Guest post by Chris Redston
Chris Redston, a campaigner with Frack Free Ryedale, comments on what yesterday’s approval of exploratory shale gas drilling at Misson says about the planning system
On Tuesday Nottinghamshire County Council approved an application from fracking company IGas for exploratory drilling for shale gas at Misson in Nottinghamshire. This decision highlights a disconnect – indeed, a fatal flaw – in local planning policy in the UK.
Much of the discussion centred around whether the undoubted effects on the local SSSI nature reserve were acceptable due to the ‘temporary nature’ of the development. As one Councillor said:
“On the temporary impact on the SSSI, Natural England was confident there would be no permanent damage from air quality or noise impacts.”
This is because the Planning Committee have no choice under planning law but to consider the drilling of two exploratory wells at Misson as a one-off temporary development – such as, for example, building a house – which it clearly is not. If the exploratory drilling is successful, it will be followed by fracking applications, a multi-well frack pad, multiple horizontal wells, tens of thousands of truck movements and all the other dangers and impacts that fracking will inevitably bring to the local community.
The fact that Planning Committees are required to see exploratory drilling for shale gas as a one-off temporary development, rather than the first stage of an ongoing and wide-ranging industrial process that could last over fifty years, means that the long-term impacts of fracking in this area are never considered in the planning arena. As another councillor said rather disingenuously of the application at Misson,
“This is not an application for fracking. It is an application for exploratory work to see if the potential for fracking is there. That is for a later consideration. Our consideration is for whether there should be exploration on this site.”
Again, this underlines a clear disconnect in planning policy, and highlights the way planning law is so heavily stacked in favour of the shale gas companies that such developments are becoming very hard to oppose – even when they are next to a SSSI and gather thousands of objections from local people, as this one did. It would be a brave council who would reject an application to frack in a year or two if they had previously approved the exploratory drilling. If they did, it would almost certainly be appealed, as was the case in Lancashire, where Communities Secretary Sajid Javid ignored the wishes of local people and overruled the decision of Lancashire County Council by permitting fracking at Preston New Road. Local democracy, it seems, only has weight if it agrees with central government policy.
Also, it is telling that the Planning Officer dealing with the Misson application placed considerable weight on the views of Natural England – a toothless government body that seems to approve of every development, whatever the impact on the local area and natural habitat – and completely ignored the seven-page letter from the local Wildlife Trust opposing the development. This illustrates the inherent bias within the planning system, where Planning Officers always seem to align themselves with the views of government bodies and the shale gas industry, and ignore any objections from other non-government bodies, however compelling and reputable they may be.
We now have a broken and unrepresentative planning system which ignores the wishes of thousands of local people who will have to suffer the damaging effects of this industry by saying that the number of objections is not a ‘material consideration’; which blithely accepts that exploratory drilling is ‘temporary’ when it is clear that it’s a Trojan Horse for decades of industrialised fracking; which is not allowed to consider the impact of future development that would inevitably flow from a successful exploratory well; which gives a huge amount of power to individual unelected Planning Officers, who routinely ignore all objections and simply regurgitate the shale gas industry’s opinion on all aspects of the development; which deems so many of the objections local people have to fracking as not in their domain and passes the buck to the Environment Agency (another government agency); which routinely ignores the climate change implications of fossil fuel developments, despite a legal obligation to do so; which puts Council Planning Committees in a position where they feel they cannot turn down these applications as if they do the government will overrule them anyway; which is now weighted so heavily in favour of the hydrocarbons industry and in which any semblance of local democracy has been completely eradicated. No wonder people have so little faith in the planning system when the rules that govern it have been rewritten and twisted to benefit one particular industry over the wishes of local people.
The veil of illusion that is local democracy has now been lifted – and what is revealed is nothing less than the industrial takeover of our countryside by the shale gas industry, sponsored by a willing and complicit government and rubber-stamped by toothless planning committees. The implications for our local democracy are grave and profound, and anyone who lives in a fracking licence area – which cover much of the country – should be very concerned indeed.
