1 month ago
27
Residents no longer able to live under the continued threat of a potential nuclear waste dump will be unable to avail themselves of compensation if they simply sell up at a loss under the terms of the scheme recently announced by Nuclear Waste Services.
Last month, Nuclear Waste Services launched the Property Value Protection Scheme to compensate homeowners who sell their properties in the three GDF Search Areas in West Cumbria and East Lincolnshire for a sum that is lower than the ‘market price’ because the market has been blighted by the threat of a Geological Disposal Facility.
Given that a big factor in determining property price is ‘location, location, location’, future residency in an area hosting a GDF which we described 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’, must inevitably result in blight, particularly in quiet, seaside retirement communities and those with no historic association with the nuclear industry.
In response, the NFLAs published a critique of the scheme as overly complex and too restrictive.[1]
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.
On reading our critique, a Cumbrian resident and local Parish Councillor set out for the NFLAs their circumstances:
“I currently live in a rural hamlet with open countryside surrounding me, with far reaching views over the countryside to the mountains beyond. It is quiet and peaceful. This is the type of property and lifestyle I have chosen. I did not choose to live near a 1 KM square head works for a GDF with the long-term build and operating life with the noise, visual disturbance and general impact the development would bring. I would not live in that environment.”
The Secretary read out this scenario to NWS officials at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s Stakeholder Summit in September and asked them if the desire to escape the prospect of a future GDF development would be accepted as a ‘compelling need’’.
After a follow up exchange of emails, the response was a resounding No: ‘A desire to move away from an area being considered to host a potential GDF would not meet the “compelling” need criteria of the PVP scheme.’
Although on the face of it, the NWS reply represents for people wishing to move a massive disappointment, the actual position may – as per usual with the GDF process – be more nuanced. For under the published guidance, ‘Section 3.5 – Criteria 5: Compelling need to sell’ it states that a compelling need includes ‘a significant change in health’.
It is clear from public questions posed at recent meetings of the East Lindsey District Council that the continued uncertainty is taking a toll on the emotional, mental and physical health of some residents. Surely then, in circumstances where they have had to obtain related professional medical treatment, the need to move must constitute a ‘compelling need?’ To the NFLAs taking a counterview would be inhumane.
Regrettably they will be unable to rely on any sympathy from any member with local residency and knowledge of the situation on the ground; for it has been made clear to the NFLAs that only specialists with relevant experience of administering similar compensation schemes used with other large national infrastructure projects will be eligible for appointment as ‘independents’ to the five-member panel that will consider applications. Tellingly no positions will be reserved for members of the Community Partnerships.
Ends://…For more information, please contact Richard Outram, NFLA Secretary by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
