Europa’s planning application said it was “important to take into account the context of the UK’s energy and climate change policy”.

But climate change was the most mentioned reason for objecting to the proposal, cited in more than half the responses.

Many responses asked why a fossil fuel application had been submitted in a climate crisis.

One said:

“The Europa application acknowledges the existence of global warming/climate change without accepting that the consequences of burning gas from the Cloughton gas field will make matters worse. … The evidence is clear that gas should remain in the ground if we are to stand any chance of reaching our climate obligations and the application should be refused.”

Another response said:

“We are in a climate crises and all organisations have a moral obligation to achieve net zero. Fossil fuel use must be phased out. There can be no approvals for new fossil fuel projects.”

Other responses said:

“At a critical time when we are reaching irreversible tipping points in our climate crisis, this is not just about protecting our countryside; it’s about ensuring a sustainable future for our children.”

“It’s incredibly frustrating to see a proposal like this even being considered. We’re constantly taught how important it is to protect our natural world-yet here we are, facing a plan that goes against everything we’re working so hard to change.”

“I have changed my own home to heat by a heat pump. I have also installed Solar Panels with a battery system and have downsized my car. What is the point of local people trying to help the climate change situation if you go ahead with this proposal?”

“The two main responses to climate change are mitigation and adaption. The current plans and future intentions of Europa provide neither. They serve yet another example of the ‘business as usual’ attitude and approach to a worsening global climate crisis.”

Another respondent predicted that more applications would be submitted if Europa’s Burniston plans were approved:

“This then beggars the question: What is the point of anyone trying to combat climate change if this exploration goes ahead?”

Supreme Court judgement

Several responses argued that Europa’s application should have assessed the emissions from burning any gas produced at the Burniston site.

They cited last year’s Supreme Court judgement in the case successfully brought by Sarah Finch against Surrey County Council over accounting for carbon emissions.

Europa’s environmental statement, submitted with the application, did not include an assessment of emissions from burning future gas extracted, known as scope 3 emissions.

North Yorkshire Councillor, Steve Mason, said:

“Legal opinion obtained by SOS Biscathorpe in September 2024 concluded that planning authorities, even at an exploration and appraisal stage, should consider scope 3 emissions and their impacts on climate change.”

Friends of the Earth described the proposal as an “enabling application for the future extraction of significant quantities of natural gas in the long term”. The organisation said “more robust analysis on climate change impacts should have been undertaken”.

Frack Free Ryedale said the application “does not meet UK legal requirements”.

CPRE North and East Yorkshire said:

“Even though this is an exploration application – it is nonsensical to expect the applicant not to sell the produced oil to be combusted elsewhere and release greenhouse gas emissions. The applicant should be expected to produce additional information assessing the full downstream implications of the proposal prior to determination.”

One response said:

“The MPA [mineral planning authority] must, as far as practicable, be in possession of the full facts before making a decision”.

Local climate change policy

Some responses also reviewed how the Burniston proposals complied with local climate change policy.

1. The North Yorkshire minerals plan requires a climate change assessment. But Friends of the Earth said Europa’s well emissions report was not a climate change assessment. It failed to show how the proposal had taken into account impacts from climate change and include mitigation and adaptation, the organisation said.
2. North Yorkshire climate change strategy 2023-2030 makes it a duty for decision-makers to refuse proposed developments that contradict the plan. One response said:

“This development, in my opinion, is totally contrary to North Yorkshire Climate Change Strategy.”

National policy

Other responses questioned Europa’s interpretation of the UK climate legislation and emissions advice. Examples include:

1. New fossil fuel extraction methods would increase greenhouse gas emissions, challenging the attainment of legally-binding targets in of the Climate Change Act 2008 section 1(1) and the Paris Agreement
2. The application lacks commitments or mitigation strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, contradicting an obligation in the Climate Change Act section 44
3. New gas extraction contradicts advice from the Climate Change Committee for significant reductions in fossil fuel use to meet the Sixth Carbon Budget
4. New gas exploration undermines and delays the UK’s transition to net zero in 2050
5. UK Energy White Paper 2020 and the British Energy Security Strategy 2022 emphasise a shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy
6. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 161 and 163 state that planning should support the transition to net zero and should take account of the full range of climate impacts.
7. York Green Party argues that the proposal fails to meet the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 8c, because it does not mitigate climate change or be part of moving to a low carbon economy.
8. The NPPF paragraphs 7-14 set a planning objective of sustainable development. This is defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

Europa said in its application:

“the proposal is considered to be ‘sustainable development’ to which the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.”

But one response said:

“I have found no evidence in the application that supports this claim. How can a planning application to explore for (and ultimately get) gas which will be burned and add to dangerously high concentrations of greenhouse gases be described as sustainable? It is not.”

Other articles about responses to the consultation

Traffic and road safety

Landscape and tourism

Threat to wildlife and nature

Health and pollution

Proppant squeeze/fracturing and induced seismicity

Economic impact and need for gas

Too close to homes

Other application inadequacies