A proposal to condemn fracking as “inappropriate” in North Yorkshire failed this afternoon.
Photo: North Yorkshire County Council livestream
The motion, by Lib Dem and Green members of the county council, appeared doomed earlier this month when the Conservative leadership decided not to support it.
The wording would have declared county council opposition to fracking because of the climate emergency.
In 2016, North Yorkshire’s planning committee approved planning permission for fracking near the village of Kirby Misperton in Ryedale. The operation did not get final government approval and was never carried out.
Today’s vote is in contrast to a decision by neighbouring East Riding of Yorkshire Council, also Conservative controlled. In October 2022, it resolved to tell the government it was overwhelmingly against fracking locally.
Conservative-led Nottinghamshire County Council, which approved an application for shale gas exploration at Misson, voted last month to ban fracking on its land.
Details
Cllr Bryn Griffiths, the author of the North Yorkshire motion, said fracking was incompatible with local carbon reduction and climate change policies.
He also said the process of extracting shale gas threatened the quality of the local water supply.
Council legal officers had warned the executive that support for the motion risked accusations of bias against future applications for fracking.
Cllr Greg White, the executive member for climate change, said there was a moratorium on fracking in force in England:
“It seems to me that it is incredibly unlikely that this will be lifted.”
If it were, he said, the local minerals plan offered “a high level of protection to local residents”.
Cllr Griffiths (Lib Dem) said he had been advised that there was no risk of predetermination.
He also said actions by the Liz Truss government last year showed that moratoriums could be, and were, lifted.
Cllr Arnold Warneken (Green) said supporting the motion would send a message that “we are very serious about commitments to protect our county, our country, our environment and our planet”.
Several members of the council’s planning committee abstained in the vote.
But another member of the planning committee, Cllr Andy Brown (Green), urged councillors to support the motion. He said he was opposed to fracking not on principal, but on scientific evidence:
“I still have an open mind but so far no one has provided me with a shred of evidence that convinces me that fracking, in complex geography and complex geology like ours, is a safe activity”.
Categories: Opposition, slider
DRILL OR DROP? 
Hmm, well that’s geothermal out of the window then Mr. Brown, as another earthquake is felt in Cornwall!
Seems as if the CC like its predecessor, which voted for fracking despite the size of the expressed opposition, is not
….” very serious about commitments to protect our county, our country, our environment and our planet”,
or else lacks the necessary backbone.
Or else thinks it is a waste of tax payers money to debate something which is not a live issue.
Perhaps N. Yorks. has turned into a utopia where all social ills are sorted, and there is free time for Councillors to debate hypotheticals and record their virtue? Not according to my friends who live there so they can vote accordingly. Oh, they did, and seem to have achieved the result they wanted.
If the council isn’t allowed to formulate planning policy without being accused of pre determination there is something wrong. Surely that’s what ‘Planning’ is?
Ridiculous, but obvious, that they are deciding policy not on the basis of what is best but rather on what will incur the least displeasure from oil&gas companies with access to expensive lawyers. Policy based on cowardice.
alex Pre determination is an issue which relates to council decisions and hence planning, although it is not specific to planning and not specific to fracking. Hence if there is something wrong it relates to the overall process rather than this specific issue.
https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/resources/bank/bias-and-predetermination-in-planning-law-the-lessons-of-westferry-and-beyond/
Thanks, alex9391.
In what alternative reality is the debate on policy a waste of taxpayers’ money?
Why is a critical position on perceived social wrongs reduced by some to virtue- recording? Is a principled stance no longer possible in this fine new world?
Well, folks, it was decided that it was not worth the time by the majority. I understand the majority were the majority because they had been voted in-by a majority.
Leaves the minority to vent their spleen, but that is the fine new, and old world, the UK public have constructed over centuries. Plenty of opportunity to protest about it, as some even find an excuse to protest about things that didn’t happen-don’t they 1720!? So, wasting time and taxpayers money on imaginary events or policy may be inherent within someone’s DNA, but IMHO there are usually things that are not imaginary that could do with the resource. Maybe a debate on capital punishment in N. Yorks rather than the time spent on debating community policing? I haven’t asked my friends from N.Yorks which they would prefer, but I suspect I already know the answer.
