Regulation

Third consultation starts on N Yorks fracking plans

KM8 flood small

Third Energy’s KM8 site after recent rain

A new public consultation on Third Energy’s plans to frack at a site in North Yorkshire is now underway.

And another may be needed before the application is decided because the company has still not provided all the information requested by North Yorkshire County Council.

Frack Free Ryedale, which opposes the plans, blamed the company for the delay and said today: “Third Energy are simply not fit to frack”.

North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) announced this third consultation would run for 21 days until Wednesday 10th February 2016.

In a statement it said:

“North Yorkshire County Council has received further information upon which the County Council is obliged to undertake public consultation regarding the Third Energy shale gas application at the KM8 well site near Kirby Misperton.”

The council said this would mean that the application would not be decided by the target date of 9th February 2016, which had been agreed with Third Energy last year.

The statement continued:

“There remains information outstanding required in order to finalise a report to Members to determine the application. Third Energy have been made aware of the position of the Council. If further information is received, this may necessitate further consultation.”

“We continue to endeavour to meet the earliest planning committee meeting we can for a determination.”

Third Energy first applied in May last year to frack the existing KM8 well at Kirby Misperton. That application and a second version were not validated by the council. The third version was approved in July. But NYCC planners asked for more information on 11th October and again on 19th November. Previous consultations were in August and November last year.

New information

In a letter to the site’s neighbours, NYCC’s head of planning services, Victoria Perkin, said the new information included the company’s response to questions about the impact of

  • Site lighting
  • Operations on local heritage buildings
  • Operations on ecology

It had also provided information about any potential legal agreement on community benefits and an alternative noise barrier.

“Third Energy to blame for delay”

A spokesperson from Frack Free Ryedale said:

“The reason for this further delay rests squarely on the shoulders of Third Energy. The company needed three attempts to just get the application ratified, and this third public consultation is unlikely to be the last, given that the NYCC say Third Energy still haven’t supplied all the necessary paperwork.”

“The public can draw their own conclusions about the company’s overall competence, but we believe that Third Energy are simply not fit to frack.”

Simon Bowens, regional campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said:

“It is essential that decisions on fracking should be made by county councillors provided with the full information and not imposed on communities by Government ministers.”

Link to planning application NY/2015/0233/ENV

Link to updated timeline of Third Energy’s Kirby Misperton planning application


This report is part of DrillOrDrop’s Rig Watch project. Rig Watch receives funding from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. More details here

 

 

 

10 replies »

  1. What’s the point of the photo? Is it another ploy like the photos of alleged flooding you showed for Lancashire? Who took them? (You havent said where the Lancs photos were taken, so I conclude they were spurious and deceitful

    • The picture is tagged clearly as “Third Energy’s KM8 site after recent rain”. The point of the photo is to furnish readers with an image of the site in question.

    • The source of the photographs and is stated explicitly in the article on flooding in the Fylde. It is beneath contempt to question the integrity of Ruth Hayhurst’s reports.

      • Sorry anon but only one of the photos is given a sufficient location. That showing “flooded fields around Roseacre” is half a mile from the site, and the flooded road is 2 miles as a crowsfly. She should have said that. Around Preston New Rd site , which is basket and eggs topography the OS map marks over a dozen pools in depressions like the one shown. These pools are year round. I would like to know the exact location of that pool i.e a Grid Ref as WE not I cannot locate it. The same with the flooding said to be at Preesehall. I had requested the information but it is not forthcoming. At best it is a shoddy report where the locations were not checked. I just happen to know the area!!

    • Read the article again it is a robust and clear. The sources for the photographs are stated explicitly in the article. Please do not question someone’s good faith. The evenhandedness of the article is underlined by including quotes from Cuadrilla and the local campaigners.

  2. Risk of flooding does not preclude a site from being fracked, that is the state of the regulations. That is a clear assertion. Please feel free to attempt to refute it.
    The article on flooding in the Fylde is accurate.

  3. With 5.2 million homes at risk of flooding in England ( SOURCE, Flood defence spending in England – Parliament breifing paper 19th November 2014 )

    With two thirds of the UK insurance market either refusing cover, or placing special exemptions on the policies of homeowners who live in areas at risk of flooding with fracking sites in close proximity.
    Defra warning of the serious risk to human health from polluted fracking waste.
    ( SOURCE, Independant Newspaper UK, 10th January 2016, headlined Householders Face Double Whammy If They Live Near A Planned Fracking Site )

    What does the fracking industry intend to do about this ???

  4. Thanks for posting the photo of KM8’s floods onsite. This doesn’t augur well as the site borders the beck and subsequently any radioactive waste, or other hazardous pollutants onsite can so easily spill into riverways fed by the beck. In addition the landmass, previously pristine, will now be heavily polluted and unsuited to return to livestock or traditional agricultural use.

    If fracking doesn’t go head, and currently more questions about viability arise than solutions are delivered, building on this land, which is the likely aim anyway, will be unethical in light of the fact we know flood plain use for habitats is now shown to be callous exploitation of new buyer’s ignorance of land legend.

    The Pickering region is highly flood prone anyway, as are many if not all drill sites across the UK, therefore prone to spillsfrom drills, along with concomitant pollution hazards, and this is prime livestock and agricultural landscape.

    I don’t think many people realise that industrial roll outs such as fracking impact upon all who live in the shared water basin region. People living in the Yorkshire basin region already know that many reservoirs were OVER abstracted by 2013, and risks to the basin moving into the highest modification levels of the WFD, puts Yorkshire in line with Greece in terms of not having a very good freshwater/natural water reserve. Of course this affects aquatic life as well as the environnment.

    It will be interesting to return to the site in Spring to see how pollution affects the appearance and to do soil tests, hopefully farmers downstream from the beck will be now be doing water tests too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s