Minerals Local Plan Issues and Options consultation

(See full attached representation for footnotes and tables)

New Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan (Issues and Options Consultation)

Friends of the Earth (FoE) England, Wales and Northern Ireland is grateful for an opportunity to respond to the Issues and Options consultation on the Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan. Our comments are made with specific regard to hydrocarbon extraction (re Question 24):

Are you aware of any issues relating to hydrocarbon extraction that should be considered through the Minerals Local Plan Review?

Our comments include considerations which we feel are relevant to the above question, and draw on points we have championed in the formation of minerals local plans in other authority areas where these are also relevant to the Nottinghamshire context.

- Matter 1: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
- Matter 2: Local Impacts
- Matter 3: Precautionary principle
- Matter 4: Surface and Sub-Surface Restrictions (AHVF)
- Matter 5: Coal phase out
- Matter 6: Sustainability Appraisal

These issues should be considered when setting out plan objectives and policies, which should ensure tests of soundness are met regarding NPPF paragraph 182:

"The local plan will be examined by an independent inspector whose role it is to assess whether... it is sound...namely:
- Positively prepared: based on a strategy which seeks objectively assessed requirements
...consistent with achieving sustainable development
- Justified: The plan should be the most appropriate strategy, considered against the reasonable alternatives; based on proportionate evidence
- Effective: ...deliverable over its plan period...
- Consistent with national policy: ...enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with policies in the Framework
-
Matter 1: Climate Change Mitigation

1. As highlighted to other minerals authorities, Section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004)1 puts an obligation on plan-making authorities to ensure the following:

"Development plan documents must (taken as a whole) include policies designed to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority's area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change"

2. The wording of the 2004 act is also reflected in the NPPF2, which states:

"...Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change [footnote 16], taking full account of flood risk, coastal change and water supply and demand considerations."

3. Footnote 16 of the NPPF refers to the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act (2008), including binding targets such as:

"...the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline."

4. Friends of the Earth has sought a legal opinion on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), Climate Change Act (2008) and NPPF in relation to this climate change duty that applies to plan- making.

5. The advice received makes it clear that when formulating local plans, planning authorities are duty bound to produce policies that contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. This requirement links to the tests of soundness referred to above3; specifically, that plans (taken as a whole) that do not include policies covering climate change mitigation and adaptation will lead to the plan being considered 'unsound'. Such plans cannot be considered "consistent with national policy"; linked to the delivery of sustainable development or "justified" in light of being the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives.

6. FOE planners attended the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Plan Examination in Public (EiP) in November 2016. Following arguments made in relation to the Section 19 Duty (PCPA 2004), the Inspector agreed with our reasoning that Cumbria Policy DC 13 (Criteria for Energy Minerals) would be unsound4 without reference to climate change mitigation. Following EiP, the policy's wording includes such consideration as set out below:

Exploration and appraisal of hydrocarbons

Planning permission will be granted for proposals for exploration and appraisal of oil and gas resources provided that:

...c. the impacts of the development have been considered in relation to impact on climate change; and...5

...Commercial exploitation of hydrocarbons

Planning permission will be granted for proposals for commercial exploitation of oil and gas, provided that:

...e. the impact of the development has been considered in terms of contributing to the mitigation of climate change.
7. In addition to the Cumbria example, other adopted minerals plans also reference climate change mitigation as a consideration for hydrocarbon exploration and production. Policy DM2 of the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Plan is explicit in targeting carbon emissions:

"...developments will be supported for minerals or waste developments where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the mineral and waste planning authority, by the provision of appropriate information, that the proposals will, where appropriate, make a positive contribution to the: [from set of bullets] Reduction of carbon emissions6 [our bold]
8. Linked to the above examples and following further inquiry from FoE, PINS have now confirmed that they have amended their Examination Report template for use by all inspectors. This template will now:

"...include a specific reference to s19(1A) as a reminder to ensure that it has been considered and a reference included in the final report..."

9. It's worth noting also that in some recent Public Inquiries, PINS has considered the environmental effects of mineral extraction in light of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, PINS made a requirement for the developer of a proposed open cast coal mine to provide information as to greenhouse gas emissions arising from the burning of coal extracted from the project (re Highthorn)7.

10. In light of the above legal duty, mineral policy precedents set elsewhere (e.g. Cumbria MWLP and Lancashire MWLP), together with methodological updates from PINS, Nottinghamshire CC minerals policies should seek similar requirements with regards climate change. We believe this to be necessary for reasons of soundness and legal compliance as set out in paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

11. Forthcoming hydrocarbon policies are unlikely to be compliant with the Section 19(1A) Duty or the NPPF8, unless they are worded proactively, ensuring schemes: "contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change."9. While this may prove difficult in light of the weight put on mineral extraction, the tests of soundness explicitly state policies need to be consistent with and enable the delivery of sustainable development. The environmental dimension to sustainable development, as planners are fully aware, includes a range of environmental considerations which are relevant in the planning balance, as well as mineral extraction and the legal and policy requirements noted above. These should carry weight in sound policy formation going forward. Our view is that any unconventional oil/gas polices should adequately reflect this dimension.


