Regulation

“Great Wall of Ineos blocks Woodsetts views”

1904 Woodsetts WAF4

Access track to proposed Ineos shale gas site at Woodsetts. New proposals show the track lined by a 3m high, 100+m long noise barrier. Photo: Woodsetts Against Fracking

New proposals by Ineos have emerged for a 3m high noise barrier running for more than 100m alongside its site earmarked for shale gas exploration in the south Yorkshire green belt.

190530 Woodsetts acoustic screen

3m high fence – the height of the proposed Ineos sound barrier. Photo: Woodsetts Against Fracking

Residents in the village of Woodsetts have described the barrier as the “Great Wall of Ineos” and complained that it would “fence them in”.

The barrier was not part of the original planning application for the Woodsetts site, which was turned down twice by Rotherham Borough Council in March and September 2018

But it appeared in Ineos documents, published earlier this month, which are part of the company’s appeal case to a public inquiry starting on 11 June 2019.

Rotherham Council, which is defending its planning refusal at the inquiry, said the barrier would need its own planning application and would breach green belt and local planning policy.

The campaign group, Woodsetts Against Fracking, which is also represented at the inquiry, said people would feel imprisoned by the barrier.

This is the second time that Ineos has made changes to shale gas proposals between the refusal of planning permission and the start of a public inquiry. Last year, four weeks before the hearing on its Harthill scheme, the company introduced 17 additional passing places and dropped a one-way system as part of its traffic management plan.

“3m noise barrier will reduce views”

In his submission to the Woodsetts inquiry, Ineos’s planning consultant, Matthew Sheppard, described the barrier as “additional noise mitigation” which had resulted from the “ongoing discussions about potential noise impacts during construction”.

He said:

“The now proposed 3m noise barrier will assist with reducing views, particularly from ground floor rooms. It is likely that the drill rig and mast will be seen at night from those properties with reduced hedges and upper storeys.”

But Rotherham Council’s planning officer, Anthony Lowe, complained there had been no details of an acoustic barrier in the original application and nothing was shown on the submitted plans.

He said:

“a 3m high noise barrier would need planning permission in its own right and should be considered during determination of the planning application, rather than being imposed as a future condition.

“the Council has not received any formal notification of this proposed mitigation during the determination of the planning application, during the post determination period until the submission of the appeal, or in the earlier part of this appeal phase.”

Mr Lowe said the company had not given any specifications, detailed site plans, elevations or photo montages to show the exact location and design of the proposed barrier. There was also no indication, he said, of how long the barrier would be in place.

“It is not clear whether this would just be during for the setting up of the site, up to 5 days [evidence from the company’s noise consultant] or for a longer period during the construction and drilling phase, potentially 8 months.”

The barrier is shown on an Ineos plan (see above) alongside a field track and then a bridleway, which runs from Dinnington Road towards a local landmark of a holly bush and memorial bench. The plan says “noise fence to extend min 100m past the existing buildings”, thought to refer to nearby sheltered bungalows for elderly and vulnerable people.

190502 Woodsetts DoD9

View from the bridleway over the proposed shale gas site at Woodsetts. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Currently, the bridleway and the bungalows look out over open fields.

Mr Lowe added:

“the Council has not had the opportunity to consult on this aspect either with the local community or with its Landscape and Rights of Way Officers.”

He said a barrier above 2m high in the green belt would not comply with local or national planning policy:

“I note that an application has recently been refused in May 2019 on an unrelated site for a 2.4m high fence due to the adverse visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt.”

The council’s noise consultant, Andrew Lockwood, said even with the barrier in place, the predicted daytime noise levels from the site were likely to be up to 3-4 decibels higher than the British Standard limit for construction.

“Ineos has created another problem”

Richard Scholey, of Woodsetts Against Fracking, said:

“This barrier is an indication that Ineos cannot achieve suitable noise levels and prevent an unacceptable impact on vulnerable residents. If the company could do this, why would it introduce a noise barrier at this stage?

“It will be a 3m solid fence. People in the sheltered housing will lose most of their view. They will just be able to make out the tops of trees.

“In trying to solve one problem, Ineos has managed to create another with the landscape and visual amenity.

