The Environment Agency (EA) has admitted mistakes in its official assessment of plans for gas drilling and fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire, following widespread criticism.

But this has failed to satisfy critics, who have called on the EA to scrap the assessment and start again.

In August 2026, the EA said it was minded to approve the permit application, by Europa Oil & Gas, for plans at Burniston. The environmental permit is considered separately from planning permission, which was refused by North Yorkshire Council earlier this year.

The EA set out its reasons for the minded to approve in a report, the draft decision document. It invited comments before making a final decision.

In past two months, the EA has been accused of errors in the draft decision document, as well as inconsistency and missing information.

The document was the subject of a formal complaint by one campaigner. There have also been numerous objections from organisations and individuals.

In an online update, the EA has responded to some of the objections:

“There are a number of minor typographical errors and inconsistencies in use of terminology, within our published draft decision document.”

“While we acknowledge these drafting errors, we would like to reassure you that they do not affect the underlying technical assessment, evidence base or regulatory considerations. 

“Our assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the relevant legal and technical requirements and remains subject to scrutiny throughout the permitting process.

“We will upload our updated decision document onto this consultation page as soon as possible. The technical assessment remains unchanged.

“We will keep the consultation open during this time.”

The update followed an earlier announcement by the EA that the public consultation on the draft decision document, due to end on 26 September 2026, would close instead 25 days later on 21 October 2026. At the time, there was no explanation about why the consultation had been extended and the EA did not respond to our questions.

The EA’s update has already been criticised by local organisations and campaigners, including Burniston Parish Council and a community group.

“EA process and report discredited”

Richard Parsons, chair of Burniston Parish Council, said the EA’s description of “minor typographical errors and inconsistencies” seemed to be “a long way from the truth”.

He said in a statement to DrillOrDrop:

“At Burniston Parish Council we have been looking with great interest at the Environment Agency report into the Europa Oil and Gas proposed gas fracking site at Burniston.

“The EA held a public meeting at Burniston as part of the planning process and the EA report process. After the meeting there was concern from both Councillors and members of this community that the EA had little understanding of the effect that fracking for gas in this location would have on the environment, both locally and further afield.

“When the report was published alongside a public consultation process it was scrutinised in great detail. A series of errors and apparent lack of understanding from the EA were identified. Our Council responded in detail.

“To call the errors ‘minor typographical errors and inconsistencies in use of terminology’ seems to be a long way from the truth. It’s a mess!

“The public response time was extended from the 23^rd of September until 21^st October, based, it would appear, on the EA report being incorrect. The report is lengthy and requires a lot of time to scrutinise and respond to. For anyone to respond accurately on the latest version of the EA report, is not possible.

“We have asked for a further public open meeting based on the evidence that is now available. To date we have received no reply.

“It appears as though the EA process and report is now discredited. We request that the EA report is withdrawn and started again. Also a public open meeting arranged prior to the report being finalised.

“At Burniston Parish Council we would take the opportunity to remind the Environment Agency of the requirements to prepare and publish a report, that is based on all the evidence and is accurate in its conclusions. Anything less, including errors and inconsistences, is not acceptable.’

“EA assurance is disingenuous”

The campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities (FFCC), welcomed the EA’s acknowledgment of drafting problems in the draft decision document.

But it added:

“Their assurance that this does not affect the technical assessment and evidence base informing their decision is disingenuous.

“It is their misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the evidence base that has led to inconsistencies in terminology. This in turn derives from their reliance on language and interpretations of evidence provided by Europa in their permit application.

“We suspect that this partial mea culpa is a face-saving first step in a process of reviewing their assessment and decision making. Extending the consultation by four weeks simply to correct a few typos is not credible – a more fundamental review is surely (and rightly) under way. And when a revised decision document is published, we expect the Environment Agency to re-start the consultation so that the new documents can be subject to the same public scrutiny as the ones they now admit are flawed.”

“EA quality control depends on public”

The EA has also responded to the formal complaint by campaigner Dennis May.

He had accused the EA of multiple problems with its handling of the Burniston permit, including:

• Failing to act in the public interest
• Providing “inaccurate, inconsistent and contradictory information”
• Aligning itself with “misleading, confected, and conflated terminology” used by Europa Oil & Gas
• Failing to remain impartial
• Regarding the public consultation as “a mere formality, irrespective of evidence”.

The EA said in response:

“We have reviewed the points you raised and agree that there are a number of minor typographical errors and inconsistencies in the use of terminology, within the published draft decision document.

“We are taking steps to correct these, and to understand how they occurred, so that we can minimise the risk of similar issues arising in future.

“We appreciate that accuracy and attention to detail are important in maintaining public confidence in our regulatory processes. While we acknowledge these drafting errors, we would like to reassure you that they do not reflect our underlying technical assessment, evidence base or regulatory considerations that form part of our determination.

“Our assessment has been undertaken in accordance with all the relevant legal and technical requirements and remains subject to scrutiny throughout the permitting process.

“We will upload an updated draft decision document onto the Citizen Space consultation webpage as soon as possible. We will keep the consultation webpage open during this time. Our technical assessment remains unchanged.

“We will then allow an extra two weeks for the consultation to run in light of the changes made.”

On Mr May’s criticism of terminology, the EA said:

“The terms used by oil and gas operators to describe their activities are not always used consistently across the industry. Unless a term is defined in law, there is no single agreed definition. When we write permits and decision documents, we often use the same terminology as the operator’s application to help readers compare the documents more easily.”

Mr May said today:

“The EAs failings in this matter are strongly indicative of systemic shortfalls in the management of the permitting process.

“It is concerning that any semblance of quality control appears to be totally dependent upon intervention by members of the public.”