Matter 2: Local Impacts

12. FoE have concerns regarding the local impacts of unconventional hydrocarbon extraction. Such impacts can relate to the health and wellbeing of residents, water and air quality, noise amenity, traffic movements and those arising from 24-hour operation from exploration, appraisal and extraction development stages. A separate fracking policy that considers such impacts is advisable to capture these and other impacts.

13. As has been demonstrated by existing fracking sites, it appears that some impacts remain unacceptable after development has commenced, despite the myriad of planning conditions set out to address adverse impacts and ensure these are made acceptable. It is also evident - based on research from two existing fracking sites in North Yorkshire and Lancashire - that the developers will seek to vary conditions once permission is given, where they perceive them to be "too restrictive" (including operational hours, drill rig heights, restoration timescales etc.). We would ask for supporting text that highlights the council will check the implementation of conditions and will take necessary enforcement action if they are not complied with. We consider adherence to such conditions to be essential in order for adverse impacts to be addressed. Moreover, it is important that over time developers do not come to view conditions as optional, rather than a requirement.

Air

14. Air quality impacts resulting from fracking developments have been shown to pose health risks at the local level. Until reliable British datasets become available, comparables from fracking sites outside the UK are required. Research from the University of Colorado10 documents a number of potentially toxic petroleum hydrocarbons in the air near to fracking wells, including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene. Benzene has been identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a known carcinogen. In addition, further research suggests the practices linked to fracking exploration and appraisal, including use of diesel engines to power drilling rigs can lead to very fine diesel soot particles lodging deep within human lungs, significantly increasing health risks11. Planning Practice Guidance states that when considering air quality:

"It is important that the potential impact of new development on air quality is taken into account in planning where the national assessment indicates that relevant limits have been exceeded or are near the limit".12

15. With regard to air quality and new developments, the NPPF states that the planning system has a key role to play in:

"...preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability;"13

16. The potential for even moderate air quality impact is a key issue and very current within public discourse. The recent Client Earth High Court case is relevant14, resulting in the Government losing its case as the High Court recognised a failure to deliver objectives linked to the (supra-national) EU Air Quality Directive for London and other cities across the UK. This has been followed up more recently with the European Commission's issuing a final warning to the British Government over Air Quality breaches within cities across the UK, including Leeds, York, London, Hull and Southampton15. While such warnings may not include Nottinghamshire (yet), air quality is an ever- increasing issue and a realistic approach to air quality should be applied at fracking sites (especially linked to diesel particulates and fugitive emissions). This would ensure that relevant policies are robust and based on appropriate evidence and thus more likely to meet NPPF tests of soundness.

Noise

17. Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states:

"...when developing noise limits, recognise that some noisy short-term activities, which may otherwise be regarded as unacceptable, are unavoidable to facilitate minerals extraction..." [our bold]

18. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF then suggests local authorities should:

"...ensure unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties"

19. The intensive 24-hour nature of exploratory and appraisal drilling is not a "noisy short term activity" as defined in national policy above. Compared to blasting works in a quarry that might last for a few seconds, fracking involves more perennial day and night time drilling activity, albeit over the medium term (5+ months at a time). Such continuous noisy activity can be detrimental to public health. Whether such schemes would abide with the above noise guidance applicable to aggregates is questionable. Any policy should reflect these concerns, and require they be fully addressed, rather than suggest a scheme's acceptability if such concerns can be minimised or mitigated to an acceptable level using conditions. Policy expectations should include requirements to "establish appropriate noise limits to extraction" as stated at paragraph 144, based on background noise monitoring and modelling methodologies that address all noises associated with site operation.

20. Noise is a particularly sensitive issue for unconventional hydrocarbon extraction, given that 24- hour drilling (for exploratory and appraisal sites) highlighted above is likely to lead levels significantly above ambient night-time limits allowed for types of development (such as wind turbines which are considered under a separate ETSU methodology). While fracking benefits from greater acceptable noise limits, it is often proposed in more remote rural areas with lower background night-time noise levels - increasing the potential of sleepless nights for local residents. The need to curb noise levels from fracking sites, both within policy formation and planning conditions cannot be highlighted enough, especially to protect local public health16.

21. Evidence however suggests that even with relevant planning conditions in place, the lack of in-house noise specialism (in allowing badly worded noise monitoring methodologies) has rendered relevant conditions (and ability to enforce) as ineffectual. For example, exploratory fracking allowed on appeal by the Secretary of State at Preston New Road (c/o Lancashire CC)17 included a requirement to stream 24-hour noise data to Lancashire County Council. The aim was to ensure absolute, hourly average and tonal noise limits were not exceeded from fracking activities coming "from the site".