Chris Redston is a campaigner with Frack Free Ryedale
Quotes taken from the following website, which was a live update of the application hearing https://drillordrop.com/2016/11/15/live-updates-from-decision-day-2-for-igas-shale-site-at-springs-road-misson/comment-page-1/#comment-35915
More background on this website: https://drillordrop.com/2016/10/04/misson-decision-day-key-facts-on-igas-shale-plan-meeting/
Categories: guest post
DRILL OR DROP? 
The thin end of the wedge!
“These findings are supported by our auxiliary analysis, which demonstrates that the expansion of natural gas networks has indeed led to a significant improvement in air quality. Furthermore, we show that the mortality gains for both the adult and the elderly populations are primarily driven by reductions in cardio-respiratory deaths, which are more likely to be due to conditions caused or exacerbated by air pollution.” http://www.nber.org/papers/w22522
Oh peeny! Consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
LOL 😉
Just as has been happening in America, Australia and Canada … Government backing lends legal immunity and to an abuse of powers by those in authority. Human Rights (for clean air and water) and environmental protections are being overridden. There must be a legal way of tackling this – but it needs to be done at the highest level. There is a fundamental problem in that the industry developments have outpaced the understanding of risk mitigation and regulatory laws. Harvard Law Scholl has been looking into it. I found this interesting Doc: http://environment.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/responding-landowner-complaints-water-contamination-best-practices.pdf
also relevant : http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/06/04/Fracking-Lacks-Groundwater-Monitoring/
and : http://environment.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/shale-gas-development-smart-regulation-framework.pdf
Many thanks Phil, I shall enjoy reading the study although it is of course US based.
I am sure that if fracking ever becomes established in the UK litigation will follow. The approach the government is taking, in my opinion, means it will be inevitable. The “compensation” proposals will prove highly contentious, divisive, difficult to administer and is inadequate for starters. Actions under Tort (public/private nuisance etc) may well be brought. I cannot see how negative impacts will be tolerated when an industry is forced upon communities against their will.
These impacts are not transitory as industry claims, to be viable this industry has to operate on a large scale, with wells and fracking taking place. Indeed industry often describe it as “factory drilling”. If they are drilling and fracking multiple wells in your community and with several operators also drilling – the trucks, the noise, the light pollution will continue for years and years, just as in the US and elsewhere.
One has to remember that in the US many own their mineral rights and receive a minimum of 12.5% of royalties. Though having said that – many are currently not receiving their royalties as the gas companies cannot “afford” to pay them!
We have yet to hear the findings of the Permanent Peoples Tribunal but my educated guess is that it will indeed find that fracking is violating Human Rights.
KT – I asked previously on this BB but received no answer – perhaps you can comment?
Does the “Permanent Peoples Tribunal” have any legal standing / position in Law in the UK or anywhere else?
Thanks.
Paul, The Permanent People’s Tribunal, which grew out of the International War Crimes Tribunal, is a People’s Tribunal and as such has no legal authority beyond the integrity and respect generated from its process and participants. As far as I understand a government does not have to submit to its rulings, but may feel morally obliged to do so.
Of course, sadly, in today’s world moral obligation may not be something of great concern to the UK or US governments.
Okay – thanks for the explanation. Do you mean the International Criminal Court (which does have global jurisdiction) which conducts war crimes tribunals?
No I meant what I said – The International War Crimes Tribunal – also known as the Russell Tribunal which was set up by the philosophers Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre
Hi Paul the PPT has no legal standing but considerable influence as they get some of the finest legal brains to analyse points of law. They were instrumental in bringing about a cane in law after the Bohpal disaster. Apologies if I don’t always answer, I have not ticked the box for alerts.
Regards
KT
Apologies Paul that should read a change in law – predictive text and my poor typing, probably a combination of both!
Thanks Chris, it takes a lot of investigation into the background of the invasion of fracking into out countryside and what you say goes straight to the heart of it.