Mr Scholey said the documents first appeared in Ineos proofs of evidence to the inquiry:

“The noise barrier never appeared on any application plan. It turned up without any discussion. We had no time to consider it properly. This gives a lie to the idea that Ineos wants to be good neighbours.

“They are fencing us in. it will be like a prison to the rest of the village.”

The Ineos appeal documents also show changes to the design of the proposed entrance. Security gates are now drawn further along the access track.

Woodsetts original entrance

Original plan for the site entrance and access track. Source: Ineos plan accompanying planning application

DrillOrDrop invited Ineos to comment on the issues raised by Rotherham Council and Woodsetts Against Fracking. This article will be updated with any response from the company.

  • The inquiry opens at 10am on Tuesday 11 June at Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham S60 1AE. A protest is expected outside the inquiry from about 9am. DrillOrDrop will be reporting live updates from the hearings, which are expected to last for eight days.

52 replies »

  1. Good for INEOS. Offers the choice of a noise barrier or noise. Very accommodating.

    I suspect-shock/horror-that a temporary noise barrier to assist the locals nocturnals will eventually be seen as just the same as utilised alongside motorways, except temporary rather than permanent.

    Build that wall, build that wall!

    • I agree, well done Ineos for ghinking of the safety and well being of the community in erecting an unclimb-able 3m fence and its green to blend in with the region!

      • Mr Goth, if Ineos was thinking of the well-being of the community they wouldn’t want to drill there.

        • David – I’ve just spent a few days with a group of experts in sustainable energy. They are very strong advocates of local/micro energy generation and very much believed that local gas production was a good way of providing backup for renewables. Their business installs solar, wind, biogas plants etc and they were extremely worried about the supply of critical elements. It’s a shame that most of the opponents of fracking have very little understanding of science or resources.

    • I suppose in the grand scheme of things everything is temporary. Even life. Unfortunately on the other side, the village side of that fence will be several old people’s homes. It seems they have a choice – a 3 metre barrier or a view of a drilling rig and thousands of additional vehicle movements. How long for? These are old people. Life is temporary.
      It really is appalling that Ineos should choose to drill so close to properties. But they don’t really care, do they?
      Imagine how those people are feeling, Mr Collyer. But then again, I don’t suppose you can.

      • Oh, I do care David. Sorry that is inconvenient but were the antis not moaning about another site and locals being inconvenienced by noise? Looks like INEOS are showing their caring side.

        I also recognise that people who are advanced in years (not old people David-very ageist!) require their accommodation to be kept at high temperatures 24/7.

        You do not know me and I do not know you, so perhaps best not to make assumptions just to try and gain the moral high ground. Perhaps you are content that thousands of individuals of advanced years in the UK die every year through health conditions exacerbated by fuel poverty. I am not.

      • David: the UK is over populated and you cannot expect every home in England to have a view of acres and acres of green fields! Eventually there will be a road, a supermarket, another housing complex, maybe a retirement home, or an opportunity for home produced energy! Which these communities, people and businesses will consume and prosper long term…!! Fact!

        • Of course the “Y” junction to the west in where Woodsetts Road meets Swinston Hill Road where it becomes Dinnington Road, could be a better access entrance position than the existing access entrance along Dinnington Road as that would shorten the access route to the site and take the acces into the site to the west away from view of the residents to the east.

          The real question at the root of this entire fossil fuel debacle is of course why a beautiful green belt rural location is chosen for an industrial site is acceptable at all? Time and time again, ewe see that beautiful rural spots are targeted for these industrial fossil fuel operations, when it is clear that there must be many brown site locations that would be less of an impact than these beautiful rural areas with isolated rural communities that people have chosen for their remoteness and beauty away from industrial exploitation.

          The conclusion is fairly obvoius however isnt it? That brown site locations are closer to built up residential communities and they would have more power to object than remote spots, and hence protest would be much more local and highly motivated. Whereas these remote green belt sites are relatively less populated and elderly and hence the demographic assumes that there would be less people to object.

          But times have changed havent they, and with protest happening here and across the world in objection to the lack of action on preventing further climate change and the the fact that we are in the sixth major extinction event on the planet, tends to be directed to central government and capital cities.

