The proposal by Europa to explore for gas near the North York Moors National Park “sits uncomfortably” with local climate change commitments, officials have said.

Planners at the national park authority said in a report this week that the proposed development “would mark a significant step towards potential exploitation of a fossil fuel resource” close to the national park boundary.

There was “legitimate concern” about the principle of the development, they said.

The planners concluded that the proposal for a 1.8km lateral well and a form of fracturing would “not lead to significant harm” to the North York Moors National Park because it was short-term development.

They also said the proposals would not conflict with some local and national planning policies.

But they raised concerns about parts of Europa’s planning application. They also called for more information from the company.

The proposed site, at Burniston Mill, is 800m outside the national park.

The planners’ report will be discussed at a national park meeting on Thursday 15 May 2025.

The national park’s recommendation will be considered by North Yorkshire Council (NYC), which will make the final decision.

Key concerns

The national park planners said:

• Europa’s proposal would “mark a significant step towards potential exploitation of a fossil fuel resource” close to the National Park boundary
• The issue of the proppant squeeze was “more nuanced” than the company’s argument that it was not fracking
• Europa’s assessment of dark skies over the national park was inadequate
• There was no detailed information in the application on induced seismicity, as required by local planning policy
• Europa’s assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) assumed a route that the application said elsewhere would be avoided by HGVs
• The scheme had “the potential to lead to a degree of harm” to the national park but not significant harm

More details

Climate change

The planners said:

“there is legitimate concern about the principle of the development in the wider context of climate change objectives and the wider remit of the National Park Authority as an Environmentally focused public body.”

The report referred to “specific commitments” given by North Yorkshire Council, the national park authority and the combined authority to be net zero by 2034 and carbon negative by 2040.

The report added:

“Although this proposal is for appraisal of a potential reserve of gas, it would represent a step along the pathway to potential extraction and use of further fossil fuels, which in turn would inevitably lead to an increase in GHG emissions and which would hinder the delivery of these objectives.”

Lorry route and emissions

The planners noted that Europa proposed to route heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) away from the A171 and the national park.

They said:

“generation of additional HGV traffic movements on this route through the national park would have the potential to impact adversely on national park special qualities and statutory purposes”.

But Europa’s assessment of greenhouse gas emissions assumed that HGVs would take the shortest route from the site to the destination at Teesside – using the A171 and through the national park.

The planners said if the HGVs did avoid the A171 and national park, the distance from the site to Teeside was “likely to be significantly longer”, leading to an underestimate of emissions.

Fracking

Europa has consistently said that its proppant squeeze is not fracking.

The operation would inject liquid and proppant at pressures high enough to fracture rocks to help gas flow to the surface. Proppant squeeze is not covered by the moratorium in England because the proposed volume of liquid does not meet the threshold in legislation.

But the planners said in their report that the arguments were “more nuanced” than that stated in the application.

“The target gas resource is not shale gas, and the proposals do not involve the high-volume hydraulic fracturing activities that were expected in association with commercial extraction of shale gas in the UK …

“However, the ‘tight’ nature of the target sandstones means that a form of lower volume hydraulic fracturing (a ‘proppant squeeze’) is expected to be necessary to facilitate the flow of this conventional gas. …

“The difference is therefore one of scale or degree, rather than principle.”

The report added:

“whilst it is appropriate that such development is subject to the same policy approach it is not the intention of the Mineral Planning Authorities to unreasonably restrict activity typically associated with production of conventional resources.”

Induced seismicity

A risk from proppant squeeze is seismic activity (earthquakes or tremors).

The planners said Europa’s application “does not appear to include the more detailed information and assessment” on induced seismicity. This is a requirement referred to in the North Yorkshire Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (policy M17 supporting text).

The planners said:

“it is recommended that NYC be asked to ensure it is satisfied that this issue will be adequately addressed, including via other relevant regulators”.

Dark skies

There have been concerns that the Burniston proposal could threaten the status of the North York Moors National Park as an International Dark Sky Reserve (IDSR).

Dark sky areas are classified by the level of brightness.

Europa said the national park was classified E1 (dark, relatively uninhabited rural areas).

But the national park planners said the company’s assessment “erroneously indicates” an E1 category, when IDSR status meant it should be regarded as E0 (intrinsically dark).

The planners said:

“Officers consider that [the company’s] assessment does not adequately reflect the sensitivity of the National Park as a receptor, taking into account its IDSR status.”