Agenda 2030 (formerly Agenda 21) is part of the globalist movement and states quite specifically that one of the major objectives is to clear people off the land and force us into city states, regulated by micro chipping and the populace confined to restricted zones.
Fracking is a major part of this move, since it partitions and divides and pollutes rural areas, surrounds well sites with razor wire and hired security in the name of ‘security to prevent anti-fracking access’ and divides and conquers societies and communities with the move to exploit gas resources that no sane person would tolerate. The media continue to push these agendas and refuse to mention the theft of children, the destruction of the family unit and passing authority to government bodies who overrule family rights and farm children out to foster parents some with pedophile backgrounds (provable). The denial of democracy to the local residents is also part of this agenda. The intention is for industrial and nuclear waste to be injected into used fracking wells. UK is seen as little more than a European waste dump in the future with a declining captive populace forced to rely on the state without rights or freedom of any kind. Clean water is all ready declared as a ‘privilege’ not a right, another denial of human rights which is under attack everywhere.
If anyone is in any doubt about any of this, please do research for yourself, dont take anything i say unless you confirm it for yourselves, but please do that research yourselves, dont just let this go. We have seen how viscous and aggressive the attitude of the pro fracking fraternity becomes when even a little opposition is shown, this is part of the ‘stifling’ attempt to suppress debate, so expect the usual trolls to jump all over Chris and this post.
[Comment removed]
Phil C congratulations on a very astute awareness of how fracking is being used in the US and being rolled out in the UK during an engineered austerity which seeks to give congloms and business interests control of major public services such as police, social ”care” as well as education, with the latter institution already dominated by fracking interests peddling myths and legends soon to be policed by G4S monkeys paid peanuts to do congloms bidding.
This is already happening at the Igas site in Manchester as I posted on this forum earlier and raised when attending anti frack meetings. In addition, sadly, many voting Brexit were hoping for the demise of a much reviled Osbourne who is a key pro fracker serving his father in law’s fracking interests in the Lards, and unfortunately he has been given May’s sanction to continue with his northern frackhouse project with conglom associates.
Already many in Osbourne’s constituency are crying out for him to go, alarmed at his indifference to issues they care about while he pursues his own business affairs with a northern frackhouse not voted for by regions already having voted no to regional councils Let’s hope he gets no mandate next election. The promotion of mayoral role too is part of bumping up fracking politico parachutes, and you only have to watch hundreds of US videos to witness how mayors sat in offices hail fracking as the next best thing to sliced bread, ( of course they are parachuted in paid on fracking officials) while cameras shoot the desolation and devastation going on all over the region they are mayor of.
Osbourne and his ilk across political parties don’t like democracy and have nothing but contempt for the electorate, democracy needs to re assert its head, and it may be more demonstrations are needed.
Hi mar g, i sometimes take a while before my blood boils enough to say something, what you say is correct the Osborne and Cameron indifference is staggering until you realise they had no intention of listening to anyone but their handlers from the get go and fracking was going to be pushed regardless since it furthers the globalist agenda. I understand there is going to be a council of mayors? Another exclusive club of corporate influence and behind locked door policies. Osborne and many others were, i suspect always a globalist front and brexit must have been an unpleasant surprise which was why they all disappeared back into the woodwork lickety split.
I can never understand why we put up with these charades, we are offered nothing but handfuls of blue pills with a few self destruct pills in there for good measure and we are divided and conquered one by one, community by community, rich from poor, establishment and opposition and then we wake up one morning and it is all the same old system chuckling self contentedly to itself. There never were any differences between candidates for anything political. The name of the game is to own all sides of the argument to let us think we have a say. But like overturned planning decisions on fracking we soon see where the illusion fades and cold hard power mongering lies beneath.
Perhaps the only red pill we will see is the one we give to ourselves, where is morpheus when you need him?
Ahhh a post from Trumpton, you have all ready ruined your own future, i think the epithet ‘zany’ does not even begin to describe your embarrassing failure to self govern, past present or future, shoulda stayed with King George.
