Politics

Government seeks views on proposals to bypass local council control of shale gas schemes

PNR 180719 Danny Vc Llew1

Cuadrilla’s shale gas site at Preston New Road, 18 July 2018. Photo: Danny Vc Llew

Two consultations opened this afternoon on government proposals to fast-track decisions on shale gas developments in England.

One proposal is to allow shale gas exploration projects to go-ahead without the need for a planning application. The government wants to make non-fracking projects permitted development. This is system currently in place for small house extensions, installation of garden sheds and change of use of offices.

The other proposal is to classify major shale gas production developments as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. This would take them out of local authority control and give decisions to the Local Government Secretary.

The proposals were included in the last Conservative Party manifesto and announced in a joint written ministerial statement on 17 May 2018.

They have been welcomed by the onshore oil and gas industry but opposed by environmental groups. (See Reaction for details). An online petition, organised by the Campaign to Protect Rural England against the permitted development proposals had more than 148,000 signatures at the time of writing.

The consultations are open to the public as well as the industry and interested parties. They run for 14 weeks until 25 October 2018.

Permitted development

Details

The government said in the consultation document that it wanted to speed-up decisions on shale gas exploration, which it described as “disappointingly slow”.

“The government remains fully committed to making planning decisions faster and fairer for all those affected by new development, and to ensure that local communities are fully involved in planning decisions that affect them. These are long standing principles. No one benefits from the uncertainty caused by delay.”

The permitted development system would, the government said, provide “a simpler, more certain route to encourage development and speed up the planning system, and reduce the burden on developers and local planning authorities by removing the need for planning applications”.

180321 Misson Eric Walton

IGas site at Springs Road, Misson, 21 March 2018. Photo: Eric Walton

So far, there have been approvals for shale gas exploration sites at: Preston New Road, near Blackpool (Cuadrilla), Springs Road and Tinker Lane, both in Nottinghamshire (IGas), and Harthill in South Yorkshire (Ineos). Another Ineos proposal at Marsh Lane in Derbyshire and Cuadrilla’s Roseacre Wood scheme are waiting the outcome of public inquiries. Third Energy has permission for fracking, though not in shale formations, at Kirby Misperton in North Yorkshire.

Of these sites, the ones in Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire and Derbyshire would be covered by the permitted development proposals.

The government said the proposals would not apply to hydraulic fracturing plans – so sites at Preston New Road and Kirby Misperton (and Roseacre Wood if approved) would not be covered by the change.

According to the consultation, the proposals would also not apply to non-shale gas onshore oil and gas exploration operations or to shale gas sites in protected areas, including National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, World Heritage Sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The Green Belt is not included in the list.

The government listed conditions that could be applied to the permitted development rights for shale gas sites. These included agreements on site restoration and limits on the height of structures or the duration of the operation.

The consultation also said conditions could include local authority approval for issues such as contamination, air quality, noise impacts, visual impacts and effects on roads – a key consideration in several shale gas public inquiries. Conditions “could include an element of public consultation”, the document suggested.

180512 Tinker Lane Eric Walton3

IGas site at Tinker Lane, north Nottinghamshire, 12 May 2018. Photo: Eric Walton

 

pnr 180620 Ros Wills 1

Cuadrilla’s shale gas site where fracking – if approved – could start within weeks

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects

The government is also proposing to include shale gas production schemes in the list of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). This planning regime covers major energy, transport, water and waste schemes and has be used for the HS2 rail line and the Hinkley Point nuclear power station.

The document for this consultation said:

“This would bring such shale gas production projects in line with other energy projects of national significance such as the development of wind farms and gas fired generation stations.”

Under the NSIP regime, proposals are examined by planning inspectors, often at a public inquiry, and decided by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. There is a prescribed timescale for the examination and decision.

180622 Marsh Lane7

MP Lee Rowley giving evidence against shale gas proposals at the Marsh Lane public inquiry in Chesterfield, June 2018. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Under the proposals, schemes that met the criteria for NSIP would no longer be decided by local councillors.

The government said:

“There is the opportunity for local authorities, statutory bodies and other interested parties to participate in the examination of an application. Members of the public can also take part in the examination stage if they register as an interested party.”

It also said there would be a requirement to consult local people at the pre-application stage.

