One of Cumbria’s GDF community partnerships is making changes after being branded dysfunctional.
South Copeland’s GDF Partnership said in its annual review it had faced a series of internal challenges over the past 18 months.
It said issues included poor behaviour from members, an ‘us and them culture’, the pushing of an agenda to not trust Nuclear Waste Services, which is the developer of a potential GDF, and members interpreting partnership policy and priorities differently.
Millom Town Council – of which its Millom Ward and Millom Without wards – form most of the partnership’s GDF search area – first raised concerns about progress and the internal culture last November, in a motion where it voted to withdraw from the partnership.
The council sent a letter to Nuclear Waste Services, outlining issues it said it had observed within the partnership.
Concerns listed by the town council include:
- Public engagement in Millom and Haverigg being non-existent
- No evidence of engagement with young people who ultimately will be the generations that will deliver the project if it goes ahead
- The make-up of the partnership not reflecting the community, as the voices that dominate it are from outside of the town
- Poor behaviour of members in meetings were witnessed by several councillors, who reported an obsession with minutes and documents rather than focusing on actions that benefit the community
- Observations of members of the partnership pushing an agenda of not trusting the GDF developer which undermined the principle of putting the decision making in the hands of the public
Despite the town council’s decision to withdraw, the community partnership itself will not be affected.
Cumberland Council remain the partnership’s relevant principal local authority, which it has to have to stay operational as part of Government policy.
In response to the concerns, Nuclear Waste Services commissioned an external review, carried out by Mary Bradley, of the Cumbria Association of Local Councils, in December.
The review aimed to check the partnership was fulfilling its purpose, which is set out in Government policy, as well as addressing the town council’s concerns.
Community GDF partnerships are the main contact between the community and Nuclear Waste Services.
Members can be in favour, against or neutral about the GDF plans, but the group’s focus should be to share information with the public and ensure all voices are heard.
The review found that on initial investigation, the partnership appeared to be well organised and managed with everything in place.
But after research, including several hour-long interviews with partnership members, it found a very different picture of deep-seated dissatisfaction with almost every aspect depending on personal views and beliefs, delivery responsibilities or a sense of frustration of non-action.
The reviewer said: “The South Copeland community partnership was established three years ago and has, over the past 18 months, become dysfunctional, chiefly because of the different emphasis and interpretation that members place on policy and priority of activities.”
Distrust and confusion over policy
The review found that the partnership’s understanding of policy, the role of the Nuclear Waste Services local team and the role of members was viewed very differently.
Four partnership members were recorded as strongly challenging policy, which the review said was viewed as a tool for Nuclear Waste Services to ‘block original thinking’ and action by the partnership.
It also flagged a cluster of members who thought their role was to monitor or hold Nuclear Waste Services to account and viewed the organisation as a barrier to doing work with the community.
The review said local Nuclear Waste Services employees had been placed in an impossible situation and were torn between an organisation that required delivery and a partnership that wanted different things based on personal views and aspirations.
It added that at one point, the Nuclear Waste Services staff were referred to as the secretariat and seen as an administration function with little concept of their skill base of job descriptions.
Miscommunication and control issues
Two main problems within the partnership were considered in depth in the review as they were raised by almost all members.
They were:
- The partnership wanting its own self-controlled website
- The honorarium – or voluntary payment given that is not traditionally required – for the chair and the need to change the community partnership agreement
While some of the review’s report has been redacted, it said the website issue started after an apparent lack of response to the question of extracted waste material from underground working.
It led to the partnership requesting their own website to be built and managed locally.
Nuclear Waste Services did not say no to the request and failed to explain why the partnership could not have its own website, which led to the idea ‘rumbling on’ and Cumberland Council becoming involved.
The review added it led to other problems around procurement, challenge to policy, and the us and them culture.
Concerns around the honorarium for the chair and the need to change the community partnership agreement, was an agenda item flagged in the closed part of the of a community partnership meeting but without a paper explaining the context.
The review said this made it a personal issue for the chair. The proposal was then taken to parish council meetings for councillors to vote on again with only verbal reference.
It explained that the honorarium was a way to alleviate expense claims for the chair – but that this point was totally missed and a decision made by non-partnership members, indicating a need for clarity in representation and decision making.
