Council planners who have backed plans for lower-volume fracking in North Yorkshire have been warned they risk opening a “can of worms” over legal definitions.

Campaigner and North Yorkshire councillor, Steve Mason, questioned the officials’ recommendation to approve plans at Burniston near Scarborough for gas drilling and proppant squeeze, a form of hydraulic fracturing.

The recommendation, in a 91-page report, is due to be considered by North Yorkshire Council’s strategic planning committee next week (Friday 30 January 2026).

The company behind the Burniston scheme, Europa Oil & Gas Limited, has consistently argued that the Burniston proppant squeeze operation does not count as fracking.

 It said the proposed operation would not use enough fluid to meet the statutory definition of associated hydraulic fracturing. This is 1,000m3+ per fracture stage or 10,000m3+ in total.

But the North Yorkshire minerals and waste joint plan (MWJP) has a wider definition of fracking. It counts any operation that uses liquid pumped under pressure to fracture rocks to release hydrocarbons, regardless of volume.

Cllr Mason, of the campaign network, Frack Free United, said:

“I struggle to see how North Yorkshire Council (NYC) can make a sound decision when the very definition of fracking is the key, fundamental pivot point.”

Proppant squeeze is not prevented by the moratorium on fracking in England. But campaigners have argued this is a loophole in the law and the operation should be included in the government’s promised ban on fracking.

They also point to the low volume of fluid used in fracking for shale gas at Preston New Road that caused earthquakes and led to the introduction of the moratorium in 2019.

In a recent response to a parliamentary petition, the energy minister, Michael Shanks, said the government was reviewing lower-volume fracking, such as proppant squeeze.

Cllr Mason said:

“We have a ban in place on hydraulic fracturing, due to earthquakes, caused by operations that used volumes exceeded by this proposal.

“The government said they want to review the definition, yet NYC, in their wisdom, are proceeding into this minefield.

“The company has exploited a loophole to game the system. The conflict between national and local policy alone is a material consideration for refusal.”

Cllr Mason added:

“NYC cannot make any sound judgment when the risk is that they approve something that is already banned.

“That’s a can of worms that I would recommend they don’t open.”

“Wait for government clarity”

Simon Bowens, Yorkshire and Humber regional campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said of the planners’ report:

“This recommendation is deeply concerning. Proppant squeeze is a form of fracking, and local residents have made it crystal clear that they do not want it in their community.

“Next week, the planning committee has the opportunity to listen to the community and reject the application. At the very least, they should refuse to approve it now and delay a decision until the government’s position on proppant squeeze is clear. 

“The government has said it will ban fracking for good – this must include proppant squeeze. Failure to do so would leave the door open to further low-volume fracking schemes like the one at Burniston.”  

Concern about missing information

Professor Chris Garforth, of the local campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities (FFCC), described as “bizarre” an attempt by the planners’ report to distinguish between proppant squeeze and fracking (paragraph 10.5)

He said the report had “fairly summarised” public objections but then “largely dismissed them as insignificant”.

This was in contrast to company information, he said:

“We are surprised at how accepting of information from Europa the planning officers are in contrast to how they treat local knowledge and lived experience.

“We are also concerned about what is missing from the report, such as any acknowledgement of the Northern Route through the National Park which is still in play; lack of any consideration of seismic risk which they are supposed to carefully scrutinise under Policy M17 of the MWJP; lack of Health Impact Assessment as required by MWJP M17 where hydraulic fracturing is proposed.”

Professor Garforth said FFCC was disappointed that proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework received “no more than negligible weight” in the report as a material planning consideration.

“Hope for democratic courage”

John Atkinson, of the campaign group, Frack Free Scarborough, said:

“We’re disappointed but not disheartened that the planning officers have recommended approval.

“We’ve seen this pattern before – including at Arreton on the Isle of Wight, and Preston New Road in Lancashire. Local councillors listened to their communities despite the advice from their officers. I’m hopeful we’ll see the same democratic courage next Friday.

“Our message to supporters remains unchanged: the committee needs to hear us loud and clear. Let’s turn out in force and show them we won’t be fracked without a fight.”