Concerns about noise were mentioned by nearly half the responses to the consultation.
Air quality was mentioned in about a third of responses, as were emissions, light pollution and the threat to water supplies.
Nearly a quarter of responses mentioned the risks to human health from Europa’s plans. At least 15% of responses mentioned odour and the impact on tranquillity.
Europa’s application said
“A number of design and management measures have been proposed to ensure that impacts from, among others, noise, air quality, landscape, and lighting are avoided or reduced. Therefore, the proposal accords with the NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework] … conserving and enhancing the natural environment.”
The company said it was not asked for a health impact assessment. It said:
“All impacts that may affect population and health are covered in the noise, flood risk and draining assessment, transport and air quality assessments.”
The planning statement said the “potential for any notable environmental and amenity impacts to arise as a result of the Proposed Development is considered low”. It also said:
“The temporary nature of the development and the relatively short time periods for each phase is an important material consideration in assessing the potential risk to health.”
What people said about health
One response said:
“I have been devastated by this application as I’m battling cancer and this is affecting my mental health. I chose to live here to be close to nature but this application will have an adverse affect on wildlife. I cannot see any benefit to the local economy or quality of life.”
Another said:
“I am very concerned about the detrimental effect (should this development go ahead) on my mental health and well-being. The constant loud drilling, 24/7, seven days a week, the frequent flaring, the toxic smells, the dust and pollution that will be created, the night floodlights and awful noise at night causing sleep disturbance that will intensify stress and anxiety.”
One response said:
“The drilling rig site is near to the homes of my former neighbours and the inevitable consequences of this major industrial development could have serious implications for their health and wellbeing.”
Another said:
“the impact on mental health will be considerable and villagers are worried about the impact on the value of their property and risk to the foundations of their property”.
Another said
“The noise and light pollution and the emission of toxic fumes and horrid smells and the prospect of 1,000 HGVs on the already congested roads in the area will have a detrimental effect on the health of residents.”
Another, referring to a nearby plant nursery, said:
“Many people, especially those suffering from mental health, love to visit a plant nursery. We have had and still do have many people who visit regularly, including those with physical and learning disabilities who enjoy and benefit from visiting a plant nursery and spending time around plants. We know from personal experience how therapeutic this environment should and must continue to be.”
Another response said “constant drilling” and major changes to the village would have an “adverse impact on locals’ mental health”.
Another said:
“This proposal will not benefit the local community in any way it is however causing major stress for people living in the area.”
A GP working in York said:
“I regularly recommend patients visit the coast as we are encouraging time in nature and ‘blue prescribing’ i.e. the mental health benefits of being near water. The drilling proposed is likely to reduce air quality and cause significant noise disturbance; both are likely to render the area unrecommendable for the purposes of recreation and relaxation.
Others said:
“People’s lives and mental health matter and surely should be priority”.
“[The proposal] may affect mine and my children’s health”
“My first concern is the impact on public health from polluting effects of the gases released into the air and the impact on local water ways.”
Pollution fears
Air quality
One response said flaring of waste gas proposed by Europa at Burniston could contravene the requirements of the Clean Air Act 1993, section 2. The response said Public Health England had warned that exposure to air pollutants from fossil fuel extraction posed “significant risks” to human health.
The response also questioned Europa’s dispersion modelling, which could underestimated the impact of the flare on air quality by about 25%
Another response said:
“As I live very close to the proposed site I am anxious about the amount of dust, light and noise pollution, the toxic fumes from the burn off and the risk of contamination to our water supply.”
Another said:
“Our house is very close to the proposed site and from a personal level we are very concerned about a range of issues including potential air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, significant traffic disruption and delays to traffic on the coastal road around Burniston.”
Light
Scalby and Newby Village Trust described night-time lighting as “unacceptable” because of its impact on the area’s designated dark skies, on local wildlife and human sleep disturbance.
Another response, referring to artificial lighting as a statutory nuisance under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, said:
“The application does not adequately assess how continuous lighting at the wellsite may impact nocturnal ecosystems and dark sky reserves.”
