Residents who flee Theddlethorpe nuclear waste dump unlikely to win compensation, says group
Residents living near the site of a possible nuclear waste dump in Theddlethorpe are unlikely to win compensation if they choose to move away, it has been claimed.
A former gas terminal within the coastal village has been identified as one of several potential locations in England for a dump, known as a GDF (geological disposal site), by the government agency, Nuclear Waste Services (NWS).
The controversial proposal has sparked outrage among residents, with 85 per cent said to be against the dump, which would store nuclear waste beneath up to 1,000 metres of sold rock until its radioactivity naturally decays.
Among the objections is that the prospect of a GDF on their doorsteps is dramatically reducing the value of residents’ homes
To try and combat the alarm, NWS has launched a Property Value Protection (PVP) scheme to compensate homeowners who sell their houses for a sum that is “substantially” lower than expected because the market has been blighted by the threat of a GDF.
However, the scheme has been blasted as “overly complex and too restrictive” by a group supporting the campaign against the Theddlethorpe plan.
That group is Nuclear Free Local Authorities, which gives a voice to councils opposed to nuclear power, and describes the possible proposal at Theddlethorpe as “a massive mining project akin to building the Channel Tunnel into which the UK’s most deadly stockpile of radioactive waste would be deposited for eternity”.
Its secretary, Richard Outram, said: “Eligibility for compensation requires the applicant to hurdle five key conditions and supply complex evidence.
"One key hurdle is the need to demonstrate ‘a compelling need’ to sell. I asked NWS if the desire to escape the prospect of a future GDF development would be accepted as ‘a compelling need’.
"The response was a resounding no. The NWS said a desire to move away from the area would not meet the ‘compelling need’ criteria of the scheme.”
Nevertheless, digging deeper, Mr Outram discovered that such criteria included “a significant change in health or mobility”.
He said: “It is clear from public questions posed at meetings of East Lindsey District Council that the continued uncertainty is taking a toll on the emotional, mental and physical health of some residents.
"Surely, in circumstances where they have had to obtain related professional medical treatment, the need to move constitutes ‘a compelling need’. Taking a counter-view would be inhumane.”
If such circumstances are put to the test, residents would have to apply to the PVP scheme, to be overseen by a five-member panel.
NWS says the quintet would be made up of one of its own representatives, someone from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and three independents who have had previous experience of similar PVP schemes relating to other major public projects such as HS2, Crossrail or the third runway at Heathrow Airport.
NWS insists the scheme is fair and points out that it is “discretionary and not one required by law”.
A spokesperson said: “It recognises the importance of helping those eligible applicants who are most severely affected by the announcement of locations being considered to host a GDF.
"It is for those who demonstrate a compelling need to sell their property, yet have been unable to do so other than at a substantially reduced price due to a GDF host search.”