Tinker Lane site, north Nottinghamshire
Planners at Nottinghamshire County Council are recommending approval of an application by IGas to drill a shale gas well at Tinker Lane, between Blyth and Barnby Moor.
A report, released within the past few minutes, said the proposal, which does not include fracking, should go ahead subject to more than 50 conditions.
The proposed conditions include a legal agreement on a :
- Designated lorry route to the site
- Driver code of conduct
- Financial bond for surface restoration of the site
- Liaison group for the duration of the development
The application is due to be decided at a meeting of the council’s planning and licensing committee next Tuesday (21 March 2017).
If approved by the committee, Tinker Lane would be the second shale gas site in the area. In November 2016, the council approved plans for two shale gas wells at a former Cold War missile site at Springs Road, Misson (details).
More detail on the planners’ recommendation in this DrillOrDrop report
Categories: Regulation
DRILL OR DROP? 
As expected; no legitimate planning reason to refuse it. So down to the Councillors – refuse it, then lose an appeal; approve it and save the rate payers a load of money. Don’t follow Lancashire’s lead which cost our Council a lot of money – and don’t fall for the Enemies of Industry JR losing propaganda like Lancashire and Yorkshire did.
How will the serial protectors manage to spread out over so many locations? With many more to come…..
I hope that in Notts shale gas fracking will go ahead, without it being refused by the council and without the large numbers of protesters (misinformed anachists) seen in Yorkshire and Lancashire. The more fracking the better
One hopes they read just some of the many reports on the widespread adverse consequences of this industry, and not just the one, now out of date, report by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, which this government consistently uses to prove it can be done safely whilst ignoring its recommendations. Aerial views of the fracking fields in Pennsylvania should be enough to persuade anyone of the folly of this industry, except of course those who are in it for the money or the belief that this level of destruction is justified to improve energy security. Investors would do better by investing in renewables and energy reduction, both of which will improve our energy security, simply by reducing demand.
Malcolm. They have and that’s why they approve the planning applications.
It is starting to look as if the exploration companies will have no need to find any gas. They should just apply to the NHS for financial contribution for aiding physical health once the walks of support try to link up all the sites! One or two more further south, and it would also probably qualify as a Pilgrimage. That Big Oil lot are a really devious bunch.
“Simply by reducing demand”! Yes, electricity price increases of 14.9% tend to do that. Collateral damage of elderly people dying in the winter seems to be a price worth paying?
[Moderator % edited at poster’s suggestion]
Let us appreciate the number of changes the government has made to planning policies and legislation to place local councils in this unenviable position, backed into a corner and making a mockery of local wishes, development plans and policies. This is not democracy. And neither it the government’s current intention to allow fracking, so long as it is under 10,000 cubic metres of fluid, in the so called protected areas. The government is making this underhand loophole by Statutory Instrument so that they avoid having to take the change to the House of Commons.
Opposition is growing wherever a company announce plans to frack and so I am sure the industry, despite its best efforts, will not spread us so thinly that we will not be a force to be reckoned with at every stage. And applying for a JR does not make anyone an enemy of industry – no one took out a JR against the large potash mine. It is fracking that is opposed.
Sirius Minerals would not have been passed IF the local population had NOT already become significant investors before the approval decision. So, this is different. PERHAPS when there is more clarity about local financial benefits from fracking this will not be the case, but it is wrong, in fact, to compare the two currently (even if you believe people would invest in Barclays to get a slice of the “profits” of Third Energy!)
You make a good point though about Sirius Minerals. If it had NOT been passed (very narrowly) there WOULD have been an appeal and there WOULD have been large financial penalties that would have resulted. If this week sees rejection of the legal challenge the Government will undoubtedly receive a great deal of criticism, but, in reality, such a decision and process, would undoubtedly save the tax payers in Lancashire a considerable sum. I believe legal advice has already indicated that.
I don’t know any locals that invested in the potash mine and I don’t know many locals that objected to it either. There were many letters of support for the mine. I do know there is a lot of local opposition to fracking and I personally cannot see how the so called “benefits” of fracking can be anything but divisive, particularly as the proposed community payments will not compensate people for personal loss as it does not follow the usual and accepted process for compensation.
Climate change debaters probably will like this very important study recently.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN16K21V
Sorry KatT, my reply to you was cut short by my other half offering me something I could not refuse-dinner!
You raised the issue of Sirius Minerals, and I explained how it was local investors who managed to squeeze this through. I suspect some of the exploration companies involved in fracking will tap into this in the future.
However, if you want an example of how local democracy can be a flawed system, Sirius Minerals was exactly that. Remember, this is a project worth several BILLIONS £, and will have, on its own, a significant impact upon the GDP of the UK.( It will probably export in excess of 90% of what it produces.) The project took many years to come to the decision time, thousands of pages of documents were produced and millions £ spent to get there. The final decision meeting “benefitted” from a live feed, and the ignorance amongst some of the decision makers even at this late stage was staggering! Either they could not have been bothered to read the documents or they were incapable of understanding basics, and the whole project was almost derailed because of this.
Yes, I was, and am a significant share holder. Why? I want to make a return BUT, also, I spent my lifetime in agriculture and for the last fifteen years would take part in reviews annually considering world demands for food and means of producing it. Ten billion world population and a much higher level of middle class will create huge pressures upon food production. Middle class people demand more animal production, they like animal protein, the Greens will not accept that, but they will not alter it. So, you need means to produce materials to feed those animals-hence my support for Sirius. It also means I am uncomfortable with USA now utilising a large resource to produce maize to produce fuel for vehicles. This USED to be the worlds buffer to arrive in Food Aid for starving continents or to bail Russia out of another failed harvest. (It also means the price of maize for animal feed is now inflated.) I would rather USA fracks gas (or oil) and uses that for it’s vehicles, and the same could happen here (UK has plans-well underway- to use 3 million tonnes cereals/year to process for fuel.)
