Tankers visiting Third Energy’s fracking site at Kirby Misperton, North Yorkshire, 28 February 2018. Photo: Steve Spy
Local councils in England are to be required to develop policies that “facilitate” onshore oil and gas developments, under revised government guidelines.
The proposed revisions, published yesterday, also require planning authorities to “recognise the benefits” of exploration and extraction when deciding applications and “plan positively” for them.
People can comment on the changes in a consultation which runs until 10 May.
The Department of Communities, Local Government and Housing said the changes were to “provide clear policy on the issues to be taken into account” by planning authorities. The changes also built on Written Ministerial Statements of 16 September 2015, the Department said. These statements repeated the government’s view that there was a national need to explore and develop shale gas oil resources and sought to speed up onshore oil and gas decisions.
Changes in detail
The proposed changes are to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied.
The NPPF, first published in March 2012, currently says (at Paragraph 144):
“When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should
“give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy.”
The Government wants to change this to:
“Minerals planning authorities should:
“recognise the benefits of on-shore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons, for the security of energy supplies and supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy; and put in place policies to facilitate their exploration and extraction;”
In another proposed change, the existing NPPF (Paragraph 147) says:
“Minerals planning authorities should also:
“when planning for on-shore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons, clearly distinguish between the three phases of development (exploration, appraisal and production) and address constraints on production and processing within areas that are licensed for oil and gas exploration or production;”
The revised version, in a new paragraph 204, says minerals planning authorities should:
“when planning for on-shore oil and gas development, clearly distinguish between, and plan positively for, the three phases of development (exploration, appraisal and production);”
The new proposals additionally make a small change to the NPPF on underground working.
The existing paragraph 148 says:
“When determining planning applications, minerals planning authorities should ensure that the integrity and safety of underground storage facilities are appropriate, taking into account the maintenance of gas pressure, prevention of leakage of gas and the avoidance of pollution.”
But the new paragraph 205 adds to this underground exploration and extraction:
“When determining planning applications, minerals planning authorities should ensure that the integrity and safety of underground exploration, extraction and storage operations and facilities are appropriate, taking into account the maintenance of gas pressure, prevention of leakage of gas and the avoidance of pollution.”
Consulation
The changes were largely overshadowed yesterday by new policy announcements on housing. The parliamentary statement by the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, did not refer the onshore oil and gas revisions, nor did any of the questions to him.
There was no reference in the proposals to take shale gas fracking out of local control and make the Secretary of State responsible for decisions. This is currently the subject of an inquiry by a parliamentary committee and was part of the Conservative Party 2017 election manifesto.
There was also no reference to another manifesto proposal to make non-fracking onshore oil and gas developments permitted developments which would not go through the full planning system.
The consultation continues until 11.45pm on Thursday 10 May 2018. Responses can be submitted:
- online: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/NPPFconsultation
- by email using a consultation form and sent to planningpolicyconsultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk
- by post to Planning Policy Consultation Team Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 3rd floor, South East Fry Building 2 Marsham Street LONDON SW1P 4DF
Categories: Politics
DRILL OR DROP? 
Please can someone explain why it is logical to increase our carbon footprint in the transition to reducing it? Incurring the risks admitted to in the advice. How is this good for our country and environment? Why have other countries banned it?
I guess what the Tory gov takes to be “logic” is that gas (&/or oil?) if extracted onshore in the UK can be done at a reduced carbon intensity or carbon footprint than if imported – and there’s a bit of truth in that possibility, but that “logic” is of course based on the very flawed assumption that we “need” to maintain a high consumption or demand for oil and gas (obviously false), that we can’t reduce that demand (false), that eg gas is a “bridge fuel” (false), and ignores the urgent demand reductions we need to do to comply with the Paris Agreement, as shown eg by Anderson and Broderick’s paper http://www.foeeurope.org/NoRoomForGas
Looks like gov is forcing local councils/planning to help do their dirty work for them in undermining the Paris Agreement.
Despicable!
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this nonsense. Aprt from the obvious guffaw at pretending the economic and energy security has been made for onshore oil and gas –
E.G.
“indicate any areas where coal extraction and the disposal of colliery spoil may
be acceptable”
So much for climate change nonsense when still encouraging coal extraction.