          Perhaps that is why ineos et al tend to choose emote locations and hope no one will notice or care. But we do care and if the numbers of protesters that went to cities will do the same for these remote sites, they will certainly be welcomed by the local residents and mass protest seems to be one of the last options left to express our dis-May at such fossil fuel exploitation and occupation of our countryside.

          Time, no doubt, will tell. And speaking of time, i must go to work.

          Have a nice day

          • Phil C

            I would disagree with a few of your opinions there.

            Firstly, overall I believe that the locations are more likely linked to geology, a reasonably level site, landowner agreement, a road so on, rather than your assertion.

            Isolated rural communities

            Woodsetts is not an isolated rural community. It is a village in the Worksop / Rotherham commuter belt.
            Those who seek both beauty and isolation live just to the South overlooking the golf course.

            A check of the 1inch to the mile map would show that the area is a patchwork of commuter villages serving the Rotherham / Sheffield / Worksop catchment area.

            Brownfield Sites

            There are not so many brownfield sites available, most now bring either industrial estates or housing estates ( ie old colliery sites ). So not suitable for a drill rig in the middle of an estate. So….there are not ‘many’ brown field sides available.

            The site of the old Kiveton Park drift mine remains undeveloped, but it in a steep sided valley shallow valley occupied by the railway and canal.

            But where placed on brownfield sites ( Misson ) the objections are the same

            Remoteness

            One needs to determine what remote means. 7 minutes by car from a town, on a bus route, shop, pub, golf course and school …. remote?

            Less people to object.

            The sites will be in the PEDL area, which is, as noted a relatively densely occupied area of land. There is a lower population density to the East around Tinkers Lane-and Misson. As there is just as much protest for sites away from villages ( Harthill, Tinkers Lane ) as more proximate sites.

            So I doubt that INEOS have chosen remote locations expecting less protest as

            1. They are not remote ( in this instance )
            2. The location is more likely dependant on other factors. As noted above.

            Now, just off to the remote rural bucolic town of Worksop, and later to the similar village if Shire-oaks to walk the industrial scar that the ‘built on coal and profit’ Chesterfield canal is.

            • Curious hewes62’s, I disagree with your disagreement. Time and time again we see fossil fuel operation sites placed in locations in remote rural locations that are unsuitable for industrialisation. I disagree with your justification of the location which is intrusive and placed upon agricultural land that will require extensive reinstatement which we all now know will never happen.

              The location is unsuitable, the proposed access is incorrect, the route of the proposed access route is intrusive regarding noise pollution and is too close to a residential area and an equine exercise paddock.

              The so called noise barrier is a further intrusion and will be totally inadequate and inneffective and all that can be at least reduced in unwanted and unwarranted impact, and yet you appear to have no appreciation of the impact on the people who live there.

              Once again we see that there is no consideration for the people who are impacted by these unwelcome and unwanted presence of an industrial site in a rural location.

              No, the site must either be relocated away from people or the access route must be redirected to the west to reduce the impact.

              Sorry but those reasons you give for preserving and exacerbating the intrusion of this Ineos industrial intrusion rather than accepting the need for at least reducing its impact is not acceptable for such a proposal.

              [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

    • Has anyone looked at these plans for the Woodsetts site and entrance and the photograph? If not you can right click and “save as” to an image viewer of your choice. Then you can zoom and scan around the images.

      There are some issues that become obvious if you do so.

      1. The existing track enters the field roughly 100 metres from the houses but then turns left to run alongside the bridleway and track to what looks like a horse exercise paddock at the rear of Manor Farm.

      2. The existing track then runs around the edge of the field towards the south east and turns east, but the track is proposed to be extended and turned west to run along the south hedge boundary to the two copses of trees called Dewidales Wood, and where these are separated appears to be where the ineos drill site is proposed.

      3. The photo is cut off at the bottom corner, but an older version is available here:

      http://www.maplandia.com/united-kingdom/england/yorkshire-and-humberside/rotherham/woodsetts/

      4. The main road running along west to east is Dinnington Road and there is a “Y” junction to the west in where Woodsetts Road meets Swinston Hill Road where it becomes Dinnington Road and the residential road is Berne Square which is a Cul De Sac.

