East Lindsey District Council leader defends taking £3m ‘dirty money’ from nuclear body

A council leader has defended the decision to accept £3 million in funding, which opposition members have dubbed "dirty money".

At a full East Lindsey District Council meeting on Wednesday (December 11), members approved the receipt of funding from the Environment Agency to support the maintenance of the council's coastal defences.

The funding is part of a £9.3 million package provided to the Environment Agency by Nuclear Waste Services, the government body exploring the possibility of building a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF), estimated to cost between £20 billion and £53 billion, at the former gas terminal in Theddlethorpe, near Mablethorpe.

The Theddlethorpe site is one of three locations under consideration, alongside Mid Copeland and South Copeland in Cumbria. In November, director Simon Hughes revealed that competing interests in the gas terminal site had emerged, but no decisions had been reached.

The funding offered to the Environment Agency is intended to support the development of evidence-based plans, strategies, and delivery plans for coastal defences. The £3 million allocated to East Lindsey District Council is proposed to fund necessary works contributing to the overall project scope.

Outraged members labelled the funding as "pure blackmail", warning it could leave the council "in the pocket" of NWS.

Coun Robert Watson (Green Party) cautioned that accepting the funds would mean ELDC "surrenders its independence" to the nuclear agency.

Coun Jill Makinson-Sanders (Independent) echoed these concerns, saying: "If we are taking money from the nuclear people, we cannot fly the flag for being independent." She added: "We will regret it."

In response, Coun Tom Ashton (Conservative), portfolio holder for planning, argued: "If the council votes down these proposals, we will literally be relying on Father Christmas to come up with an alternative."

During the heated debate, council leader Craig Leyland (Conservative) pointed to a recent Environment Agency survey that identified significant maintenance deficiencies in sea defences. He also claimed the agency had a £100 million maintenance backlog.

Frustrated, Coun Leyland remarked: "I don’t care if it’s tainted money."

Following the debate, he defended the decision, asserting that the funding is not tainted because the council does not have decision-making authority in the GDF process. Instead, the decision lies with residents, who are expected to participate in a test of public support no later than 2027.

"It doesn’t taint us, we’re not the decision-makers in the GDF - the residents are," Coun Leyland stated.

He added: "It’s either going to be a test of public support or if the government are going to get pushy about it, they might impose it on the community, not necessarily ours but elsewhere.

"Taking the money does not taint us, taking the money is actually a wise financial move in terms of making sure the EA get on with it and fund it and means we don’t we don’t have to use money that we could spend on our communities."

A report presented to the council indicated that "there remains a clear risk that the funding proposed by NWS ceases for any reason, as a consequence of NWS deciding to discontinue work on the proposed GDF facility, either due to a change in strategic direction or a negative vote of public consequence. In this event, the rest of the money will need to be found from alternative sources."

Coun Leyland emphasised that NWS cannot reclaim the funding, adding: "If the money is given and granted, it can’t be claimed back. So whatever is invested at that point in time, will stay.

"The reality is, we have to horizon gaze, we cannot be focused on the here and now all the time, we have to look at what’s in the future. We have massive challenges in terms of flood defence.

"We want to make sure that East Lindsey is a good place to live where you can earn a good living and you can get a good job whether that’s in tourism, agriculture or industry.

"The anchor point that this could potentially bring in terms of bringing highly-paid jobs, securing the flood defence is something we cannot ignore or turn our backs on. But, if the community decides to vote no, so be it."

During the meeting, a number of members believed the council should go directly to the government to help fund the coastal defences, but Coun Leyland called these notions "naive."

"The government has other competing priorities, we are not the only area in the country with flood risk issues," he added, indicating that the study looking at what needs to be done is part of the process of potentially receiving more funding in the future.

Last week, Lincolnshire County Councillors criticised the level of communication from NWS after its director stated the agency was considering other options for the site.

They raised questions about which other sites are being considered and, crucially, whether the development is safe.

Coun Daniel McNally (Conservative) pointed out that without official information from NWS, social media speculation becomes the news. "It’s just a mess," he said.

This concern was reinforced during Wednesday’s meeting when a member of the public asked a question, believing NWS had dropped the Theddlethorpe site from consideration for the GDF, when in fact, this isn't the case.

NWS’s Chief Operating Officer, Martin Walkingshaw, previously stated: “The GDF programme is unique in the UK, in that it requires explicit community support to go ahead.

“We recently held a series of events in Mablethorpe where over 500 people came to learn about the world class science, engineering and technology needed to safely develop a GDF and understand how it could be located in the area.

“Our teams are engaging with local people to ensure they have the information they need to consider what hosting a GDF could mean for them.

“Scientists around the world agree that geological disposal is the safest and most secure, long-term solution for the most hazardous radioactive waste.”

The nuclear agency claims the development would create more than 4,000 local jobs over 25 years and help store about 10% of the UK's nuclear waste in a secure location for thousands of years.