Regulation

Derbyshire recommends dropping highway opposition to Ineos shale gas scheme

Marsh Lane village from Bramleymoor Lane 170426 DoD

Village of Marsh Lane from Bramleymoor Lane. Photo: DrillOrDrop

A second council is recommending dropping traffic concerns as a reason for opposing Ineos shale gas plans, within weeks of a public inquiry.

Derbyshire County Council announced this afternoon it would be asking its planning sub committee to reconsider the highway objection to the Ineos application at the village of Marsh Lane.

An urgent meeting of the committee will be held tomorrow afternoon, six weeks before the inquiry opens in Chesterfield.

Last month, council officers in Rotherham recommended the planning board dropped its highway safety opposition to the Ineos scheme at Harthill. The board voted against the recommendation and the Harthill inquiry, which closed today, saw detailed discussion of Ineos proposals for passing places, stop-go boards and convoys.

At Marsh Lane, Ineos wants to use a 60m rig to drill a 2,400m vertical well on land off Bramleymoor Lane. The company has said the purpose was to collect rock cores which would help it decide the best place to frack for shale gas. The current application does not include fracking.

Derbyshire councillors voted in February to oppose the scheme on three grounds:

  • Harm to the openness of the green belt
  • Negative impacts on traffic across the road network
  • Unacceptable night-time noise

As at Harthill, Ineos had already appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over what the company said were unacceptable delays in deciding the application.

A press statement from Derbyshire County Council today said the council’s independent traffic consultants had found insufficient evidence to support the opposition on highway grounds.

Officers are recommending the council should not argue this point at the two-week inquiry, which begins on Tuesday 19 June.

The final decision on the scheme, as at Harthill, will be made by a government-appointed inspector.

The sub committee meeting meets at 3pm tomorrow (Friday 4 May) at county hall in Matlock.

DrillOrDrop report on meeting outcome

Links

DrillOrDrop key facts and timeline for Bramleymoor Lane

Derbyshire County Council information on Bramleymoor Lane

20 replies »

  1. Hardly surprising!
    Looks like it is dawning on the Councils they will pick up the costs of ground that can’t be defended! Not only financially, but the confidence of their residents.

    Can’t see that the other two “reasons” are difficult to deal with.

    • If this is decided on fear of costs awarded against the council, which is actually against the tax payer of course, that is blatant corporate and government sanctioned blackmail.

      Frackmail you might say?

      Like I said a few posts ago, the system is now rigged so far in favour of big money and away from the tax payer, that it is now a travesty of democracy.

      This decision, if made on that basis proves it.

      It is interesting that martin approves of this frackmail blackmail, as if it is a good thing, and that says an awful lot about such attitudes.

      There is really only one response to that, and that is equal funding and legal aid to be reinstated for all, just to reestablish a level playing field otherwise it will be a corporate free for all and we will all suffer.

      Failure to balance this biased system will only lead one way.

      A vote of no confidence in this government.

  2. Someone pulling some very long political or financial strings perhaps?
    I trust these decisions can be explained to the residents? But I doubt it.
    The grounds for this decision will prove interesting reading.
    Something odd is going on it seems.

      • Marsh Lane Hamlet:
        Alas, poor Rotherham! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite
        jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath bore me on his back a
        thousand times, and now how abhorr’d in my imagination it is!
        My gorge rises at it.

      • Frackmail Realy ? do you not think it right that if the council are found to be unreasonable that they should have to stand the cost ? if as you are suggesting that the oil company’s should bear all the cost we would have a situation where nothing ever got resolved. as the protesters & councillors would simply produce one objection after another until the oil companies either went broke or gave up. Hardly a democratic situation either. after all its not just the oil company’s that would suffer its all the private investors with their sips & isa,s not forgetting the big pension funds who I no doubt many of you tree huggers. are also indirectly invested .