      5. You will notice that the existing track entrance is some 100 metres or so from the bridle way but then turns towards it and runs alongside it and that length and 100 metres or so beyond it is where the “noise barrier” is proposed. in fact it will not be a noise barrier unless it is constructed from reinforced concrete configured to reflect noise such as you see on motorways and would need to be 4 or 5 metres high and even then it will not prevent noise or vibration from multiple HGV’s and LHV’s. Not to mention diesel fumes and vehicular congestion to the Dinnington Road entrance being so close to Berne Square.

      However.

      6. Questions that arise from this are:

      (a) Why follow the existing track along that side of the field beside the bridleway?
      (b) Why not create a new track that runs along from the existing entrance to the field along Dinnington Road that runs along the rear of the existing hedge along Dinnington Road and then to the site along the far western boundary?
      (d) If you look past the “Y” junction along Woodestts Road there is another entrance to the same field that follows a track along the boundary towards Dewidales Wood where the ineos site is proposed. Why not use that? Yes, it will mean a much longer track from the entrance but it will be well away from the residential area.

      It looks to me like the this is a dead duck proposal for the noise barrier and does not address the actual problem. The ineos site track would be much better far away from the residential area along the western boundary, not the eastern boundary, thereby doing away with some of the threat from noise fumes and disturbance to the residential area with traffic, fumes and more disturbance than is necessary.

      Not perfect, i know, but as a compromise it would be much more sympathetic than ugly obtrusive and totally ineffective eyesores like overhigh so called “noise barriers” wouldnt it?

      Worth proposing to Rotherham Borough Council planners for resubmission in any case.

      • Phil C

        The point of a better access road was spoken about a while ago. It seems that, as the site is an exploratory hole, then it was not considered a good idea. No doubt if it were to be a frack site, a la Preston Road, then other access could be built.

        I agree that the sound barrier looks a strange idea. However INEOS say it is for construction traffic, so presumably not for drilling ( and as a result of consultation with persons unknown ).

        The junction you refer on the race track between Woodsetts and Dinnington, so anything that slows down the crazy drivers ‘just making the bend’ would seem welcome, especially if one is turning right from North Anston.

        • I disagree with you hewes62’s the route to the site is on the wrong side of the field, the closeness of the route to the residential houses and the equine paddock is unnecessary and simply incorrect when a route to the west boundary would reduce the impact and remove the requirement for a noise barrier at all which is as proposed to be too high, of inadequate construction and will be merely innefective in purpose and adequacy and therefore discredits the entire proposal.

          The purpose of engineering is to propose solutions to situations that are problematical, and not to preserve a higher degree of impact simply because it is too much trouble to adjust the proposals to reduce the impact upon people who will suffer from it.

          I stand by what I said, in the event that this unsuitably located site should go ahead, to enforce the worst route for the access track when a far more reasonable solution is such a simple thing to do is simply bizarre and hence puts into doubt the entire proposal.

          The purpose of Engineering is to serve and advise people, and not to enforce the worst possible proposal simply because the proposers are too lazy or uncaring to modify the proposals to reduce the impact upon people who reside there.

          If I were Rotherham Council’s planning officer, Anthony Lowe, I would reject the proposal for the access route and the so called noise barrier out of hand and further move to reject the entire site location planning proposal on the grounds of inadequate and inneficient proposals and on the grounds of the proposers total unwillingness to provide adequate solutions to a sensitive site on green belt land.

          • Phil C

            It was your reasoning as to why the route where is was that I disagreed with, not the exact engineering.

            I know that the existing farm access track is close to houses and a paddock, having walked it a few times with and without the dog. I am sure that, if pressed they could relocate the access track, although I suspect other protests would ensue to that specific.

            But, as it is at present, just an exploratory well, then the amount of traffic is limited, but will, in all cases be more than if no Well was to be drilled.

            Perhaps they could have a look at Tinkers Lane, as a exemplary drilling site ( or Biscathorpe ), and locate closer to the road, and a bit further from the village. We shall see.

            • Unfortunately hewes62’s we know perfectly well that once an exploratory site becomes a production site the location and access becomes fixed and will not be relocated.

