Two surveys of South Copeland residents were carried out between March and July 2025 by research consultant Yonder. A March survey interviewed 200 adult residents and was conducted between 11 and 19 March 2025. And a second survey interviewed 201 adult residents between 30 June and 21 July 2025. They were asked about their awareness of the Community Partnership, geological disposal and Nuclear Waste Services.
An overview of the findings are presented below.
Previous community survey results are available to view within the Community Partnership website News section:
Summary
The latest survey findings demonstrate that residents across the electoral wards of Millom and Millom Without remained engaged with the subject matter. In July’s survey, 81% of respondents recalled seeing, reading or hearing something about nuclear waste or geological disposal over the past year, compared to 75% of respondents in March 2025. A third of respondents (33%) attributed their awareness to a leaflet, newsletter or something received through the post, compared to 41% in March.
Most understood, in general terms, how the UK managed its most hazardous radioactive waste at interim surface and ground-level storage facilities (54% in July – a slight increase from 41% in March). However, the July survey indicated that a degree of uncertainty persisted, with 25% unsure of the current approach (a decrease from 40% in March) and a further 21% incorrectly believing that the UK’s most hazardous radioactive waste was already held in vaults deep underground (compared to 16% in March).
In July, 80% of respondents correctly identified the accurate description of Geological Disposal Facilities and this increased from 69% in March. 5% in July thought GDFs were deep underground facilities that were currently used for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste compared to 8% in March. 14% claimed to have heard the term ‘Geological Disposal Facilities’ but did not know what they were, compared to 17% in March. Just 1% said they had never heard the term GDF, a slight decrease from 4% in March.
In both surveys, the majority claimed to be aware of the identification of a Search Area within South Copeland (90% in March and 91% in July). A similarly high proportion claimed to be aware of the local Community Partnership (75% in March and 82% in July).
Following the identification of the South Copeland Areas of Focus earlier this year, 59% of respondents claimed to be aware of the Areas of Focus in July, which was an increase from 38% in March.
When considering a potential GDF in the Search Area, 35% opposed it, 31% were supportive, and a further 34% were neutral in July’s survey. In March, 30% were opposed, 34% were supportive and a further 36% were neutral.
When asked in the July survey about what kind of information they would like to receive regarding the subject matter, 19% wanted information about geology or geological suitability (7% in March) and 17% wanted to know information about the safety of a GDF (10% in March). A further 16% wanted information explaining the rationale for why the area is being considered to host a GDF (17% in March) and 14% wanted information about the impact on the transport network (10% in March).
In the July survey, a quarter (25%) expressed a desire to join a conversation or share their views about geological disposal and the siting process via a website (2% in March), 13% wanted to engage by completing a postal questionnaire (15% in March), and 9% wanted to attend a public meeting (7% in March).
Chair of South Copeland GDF Community Partnership, Andy Pratt, said:
“We are continuing to survey in South Copeland to make sure that we, as a Community Partnership, have a clear understanding of local people’s awareness, views, and information needs.
“These results show that awareness of the process and understanding of geological disposal are building. However, it’s natural that views will shift over time, especially following significant developments such as the announcement of the Areas of Focus, and during a period earlier in the year where the Partnership was less visible due to a review.
“We are still in the early stages of this long process. A key part of the Community Partnership’s role is to continue building awareness and understanding so that, in time, people are well informed if a suitable site is found and a Test of Public Support takes place. The findings help to guide our future activities and communications, ensuring people have the information they need and opportunities to share their views.”
South Copeland Resident Research Spring 2025
South Copeland Resident Research Summer 2025
Methodological Statement
For both surveys, interviews were conducted in-person across the wards of Millom and Millom Without. Interviews were conducted by Red Research, on behalf of Yonder. Quotas and weights were employed to ensure the samples were representative in terms of the relative populations of the two wards and the age and sex profiles of the area in question. With a sample of 200 and 201 and a 95% confidence interval, a margin of error of +/-7% is expected.
Yonder is a member of the Market Research Society (MRS) and founding member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. The MRS is the UK professional body for research, insight and analytics. As the regulator, it promotes the highest professional standards throughout the sector via the MRS Code of Conduct.
The research programme conducted by Yonder, is not carried out by the Community Partnership, NWS, or members of the community, which maintains its impartiality.
To ensure the representativeness of the surveying, Yonder uses the latest ONS and Census population data to ensure the sample is representative of the local area’s population (in terms of geographic balance, age and gender). With this information, quotas are employed to ensure the resident sample is representative of the relative populations of the two Search Area wards. Following fieldwork, Yonder then reviews the interview sample, examines any differences between quotas and the achieved interviews and corrects any differences by weighting up under-represented groups and weighting down over-represented groups. This ensures the resident samples which inferences are based are representative in terms of the age and sex profile of the population in question.