        • Yes, frackmail, blackmail, ransom, highway robbery (quite appropriate?), you name it,really, these greedy avaricious oiligarchy exploitation companies go chasing the last and most inaccessible residue of fossil fuels by the cheapest and most disastrous method possible. and that has been ignored as too complex, too difficult, too stupid and unprofitable by any sensible operator and they have said so.

          Then these desperate exploiters see a margin of profit if they can fool everyone into falling for the scam, (namely UK.Gov). They then get UKGov to shell out spurious licences that practically enable them to “legally” devastate and poison local communities, and descend upon rural communities because they dare not (yet) have the courage to descend upon built up communities because they will be tarred and feathered and run out of town?

          They then proceed to squat in the most inaccessible places, that no one but an insane person would grant permission to access LHV’s and HGV’s to, and demand and dictate their invasion through the planning process and make the most outrageous access and traffic proposals that will end any quiet and peace and safety and cleanliness of our rural countryside.

          And then if that is not all ready enough, they threaten that if the councils dare to object to this insane invasion and protect their constituents, and dont just role over and play dead if the invaders so much as say “boo!” that they will be sued by corporately funded money rich but ethically obscene legal teams and forced to pay for loss of profits from a venture which was never anything more than normal risk taking speculation and was doomed to failure anyway?

          Yes, i call that frackmail!

  3. Maybe it’s because DCC is Tory controlled and the affected area is a labour stronghold. If they actually bothered to consult the residents or village affected, they would see there is significant opposition.

    • Excellent observation Neil, if this is indeed political warfare in disguise, then DCC are not fit for purpose and should be vilified and taken to task on this issue for politicising and victimising a labour supporting community and DCC should therefore be removed from their position and replaced with someone who represents people without fear or favour.

  4. Takes a while, Sherwulfe, for the players to realise the rules. Ideally, they should do so before they start playing, if they don’t then there are means to bring them up to speed before they are sanctioned.
    My kids got the hang of it around 10 years old (football and cricket). “We said no”-okay, you are off the team.

    Seems it takes a bit longer these days.

    Evolution usually wins over revolution.

    • Your not even in the game Martin; sadly the days of Queensbury rules and strategic chess are over; we now sit in a poker game where the biggest liar gets the prize.

      For the avoidance of doubt, two objections still stand:
      Harm to the openness of the green belt
      Unacceptable night-time noise

      in addition:
      ‘Derbyshire County Council announced this afternoon it would be asking its planning committee to reconsider the highway objection to the Ineos application at the village of Marsh Lane’ note the word reconsider, not drop……

  5. Unacceptable night time noise can somehow become acceptable, what magic do you speak of Martin, how does clanking metal disappear? Will Ineos be handing out blindfolds too so that residents can’t see what is happening to the countryside? Perhaps they might notice the ground shaking from HGVS thundering down the road or seismic activity after work starts.

    • Something interesting in this reference to evolution and revolution. The proposer clearly does not understand the concepts and has reduced them to oversimplified ciphers for might is right. That entirely avoids the truth, so it is interesting to explore these concepts more intelligently.

      Darwinist evolution is vastly misrepresented by those who seek to justify greed and avarice by claiming that evolution is represented by the concept of red in tooth and claw and survival of the fittest (or richest in this case).

      The actual truth is that Charles Darwin was very careful to conceal what he was really saying, mainly because of the Victorian religious warfare going on at the time. His book On The Origin Of Species is a very interesting read, I recommend it if you want to understand the truth of Darwin’s proposals and ignore the neo Darwinist misinterpretation spouted by the nature red in tooth and claw selfish club.

      What Darwin proposed was that complexity tends towards cooperation not competition, that cross species interdependency was the ultimate goal of life. Competition is the low level phase that should cause a species to begin to cooperate simply because competition always leads to extinction.

      The more advanced species develop or evolve, they create an integration and symbiosis with their ecological environment and a permanent symbiosis with multiple species.

      That is not merely exploiting their environment, it is more a deeper identification and resonance with the very forces that create their environment in the first place.
      Darwin saw that as gods ultimate plan for life but was very careful where he put the clues for fear of rejection.

