The following article has been written by Guest Author and is a timely call out to all those in Cumbria to sign and share the petition calling for democracy to be upheld. 

Image: Yazz Davis

How a Local Council avoids having to face up to its own representation.

The Leader of Cumberland Council, Mark Fryer, has been in touch with a letter that touches on the points laid out in the petition.

He argues that:

a) Cumberland Council has stood by the general principle that new councils inherit ‘legal rights, liabilities, contracts, and decisions’ from predecessor authorities (i.e. Copeland Borough Council) unless the reorganisation order says they must do otherwise;

b) Cumberland Shadow Authority also discussed the issue (when Councillor Jill Perry (Green) brought a motion for the search areas to be reviewed, and full public opinion to be accounted for (the motion lost);

c) He himself has made multiple public statements about the Council’s ongoing participation.

In far fewer words, his response can be described as “yes, but, we haven’t done anything wrong.”

So, why are we saying there’s a problem with democracy in this council? They seem to be following the rules to the letter. They’ve had a mini-debate. They’ve clearly told the community their plans.

The problem is what they’re not saying.

Putting aside the complex geology of the search areas – largely well understood, according to this geologist – there’s an important part of the GDF siting process which is being ignored by the council.

Mr Fryer doesn’t mention it in his letter.

No willing host community

International consensus agrees that any successful GDF will need a ‘willing host community’. Nuclear has a terrible reputation worldwide. In West Cumbria, there have been more than a few contamination issues. Plutonium dumped in the Irish Sea. Contamination leaking from the Magnox Silo. Random samples from nearby beaches giving higher readings than safety laws allow. Windscale …

All of it minimised.

It’s a big ask for a community already blighted with nuclear flotsam to be willing to host a dump too.

And communities have spoken! In 2023, Whicham Parish Council conducted a survey of residents, which returned 76% opposed to a GDF. In 2025, Bank Head Housing Estate in Haverigg conducted their own survey, with 78.7% against a GDF. Millom Without Parish Council flatly refused to conduct their own survey, when asked by Nuclear Free Local Authorities, but that council does seem to have members who are very committed to the siting process.

Many of the residents of these surveyed areas have strong links to the nuclear industry, and yet they still reject the plans to create a nearby nuclear waste dump. They’ve even formed an action group, Whicham GDF Chat.

However, these surveys are not enough proof of unwillingness for Cumberland Council as yet. Neither are the fact that Millom Town Council and Whicham Parish Council have withdrawn themselves from the process.

By not having a Full Council debate and vote on the matter, Cumberland Council avoids having to fully acknowledge and represent local reluctance.

What proof does the Council need to withdraw?
Mr Fryer continues to insist that if residents only know more about the process, they will be able to make ‘an informed decision’.

In a different letter to Whicham Parish Council, following its motion to withdraw from the siting process, Fryer says:

“Participating in the GDF siting process means ... allowing us all to examine in detail what the implications of siting a GDF here might be and whether it is something that could fit with our own ambitions for this area.”

Fryer’s problem, of course, is that engaged people at this stage are most likely to be anti-GDF. The more people he can engage with NWS’ clinical ‘artist’s impressions’ and endless documentation, the more possibility of an even distribution of opinions.

While it’s admittedly important that affected people know enough to choose either way – instead of the disappointing ‘don’t knows’ – it is disingenuous to continue the process, hiding behind this idea of educating the community, for the sake of more participation.

It hints at a less than neutral position for both Fryer and the Council.

And continuing the process only with votes from a handful of Councillors on the Executive is simply not good enough for what Fryer describes as “major Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project with all the impacts and implications that involves.”

The question remains: if surveys and withdrawals so far do not signify enough proof of an unwilling community to our own Unitary Authority Council, what will?

Please sign the petition. Even if you agree with the principle of a GDF, it’s so important that the Council accounts for itself with a full democratic process.