Thank you to residents in the Mid Copeland area who took part in our annual survey.
Between July and August 2025, a sample of 338 residents (aged 16+) living in the Mid Copeland Search Area (electoral ward of Gosforth) were asked about their awareness of the Community Partnership, geological disposal and Nuclear Waste Services.
Telephone interviewing was conducted by independent research consultant Yonder, while the face-to-face interviewing (which delivered the majority of interviews) was conducted by Red Research, an independent research agency based in Cumbria, on behalf of Yonder.
Chair of Mid Copeland GDF Community Partnership, Andy Pratt, shared his initial thoughts on the findings of the fourth survey:
“We requested a mix of in-person and telephone interviewing, taking a similar approach to last year, and again we also asked to increase the number of people taking part.
“Although this research provides just a snapshot of feeling in the local community each year, it’s an important source of feedback for the Partnership and Nuclear Waste Services which helps to shape engagement with the community and communications going forward.
“The findings have been fairly consistent in Mid Copeland, year on year. As more information is gathered from the GDF programme we will continue to update the community.
“The GDF programme is long and one in which the community plays a central role, so it’s crucial we continue as a Partnership to provide information, have conversations, seek views and gather feedback along the way as we evolve through the process.”
Summary
Over half of the survey participants (54%) would support the potential construction of a GDF in the Mid Copeland Search Area, while 13% would be opposed. This compares with 53% and 12% respectively in last year’s survey. 33% were neutral or undecided (35% last year).
The net support for the construction of a GDF in the Mid Copeland Search Area stood at +41 from this survey, the same figure as the previous two years. Net support is the percentage of residents surveyed that supported the proposal, minus the number that opposed it (excluding those undecided).
71% of respondents stated they could recall seeing, reading or hearing something about nuclear waste or a GDF over the past year (compared to 61% in 2024). Of those, 33% attributed this to a leaflet, newsletter, or something posted through the door (compared to 31% last year).
48% said they had seen and read the ‘GDF News’ newsletter (compared to 37% last year). Another 20% claimed to have seen the ‘GDF News’ newsletter but not read it.
Over half of Mid Copeland respondents (55%), accurately described how the UK managed its most hazardous radioactive waste (stored at interim surface or ground-level storage facilities), compared to 40% last year. And nearly two-thirds (62%) were able to identify the accurate description of a GDF (compared to 48% in 2024, 41% in 2023).
Two-in-three (66%) supported the national policy to construct a GDF in a willing community (compared to 61% last year). One-in-three (29%) were neutral, and 5% were opposed to the national policy (compared to 32% and 7% last year). Net support for the national policy stood at +61 (compared to +54 in 2024).
78% said they were aware that a Search Area covering Gosforth electoral ward as well as areas underneath the seabed off the coast of Copeland had been identified for further investigation of its suitability for a GDF, compared to 75% last year. 70% were aware that a Community Partnership had formed to engage locally (69% last year).
51% of respondents said they were aware that smaller ‘Areas of Focus’ had been identified earlier this year.
When asked about potential advantages of a local GDF, 52% of respondents said increased job opportunities; 23% said improved safety of existing nuclear waste and 23% said to take responsibility of a national problem.
The most common perceived disadvantages related to local disruption – 40% said potential disruption and dirt produced by construction; 24% said increased traffic or congestion.
Respondents requested different types of information. Most commonly about the geological suitability of the area (15%); safety (11%), general information about the approach (11%). 24% said they didn’t want any information.
Most commonly respondents requested to receive information through the post (52%), on websites (20%), or at in-person meetings (16%).
49% of respondents said they did not want to engage or give their views regarding geological disposal and the siting process (50% last year). Of those respondents who were willing to engage, 18% said they would like to engage through a public meeting, 12% said they would like to complete a postal questionnaire and 11% said they would like to engage via a website.
When asked if they trusted the Community Partnership to provide the community with information to make an informed decision about GDF, 53% said they strongly agreed/tended to agree; 32% neither agreed or disagreed; 8% disagreed and 7% didn’t know.
When asked if they had trust in the GDF process to be honest and transparent, 61% said they strongly agreed/tended to agree; 23% neither agreed or disagreed; 11% disagreed and 6% didn’t know.
When asked whether they had trust in NWS, 57% said they strongly agreed/tended to agree; 26% neither agreed or disagreed; 11% disagreed and 6% didn’t know.
*Quotas and weights were employed to ensure the research sample was representative of the ward population in terms of the age and gender profile. With a sample of 338 and a 95% confidence interval, a margin of error of +/-5% is expected. Yonder is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. For more information www.yonderconsulting.com