      Cooperation and symbiosis is the eventual aim and any species which bucks that trend is doomed to failure and descends into the long long list of extinction rosta.

      So, you can ask yourself what process is going on here, are we as the human race, and particularly in this present fracking aspect, seeking cooperation and symbiosis with nature and eachother, which is what evolution really means, or are we descending down the devolution spiral into extinction by imposing self destructive dog eat dog survival of the richest suicidal tendencies?

      Revolution is even more interesting, and surprisingly stems from the very same cooperation evolutionary drive.

      What revolution represents in fact is that species inner need to become cooperative and symbiotic with their ecology and the surrounding species begins to overcome the devolution drive towards self destruction and extinction. All species go through this, insects crawled out of the seas, plants colonised the land, creatures leapt into the skies, humans developed brains, all these were evolutionary leaps to overcome the limitations of devolution and stagnation into decay and death.

      When such an evolutionary imperative becomes conscious of a system within itself that is not sufficiently evolved to be reaching for the same goals of cooperation and symbiosis, and instead is stuck in the rut of selfishly exploiting their environment in spite of the fact that they are destroying it by their actions.

      The evolving section of that species tends to attempt to overturn the self destructive urge if the destructive devolved section ad seeks to either persuade or simply fight the oppressive section.

      Look at any species that has lived for long periods of time, what do they do? They either change physically and evolve into new horizons, or they change socially, they make the environment a part of their very existence. We are going through this choice, we change or ee stagnate, with humans we evolve our conscious, and it is only because we change our environment that we have avoided, so far, changing physically. So we must change, the form of that change is up to us, but change we must, what we are doing now is suicidal, we must become symbiotic and evolve or die.

      This becomes a race to survive past the dissolution trend and seeks to bring the entire species to the realisation, by opposition or by example, to become part of the evolution symbiotic imperative, not the devolution of the self destructive urge.
      Look around you today, you will see this true evolutionary drive to change the world to become a part of nature, not to exploit it and destroy it.
      So, in this race for evolution, which side of the evolution devolution struggle do you find yourself on?
      If you are on the self destructive devolving side, perhaps it is time to switch allegiances and become part of your own solution?

      Something to think about over the bank holiday weekend.

  6. It seems to me that, despite what the planning board decide, a whole argument can be undermined by one recalcitrant highways officer who wants his/her ego stroked by a very smooth Ineos team. Similarly, watch out for the piss poor performance of the other council officers who will not have done their homework and who will fall off the cliff at the first sign of cross examination at the Public Inquiry.

  7. Do they turn the wind turbines off overnight then Paula? Hmm.

    You make the same noises that all Nimbys make to try and stop houses being built, but they still get built and the majority still contain gas boilers. Usually, the Planning Process goes through the same mechanics, with Councils trying to placate residents until they hit the buffers of Inquiry costs, and have to allow what are reasonable applications.

    Just been discussing exactly that with a guy whilst out walking my dog. His land is being sold for building, he showed me the plans, he has met with the developer in the last few days who can tell him how many applications will go in, how many amendments will be required, and when they will reach the point they will call for an Inquiry, which will elicit full planning approval. That’s the reality, not a very sensible one I agree, but it is not going to change-certainly not in the short term.

  8. “Evolution usually wins over revolution”

    I agree, let’s evolve and move away from unsustainable fossil fuels and the scraping of the bottom of it’s polluting fracking barrel in the face of the tory fracking revolution.

  9. Its quite clear these councils realise their case amounts to Obstruction & would be discredited at the enquiry.

  10. Maybe Deborah, that is because the Council officials are the professionals who have to carry the can? Councillors come and go, and can play games, take their allowances, scoff their Bourbons and then clear off, (add your own term). The Council officials recognise there are regulations, UDI is not an option, and their employment is on the line. Pity some Councillors ignore this to satisfy their own agendas.

    • Happy that the Councillors have reviewed and decided to continue with objection regarding traffic…thread over.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.