The consultation is seeking views on the criteria that should be used to include sites in the NSIP regime. The government has recommended:

  • Number of wells per site
  • Number of well sites within the development
  • Estimated volume of recoverable gas
  • Estimate production rate from the site
  • Connection to the local or national gas distribution grid
  • Associated equipment on site, such as water treatment facilities and micro-generation plants
  • Whether multiple well sites are linked by gas or water pipelines, transport links or communications

Reaction – opposition

Daniel Carey-Dawes, senior infrastructure campaigner at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said:

“It’s as if the government doesn’t realise the scale of the opposition. If they press ahead with these proposals, the protests, outrage and anger from local people across the country will undoubtedly intensify.

“These proposals would be a complete perversion of the planning system and trample over the rights of local communities – all to fast-track an industry bringing environmental risks that would massively outweigh any suggested ‘benefit’ to our energy security.”

Rose Dickinson, Friends of the Earth campaigner said:

“Fracking companies cannot be allowed to drill at will; without the need to apply for planning permission and precious little involvement from the local community.

“It’s absurd that planning rules originally designed for minor home improvements, like putting up a garden shed, could now be used for major drilling infrastructure.

“Our countryside and our climate are at serious risk if the government pushes ahead with these plans. We need to be moving away from fossil fuels, not make it easier for companies to dig up more.”

The campaign group, Frack Free United, said:

“This consultation is probably the most important issue for the anti-fracking movement this summer.

It represents a clear and present danger to the UK’ ability to meet its climate change targets. It drives a coach and horses through local democracy for the sake of fossil fuels.”

Sebastian Kelly, 350.org UK Fracking Outreach Organiser, said:

“The government’s proposal to allow free rein to fracking in the British countryside flies in the face of local democracy and threatens to slash community involvement in decision-making. The fact that the supposedly “public” consultation is being opened without informing those who need to be consulted is in blatant disregard of citizens’ right to be heard.”

Barbara Richardson, member of Roseacre Awareness Group, said:

“The government and industry have already lost the argument on fracking. It’s unpopular, risky, and increasingly financially unviable. Fracking has already been stopped in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and council after council have stood against development in their areas. These planning proposals are a desperate last ditch attempt to kickstart the industry in the UK – and it’s communities like mine who will pay the price.”

Reaction – support

Ken Cronin, chief executive of the industry organisation, UK Onshore Oil and Gas, said:

“We welcome the consultations launched today, as laid out in May’s Written Ministerial Statement. We will engage fully with the process and shall be submitting a response in due course.

It must be remembered that planning applications for onshore gas developments have gone from taking three months to over a year to assess, leaving communities with uncertainty and councils under-resourced. To ensure that the UK gets the flexible, reliable and secure source of gas it needs, we have to improve those timescales.

“With five separate regulators ensuring we meet our environmental and operational obligations in everything from well design to traffic management, the Government’s plans only seek to ensure that communities, the industry and the nation aren’t left in the dark.”

What happens next?

The government said the NSIP changes were likely to need an impact assessment and another consultation.

Both sets of changes would be implemented by secondary legislation, it said.

Most secondary legislation uses statutory instruments which usually do not need the approval of a fully parliamentary vote. They usually come into effect unless either MPs or Peers take action to stop them – but this is said to be very rare.

The government also said it would consult in the autumn on whether oil and gas companies should be required to conduct pre-application consultation before shale gas developments.

Links

Consultation on permitted development rights

Consultation on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects

16 replies »

  1. If the SCC delay or reject Angus energy with Brockham on the 8th of August, I think they will in time lose any control they wish to have over it. Best approve it and keep control, regardless of the bad taste it will leave some of the committee with.

  2. NSIP-agree. Let’s leave the local councillors the time to spend on what they know best-what colour a cat flap should be.

    • MARTIN ,

      Are you saying that we should leave it to the likes of Cuadrilla and United Utilities to continue doing what they do best ???

      WHICH WAS to dump….. 2 MILLION gallons of Toxic Fracking waste in to the Manchester Ship Canal , Davyhulne…… WITHOUT even letting the local Council/local authority know ..

      YES …… one thing these companies are good at us keeping SECRETS, especially when the public’s health is at risk…

      BUT hey , those living in the Desolate North , oh I’m sorry, I mean the Northern Powerhouse , they’re just peasants , who cares about their lives when there’s profits to be made ?????

