Transcript Friends of the Earth England Wales and Northern Ireland

Preston New Road
Naomi Luhde-Thompson – Planning Advisor
Helen Rimmer – North West Campaigner
Jake White – Legal Advisor
LCC/2014/0096 and LCC/2014/0097
Summary of issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Location
Ecology
Local economy
Noise
Transport
Waste
Well failure and groundwater pollution
Air quality and public health
Greenhouse gas emissions
Scale
Impacts
Need
Unacceptable adverse impacts
• National Planning Policy Framework 2012 “planning
applications will be assessed so as to ensure that
permitted operations do not have unacceptable
adverse impacts on the natural and historic
environment or human health, […] impacts on the
flow and quantity of surface and groundwater and
migration of contamination from the site; and take
into account the cumulative effects of multiple
impacts from individual sites and/or a number of
sites in a locality”
Location
• The development would be in clear breach of Policy
SP2 of the Fylde local plan on land use in
Countryside Areas
• Visual impact of the drilling rig, flare and
“industrialisation” of the area (setting a precedent?)
• Preston New Road site
- proximity to residents,
businesses, agriculture,
wildlife
Population density
• Lancashire 478 people per sq km
• England and Wales average 377 per sq km
• Pennsylvania 104 per
sq km
Ecological impacts
• Sensitive area on migratory path for wintering birds
utilising the Morecambe Bay and Ribble Estuary
Ramsar/SPA sites
• Connected to Ribble Estuary via
agricultural drainage ditches, Carr
Bridge Brook, Main
Drain and Ribble Estuary 6 km south
• Marton Mere SSSI 3.2 km NW of site
• 5 Biological Heritage Sites within a 1 to 3 km radius
Ecological impacts
• Protected and notable species identified in search
radius eg water vole, great crested newts otter,
kingfisher, barn owl, bats and brown hare, and 31 bird
species in the Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan
• Array stations – significant numbers of SPA qualifying
species identified eg oystercatcher, whooper swan,
pink footed geese and lapwing
Ecological impacts
• Environmental Statement identifies 15 “significant
effects”
• Insufficient detail on mitigation measures Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy not yet devised, some
incomplete (eg fields for compensatory habitat yet to be
identified)
• Natural England gave limited advice – considered certain
impacts only: LCC must assess remainder, HRA
Local economic impacts
• Planning Statement: ‘Key benefits and justification’
‘… socio economic impact at the exploration stage’
• 11 Full Time Equivalent jobs over 10 years, or 19
FTE over 6 years
– a very limited benefit
• Construction, mobilisation, drilling, hydraulic
fracturing
– “…it is likely that staff will be drawn from outside the local
area” (Environmental Statement)
• Potential adverse effects on existing strong
economic sectors not considered
– eg tourism worth £213 million to Fylde economy
Local economy and policy
• Lancashire minerals plan Policy DM 2
• “ supported … where it can be demonstrated …
proposals will … make a positive contribution to the
local and wider economy”
• Due to the limited employment creation and
insufficient consideration of adverse impacts on
existing sectors local
economic benefit has
not been demonstrated
• NPPF
Local economy
• Applicant presents economic benefits of production
as part of justification
• A report from Friends of the Earth, supported by NW
trade union councils, finds….
– Fracking job creation claims over-stated
– Job creation from fracking is short-term
but risks long-term
– Renewables and energy efficiency
create more jobs than gas
6 x per unit of power, 3 x per investment
– 24,000 jobs potential in renewables
and energy efficiency for North West
Public opposition
•
•
•
•
•
11,127 objections from public
200 in support – economic, energy security, regs
Parish Council and Borough Council objected
6000 strong petition to Council
Frack Free Lancashire – alliance of community groups,
businesses, local trades councils
• 63% Lancashire residents
want a fracking ban
(Redshift Research, Nov 2014)
Regulation
• LCC passed motions December 2012 and October
2013
• “… industry specific regulation of hydraulic fracturing
for the UK shale gas industry…”
• UK conservation charities ‘Are we fit to frack?’regulatory framework not fit for purpose
• “potential to cause significant damage … vital that …
planning authorities … adopt a precautionary
approach”
Health
Online planning practice guidance:
• “The link between planning and health has been
long established. The built and natural environments
are major determinants of health and wellbeing.”
• “The range of issues that could be considered
through the plan-making and decision-making
processes, in respect of health and healthcare
infrastructure, include how: potential pollution and
other environmental hazards, which might lead to an
adverse impact on human health, are accounted for
in the consideration of new development proposals;”
Noise
• National Planning Policy Framework paragraph
123: “Planning policies and decisions should
aim to: avoid noise from giving rise to significant
adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a
result of new development;”
• Noise impacts have been checked and
evidenced by the local planning authority, and
recommended as reason for refusal
• Health impacts from noise are well understood
and evidenced (see WHO research on
community noise)
Transport
• The forecast peak vehicle movements are:
– 104 two-way vehicle movements per day
(Appendix R1 and ARUP letter Sept 2014)
– 50 two-way HGV movements per day (officer’s
report)
• The assessment states that movements
will be spread throughout the day
but experience at other shale gas
sites including Balcombe and
Barton Moss shows in practice
vehicles arrive in convoy.
Transport – other road users
• Environmental Statement Appendix R1
“And development that increases the number of
HGV movements could potentially increase the
risk of conflicts arising between such vehicles and
vulnerable roads users including pedestrians,
cyclists and horse riders”
• Nature of the HGV traffic
(ie carrying hazardous
chemicals and flowback)
Transport
• National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (para
143) “set out environmental criteria, in line with the
policies in this Framework, against which planning
applications will be assessed so as to ensure that
permitted operations do not have unacceptable
adverse impacts on […] traffic”
• No identified waste water treatment centre
(therefore unclear transport implications) (Castle
Environmental – 160 miles return trip, FCC Knostrop
– 170 miles return trip): estimated Truck movements
to and from waste facility – 240,000 miles?