There are some additional points to make about the planning system and the workload faced by planning officers but also about the reductions in staffing and expertise among the statutory agencies.
Planning guidance states that if there is an existing well that that needs to be taken into account as a material condition ie any further application is already weighted.
We also found the use of the word “temporary” to make a proposal sound short term a barrier whereas such work can take some 30 years or more ie a generational time span….and that can lead to cumulative impacts being short changed.
Planners are short handed and thus haven’t got time to assess the evidence presented by a company but also, on account of cuts, want to avoid any challenges so as to avoid spending money the local authorities haven’t got. Thus, it is up to the voluntary efforts of the local community to assemble the evidence and to think critically about it.
Natural England has lost much of its expertise since 2007 when it was initiated following a merger of English Nature, Rural Development Service and some aspects of the Countryside Agency focussing on landscape, access and recreation elements. In Sussex, NE raised issues about noise and light and then were “reassured” by some unsuitable mitigation suggestions and so did not object to the proposal for an Exploratory drilling well even when European Protected Species of bats, namely Bechstein and Barbastelles, which forage on and around the proposed site, were affected. Their original response sent from Crewe suggested that the South Downs National Park some 460 ms from the proposed site would have the information! They did not and in their own Planning meeting pointed to the mobility of the species which would thus give rise to concerns. Not only that, but the local team had not consulted the officer responsible for the European Protected Site some 460 ms from the proposed Exploratory well where the protected species reside…ie the staff member with the experience and knowledge. Information provided by the Bat Conservation Trust and recent research on light and noise passed onto us by a postgraduate student plus contact with the leading expert in the field enabled the local group to make a fully informed objection.
Well spotted and shared Jill. Natural England is a quango with little public accountability like so many others springing up to preserve only business interests, and grouse shooting is one of those business interests. of course owners of grouse land will support fracking as it is not factored into the profit loss margins of landowning shoot profiteers. Grouse shooters and most business men are in the business of profit and pretend a concern for the environment with no real intelligence or inclination to develop real insight into long term impact or harm to it through fracking.
For example I explained to a person from one stately home empire about fracking drilling two miles laterally, after he said they were ”cool” with it. Looking at me in disbelief, he said they had been told two miles vertical drilling only, and they were happy to take the word of frackers and one MP on this without doing their homework.
Natural England is supported by people such as these sadly. but the real worry in the north of England is the fact the AONB is ruled directly be the government, even though a pretence at democracy is thinly serve by some Councillors sitting on meetings. The fact the AONB boundary is extended from N Yorks to swathes of Cumbria and Lancs at Orton and Kirby Lonsdale is sadly another mission creep to ensure the government, not local communities, has the last say on AONB profiteering and exploitation of all natural reserves in those newly AONB acquired regions.
Also, what a shame the long term impact upon water supplying and sustaining those habitats was not mentioned? Cumbria still reels with lead in many waterways due to lead mining incidents centuries ago and many rivers, though now clear but still polluted, do not support ANY aquatic life. Once lead arsenic and other pollutants are fracked into the environment the nation will be left with the highest polluted water in Europe even the Greeks would be ashamed of.
Anti frackers need to take care which organisations they now support or ask for help due to awareness of how many are being used to replace those fighting fracking in areas known to be potentially at risk from it in years to come.
Another worrying feature about expertise leaving the EA and other government agencies, the recent statement from Amber Rudd re police being able to recruit more staff but with business interests and acumen is very worrying. This means any old fracker can be appointed to local police force, which clearly is Amber Rudds purpose.
With CETA on the horizon, is anyone genuinely surprised that local democracy is being trampled on yet again? Unless the UK anti-fracking movement begins to get more active in opposing this ‘trade deal’ dressed up as a corporate bill of rights, then there’s lots more of this on this cards in the months and years to come.
Now is the time to get joining the dots and heap as much pressure as possible on your MEPs who will be deciding your collective fate next month or in January. If CETA is ratified by the EU Parliament, then most of the deal is then going to apply provisionally. The EU Commission has already confirmed that no Member State can opt out unilaterally.