The report added:

“it is not clear from the proposal that all reasonably practical mitigation would be utilised to help minimise the potential for impact on the national park.”

The report also noted that the North York Moors ecologist had concluded that work on the proposed site “could still have the potential to disrupt natural behaviours of nocturnal species in the wider area, including the national park, particularly if undertaken during April to September when bats are most active”.

The planners said Europa “should be requested to consider this matter in more detail and propose all reasonably practicable mitigation measures to ensure that light pollution from the site is mitigated as far as possible”.

“No unacceptable harm” or “significant conflict”

The planners concluded Europa’s plans would not lead to “any significant conflict with national and local planning policy principles relating to onshore gas development.

They also said the proposal “would not give rise to unacceptable harm to the delivery of national park statutory purposes and the public enjoyment of its special qualities”.

Local amenity: The planners said there was “adequate assurance” that the proposal would be unlikely to give rise to unacceptable impact on the local amenity of residents of the national park. The report did, however, recognise that the nearest homes in the national park were “significantly further” from the site than those outside the park in the North Yorkshire Council area. The planners called for controls on noise, dust, odour, emissions to air and water and the removal of the drill rig, workover rig and crane at the earliest opportunities.

Landscape: The planners said if Europa adhered to the “the relatively short timescales” for the drilling rig, workover rig and crane there would be “only limited degree of harm” from the visual impact for national park residents and visitors and to the setting of the national park.

Water: The planners also said “it is not likely that the development would give rise to any harm to surface or groundwater water resources within or outside the national park”.

Update: Reaction

Frack Free Coastal Communities (FFCC), which is campaigning against Europa’s plans, responded to the planners’ report in a statement to members of the national park planning committee.

The statement said Europa’s application contained “misleading statements and carefully limited data”. FFCC invited the committee to take account of “widespread errors, inconsistencies and gaps” in the application documents.

Site choice: Europa told residents that the Burniston site had been chosen on the advice of the national park authority. FFCC said in its statement:

“It is disingenuous for the [national park] Authority to ignore impacts on local ecology and on residents to live close to the site but outside the national park on the grounds that they have no statutory responsibility in relation to those areas and residents’ wellbeing”

On climate change, FFCC said Europa planned in future to target parts of the gasfield within the national park. Maps presented to investors, showed the target area running north beyond Cloughton and towards Staintondale, the group said. These were unlike maps in the application, which showed the target stopping at the national park boundary, it added.

On HGV traffic routes, FFCC said the national park committee should postpone further consideration of the application until Europa has completed “a proper assessment” of the northern route through the national park or recalculated emissions for HGVs using the longer southern route. The cumulative impact of the increase in HGV traffic on the northern route should also be properly assessed, FFCC said.

Fracking: FFCC noted a statement on the national park authority’s website which said:

“surface development [for fracking] outside but near to the boundary of the National Park [should] be subject to more detailed scrutiny of impact on the National Park landscape, including its setting”.

Landscape impacts: FFCC said it was untrue for planners to say only the uppermost parts of the drilling rig would be visible from the national park. The statement said the ground surface of the proposed drill site was “clearly visible” from the ridge at the top of Limestone Road, in the national park.

Ecology: FFCC said the planners did not comment on “scientific, methodological and professional deficiencies” in Europa’s ecological appraisal. These have “implications for wildlife moving between the national park and the heritage coastal area, which includes the well site. The site is “a tranquil haven for wildlife”, the group added.

Equipment retention: FFCC also drew the national park’s attention to apparent contradictions in the application. Some documents said the site would be restored but others said equipment would retained on site. The group said retention of equipment suggested Europa’s intention for further development and that ‘temporary’ and short term’ descriptions could not “be taken at face value”.

Polyhalite extraction: FFCC raised the response from the operators of the Woodsmith mine about a potential conflict with the Burniston development. The national park authority had given planning permission for polyhalite extraction at the Woodsmith mine. “It would seem perverse”, the group said, for the national park to not object to a minerals development that would “effectively sterilise large areas of potential polyhalite extraction”.

Frack Free Coastal Communities will put its case to the national park planning committee. Full statement below:

• The North York Moors National Park planning committee meeting is at 10am on Thursday 15 May 2025. The meeting is in the national park office at The Old Vicarage, Bondgate, Helmsley and can be watched live online
• DrillOrDrop reported on the 1,400+ responses to the public consultation on the Burniston plans

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.