Cuadrilla should be given an extra two years to return its controversial fracking site near Blackpool to farmland, council planners have said.
In a report published yesterday, officials recommended approval of the company’s planning application to postpone the deadline for restoration at the Preston New Road shale gas site until 30 June 2025.
The site has been largely mothballed since August 2019, when fracking caused a 2.9ML earthquake, felt across the Fylde region.
The regulator, now the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), ordered fracking to stop at the site. Just over two months later, the government introduced a moratorium on fracking in England.
Cuadrilla’s application for more time is due to be discussed at a meeting of Lancashire County Council’s development control committee next week (Wednesday 7 June 2023).
The existing planning permission, granted by the local government secretary in October 2016, required all drilling, fracking, testing and restoration to be completed within 75 months of the start of work. Cuadrilla and residents have previously reported the permission was due to expire on 5 April 2023.
The 17-page report by Jonathan Haine, head of development control, said:
“It is unfortunate that the site restoration works have not commenced before now, but a number of factors have occurred which have resulted in the restoration works being deferred.
“The retention of the site for a longer period would result in an extension of the existing landscape and visual effects, although for a relatively short additional period. There is no evidence that the site cannot be restored to an adequate standard.”
“Blatant disregard of planning laws”
The company’s request to vary condition 2 and delay restoration has been opposed by local councils and residents.
Fylde Borough Council said the site was an industrial development and the “excessive” time extension sought by Cuadrilla meant there would be intrusion on the countryside “without appropriate justification”.
Westby Parish Council strongly objected to the extension and supported comments made by the local county councillor, John Singleton.
Cllr Singleton (Conservative) said the application should be refused. Residents had been affected by multiple earth tremors, he said, and the company had sufficient time to adhere to the planning conditions and complete restoration.
He described the request for an extension as “a blatant disregard for planning laws”:
“The company was only too well aware of the terms of the original fracking application, including the decommission dates, and is now attempting to pervert the course of proceedings through this application.
“They have had sufficient time to adhere to the planning conditions … and the company’s obligations to restoring this land to open countryside should have been completed in a timely manner.”
He added:
“The people of Fylde have had enough of the threat of fracking.
“There has been a clear breach of, and contempt for, the planning laws. Not only that, the company’s cynical methods are immoral and need to cease.”
There were another 84 objections, including from the local MP Mark Menzies, Preston New Road liaison committee and the campaign organisations Preston New Road Action Group, Roseacre Awareness Group and Friends of the Earth.
These public comments have not been published online. According to the planners’ report, the objections included:
- Lancashire County Council has a poor record by the county council for upholding planning conditions
- Cuadrilla has a history of delaying restoration at its Lancashire sites at Grange Road, Becconsall and Preese Hall
- There are no reuse options for the site or the possibility of restarting fracking
- Cuadrilla should have obtained equipment and permits necessary to restore the site in the required time-frame
- The proposed extension is too long and breaches another condition of the original planning permission.
- The flare stacks remain visible over the site fencing, breaching another condition
- The proposed extension is not in the local interest
- The site is an eyesore and affects property values
- The planned extended flow test of the wells never took place and restoration should have been required after the initial testing phase.
According to the report, Mr Menzies said there were no grounds to grant any extension and Cuadrilla should be held to the terms of the original planning permission.
The report said Friends of the Earth described the requested extension as inconsistent with national and local policy and the decision of the original consent. The organisation is said to have commented that site restoration had been postponed deliberately in the hope that government policy on shale gas would change and allow fracking to resume.
“Sequential process to be followed”
The report concluded:
“The requirement for the site to be restored at the earliest stage possible is acknowledged. However, it is important to understand that there is a sequential process to be followed as shown in the table above. This process will take time to complete.”
It said the environmental permit must be surrendered before restoration work could start and permit surrender could begin only after a period of groundwater monitoring.
According to the report, Cuadrilla was asked whether it could remove the acoustic and security fencing at an earlier stage. The company said this would be inefficient and would raise security concerns. It did, however, say “there is a possibility to remove the flare stack at an earlier stage”, the report said.
The Environment Agency recommended that Lancashire County Council should ensure Cuadrilla could pay for well decommissioning, site restoration and closure. The report said there was “no basis for seeking a restoration bond or other form of guarantee”.
The report recommended 13 conditions include controls on noise, dust and working hours, along with time limits on work, requirements for restoration and aftercare schemes and the removal of plant, buildings, hardstanding and fencing.
In its application, Cuadrilla said it would be “impracticable to deliver a planned plugging, decommissioning and site restoration by April 2023”.
It said the extension represented “sustainable use of an existing site”. It would allow a “reasonable timeframe” for site infrastructure to be removed. It proposed three phases:
- Continued well suspension, wellhead maintenance and data collection
- Decommissioning the wells – work to continue until early 2025
- Site restoration to begin early in 2025
The company did not propose in this application any further drilling or fracking at Preston New Road.
Timing conflict
In his report, Mr Haine said work at Preston New Road officially began on 4 April 2017 and the 75-month period in condition 2 would expire on 4 July 2023.
This appears to contradict the site notice for the application, issued on 1 December 2022, which said the 75 months expired on 5 April 2023. Cuadrilla issued a statement that site construction had begun at Preston New Road on 5 January 2017. Photos show work was underway in January 2017 and the site was being formed by March 2017.
A spokesperson for Preston New Road Action Group said:
“It beggars belief that LCC Planning can get simple facts wrong on such a well documented and controversial site.
“As anyone with an interest in the frack site knows, Cuadrilla started work on it the moment they got the go ahead from the Lancashire County Council Planners.