  3. At least this would stop people who don’t understand the industry putting a stop or delay on things, too much fake news/creating fear. Needs to be applied to standard onshore drilling as well.
    The scc meetings and their lack of industry knowledge is a joke, you can tell how some will vote with the questions they ask before have heard all the information.

  4. The local planners understand this industry enough to know how they operate. Delays are also due to the industry putting in late submissions and then running off crying to central gov of how they must wait a little bit longer whilst the planners carefully go about their work to hopefully ensure we remain safe from things such as sour gas leaks like the ones discovered at KM8.
    This has even got pro fracking tories concerned and against it, it is that bad.
    And whilst on the subject of information, isn’t it funny, although not really, that the tory government announced this and are pushing this through without looking at the latest data rather than doing it the other way around.
    On a positive note this will only increase the number of voices opposed to unsustainable fracking.

  5. AD-if it was the “local planners” then the issue would probably not exist. However, it is not.

    It is not only O&G. I have quite a number of experiences where local councillors follow party lines, their personal interests and/or don’t bother to research situations and end up derailing (or close to) multi £billion projects. Whilst local democracy is a nice idea, if that is not working evenly for both sides it needs correcting because UDI is not an option that can be legally sustained. Councillors turning up for meetings after several years of consultation, £millions spent on documentation and then voting against admitting afterwards they didn’t understand the subject but asked their better half over breakfast that morning which way they should vote happens, and that needs changing.

    On another positive note, you are wrong. People are fed up with the current situation. It works for the councillors, but often not for the locals, the applicants or the country as a whole. If a cat flap ends up the wrong colour as a result, nobody is too concerned, but once people note the new housing development/factory is excluded from the councillors part of town repeatedly then you will find the public are not as stupid as some would like them to be, and will support the situation being changed. It may reduce the national consumption of chocolate biscuits but that’s not a bad thing. (Sorry, biscuit makers.)

  6. Often the reason for delays in Planning Applications is down to the Applicant not providing enough information at the relevant times. It is not uncommon for applicants to make as many as 20 amendments, many of which are then required to go back for public consultation and the fossil fool companies then complain that it takes too long. What a joke. Greg Clark had one decision to make regarding KM8 in January. It is now mid July and we are still waiting. He has sat on his hands. Waiting……..waiting……waiting……….

    Just because we ‘may’ have a bit of gas underground does not mean that we have to get it out. Let’s move on and be a 21st Century country. The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of Stones! We evolved. We need to evolve without shale gas. How can you miss something that you have never had?

  7. Sorry Waffle but many of these “not providing enough information” situations are simply the Councils finding an excuse to kick the can down the road when it is contentious. You really do need to get a bit closer to what happens in reality. This is widespread and not just associated with O&G.

    Talking of reality, has it crossed your mind that it could just be that GC will not allow any fracking to take place ahead of PNR?? Slowly, slowly until the sappers have done their job. The cautious principal in place of the precautionary one.

    • No it is them doing their job thoroughly and carefully. Id rather them have a bit of a delay to get things done right than to rush, cut corners and overlook certain information just because Ratcliffe et al are wanting us to rush ahead and stuff any considerations for our communities, wildlife and environment. Someone needs to keep them in check as they can’t be trusted.

    • You can, of course, provide the evidence for ‘simply the councils finding an excuse to kick the can down the road’ from your extensive first hand experience of the planning system? That doesn’t quite chime with the Third Energy application for KM8 which was delayed significantly on at least two occasions due to the lack of required information on the application. Presumably, you are suggesting that any planning application, no matter how inadequately or ineptly submitted and how long it takes before finally being properly submitted, should be decided within the statutory decision time?

  8. Nobody is suggesting any need to rush. There are requirements for Councils to examine plans within a given time-frame. If they fail to do so, creating cost for the applicant then they risk the applicant refusing to accept it. If they don’t have the resource to deal with complex applications, in a timely manner, then those applications need to be scrutinised by some other body. Simples. That’s why we are where we are. This is not just about INEOS wanting to “rush ahead”. You seem to want to forget they have a requirement within the licence agreement that they conduct work within a given time-frame, but don’t expect INEOS to forget it as well.

Add a comment

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.