              Therefore the proposals are assumed to be for a production site and must be treated that way. The proposals for both the route of the access track and the noise barrier are clearly wrong and provocative regarding noise pollution and disturbance to the equine paddock and the local residents. Therefore that should be similarly rejected.

              I proposed at least a reasonable rearrangement of the access track which would remove the requirement for a noise barrier in the first place, and yet that does not seem to be to your approval?

              Surely if you have walked the existing track as you say you have you can attest to the quiet and rural location as a draw for your canine accompanied perambulations, and yet you still propose this site and the access route as being in the remotest way suitable for an industrial operation in green belt land?

              I find that curious, since I know and walk many of the quiet lanes and woods in the green belt near me I will fight tooth and nail to protect and preserve that dwindling joy and pleasure and would do so for the wildlife the ecology and the residents right to enjoy that for the foreseeable future.

              I must admit I fail to see the logic in your support of such an industrial development in a green belt field that is so close to a residential location?

              As you say overpage, we clearly view the world quite differently, I would protect what quiet remote rural green belt land we still yet have left to enjoy and to preserve our dwindling ecology, perhaps you do not.

              We don’t have any time left to argue about preserving green belt and rural ecology and sanctity left hewes62’s we fight for it now or it gets buried under concrete and steel now or at some future time.

              Sorry but I reject your support of this industrial intrusion into Woodsetts and there are many millions of others who will be similarly moved to protect it while we still have it left to protect.

              • Phil C

                Thanks for the reply.

                1. I disagree that a frack exploratory drill site could be developed to a multi well frack pad and not go through addition planning review and a few changes.

                2. I did not give an opinion on the siting, just your opinion as to why it was there ( INEOS putting it there as you think it is remote and rural .. less people etc.

                So happy you disagree with something I have not said yet. But to save you asking, I think a bit further from the village and a track from the crazy junction I noted in a past post would be fine.

                3. The area is not remote.

                To help you, it’s orange in the attached diagram.

                https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2011/jun/30/uk-population-mapped

                Surrey is green ( so extremely remote I guess ), but Biscathorpe is ….which you said was in a conurbation!

                But it needs to be to sell the idea that INEOS put drill sites in remote spots to have less protest, relies on stretching the truth a bit to fit the story, so be it.

                4. Concreting the countryside

                That part of the countryside is under threat from lots of concrete, plastic, steel, rare earths and so on from the need to go local rather than just import it ( energy ) or export it ( all the junk ).

                So we should welcome the wind farms, solar farms ( on their way, but unfortunately covering good agricultural land ), chicken farms, incinerators, landfill sites, bio digesters, houses ( creeping ever closer from Worksop ), and a strip of concrete, steel and trouble in the form of HS2.

                Then develop / protect the existing woodland and biodiversity sites ( primarily on ex industrial land and where tractors cannot go ) while noting that drill sites are in fields, not woods.

                So, while preventing fracking may give people a warm feeling and think they are saving biodiversity, a fair amount of construction work is required to deliver the carbon free society on your doorstep while maintaining biodiversity in the face of the above pressures (But a good chance to virtue signal rather than crack on with the day job).

                Meanwhile the councils ( Rotherham in particular ) dream of getting a large industry to move in ( as coal moved out ). No luck so far.

                5. Brownfield sites

                Here are a few … I can see why INEOS avoided them

                http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8783000/8783491.stm

                So, overall, are all anti frackers saints, and others sinners who will not enter heaven? Not so simple I guess.

                [typo corrected at poster’s request]

                • Dear hewes62’s, are you still disagreeing with my disagreement about your disagreement about my disagreement with your disagreement, and so on and so on?

                  Have we not been here before? Luckily I have a day off, so I can reply quickly, though I will not waste a lot of time on it.

                  No, hewes62’s (I use the plural as it is appropriate to the pedantic preverication of this conversation) I simply repeat what I said previously (but I won’t repeat the words, you can just scroll back a little)

                  But to address your comment (for the last time you understand….or do you?)