To understand what we’re up against, please read this article I wrote: https://medium.com/@frackfree_eu/ceta-eu-council-signs-away-democracy-but-we-the-people-have-the-last-say-9f289792cefc#.z0bsfgflg
It is simple – the Localism Bill and the NPPF are in direct conflict with each other. The NPPF overrides the Localism Bill. Statutory consultees such as the EA and Natural England have always carried more weight than NGOs ( and so they should, do we want Friends of the Earth making planning decisions for us?). And this is not only in the case of oil and gas applications. It applies to roads / housing / renewables / basically everything.
The best way to try and stop an application like this with conditions is to try and demonstrate the conditions are unenforceable.This works sometimes – I have seen it work in Lancashire before.
If you really believe that an improper decision has been made and can demonstrate this, you can write to the Secretary of State briefly explaining why the decision is erroneous. He / she will instruct their department to review it and if they agree you could be correct, they will instruct the County Council that it will be called in and a Planning Inspector will review the application and determine it. However this avenue is only open if the Planning Office has not yet formally issued the formal Decision Notice letter. Which they won’t have yet, as there are 40 conditions to agree and a Section 106 to legally finalise. This may not work in this case as the Planning Officer recommended approval and the Committee approved it.
The case that I was involved in, the Planning Officer recommended refusal but the Committee approved it. We got the letter to the SOS before the formal decision notice was issued and the SOS agreed with us that it should be reviewed. The SOS instructed the LPA not to issue the decision notice and reviewed the application. The end result was that the Committee were found to have been at fault and the application was dismissed.
By the way, Natural England do object to some planning applications, sometimes when the Wildlife Trusts and RSPB do not. The EA rarely object to anything but do impose conditions.
I respect your comments as always Paul, though cannot fully agree with them all. When you have a SoS exercising call in powers and one that is willing to disregard the planning officers recommendation, the planning committee decision and the planning inspector’s decision, then I think as Mr Redston says – you have a broken planning system.
KT – I agree the Planning system is inadequate – hence the first line of my comment:
“It is simple – the Localism Bill and the NPPF are in direct conflict with each other.”
Hi Paul, many thanks for your reply. I did agree with most of what you said and I always welcome your input as it is always measured and you are vey knowledgeable. Personally I think this goes beyond NPF v Localism. Fracking is not a NSIP and therefore local development plans should carry more weight in decisions. In addition planning officers are wrongly using Ministerial Statements to assess and justify fracking decisions rather then placing greater weight on actual policy (this was the case in North Yorkshire). As fracking for unconventional hydrocarbons is a novel industry, dangerous precedents are being set – as the local mineral plans are only currently being drafted. Whether you support fracking or not the level of government interference is very worrying indeed.
To which I would add my concern about your point that mineral and waste policies were only put out to public consultation end of 2015 and have yet to be formerly given to the public for comment on finalising newly designed rules and regulations.
Many of these old policies were out of date in terms of listing all universally known mineral definitions, and referred to Acts of Parliament, that as consultation on local policy took place, were being revised and extended and adulterated I might add, or even were well out of date!
In addition there was absolutely no waste plan that made sense to justify these policy plans assuming some national body under the EA had savvy about where high polluting radioactive waste would be processed, leaving smug frackers at Blackpool to opine the EA will deal with that issue. As if….and no wonder highly polluting nuclear waste is still causing campaigners in Cumbria great distress when floods send badly buried waste into the environment, when the EA is running around like a headless chicken trying to ignore the fact it hasn’t a highly radioactive material waste plan itself, nor a facility for it either.
Imagine the alarm in regions told to accept a highly radioactive waste facility for serving fracking interests?
It isn’t just the level of government indifference that worries me, it is the level of ignorance and poor funding for more staff that is of real concern, as well as the appointment of ”luvvies’ and scientists in duff disconnected fields with spurious or ill earned titles and credentials who are told to say what the government and frackers tells them to.
