council right to open the debate over the possibility of hosting the facility”?
Page 250
Appendix F
APPENDIX F TO REPORT A/12/22
RISK MANAGEMENT
A summary of the perceived risks at this stage of the process (before the end of
Stage 1) follows, tabulated separately for each option presented in the report.
A comprehensive process of risk management would be carried out by officers,
DECC and the NDA if an EoI were submitted and would continue through all
stages of the process.
Table 6.1
Risks associated with Option 1 (no EoI)
Perceived risk
Seriousness Likelihood
Preventative action
Loss of the opportunity High
Will occur
None - inevitable
to realise the
if option
consequence of option
significant potential
chosen
benefits of hosting a
GDF to employment
and the local economy
Public relations
Medium
Medium
Explain that there was
implications of not
insufficient interest from
pursuing an
the community to
opportunity to benefit
support an EoI
employment and the
local economy in the
long term
Page 251
Appendix F
Table 6.2
Perceived risk
Public relations
implications of making
a decision against the
wishes of the majority
of those who
expressed a view
Political implications of
making a decision
against the wishes of
the majority of those
who expressed a view
Uncertainty about
whether Romney
Marsh will be involved
in the search for a site
Risks associated with Option 2 (submission of EoI)
Preventative action
High
High
Explain that:
• there was sufficient
interest from the
community, albeit
not a majority, to
support an EoI
• the EoI is “without
commitment” and is
only to find out more
information
• there would be no
involvement in the
search for a site
unless and until a
DtP is submitted
• a DtP would not be
submitted unless
there is clear
majority support (if
so decided)
High
High
• As for public
relations implications
• Engage county,
district and parish
councils and other
stakeholders to
inform decision on
whether or not to
submit a DtP
Medium
High
Carry out work
necessary to decide
whether or not to submit
a DtP as quickly as
possible
Page 252
Appendix F
Table 6.3
Perceived risk
Public relations
implications of making
a decision against the
wishes of the majority
of those who
expressed a view
Political implications of
making a decision
against the wishes of
the majority of those
who expressed a view
Uncertainty about
whether Romney
Government may not
accept a qualified EoI
or the qualifications
themselves
Risks associated with Option 3 (qualified EoI)
Preventative action
High
High
Explain that:
• there was sufficient
interest, albeit not a
majority, from the
community to
support an EoI
• the EoI is “without
commitment” and is
only to find out more
information
• there would be no
involvement in the
search for a site
unless and until a
DtP is submitted
• a DtP would not be
submitted unless
there is clear
majority support (if
so decided)
High
High
• As for public
• Engage county,
district and parish
councils and other
stakeholders to
inform decision on
whether or not to
submit a DtP
Medium
High
Carry out work
necessary to decide
a DtP as quickly as
possible
Medium
Low
Ensure that any
qualifications reflect the
key concerns of the
community and are
reasonable
Page 253
Appendix F
Table 6.4
Perceived risk
Public relations
implications of
deferring a decision
Risks associated with Option 4 (defer decision)
Preventative action
Medium
High
Explain that more
information and a higher
level of certainty about
the views of the
community are required
to ensure that the right
decision is taken
Political implications of Medium
High
• As for public
deferring a decision
• Further engagement
with county, district
and parish councils
and other
stakeholders to
inform decision on
whether or not to
submit an EoI
Concerns about
Medium
High
Confirm that an EoI
deferred council
would not be submitted
decision on whether or
unless there is a defined
not to submit an EoI
minimum level of
support (if so decided)
Uncertainty about
Medium
High
Carry out work
whether Romney
necessary to decide
an EoI as quickly as
possible
Cost to council of
Medium
Will occur
Carry out the minimum
additional work
if option
amount of work
required
chosen
necessary to obtain the
required level of
certainty
Page 254
Agenda Item 12
This Report will be made
2012
Report Number
To:
Date:
Status:
Head of service:
A/12/23
Council
19 September 2012
Tim Madden, Interim Head of Finance
SUBJECT: ANNUAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2012/13 – INCREASE IN
INVESTMENT COUNTERPARTY LIMIT
SUMMARY: In accordance with the governance arrangements for Treasury
Management this report seeks approval to temporarily increase the
counterparty limit for investments with Lloyds TSB Bank for the remainder of
the current financial year.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council is asked to agree the recommendations set out below as approval is
needed to agree an increase in the counterparty limit for investments and
deposits made with the Lloyds TSB Bank for the current financial year.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
2. To approve an increase in the counterparty limit for the Lloyds TSB
Bank from £6m to £7.5m for the remainder of 2012/13.
Page 255
1.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1
On 22 February 2012 Full Council approved the Annual Investment
Strategy to be followed for 2012-13 as part of the agreed Treasury
Management Strategy. As part of this, investment counterparty limits
for 2012-13 were approved for those institutions on the council’s
approved lending list.
1.2
As part of the governance arrangements for Treasury Management,
including complying with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and
Accountancy’s (CIPFA) Code of Practice on Treasury Management,