                  Let’s return each numbered comment shall we? Incidentally that was called disassembling and dissociation of issues which was an attempt to put into doubt the conclusions in my engineering days, since it divides up issues to retract from the main issues, and that is what I see you do here all the time.

                  H. Thanks for the reply.

                  P. Thanks for your reply.

                  H. 1. I disagree that a frack exploratory drill site could be developed to a multi well frack pad and not go through addition planning review and a few changes.

                  P. 1. I disagree with your assumption, we have seen so called exploratory sites become (intended) production sites by simply changing the planning goalposts and leaving such things as access routes unchanged as regards routes or location.

                  P(1a). Sorry, no that is rejected.

                  H. 2. I did not give an opinion on the siting, just your opinion as to why it was there ( INEOS putting it there as you think it is remote and rural .. less people etc.

                  P. (2) That is your opinion and I disagree with both your interpretation and your assumption. The Ineos siting is provocative and misplaced in the green belt and the access route is lazy and intrusive, and the so called “sound barrier” (which is nothing of the sort as I explained originally) is a further provocation and will be injective and a visual threat and an eyesore and will not prevent noise.

                  P. (2a) Sorry that is rejected.

                  H. So happy you disagree with something I have not said yet. But to save you asking, I think a bit further from the village and attack from the crazy junction I noted in a past post would be fine.

                  P. Good, we agree with something, incidentally avoiding a question does not mean I will not address it, I did and I am glad you agree.

                  P. (Good) Acceptable.

                  H. 3. The area is not remote.

                  P. (3.) Relative to what? Relatively to the residents and subjectively to the residents the area is remote, it depends upon the residents perspective and that is paramount, the industrial perspective is notoriously partial to expediency.

                  P. (3a) Sorry, that is also rejected.

                  H. To help you, it’s orange in the attached diagram.

                  H. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2011/jun/30/uk-population-mapped

                  P.(To) I neither needed or requested any help, my own resources are more than sufficient thank you.

                  H. Surrey is green ( so extremely remote I guess ), but Biscathorpe is ….which you said was in a conurbation!

                  P. (Surrey) We are talking about Woodsetts, look at the photographs and the satellite images, designation on a map that lazily makes pronouncements without local familiarity is no defence or worth. For reality, you know the site you say having walked the bridle path, for the reality consider why you chose that for a quiet walk.

                  H. But it needs to be to sell the idea that INEOS put drill sites in remote spots to have less protest, relies on stretching the truth a bit to fit the story, so be it.

                  P. (But) Who needs to “sell” the idea? As regards “stretching the truth”, since you mention it, you may need look no further than your own stretching of the truth right here? Have we not dispensed with epithets yet? Apparently not? Sorry, that is rejected also.

                  H. 4. Concreting the countryside

                  That part of the countryside is under threat from lots of concrete, plastic, steel, rare earths and so on from the need to go local rather than just import it ( energy ) or export it ( all the junk ).

                  P. (4.) Once again, two wrongs do not make a right, we are talking about Ineos proposals, not other considerations that are intended to divert from the issues.

                  P. (4a) Sorry rejected on the grounds of irrelevance to the Ineos proposals issue in hand.

                  H. So we should welcome the wind farms, solar farms ( on their way, but unfortunately covering good agricultural land ), chicken farms, incinerators, landfill sites, bio digesters, houses ( creeping ever closer from Worksop ), and a strip of concrete, steel and trouble in the form of HS2.

                  P. (So) Again, those are more side issues and I am sure that the local residents have their views on those too, however, once again, the issue is Ineos application, the other issues can and no doubt will, be dealt with elsewhere and rightly too.

                  H. Then develop / protect the existing woodland and biodiversity sites ( primarily on ex industrial land and where tractors cannot go ) while noting that drill sites are in fields, not woods.

                  P. (Then) As above, the subject is Ineos proposals, and there are two woods immediately adjacent to the proposed site, therefore woods will be affected and the field and the woods are in a green belt.

                  P. (Then(a)) Also rejected.

                  H. So, while preventing fracking may give people a warm feeling and think they are saving biodiversity, a fair amount of construction work is required to deliver the carbon free society on your doorstep while maintaining biodiversity in the face of the above pressures (But a good chance to virtue signal rather than crack on with the day job).