The response said the Environment Protection Act 1990, section 79, allows authorities to intervene in cases of excessive artificial light pollution. The response continued:
“The applicant’s failure to consider light pollution impacts on protected species, local residents, and tourism-related activities directly conflicts with these regulatory protections.”
Noise
One response criticised “the lack of comprehensive noise monitoring and mitigation measures raises concerns about the health and well-being of local residents, particularly those in close proximity to the site.”
Scalby and Newby Village Trust called for an independent review of noise levels at the proposed site.
Another response said:
“The Cleveland Way and the Cinder Track are both delightful footpaths, which I use often daily, and year round, and also used by walkers, runners, family groups, dog walkers, and cyclists….and the latter cinder track by horse riders, who may well find that their horses are dangerously startled by the inevitable loud drilling and banging noises.”
Another said:
“the noise pollution caused by its operations and also the additional HGVs carrying toxic loads and travelling on small coastal roads will not only damage the peaceful atmosphere of our local area it will also significantly impact properties close to the proposed site.”
Odour
One response said Europa’s calculations on odour assumed a continuous uniform release, which was unlikely to happen. The response also added:
“It is of note that the report on pollution is entirely based on data provided by Europa via “private communication email files’.”
Another said:
“Local businesses, such as The Barn at Flatts Farm wedding venue, would be impacted detrimentally by noxious smells, gas flaring and noise, as would local residents.”
Water supplies
Europa said the Burniston proposal accorded with local and national planning policies.
But responses reported that the application had not addressed that some local people got their water from boreholes.
A farmer said:
“On our land we have a bore hole which provides water both for the farm and our domestic use. Where this water comes from, we have no idea but we are completely reliant upon its supply & we fear that it could be polluted or lost if drilling takes place nearby.”
Another response said:
“I am also very concerned, along with local farmers, about the risks to our water supply, they will be drilling through our water table, there is always the risk of something going wrong and contamination will occur.”
Another said:
“We rely on a natural spring for our water, any possible interference with the water table would have a devastating effect for many households.”
One response said:
“If this ridiculous project is approved, I will hold the Council accountable for all/ any detrimental impacts including my water supply, noise and light pollution.”
Another response said the Burniston application, particularly the proppant squeeze, could breach obligations of the Water Resources Act 1991.
Another referred to biocides, sometimes added to fracturing fluid:
“Such biocides are dangerous, persistent poisons that are usually banned from all uses above ground. Below ground, they will inevitably contaminate the subterranean aquifers penetrated by the fracking wells where the concrete linings are always ultimately destroyed by the high pressures used.”
Other issues
Contradictions
One response said several application documents contradicted that traffic, dust, noise and visual disturbance would be for a matter of months or a year. The response gives air quality as an example:
“The air quality assessment … refers to it “likely being staggered over three years” and “unlikely” to be in a calendar year. The environmental statement projects a timescale of two years. The company are seeking permission for a three-year time window, and it is not explained why they are requiring three years. …
“the proposed development is not a short term inconvenience which will not be noticed (as the applicants attempt to convey), but will have a considerable negative impact on an area over a time scale of years.”
Local amenity
North Yorkshire’s mineral plan permits minerals development where there would be “no unacceptable impact on amenity (policy D02).
One response said Europa’s application did not comply with the minerals plan:
“The proposal does not adequately address cumulative impacts on local amenity. The area has narrow rural roads that are unsuitable for heavy goods vehicle traffic associated with hydraulic fracturing. Increased traffic, air and noise pollution, and the risk of spills or accidents present a significant threat to the wellbeing of local residents.”
Another response said the application did not “adequately address” cumulative impacts on local amenity, as required by policy D02 of the minerals plan.
“Unacceptable risk”
One response said the application also did not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 187e. This seeks to prevent developments from contribution to “unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution.” The response said:
“The proposed operations are likely to create noise and light pollution, particularly during drilling phases and vehicle movements. These impacts would seriously harm the tranquillity of the rural environment and the amenity of local residents-contrary to the above guidance.”
Other articles about responses to the consultation
Proppant squeeze/fracturing and induced seismicity
DRILL OR DROP? 