The term Royal such as royal surveyor etc refers to any or all who are prepared to do what they are told and deserves no respect for those designated such.
KT. That’s exactly the situation we are in regardng Cuadrilla’s Roseacre Wood site. Lancashire County Highways Department, LCC planning officers, democratically elected County Councillors and the Planning Inspector all refused the application on highway grounds but the SoS is still ‘minded’ to approve it. He is now giving Cuadrilla another chance to come up with a traffic plan ( this will be their fourth attempt). He has also dismissed the planning inspector Wendy McKay, who spent five and a half weeks listening to evidence at the Public Inquiry and who personally visited the site. The SoS now intends to appoint another planning inspector because he says Ms McKay has ‘made up her mind’ She has made up her mind because she has seen at first hand how dangerous, unsuitable and impossible the access to Roseacre Wood is. It’s obvious Sajid Javid is determined at all costs to appoint an inspector who is willing to turn a blind eye to public and highway safety. Where the government’s obsession with fracking is involved the planning system really is a disgrace.
Thank you for the valuable and informative comments from Mr Redston and Dr Sutcliffe. It is wrong what the government is doing. Local communities can influence the decision over a wind turbine but not a fracking well. The Secretary of State’s decision on the Roseacre site blatantly ignores established panning legislation. The local community do right to challenge no government should be permitted to act in an undemocratic and irresponsible way.
More conflict… As per.. If its not brexit it trump if its not trump it fracking! i wonder what will be next?? Putin being victimised… Ha
At the end of the day a dessision was made that will inevitably benifet everyone in the country…
But like squaking children that feel there reasoning hasnt been listened to they are now clutching at ways to prove an empty point… Why not think about the greater good instead of your own beliefs…
If you put this much energy into positive activities the world would be a better place
Goodness TW you seem to have as many IDs as Peeny!
Is this aimed at me??
I am my own person with my own views.. not an alias of this tw, or peeny for that matter as a similar quote was said on another thread!
Definitely not me. I could never be that funny even if I try my best. But I do share the same sense of humour as the poster. But honestly definitely not me.
Well you are easily amused TW 🙂
What a fantastic article and set of comments. A real wealth of experience captured here.
There are evidently problems with the planning system and some are harder to fight on legal grounds….. Many of the statutory consultees are government funded and will no doubt have to tread a fine political line between pushing back on fracking projects when it is clearly government policy to support the industry. They must live in fear of budget cuts eroding away their ability to function. It really does seem to be a case of not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them.
Even private business suffer the same conflict of interest in this set up. Take environmental surveys. It is the developer that commissions the surveys. Are ecologists going to lean towards giving a report that favours the developer? That has been my experience. If they don’t, they will certainly not get asked to do another for them.
When we came to commission an independent environmental survey for the Swanage gas well proposal, several local ecology consultancies refused to take our money for fear that they would never get asked to do work for the local councils again (a major source of their work).
The faults in the planning system go to the heart of the problem.
Stuart – to address your point about obtaining unbiased ecology surveys we tried to get our Council to manage and pay for the ecology surveys for planning applications which require EIAs. And then bill the developer. The Council would have a list of prequalified companies. But they were not interested.
There is considerable consultation behind the scenes between ecology companies undertaking surveys and impact assessments for development EIAs and the statutory consultees, NE, EA, Wildlife Trusts, RSPB etc. with the objective of getting survey data and assessments that are fit for purpose. I know that often the consultees mentioned used to get together and agree common conclusions and recommendations / comments so they are not fighting against each other. At least this was the case a few years ago. With the exception of the RSPB and the EA shale gas department these bodies are under funded and under resourced now.
Interesting Paul – so how many work in the EA shale gas department just now and how much funding do they have?
You will need to ask the EA for current numbers and budget. But when you go from zero a few years ago to 15 plus staff and from zero budget to whatever 15 staff plus costs now it is clear they are adequately resourced (for a two or three exploration wells).