                  P. (So) Mere insults, rejected and returned to you with brass knobs on. (That has just discredited your entire post BTW.

                  P. (So(a)) No that is rejected completely and utterly. That is the end of that from now on.

                  Meanwhile the councils ( Rotherham in particular ) dream of getting a large industry to move in ( as coal moved out ). No luck so far.

                  P. (Meanwhile) Rejected entirely due to last insult.

                  H. 5. Brownfield sites

                  Here are a few … I can see why INEOS avoided them

                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8783000/8783491.stm

                  So, overall, are all anti frackers saints, and others sinners who will not enter heaven? Not so simple I guess.

                  P. (5.) Entirely rejected [Edited by moderator]
                  P. (!) Sinner is as sinner does.

                  P. (!) Saint is as Saint does.

                  P. (!) You pay with your humanity and your planet and you make your own choice. Unfortunately the fossil fuel industry makes the rest of us pay with our own planet, and then proceeds to attempt to take it from us, our children and future generations. Does that make the fossil fuel industry Saints or sinners?

                  P. (!) Both humanity and planet are under threat. Now that, is very simple, ever for frackers.

                  P. (5.a) All rejected completely and utterly, because you cannot keep a civil toungue and descend into pathetic epithets as per usual,

                  P. (All) Nice try at the start hewes62’s but you fell at the end, [edited by moderator]

                  Shame.

                  [“India” corrected to “Ineos” throughout at poster’s request]

  2. You cannot do right for doing wrong! If this was a school community sports centre fence, then i am sure there would not be any complaints. The fence would reduce views for ground floor apartments, but then you will most likely see the drilling mast at night by those properties with out reduced views! Come on guys make up your minds!! You chose to live beside a field which could have become more housing, a mcdonalds, a supermatket or for the very short time a drlling site, which will be cleared once gas is flowing into the grid for you to use! No-one is ever happy…

    • You are absolutely right if it were an application to build a children’s play park then there woud be absolutely no objections at all. But it’s not! It’s an application to start an expensive toxic new fossil fuel industry right near people homes. At a time when we’re supposed to be moving towards clean cheap renewables. It makes no sense at all. By the governments own admission we do not need fracked gas to provide energy security- it is not as simple as it’ll go into the national grid – for a start it’s not our gas, it’ll belong to the fracking companies to sell to whoever pays the most for it on the open market or in Ineos’ case be used as feedstock to make more and more plastic. It is not to stop fuel poverty and ‘pensioners freezing to death’’ Ineos could not care less about them. They have no social lisence for this and the people will not have it. Get lost Ineos!

      • Richard

        Where have you seen that UK shale gas has the required heavy ends ( Ethane ) to be a feedstock for the plastics industry? INEOS import US Ethane from fracked oil fields.

        If fracking resulted in cheap gas, then it would benefit energy hungry industry, such as the plastic industry.

        But as feedstock here in the UK… a bit of a stretch?

        • Hewes62, the following is lifted straight from the Ineos Shale website, “INEOS intends to move into shale gas extraction to secure a supply of competitive energy and feedstock for its UK petrochemicals businesses”. Enough said!

          • rscoley

            Yes … I read that too

            Competitive energy … they would like cheap gas and a secure supply. But we shall see if it is either.

            Petrochemicals industry …they do not just make plastic,. They use oil and gas as a feedstock for the petrochemicals industry.

            Below is an example of various things they are up to …. shale has or not.

            https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/petrochemicals-giant-ineos-invests-1bn-in-uk-assets-including-vam-facility-in-hull-1-9618813

            But they need heavy ends for the plastic. They import a lot of that from America as it is almost a byproduct of shale oil fracking ( the famous Ethane ).

            So my question stands. Where does it say that UK shale gas is suitable for plastics production feedstock?

            I think the plastic thing is a red herring, but well repeated here as it is considered evil … cheap etc.

            Just saying that INEOS want gas for their petrochemicals industry is not as exciting I guess.

            [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

  3. If it becomes production they could be drilling well after well for up to 3 decades. The people nearest to the barrier are aged people. It won’t be temporary for them, will it?