“minerals planning authorities should ensure that the integrity and safety of underground exploration, extraction and storage operations and facilities are appropriate, taking into account the maintenance of gas pressure, prevention of leakage of gas and the avoidance of pollution.”
Er, excuse me, MPAs are forbidden to do this because they have to leave it to the regulatory authorities, no?
I still find it hard to believe how the government finds civil servants to draft this patent nonsense. Perhaps all the able ones are locked away scratching their heads over Brexit.
Astonishing! Responsibility avoidance yet again?
This government really don’t want the consequences of being responsible for fracking do they?
Offloading onto local authority by central government “planning thought control” to influence local authority planning committees?
Apparently planning authorities are not restricted enough by planning conditions, now they are being told what they can address?
Apparently local government is not allowed to truthfully represent their constituents any more, they must only reflect central government propaganda.
Fascism, pure and simple.
Central control by proxy is not and never will be tolerated.
Transparent as 1984 style “truth speak” and “thought control”.
Pathetic.
[Edited by moderator]
complain when decisions are taken out of local councils hands, and then also complain when they are given emphasis on them and say the government are avoiding responsibility.
Ha! Ha!
Dear oh dear! Its like talking to uneducated spoilt children sometimes isn’t it?
I begin to see why Paul Cunningham proposes his final solution?
But I still oppose such insanity, tempting though it is?
Can someone please explain why 2 loads of LNG from Russia are currently on their way to UK to replace stocks used to keep us warm over the last week?
So, we think it better to fund new poisons, or under water devices to deal with our so “secure” interconnectors? Some may, May doesn’t.
All this gobbledegook sounds like it’s just to convince investors and Tory donors in the unconventional oil and gas industry that the government are supporting the industry. Meanwhile opposition to fracking is rising in the Tory shires. It sounds like the government would love to drop this hot potato, but daren’t, just like Brexit.
The FT article in the FT last December about Russian ships offloading in the Isle of Grain after a blip on supply turned out to be, if not a hoax, then a scaremongering story. Perhaps you are privy to information not available to mere mortals like me, who saw the spectre of gas shortages raised yet again last week only for it to be squashed the next day when the National Grid retracted its alert within hours of issuing one. Even the Sun (!) told us this wouldn’t have happened if Centrica hadn’t closed its storage facilities (70% of the UK storage, according to that organ of truth). We really have to ask now who are the irresponsible scaremongers. It’s not those opposed to fracking. Our arguments are based on more than political doctrine gone mad. I would say the government’s energy is a laughing stock. But I could only say that if it actually had one. It can’t get Brexit organised, it can’t get its energy policy organised, what can it do well? This is about the failure of government. It is not about a couple of shiploads here or there, as most of us have the nous to realise.
Thoughts on this one?
https://www.ft.com/content/31e076e2-1e28-11e8-956a-43db76e69936
[Moderator: Do a web search for “Siberian gas delivery to UK offers relief after cold blast” to avoid FT login]
I think you are right Pauline. The push for fracking is failing, the government knows it, the industry knows it, and, most importantly WE know it, but the government wants to be able to tell the industry it did all it could when the walls fall down.
LNG from Russia highlights our miserable energy situation…
Now is the time to be responsible for the energy WE use…
Renewables with gas will keep our Country running
Renewables alone are decades behind this Country being 100% Renewable (huge subsidies being axed for wind turbines this year?)
Having our enemies keep the Country running is not the answer, maybe if Putin didn’t have so much money and investments in the U.K things would be very different
Enemies? If I am not mistaken the Cold War ended in the early 90s with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and with Brexit fast approaching we as a country are supposedly seeking to be an outward looking country who seeks to offer and take part in trade on a global platform. Such a backward looking, sabre rattling, Imperialist mentality should be a thing of the past.
Whilst I agree overall dependence on a single country for supplies would be foolish this doesn’t appear to be the case at all and Russian LNG will just become part of the overall LNG mix joining supplies from Qatar and the US. I also personally doubt that the UK shale industry will have a significant impact on this going forward as the country has sought to positioned itself as an international LNG trading hub.