any changes to or breaches of the approved Treasury Management
Strategy or its limits are required to be reported to Full Council.
1.3
On-going concerns regarding the credit quality of investment
counterparties available to the council has led to an increased use of
the part-nationalised UK banks. These banks are viewed as being of a
higher credit quality because of the government support they receive
and they are also in a position to offer attractive terms for local
authority deposits. The approved limit for investments with Lloyds TSB
is £6m however the council has had £7m invested with them in four
separate deals since 28 May 2012, shown in the table below:
Investment
No
2063a
2063
2066
2067
Date
Placed
11/4/12
28/5/12
27/7/12
16/8/12
Term
Fixed to 11/4/13
Fixed to 4/6/13
Fixed to 4/7/13
Fixed to 16/8/13
Total
Interest
Rate
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
2.85%
Amount
£m
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
7.0
1.4
An administrative error occurred with the £1.5m deal placed on 11 April
2012 causing it to be omitted from the cumulative total list for this
counterparty. Consequently when the subsequent deals with Lloyds
TSB were placed the existing counterparty limit was understated by
£1.5m
1.5
The approved £6m counterparty limit for Lloyds TSB includes £0.5m for
the planned deposit to be made to them as part of the Local Authority
Mortgage Scheme (LAMS). The council is in the process of completing
the LAMS with Kent County Council and Lloyds TSB although the
deposit has yet to be made. If as expected the LAMS deposit is made
in the current financial year the total funds with Lloyds TSB will
increase to £7.5m meaning the counterparty limit will be exceeded by
£1.5m.
1.6
The approved counterparty limit for the two part-nationalised banking
groups of Lloyds TSB and RBS is £6m each whereas a £4m applies to
other eligible UK banks and building societies on the council’s lending
Page 256
list. This higher limit reflects the view that both Lloyds TSB and RBS
are seen as more secure all the time they continue to be part-owned by
the government.
2.
ACTIONS
2.1
The four investments made with Lloyds TSB are all fixed term deposits
and it is not possible to break any of these in order to reduce the total
sum to the approved limit of £6m. Therefore Full Council are requested
to temporarily increase the counterparty limit for the Lloyds TSB
Banking Group from £6m to £7.5m. This limit will need to remain in
place until the first scheduled maturity of one of the existing deals on
11 April 2013.
2.2
The council’s formal Treasury Management Practices (TMPs) and
Procedure Notes have been subject to a routine review over the past
few months. Both the TMPs and the Procedure Notes will incorporate
changes and enhancements to the council’s investment processes and
controls to ensure counterparty limits are adhered to or changed in
advance of any potential increase.
3.
RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES
3.1
The three main risks of increasing the proposed limits, including an
assessment of their likely impact upon the council, are outlined below.
i) Credit & Counterparty Risk
As a part-nationalised bank, the council and its treasury advisor,
Sector, view Lloyds TSB, along with the RBS Group, as a high
credit quality counterparty. There seems little likelihood of the
government withdrawing its support for the part-nationalised banks
for the foreseeable future, certainly not in the next 12 months. As
such there is no material increased credit or counterparty risk to the
council from breaching the counterparty limit with Lloyds TSB.
ii) Liquidity Risk
Although the amount of cash invested in fixed term deals is £1.5m
higher than originally planned, the council’s projected cash flow for
the remainder of 2012-13 indicates this will not cause any liquidity
problems. The council currently has £17.5m invested in fixed term
deals of which £15.5m will still be in place at 31 March 2013. £7.5m
is due to mature in April 2013.
iii) Interest Rate Risk
The investment made with Lloyds TSB on 28 May 2012 locked into
a fixed interest rate of 3%. Had this deal not taken place the council
would have struggled to achieve an interest rate in excess of 1%
with another counterparty, such as UK local authority, for a similar
duration. Current operational restrictions would have limited the
maximum duration of the investment with another UK bank to just
Page 257
three months with a typical interest rate of less than 0.75%. Interest
rates are forecast, at the very best, to remain flat over the next 12
months and are more likely to fall. This means the council is
currently not exposed to any interest rate risk regarding this matter.
4.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1
As outlined in the risks above, the council is not exposed to any
negative financial implications from this matter. The main financial
implication from this matter is the council will receive approximately
£30,000 more in interest income than previously anticipated in 201213, the majority of which will benefit the General Fund.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
5.1
Immediate action has been taken to review and implement changes to
the council’s internal treasury management procedures.
5.2
No financial loss or material increase in investment risks has occurred
as a result of this matter. The council will benefit from £30,000
additional interest earned from the investing the extra sum of £1.5m
with Lloyds TSB.
5.3
Full Council approval is required to temporarily increase the
counterparty limit for Lloyds TSB from £6m to £7.5m for the remainder
of 2012/13.
6.
6.1
Legal Officer’s Comments (PJW)
There are no legal comments
6.2
Finance Officer’s Comments (LW)