A long winded reply, I know, but why I can not support a proposal that local democracy is inherently superior, especially where projects with a national importance and technical complexity are concerned.
That was a good read Martin, thanks. I have also followed the story of Sirius and there are similarities in relation to the current state or should I say lack of fracking.
Local councilors are not competent enough to make decisions that are nationally important. I strongly suggest if the industry demonstrates good potential that planning decisions are removed from local hands.
All that currently happens is long winded appeals that are not good for anyone.
The UK really will need to quicken up its act now we have Brexit.
Martin. Thanks for the good argument.
GBK. You know why local are incapable of making these sort of decision. They are incapable because their main concerns and priority is their views that do not project beyond the view of their windows and their local county.
Many thanks Martin for your detailed and honest reply, which I found very interesting. I am certainly not a “Green” but I can’t agree with everything you have written. I do not agree with fracking for many reasons, including extracting a new reserve of a fossil fuel. Climate change is a huge and real threat on every level. And given everything I have read, most written by industry, and if North Sea Gas is anything to go by, I am sure if any unconventional gas is produced in the UK it will be exported.
I do feel very strongly about agriculture and our farming industry, though I am the first to admit I know little about it, but I completely agree with you that being able to produce sufficient and nutritious food is essential. Placing fracking on farm land is another reason I object to fracking. I know our farmers do not receive the income they deserve and politics and consumer appreciation of food production has to change. But I shall never accept that fracking is the correct choice for the UK.
Hope you enjoyed your dinner 🙂
KatT you clearly are a Green in denial or a Corbynista?
If you are genuinely trying to suggest you’re not a clueless leftie that rants but has no ideas then please enlighten us as to what you suggest we do for our energy needs ?
KatT-the UK is ALREADY IMPORTING fracked gas, like it imports other sources of gas, produced over the horizon. I feel if we can, we should control our own resources rather than pinch someone else’s. Take a look at the recent discovery of gas in Tanzania by Animex and Solo. I would rather that is utilised in Tanzania to manufacture fertilizer and help their farmers. If it ends up being exported to “wealthy” countries like the UK, does the income for that end up with the farmers-probably not, and those farmers will very quickly become economic migrants.
If we frack for gas on farm land, it is returned to farm land eventually. The alternative of nuclear does not do that.
I do support alternative energy BUT to a degree. It is expensive to establish and is currently seriously subsidised. There needs to be a lot more scrutiny of what alternative energy projects are real value for money, (it has been a disaster to date) and we need to take a more considered approach. Whilst we do that an energy source that could actually MITIGATE against the high establishment costs/initial subsidy costs of the alternatives could actually make investment into alternatives a lot more affordable.
And thanks, I did enjoy my dinner. Looking at the flowers emerging on my peach trees, I am hoping that my sweet for a few months time is now more than a promise, as well. Frost free would now be good. I do not disagree with you on climate change, but it is being hijacked for all sorts of purposes. Cameron with huskies does nothing for me if you then have discussions with friends in Norway who put into context that their climate in the north is warmer than it was some years ago, but much colder than it was some more years ago. (They also think we are crazy to allow beavers into the wild. No natural predators and a big risk to pollution of the waterways.) Sorting out what is the man made part is where there is a great deal of confusion, much of it fertilized by a huge industry around the world that makes a lot of money out of that confusion. All these “extreme” weather stories shown on our TVs from around the world. How many of them still happened years ago when our TVs did not show them? From other records, most of them. Trees in remote forests fell down and nobody heard them. Now, they fall down and are probably recorded and concuss a few camera men!
Apologies for the waffle. I am awaiting delivery of a new suite, so I am “camped” by my laptop until tomorrow, and have become tempted!
Planning Officer’s Report via :
http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/dms/Meetings/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/3909/Committee/497/SelectedTab/Documents/Default.aspx
“As part of this process, feedback from a number of organisations about specific issues raised by local residents and consultees is included in the planning application committee report including:
The Coal Authority, which has confirmed that there are no historic records of deep mine or opencast coal mining in the area
The Environment Agency, which has confirmed that they have issued an Environmental Permit as they are satisfied that the development will not affect air quality in the area, as the drilling works are limited to four months. The Agency are also satisfied that appropriate measures have been taken to control foul water from the site
Natural England, which has confirmed that no Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSI) will be affected by the development
The Health and Safety Executive, which has confirmed that they are satisfied with the proposed development.
As part of the proposals, Dart Energy is seeking permission to drill one exploratory well 3,300 metres deep to reach the Bowland Shale and Millstone Grit rock formations to take samples of the rocks for analysis.”
” Extensive consultation has been undertaken by the County Council, with more than 40 organisations providing feedback over an extended eight week consultation period.
In total the County Council has received almost 800 individual representations objecting to the application about the application and one petition containing 2,869 signatures.
Natural resources like coal, oil and gas have been exploited for many years in Nottinghamshire. Figures show that since 1939, 27% of the UK’s total number of onshore oil and gas wells have been drilled in Nottinghamshire (UKOOG). 350 onshore oil and gas wells have been drilled in the UK since 2000.
Seventeen sites at Beckingham, Bothamsall and Eakring are producing high quality oil for use in the plastics and chemical industries. ”
So the important Statutory Consultees are happy, many wells have been drilled in the area before without any fuss, lots of people objected but these objections are not valid planning objection issues……or at least not enough to recommend refusal. We have heard all this before in Lancs, Yorks and Notts….