Well said crembrule, only corrupt weak politicians need to fabricate and manufacture boogie man enemies to wave around in order to justify their very existence?
It’s a well known pathetic prop to shore up unscrupulous regimes that are failing in everything and corroding from the inside out.
The real boogie men and women are the very ones who seek to profit from such illusions.
Is our useless prime minister trying to invite civil disobedience? She knows how unpopular fracking is, she knows that fracking companies ignore concerns and bully people to get their own way. She knows that when those tactics don’t work her ministers mobilise the police to use whatever physical force they please to barge us out of the way. She must know that we will always refuse to allow any government to impose unfair, draconian and dictatorial laws on us. She knows what happened with the poll tax riots; unless she changes her approach to fracking we will descend on London and bring the country to a standstill. Someone somewhere is clearly paying May, Clarke and Javid a lot of money to see us trampled underfoot. From her comments last week clearly Liz Look-How-Important-I-Am Truss (well named – she’ll provide Treeza support no matter how painful to the sufferer) wants a bigger brown envelope too.
In the town of Kafr Batna, 15 civilians were killed and 70 wounded in strikes ‘believed to be Russian’, said the Britain-based monitor, which relies on a network of sources inside Syria.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5467455/Syrian-children-victims-government-chlorine-gas-attack.html#ixzz58xue3pJc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
By being in Russias back pocket with their LNG cargo coming to the UK we have zero political influence
Jules you had a real passionate post there. Someone has to secure our energy needs no matter how hard it is.
So here is your chance your are now the PM what is your plan?
We could sell arms to an oppressive Middle Eastern regime in exchange for fossil fuels along the lines of the Al Yamamha deal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal.
I wouldn’t want to deal with any arms for deals with any if I had the choice
but the jobs Kisheny! what about all those high paying skilled jobs on the Fylde. I suppose all those out of work aerospace engineers could retrain as security men and cleaners for the fracking industry, its a win win.
The R & D department at BAE Warton is heavily drone orientated. Low energy prices will drive industry and technology in the U.K. Pilots in fighter aircraft will just be Top Gun history… I remember in Afghanistan how impressed I was with the Predators…
Strange I was convinced we recently launched the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier at a cost of £3.1b which will carry 30ish STOVL F-35b Lightning II. With a second carrier, the Prince of Wales to follow potentially carrying another 30ish F-35c’s, In addition with the F-35b Lightening IIs deployed with 17 and 617 Squadrons of the RAF and given the operational life of the two RN Carriers it might suggest there is a bit more life in the fighter aircraft just yet. Although I do agree ultimately drones will become the norm it is some way away.
It may be that some Pro frackers have fallen from the sky and are completely BRAND NEW , or that some really would try and have you believe that the Moons made of Swiss Cheese as they desperately try and recover their investments in the UK Oil and Gas industry.
Either way it really does make me laugh me when I read about the big Russian boggy man stance .
Have you not been keeping up with the news for the last several decades Kisheny. Have you not heard about OUR previous COSTLY financial and human campaigns in Iraq, Lybia ??
Over 1 million Dead , £ 100s Billions wasted , I’m surprised you are not desperate to talk about that .
The West has been freely arming to the teeth so called ” moderate rebels ” who we haven’t even got a clue what the fcuk they stand for. …. I think we should GET OUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER FIRST before we play the big high and mighty with other nations .
I think Jack you have not been watching the news for the last seven minutes??? Turn it on…
Let’s be clear on this,
THERE IS NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT in the poison case.
Although some outlets in typical controlled fashion are conducting a trail by media ..
Ring any Bells from the past here ????
Iraq, Lybia
Who’s side are you on? Or are you in a cold drafty building just outside Moscow?
“Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the (insert whichever is required to incriminate and destroy the targetted victim with the big bad boogie man label) party?”
McCarthy eat your heart out?
Good heavens we really are regressing into frantic fantasy fracking fearmongering and hate speech aren’t we?
Welcome to stalag left bedlam reprocessing and re-education camp, leave all personal belongings, scruples, ethics and morals at the bar code wrist tattoo brandenberger bar gate marked “Nacht Frei” and chant
Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! When prompted with cattle prods.
Abandon hope of humanity all who enter here.
God help us from our own folly!