Some parents are threatening to take their children out of a primary school one mile from a proposed fracking sites in the Fylde area of Lancashire if the plans are approved.
The parents, who have children at Weeton St Michael’s Church of England Primary, have complained they haven’t been given enough information about possible health effects of fracking.
This week they presented a petition to Lancashire County Council objecting to the plans at the site at Preston New Road.
There are currently 48 pupils on the roll at the school and if children were removed it could become unviable, the parents say.
The petition with 241 signatures was collected from parents, friends and family members, who objected to plans by Cuadrilla to frack up to four wells at the site.
Concern at health risks
One of the parents, Jason Mclemon, said: “I feel very concerned in relation to the health risks associated with the planned fracking for the Fylde Coast.
“I live in Weeton village where my children go to school. Lancashire County Council, Weeton St Michael’s School and Fylde Borough Council have not presented the health risks in conjunction with fracking.
“As a worried parent and citizen, we need more information as to the possible future effects to health and environment.”
The petition was supported by Fylde parliamentary candidates Bob Dennett (Green), Jed Sullivan (Labour) and Mike Hill (Independent), along with Julie Brickles, an Independent councillor on Fylde Borough Council.
Public consultation
A public consultation on revised plans to tackle noise and traffic issues at Preston New Road and Cuadrilla’s other site at Roseacre Wood is now half way through. The deadline for comments is Friday 17th April. Lancashire County Council has said it will make a decision on both planning applications by the end of this month.
In January, Lancashire County Council planners recommended refusal of both applications on grounds of noise at both sites and threats from increased traffic at Roseacre Wood. On January 28th, Lancashire County Council agreed to defer a decision on the plans and since then Cuadrilla has submitted revised proposals to tackle issues raised by planners.
Categories: Opposition, Regulation
DRILL OR DROP? 
This is truly a new low in the Fracking debate. This doesn’t border on child abuse. It IS child abuse. Who ever is “informing ” these parents should be ashamed of themselves.
I can only recommend asking these parents to see this evidence with thir own eyes
http://www.nohotair.co.uk/index.php/shale-gas-2014/215-shale-gas/3215-children-and-fracking
Ruth you’re a nice woman, but I think you should ask questions about your role in scaring children. Grown ups have a right to their opinions. Scaring children is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Grealy, you’re a disgrace! We have a full document of real scientific journal-based references, from real scientific people with knowledge, who haven’t been paid for biased opinions. Unlike you and your shocking industry people who flash their cash for biased reports. Your website/blog/toilet roll information is diabolical and No Hot Air surely has to be the irony of the century? Do not rubbish our absolute right to research, challenge and fight for our children’s health and safety and right to schooling without potential danger – the risks and effects are documented everywhere. Except from your crappy friends, shills and attempts at smearing everyone who is fighting your dangerous and appallingly implemented industry. You should be ashamed at your disgraceful retorts and obviously we’ve scared you a little. Good. Keep moaning, keep spreading your filth and keep watching sunshine, we’ve only just begun.
May I suggest that name calling is not a very good example for children either? I have no problem with your right to spread cockamamie theories, but childhood is a time for hope, not fear. Leave them out of it. I hope that your respect for the medical evidence of Medact does not extend to the anti-vaccination and anti fluoridation theories the same US medics support. That would be truly tragic for the kids.
I totally agree with Nick. This has been looked at by Lancs CC planning, and the Environment Agency. Also an EIS has been done by environmental experts (ARUP) and air impact is insignificant. Just as a science teacher, if you burn any hydrocarbons in a flare, as long as its well designed then it makes CO2 and water. There is no legal basis for this protest. I hope the council take the parents to court (keeping children away from school is a criminal offense) and prosecute them. No concern with the M 55 150 m away tho…. This is typical of the antifrack stunt. There is no science behind this and so they resort to dodgy PR stunts to ‘win’ the argument. Here they just look stupid, and also ignorant!.
Ken – what are your qualifications again? Aeronautical engineering is it?! Just how much are they paying you for your ill-informed trolling and dribbling? No one can be more ignorant than you. Keeping children away from school is a parent’s right and therefore an opportunity to home-educate. You need a new hobby Ken, you’re wearing very thin.
Keeping your own children out of a particular school is not an offence. You can home school.
Oh, and I also hear that in ‘information’ meetings, over coffee, the public are being informed that women WILL get breast cancer, and their children WILL be born deformed. Then of course the farming will die out as the land is polluted, and then the Fylde will sink beneath the sea. What drugs are these people on? What is the moral basis of this pseudoscientific drivel? It doesnt matter anyway as fairies will arrive to whisk everyone to la la land!
Yes, ‘Janice’ are you? Sad little old man.
I don’t get it. The year round exhaust fume from car burning diesel which is only a couple of hundreds Metre from the school is far more dangerous than gas burning which is more than 1000m away and we burn gas for cooking and heating inside house. Gas burning produce just CO2 and water vapors. They can’t be serious about this total propaganda of their own agenda that harm the child schooling opportunity.
Sounds like Nick, Ken and Tommie have all been affected by inhaling too many fumes already! These parents have real concerns for the welfare of their children – a concept that is obviously alien to you. Read the Medact 2015 report, hear the voices of the people affected by leaking wells and fumes in America and stop and think about the countries that have banned fracking until they have done some serious research – wake up guys!
So all of the considerable collection of “circumstantial” evidence is either false or there is no causal connection. But of course that’s not “scientific” evidence is is it, whereas what the Cuadrilla and oil/gas industries scientists tell us must be true because they are wearing white coats and holding test tubes whilst they give us the “information”. Either you have something personally to gain Ken, Tommie and Nick, or you simply want to close your eyes to the many reasons that those thousands who now live with fracking want rid of it!
Ken W – It’s looking very much like a full time job for you, this spreading of misinformation about what the council’s planners actually said, isn’t it? At least you are not lonely, having the Reverend Roberts for company, even if you do sit apart at meetings 🙂
Fracking is dangerous / expensive and should never be allowed under any circumstance. In America it had already been proven that waste water from the process has poisoned drinking water and the underground gases released through vents, are giving healthy children allsorts of breathing difficulties. These parents have every right of keeping their children away from this school, It’s not against the law as long as you can provide home schooling. You people in the comments above are the misinformed!
Wow the anti fracking came out in force. Touchy as well. No I have nothing to gain except being a natural gas consumer for heating. But I am a scientist and like to look at the issue from the point of view of manageable risk and benefits. And when you look at risks of new technology we often compare and measure it against what has been existing around us and make a professional call. Compare to the risks the anti Frackers rise which I think legitimate fracking is relatively safe with the current relationship in place.
Cheers
Tommie – we are all looking at this from “the point of view of manageable risk and benefits”. Some of us are keeping our eyes open as we do so though.