“ Well, folks, it was decided that it was not worth the time by the majority. I understand the majority were the majority because they had been voted in-by a majority.”
And the rest of the blurb is based on this erroneous first statement. Read the account again, Martin, and justify your statement that this is what the majority decided.
Thanks for your definition of ‘majority’.
You could start by assuming that your readers are at least more able to understand than you appear to be.
You mean the bit about leadership, 1720?
How does a leadership happen, 1720? Ah, it is achieved via a majority! Then, the leadership is able to decide things like not supporting a motion, brought by a minority.
Perhaps read the DoD headline rather than try and make up your own version? Maybe you would like to introduce your own definition of “block” and “failed”?
The parrot is dead, it was killed off. Good job too, as the parrot was a cuckoo in the first place!
Come off it, Martin. Who do you think you’re fooling? Nice try at diversion, but it’s not going to fool most readers.
The majority decided not to support a motion which would have confirmed an opposition to fracking because of the climate emergency. It takes an egregious degree of naïvety to construe this as a preference for debating something else, rather than an unwelcome opportunity to nail one’s colours to the mast given the existential nature of global heating.
But few will accept the “wasting time” argument as an explanation for leadership’s cowardice. Or is the explanation more culpable than cowardice?
Either the ‘ leadership’ is not against fracking and wants to leave the door open to its corporate masters/government, being inadequately persuaded that global heating is anthropogenic. Or, it perceives party/personal advantage, justifying for the ‘’leaders’ their apparent cowardice.
It’s the reason for “ not supporting a motion, brought by a minority” which is in question, Martin, to which your response is ‘they didn’t want to waste time’. The real wasting of time here, Martin, is yours.
Bear in mind Mary Robinson’s comment, Martin. She believes that the denial of climate change is not just ignorant, but “malign and evil”, because it denies the human rights of the most vulnerable people on the planet.
There is a moratorium on fracking in UK, 1720.
It is a waste of time to discuss what can’t happen.
Could it happen in the future? Yes, it could, even if the moratorium was a ban. Could it happen in the future no matter what a local Council debated? Yes, it could.
So, currently I believe that such debates are a waste of time, and that there are plenty of motions that could be discussed which would have an impact on the lives of locals, which is what Councils are for. The time and the place for such debates is when there is a live issue-which there isn’t. Nailing colours to masts? Fictitious colours to fictitious masts is virtue signaling paid for by the voters. Might be what minority groups have left, but I would suggest for them to become a majority group in N. Yorks. they might do better focusing upon real issues.
You make a claim about cowardice. That is your usual nonsense. Someone disagrees with your point of view and you have to start making it personal. However, I will still remember you have previously posted about wanting to protest about something that happened historically that was a total waste of time, as it didn’t even happen! So, you may want to waste your own time, but I suggest there are many in N. Yorks not thinking as you do.
There was no denial of climate change within this situation, 1720.
[Edited by moderator]
I noted recently the claim about funding of fossil fuel reducing funding for alternative energy! Putting it politely, you need to research before you post. How about £6B in green subsidies for Drax, even after an 84% hike in earnings? How about $369B IRA in USA, 1720? Talking about billions not millions. Just to help with arithmetic, they are big numbers 1720, which indicate pretty huge expenditure. Fact.
Interesting the IRA one, with EU threatening a trade war in return. However, it won’t happen otherwise the EU may find it can not access US gas and oil, (including from fracking!) which is far more important than chlorinated chicken. The sort of reality those in power have to acknowledge whilst those not in power can whinge, incorrectly, that it is cowardice and they have some masts that need their attention. Meanwhile, Mr. Musk will pull back to the USA and make some more money that is actually not in short supply but being offered in very large subsidies.
If you examined the facts they may teach you something, 1720, rather than just ignore or try to distort them in an attempt to “teach” others about things you obviously have not learned yourself.
A postscript this morning.
I was surprised to find this morning that the article linked below was strangely relevant to the conduct of recent discussions as well as in its own right. Readers may have missed it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/25/feminism-men-putin-trump-abusive-men-dictators?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other