Flowback fluid / waste
• The applications claim that the hydraulic fracturing
fluid would consist only of water, silica sand,
polyacrylamide friction reducer and, as a
contingency, hydrochloric acid.
• The Environmental Permits list additional
substances (14 ‘presumed hazardous’) therefore
inconsistency
• Lack of capacity to dispose of waste: 3 plants
• Conservative estimate of volume of flowback fluid
• NORM, TENORM and heavy metals
Flowback fluid / waste
• Mobilisation of pollutants eg: cadmium, lead
• Impact of recycling flowback fluid unclear: risks
concentrating pollutants below ground
• Use 65% of available treatment capacity - over
10% is deemed ‘significant’
• Insufficient mitigation identified for effect
Risk of well failure
• BrightAnalysis EU for Friends of the Earth shows that, at
a conservative assessment, 5 - 9% of conventional oil
and gas wells fail, increasing the risk of leaks.
• Fracking for shale gas is likely to pose higher risks of
failure:
– ‘injection wells’, into which liquids or gases are
pumped, are 2-3 times more likely to leak than
conventional wells.
– wells drilled horizontally as well as vertically have a
failure rate 4 times higher than for vertical wells in the
same area.
http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/drilling-without-failreview-empirical-data-well-failure-oil-gas-wells-46473.pdf
Groundwater
• Groundwater Directive: “(5) In order to protect the
environment as a whole, and human health in
particular, detrimental concentrations of harmful
pollutants in groundwater must be avoided,
prevented or reduced.”
• Direct input of hazardous substances is prohibited,
limit input of pollutants
• Oil based drilling muds
• Risk of well failure
Groundwater
• Pennsylvania study: 248 wells polluted from oil and
gas activities 2008 – 2014
• AP study – Penn., Texas, W. Virginia: confirmed
water contamination
• EU law: absolute prohibition
• Reliance on exemption in Water Framework
Directive: query
• Sherwood (freshwater) aquifer
2.8km away
Permits - ineffective
• Flaring permitted – query whether Best
Available Technique
• Emergency planning inadequate
• “Salami slicing” regulation of the site: artificial
and overlooks risks
• Financial guarantee potentially insufficient –
not disclosed
• Post-closure monitoring: what is proposed?
• Reliance on self-regulation by the operator
Greenhouse gas emissions
• NPPF Paragraph 94: “Local planning authorities
should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and
adapt to climate change”
• Climate Change Act 2008
“(5) Level of carbon budgets
(1)The carbon budget —
(a) for the budgetary period including
the year 2020, must be such that the annual
equivalent of the carbon budget for the period is at
least 34% lower than the 1990 baseline;”
Greenhouse gas emissions
• The recital to the European Renewable Directive
2009 states that planning structures and legislation
should “take into account the contribution of
renewable energy sources towards meeting
environmental and climate change objectives, in
particular when compared to non-renewable energy
installations”
• DECC’s chief scientific advisor, Professor David
Mackay: “without global climate policies … new
fossil fuel exploitation is likely to lead to an increase
in cumulative GHG emissions and the risk of climate
change”
Greenhouse gas emissions
• LCC’s own climate commitment
30% carbon reduction by 2020
Lancashire Climate Change
Strategy
• Policy DM2 specifically notes the “reduction of
carbon emissions” is an important consideration in
relation to minerals proposals
• Using 2011 figures, this Project will increase
industrial and commercial emissions in the Fylde
area by around 9% and total emissions by 3.75%
Scale
• Bloomberg New Energy Finance has estimated that
between 10,000 - 20,000 wells may be needed for
shale gas to replace current UK imports
(Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2013, UK Shale Gas No “Get Out
Of Jail Free Card”. 21 February 2013)
• IOD / Cuadrilla report ‘Getting shale gas working’
uses scenario of 4000 wells
• If production at scale would be
unacceptable why approve
appraisal here?
• Significant cumulative effects
Sustainable development
• NPPF: “International and national bodies have set out
broad principles of sustainable evelopment. Resolution
42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly defined
sustainable development as meeting the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. The UK
Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future
set out five ‘guiding principles’ of sustainable
development: living within the planet’s environmental
limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good
governance; and using sound science responsibly.”
Sustainable development
• Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General
Assembly further stated that “while seeking to remedy
existing environmental problems, it is imperative to
influence the sources of those problems in human
activity, and economic activity in particular, and thus to
provide for sustainable development;”
(http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm)
• NPPF: “The purpose of the planning system is to
contribute to the achievement of sustainable
development. Therefore, to achieve sustainable
development, economic, social and environmental
gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously
through the planning system.”
Energy security - Use of Gas
• Timescale – most experts agree even if production goes
ahead no significant quantities until mid-2020s
• Not a transition fuel for renewables
• Government forecasts gas use as similar to now in 2030,
but we can cut gas use by …
– energy efficiency (homes, commerce, public sector
and industry)
– decarbonisation of power sector
(as recommended by CCC)
• Cut gas demand by a third
• Bank of England concerned about
Investment risk in unconventional gas
Adverse and cumulative impacts
• NPPF para 14: “granting permission unless: – any
adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed
against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole;”
• NPPF para 143: “and take into account the cumulative
effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a
number of sites in a locality;
Conclusion
• Permission should be refused on the grounds of
unacceptable adverse impacts given the limited benefits;
• Support the planning officer’s refusal on the grounds of
noise;
• But also on grounds of climate, waste, groundwater,
transport, scale, limited economic benefits