It also found that the chair needed support from Nuclear Waste Services to ensure he held the line.
It added that the Nuclear Waste Services community engagement manager for the partnership and her team had delivered what was asked, but said they felt restricted by members who ‘wouldn’t let them do certain things’.
The review said this was a difficult point to understand in interviews, and said Nuclear Waste Services could have taken the lead on things like engaging with young people.
But, it added, that this was underpinned by partnership members who questioned the policy, the role of Nuclear Waste Services and reinforced the secretariat labelling.
It said that a key factor preventing the partnership in making progress as a collective was members creating their own agenda of challenging Nuclear Waste Services.
The review added that the community engagement manager and her team should have been more strongly supported by their line managers and a much firmer stance taken in ensuring the policy was understood and adhered to by members.
Poor meeting behaviour
The review also flagged issues with the way partnership meetings were operating.
It highlighted issues around representation in meetings and said stronger voices from the Millom Without parishes dominated.
It added that the differences between the Millom ward and Millom Without ward were stark and required different methods of engagement.
The review said meetings had been challenging for the following reasons:
- Difficult to minute because of the way the dialogue progressed
- Limited agenda items and a lack of supporting papers which aimed to reflect the delivery programme
- Often there was a presentation or presence from Nuclear Waste Services which appears to have dominated because of the culture of holding to account despite the policy
- Nuclear Waste Services activity appeared to be more important than local progress shaping and monitoring also little time left for discussion as most of the meetings were taken up with questioning the previous minutes
- The handling of the community engagement part of the meeting. Many questions were the same and there was little acceptance that Nuclear Waste Services did not currently have all the answers on the GDF process
A difficult balance was also mentioned between Nuclear Waste Services’ senior people attending meetings or not being present, as the partnership viewed their attendance as a chance to challenge, while the review said the organisation’s role is to inform.
While much of the information regarding the chair was redacted in the report, the review said after meetings became more challenging with the obsession over minutes and inability to discuss important agenda items, a new chair is set to be elected.
The review said when the partnership was challenged as to why they felt this necessary, the need to distance from Nuclear Waste Services was the main reason.
It added the members generally felt meetings need to be managed more efficiently, with stronger agenda management and proper supporting paper work.
Diversity issues and representation
Concerns around diversity in the partnership were also highlighted.
The review said the group had an imbalance of representation which over time had become an increasing issue due to the different aspirations of involved communities.
For example, it was seen as unfair representation for Millom to have a population of 7,000, but only have one seat on the partnership.
The review also flagged that members felt the partnership was not reflective of all sides of the community and was largely self-appointed by default.
A lack of clarity was also recorded around the role and focus of community representatives and whether or not they were empowered to make decisions.
It meant that decisions were being taken to the parish council to be discussed and voted on, causing delays and putting GDF policy or developments into the hands of people with little knowledge of the GDF process.
The review said Nuclear Waste Services had never truly grasped the issue of representation and individual decision-making or the need to have a policy to cover volunteering.
It added that the lack of policy to cover this had contributed to the partnership’s current poor culture as it has had no way of addressing the issues within the group.
It also said that partnership members needed to be interviewed for their role, have clear role profiles with expectation criteria and be properly inducted, to manage expectations and focus effort.
Progress and goal reaching issues
The review of the partnership’s progress in fulfilling its purpose also highlighted several issues.
It found that an opposing voice in the area had at time proved challenging for partnership engagement and that there was a feeling of there being little more to tell people about the GDF. It added this could be due to the attitude of the partnership.
Work to engage properly with youngsters and people in Millom and Haverigg was also flagged as needed.
The review added that it was not always helpful that work in progress was shared by Nuclear Waste Services at early stages as it highlighted the delivery time lag and made it appear as though they were withholding information.
It said this was then capitalised on by people within the community, who wanted to challenge policy or the competence of the organisation.
As the partnership was viewing its role as holding Nuclear Waste Services to account, the review said it was tricky for the partnership to be a line of communication between the public and the organisation.
It added that there was evidence that other agendas, rather than community concerns, were being prioritised and said this was seen in the public engagement at partnership meetings and that questions raised were often confrontational.