This report has been prepared by Financial Services and the financial
implications are contained in the body of the report
6.3
Diversities and Equalities Implications (LWd)
Diversity and equality implications are considered as part of the capital
appraisal process.
Page 258
7.
Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact
the following officer prior to the meeting
Lee Walker, Group Accountant
Tel: 01303 853593.
Email :[email protected]
i)
ii)
Report A/11/19 (22 February 2012) – Treasury Management
Strategy and Prudential Indicators 2012/13 to 2014/15
Investment records held by Financial Services
Page 259
Page 260
Agenda Item 13
This Report will be made
2012
Report Number
To:
Date:
Status:
Head of service:
SUBJECT:
A/12/24
Council
19 September 2012
Peter Wignall, Administration
DISSOLUTION OF THE EAST KENT (JOINT ARRANGEMENTS)
COMMITTEE AND THE EAST KENT (JOINT SCRUTINY)
COMMITTEE
Summary: This report sets out the background of the East Kent (Joint
Arrangements) Committee and the East Kent (Joint Scrutiny) Committee
dissolution of both joint committees.
Reasons for recommendations:
Council is asked to agree the recommendations set out below because as set out
in the constitution the decision needs to be taken by council on the cessation of
membership of the East Kent (Joint Arrangements) Committee and the East Kent
(Joint Scrutiny) Committee.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. To receive and note report C/12/24.
2.
That the East Kent Joint Arrangements Committee and the East Kent
(Joint Scrutiny) Committee be dissolved with effect from 1 October
2012.
Page 261
1.
BACKGROUND
1.1
The Executive and full Council of Canterbury City Council, Thanet District
Council, Shepway District Council Dover District Council and Kent County
Council established an East Kent (Joint Arrangements) Committee and the
East Kent (Joint Scrutiny) Committee effective from 1 June 2008 for the
purposes of exercising and scrutinising agreed functions over their
‘combined administrative area’.
2.
FUTURE OF EAST KENT (JOINT ARRANGEMENTS) COMMITTEE
2.1
At its meeting on 20 June 2012 the East Kent (Joint Arrangements)
Committee the committee discussed the changes in shared services since
the original setting up of the committee. Members of the committee raised
concerns about authorities taking part in debates at meetings who are not
members of particular services.
2.2
At this meeting the East Kent (Joint Arrangements) Committee resolved
that the East Kent (Joint Arrangements) Committee resolved that the
Executives and Councils of Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council,
Kent County Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council
(‘the Participating Councils’) that the amendments to the East Kent
Arrangements set out in this report be adopted and therefore:
(a)
The East Kent Joint Arrangements Committee and the East Kent Joint
Scrutiny Committee be dissolved with effect from 1 October 2012.
(b)
That operating arrangements for a committee relating to functions
shared by Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council and Thanet
District Council (‘the Continuing Councils’) be drafted by the
respective heads of legal and be submitted to the Continuing council’s
for approval with scrutiny being undertaken by the scrutiny
committees of the Continuing Councils.
(c)
That any existing delegations to the Director of Shared Services, the
Head of the East Kent Human Resources Partnership and the Payroll
Officer for Kent County Council relating to the functions of the
Continuing Councils continue.
(d)
That the delegation to the Payroll Officer for Kent County Council
through EKJAC for the benefit of Shepway District Council continue.
(e)
All agreements or arrangements which may need to remain in effect
after 1 October 2012 be reviewed by the Heads of Legal of all the
Participating councils and they be delegated the power by their
respective councils that if relevant to them they agree the continuation
of those matters in such form as they think appropriate.
(f)
That a further meeting of EKJAC be convened if necessary to deal
with any residual issues.
Page 262
2.3
Therefore it is recommended that the council support the dissolution of the
East Kent (Joint Arrangements) Committee with effect from 1 October
2012.
24.
It should be noted that as also discharges executive functions the cabinet
also needed to agree to the dissolution of the committee. Cabinet at its
meeting on 1 August 2012 agreed to the dissolution, authorising the leader
of the council to make a claim for any costs incurred in the dissolution
(minute 34 refers)
3.
FUTURE OF THE EAST KENT (JOINT SCRUTINY) COMMITTEE
3.1
Also at its meeting on 20 June 2012, the East Kent (Joint Arrangements)
Committee discussed the future of the East Kent (Joint Scrutiny)
Committee. It was resolved by the Joint Arrangements Committee that
scrutiny of shared services be undertaken by the scrutiny committees of the
Continuing Councils
4.
4.1
Legal Officer’s Comments (PJW)
The legal implications are set out in the report.
4.2
Finance Officer’s Comments (TM)
There are no financial implications arising from this report.
4.3
Equality Implications
There are no equality implications arising from this report.
5.
Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the
following officer prior to the meeting
Peter Wignall, Head of Administration
Telephone: 01303 853 253
Email: [email protected]
Minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2012 of the East Kent (Joint
Arrangements) Committee
Page 263
Page 264

to the Council`s report pack

Transcription

Similar documents

The Fifth Continent Landscape Partnership

2015 Summer Camp Brochure

Sacony Creek Trail and Marsh

allthatjazz

Gone in 60 Seconds - Timothy L. O`Brien

riggs newsletter.indd