    • Trying to sneak in a 3 metre high barrier and think that no one would notice. As classic as it is ridiculous.

      The industry is doomed to failure. It can’t get plans plans passed. The minimum disruption it would need to create will fall foul of planning, permitting or other controls somewhere along the line.

      The salami slicing of applications and the amending of conditions is so transparent now. We know how they try to operate in the planning arena and challenge accordingly.

      I am surprised that any planning consultants work for the industry. It doesn’t look good for them when their plans are rejected by councils and well organised communities.

      Do ARUP still do work for Cuadrilla?

  4. Oops, David. perhaps re-read what you have just posted. It is nonsense arithmetic in addition to speculation.

    That really disappeared down the rabbit hole. Alice!

    By the way, my father when transferred to a Nursing Home, which was sited next to a main railway line, liked the noise during the day and could ask his nurses to close it out at night. No noise barrier, just very good glazing.

  5. So your father moved into a home where the railway line already existed. He made that choice. Ineos are imposing themselves upon this community and denying them such a luxury. Such logic obviously escapes your vacuous thinking, but we expect no less these days. This is just typical of how they covertly butter up a local landowner, then reverse engineer the planning application to suit their needs, without any degree of professionalism from their planners in so far as consulting with the local authority and residents. It’s little wonder the fracking industry are losing this debate.

  6. Well Dennis, after noise being an “issue” at West Newton, INEOS attempting to avoid that “issue” is in no way vacuous but an obvious attempt to mitigate. Looks like the only debate that is being lost is amongst the antis who argue against themselves.

    By the way, you need to get a little more experience in some matters before you comment. My father had NO choice. When he needed to enter a Nursing Home there was only ONE vacancy available within the area. Not unusual currently. But, what do you expect when a few Nimbys are wanting to prevent a new industry from contributing to more taxation to improve Social Care provisions. Good job we still have a few companies like INEOS who are still gifting funds to worthy causes, otherwise the situation would be even worse.

    Also, I think you will find like all developments any such alteration/variation will have to be discussed and agreed. Just had one through my door for the neighbouring new housing estate under construction-which has no noise barrier, and is around 50% completed.

  7. Once again an attempt to divert attention from the main issue regarding any and all attempts to start or expand fossil fuel extraction and combustion which is Climate Destruction!
    That issue alone should prevent the submission of any planning applications nationwide until the issue is under control worldwide.

    • Peter K
      Who is attempting to divert attention with this story?

      DOD for running it, those against fracking in Woodsetts for commenting on it, or INEOS for ( as John Powney says above ) trying to sneak a 100m long 3M high fence into the plan after alleged consultation?

  8. 41 new marine areas designated for protection around England!

    Yes, lets protect them against possible pollution from a maritime accident from UKs increasing imports of gas and oil by producing locally what we consume. Just like a larger Farm Shop concept! Do people eat more courgettes if they are grown locally compared to Spain and trucked across Europe?

    Perhaps some of us will not be encouraged to consume more if it is produced locally. Sorry Spain. My first home produced one will replace one of yours this weekend.

    See the Chinese are suggesting fracking by CO2!! Give a new lease of life to some of those diesels around PNR.

  9. No! Stop exporting the nearly a third of our home produced gas for starters- stop importing coal and gas and invest in engineering jobs andaprenticeships in clean green renewables. We’ve got to do it eventually and there’s no time like the present- To continue to destroy our planet for short term financial gain of a few individuals is selfish and greedy.

    • Careful Richard! Financial gain? You have stepped outside of the anti phrase book. According to your buddies fracking will not make a profit.

      If it does, great. The Norwegians seem to have found a way to take advantage of taxation from oil and gas to build a Sovereign Wealth Fund in excess of $1 trillion with lots of benefits for their own people and engineering jobs and apprenticeships for UK individuals via overseas investments.

      You may have missed it, but UK is investing in renewables, but there are many aspects that the public will not buy into whilst they are costly and inconvenient. So, whilst UK is using gas how about using more of our own and maybe a little less Norwegian and enjoy some of those benefits the Norwegians currently enjoy? Lovely people the Norwegians but I don’t think they are in need of our overseas aid to the already very well off. Many of the UK population could benefit.

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.