Some members said it was difficult to respond as members quickly took various stances.
While the partnership was awarded £3 million to support community projects, the review found that the majority of members did not want to engage with the fund and that there was no recognition that the partnership had a duty to sign off the awards.
Until recently, the panel for the fund only had Cumberland Council and Nuclear Waste Services and the partnership chair as members.
The panel was following policy criteria without any local analysis built into their decision making. It has awarded cash to 79 projects in the area so far.
While developing a community vision and considering how a GDF might fit in with that vision being a requirement for the partnership to carry out, the review found the group has only just started to address it.
While the review said this should be a priority, it is not seen as one by some members of the partnership.
It also found ‘myths’ around the prison site in Haverigg and other areas that have needed to be addressed. It added that wider issues of spoil heaps, traffic noise and questions regarding workforce had been dominant.
Moving forward
While the review flagged issues within the partnership, it also praised some of it’s engagement with the public through responses to questions and concerns, its newsletters and its website, public meetings and its organising of experts attending public events.
It said that an operations sub-group has now been set up to manage the partnership by covering the programme of activities, governance, review the community partnership agreement, membership recruitment and agenda setting.
It added that tone of the sub-group is to control rather than steer. But the review said it was currently bogged down in redefining the chair role profile and appointment process. A visioning sub-group has also been set up.
Three options have also been put forward to address the issues in the partnership:
- Restart all activities in the partnership and aim to address issues – The review said this would lead to conflict immediately regarding the role profile of the chair and the changes to the community partnership agreement. It added that members seemed to have no confidence that the culture would change.
- Refresh the partnership – The review said it has highlighted several key issues that if resolved would enable the partnership to work effectively. This would involve a facilitated session to agree on an action plan to move forward. If a member feels they are unable to agree with the plan, they would be able to consider their position on the partnership. It is hoped this would make the partnership fully functional again within three months. It would aim to change the culture of holding Nuclear Waste Services to account to partnership working. Once functional, it would then be able to consider areas of joint work with mid Copeland’s GDF partnership.
- Merging the South Copeland partnership with the Mid Copeland partnership – The review said a more radical approach would be to combine the partnership with Mid Copeland. It said this could prove less confusing for the public and it make Copeland a stronger GDF site option. It added that merging the two could bring together the best of both partnerships but that it could bring unresolved issues to the forefront. The transition phase would be four months and both partnerships would focus on completing outstanding work and commitments. Nuclear Waste Services would be expected to honour community investment funding for 2025 and 2026. This means the £1 million would be available to the new partnership in 2026.
The reviewer has recommended option two – to refresh the partnership and facilitate change in a managed process to resolve issues and rebuild.
A spokesman for Nuclear Waste Services, said: “NWS commissioned an external review of the South Copeland GDF Community Partnership to ensure that it is effectively fulfilling its purpose and meeting the needs of the local community.
“As set out in the Government’s Managing Radioactive Substances and Nuclear Decommissioning Policy Framework, community partnerships play a key role in facilitating discussions about geological disposal with the community.
“The findings and recommendations within the report have been carefully considered, and a set of actions established.
”NWS looks forward to working as part of the South Copeland GDF Community Partnership to take forward actions to address the matters highlighted in the report.”
These actions include:
- Improve engagement with local communities
- Work collaboratively with the partnership to share GDF timelines and developments.
- Improve understanding of local priorities and revise community investment funding based on this
- Work with the partnership to ensure its programme of activities is robust and appropriate
- Develop visioning for joint working with the Mid Copeland Community Partnership
- Engage with members to consider policy aims and how they may be better reflected in the community partnership agreement
- Speak with reviewer on topic of creating a volunteering policy
- Ensure partnership is reflective of the local community
- Consider the current sub-groups and understand if a reset of those groups is needed
Andy Pratt, interim chair of the South Copeland GDF Community Partnership, said: “Members of the community partnership have met and considered the report and discussed a way forward which includes enabling the Partnership to continue meeting to take forward the views of the community.
“The community partnership will discuss the report further and decide whether it wants to issue a formal response.”
Millom Town Council have been contacted for comment.