“In fact Cuadrilla’s announcement that they had started work in January 2017 can still be found on their web site. Clearly Cuadrilla have already breached the condition on site restoration and one wonders if LCC are trying to hide this fact for some reason.
“It is a shame that the eagerness with which Cuadrilla started work on the site is notably absent when it comes to restoring the site. Their much touted desire to be ‘good neighbours’ seems to have evaporated.”
Nick Danby, a spokesperson for Frack Free Lancashire and a local councillor, said:
“Fracking in the UK is finished. The current government has made it plain that there is no prospect of any resumption of fracking and the opposition parties have all made it equally plain that they are opposed to fracking.
“The only party still not recognising the futility of fracking is Cuadrilla. It really is about time that Lancashire County Council made a stand. There are absolutely no grounds for extending the timetable for the restoration of the Preston New Road site and Cuadrilla’s application should be refused. This is yet another ploy by Cuadrilla to avoid their responsibilities and we do not want the cost of clean-up and restoration to fall to the taxpayer.
“The community has had enough of Cuadrilla and their cavalier attitude to the regulatory framework. They should restore the site and get out of town.”
Photo: Frack Free Creators Knitting Nannas of Lancashire
Cuadrilla had planned to begin well decommissioning at Preston New Road in March 2022.
The NSTA had issued an order to plug and abandon both wells at the site by June 2023. But this was replaced a month later with a well suspension notice that allowed both wells to remain suspended until 30 June 2023.
The NSTA will now either agree to:
- A plan to reuse one or both wells
- A plan to bring one or both into production
- Require one or both wells to be plugged and abandoned.
The current application assumes the wells will be abandoned. If NSTA agrees to production or reuse then further planning applications will be needed.
- DrillOrDrop will be reporting from the development control committee meeting on Wednesday 7 June 2023. The meeting begins at 10.30am in Committee Room ‘B’ – The Diamond Jubilee Room, County Hall, Preston. Link to agenda
Since this article was published, Mr Haine has accepted that the start date given in his report is incorrect and will be corrected at the committee meeting. He accepted that planning permission expired in April 2023.
Categories: Regulation, slider
DRILL OR DROP? 
I would be more worried about John’s house subsiding following geothermal-well, I wouldn’t actually, it would appeal to my sense of humour. It has certainly had issues in Germany in that respect.
Noted today the big fall in house prices across the UK. Hmm, so people can’t afford high energy prices and high mortgage rates, so house prices drop. Weren’t “we” told they would drop if people could afford their subsidized energy prices?
Can’t really see what the fuss is about. If the landowner is content with the site restoration program, then surely locals can just drive a different route if they find such a sight/site so visually unappealing? After all, just think of all those dirty wheels that restoration would put onto local roads.
It’s far more than the visual effects of the site and in any case why should we be the ones to use a different route? We locals have lived under the threat of Cuadrilla since 2011 They know they’re not wanted. The recent vote in Parliament made that clear too when even Tory MPs voted against fracking. Cuadrilla were all set to concrete the wells and restore the site last year until their short lived reprieve. The crane had actually moved in and begun by removing one of the flare stacks. Now they’re making excuses to delay restoration until the beginning of 2025. We’ve had enough of their delaying tactics.
There are many developments in my neck of the woods I don’t like Pauline, yet they remain. In terms of this one, you no longer live under the “threat” as you call it. There is a bit of untidiness in the countryside. There is a lot elsewhere.
It is a lot of manufactured fuss about nothing. Much like the last few years activity, but more so. To me, it indicates that even when there is no “threat” some are finding it difficult to move on with their lives and are trying to get excited about nothing. Goodness knows what outrage there will be if something is spilled on the road during restoration, or if a bush dies.
Not sure your support for the Tory vote holds much water. They are the ones who also want to preclude your rights to “party”! However, nice to see that even without the “threat” you can maintain your selectivity.
Contrary to you patronising comments, until that site is restored to farmland local people will always feel under threat of the return of fracking. Liz Truss, Rees Mogg and their supporters proved us right on that. As far as ‘my support for the Tory vote’ is concerned, I would never, ever support or trust anything the Tories say or do.
As far as ‘some are finding it difficult to move on’ is concerned I would respectfully say that’s more your problem than ours. You are the one who spends an awful lot of time defending this indefensible industry.
The return of fracking is absolutely no way connected to that site, Pauline, so why local people should feel that threat is totally illogical. In terms of probability, if fracking was to return then I would suggest it would be far more likely to return elsewhere.
I am afraid being illogical is commonplace, but I don’t see it as a valid argument. “Why should we be the ones to use a different route” should have been a warning. You, and your buddies, spent years imposing that upon others, yet you are now aghast at volunteering to do the same thing.
In terms of the “indefensible industry”, that would be the one that is currently supplying UK and other European countries with large quantities of gas, that due to the costs of LNG production, is exacerbating a cost of living crises to millions? Indefensible that UK has offshored the indefensible industry to USA so that fortunes are being made in USA-according to one of the antis-and no windfall tax is being levied in order to assist UK consumers. Those are facts Pauline. You may find it inconvenient to deal with them, but everyone in UK is having to, and the decision by OPEC+ to further reduce oil output should be a warning that such suppliers do have a habit of making sure the price of energy is controlled. Your previous actions just make that job easier.
Paul – my figures were for a single pad. As I pointed out even a four well pad (PNR only got to 3) would require over 16,000 truck movements according to Cuadrilla / EU Commission data.
As to energy comparisons, I wasn’t making any. I was merely responding to your suggestion that a geothermal well would “bring more HGVs ” which I don’t think is in any way supported by the facts.