22. The same authority then allowed a non-material amendment (NMA) for this site, which effectively enables 9 convoys of up to 30 HGVs to enter the fracking site at any time of the day or night over the next few development phases18, Justification was based on noise limits not having been breached previously when a convoy entered the site at 4am (in breach of operational hours). The noise methodology however "corrects" road noise with that from a proxy noise receptor, itself located away from the road. Essentially, overall noise limits aren't officially breached by HGVs (even at 3am) once "corrected" - representing disproportionate flexibility given to the developer when the conditions were discussed at appeal. The decision to allow HGVs to enter the site at any time will likely have deleterious consequences for local residents, despite strong community opposition because the minerals authority's ability to hold the developer to account has been hindered by a badly worded noise condition and subsequent correction methodology. Despite the detail, such circumstances should serve as food for thought for policy making going forward in Nottinghamshire, where the aim should be to have specific regard to noise impacts arising from delivery/construction/commercial vehicles coming to and leaving fracking sites, as well as noise from the site itself.

23. Additional evidence from other drilling sites also questions the ability of oil and gas developers to comply with noise conditions at certain stages of the development process. A separate exploratory drill site in Lancashire demonstrates that the operator was unable to comply with noise limits set for the plugging and abandonment of the well, with an application submitted (and granted) to vary this condition19, despite proximity to European protected sites.


Landscape and Visual Impact

24. Landscape and visual impact has been cited as a valid reason for refusal for fracking applications in other parts of England, again at Preston New Road, Lancashire20. Our view is that 24 hour lit drilling rigs and associated infrastructure for exploratory and appraisal phases (together with lower lying infrastructures) are highly industrialising developments within rural contexts.

25. While the Secretary of State overturned their claimed industrialising nature as a reason for refusal21, the visual impact was acknowledged and mitigated by requiring a substantial reduction in the height of the drilling rig to 36m (instead of planned 56m). This was done via a revised planning condition set by the Inspector. This represents mitigation against tangible landscape and visual impact concerns, and we would question the ability of developers to comply with such constraints, without first seeking to vary such conditions. In this context, but a different site, a non-material amendment was again received (and granted) by Lancashire County Council to increase the height of one of its restoration rigs by 30% (i.e. 22m to 33m)22 at an exploratory drilling site. Fracking operators seem happy to comply with stringent conditions to get approval, but incremental variations are undoubtedly likely follow suite once the principle of the development is officially consented.

26. Our view is that planning conditions should make developments acceptable but also be subject to rigorous enforcement. If conditions cannot be enforced, or it is obvious that a developer will not be able to comply, then the principle of the development must be brought into question in the first instance. In terms of landscape and visual impact compliance, forthcoming fracking policy should direct that all applications (EIA and non-EIA) include a robust Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) - with due regard to appropriate industry methodology23 - to make it robust and justified.

Traffic

27. Fracking schemes bring with them potential for a significant increase in traffic movements, as well as risks to highway safety. Even with a traffic management plan in place, incidences of non-compliance are common; particularly for unconventional oil and gas developments24.

28. Fracking developments require numerous well pads; large volumes of flow-back water necessitating special offsite treatment and potential for fracked gas to all be transported via HGV/HCV. This translates into substantial increases in HGV movements, usually on rural road networks adjacent to fracking sites and to the detriment of highway safety (especially for those using non-car modes).

29. Despite the more abstract capacity of adopted highways to absorb such increases in trip generation, the cumulative capacity of smaller roads and relative impacts on the safety of non-car users requires careful consideration going forward; especially if the same roads are to be used by HGVs from multiple fracking sites. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states local authorities should ensure:

"...no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites".

30. The safety of highway users, including walkers and cyclists, should not be ignored, especially in a cumulative sense and in the more rural parts of the authority area. In many areas, pavements only exist within settlements; leading to the connecting roads in-between settlements being used by pedestrians, as well as HGVs. Overall, any policy approach should require robust transport assessments, to demonstrate with evidence not just additional HGV capacity is available, but that highway safety of a range of users will not be put at risk. Many highway authorities will simply rely on road accident statistics to suggest the acceptability of a scheme going forward, however such statistics are unlikely to factor in cumulative traffic impacts of fracking and perhaps a more in-depth qualitative approach is required to judge highway safety going forward.

Associated Local Impacts

31. Other non-direct impacts are also worthy of policy consideration. HGVs making deliveries to fracking sites may drive either through or near to an AQMA and consideration should be included within relevant policies going forward. Public Health England recently requested that silica mineral extraction in Cheshire East (and Cheshire West) demonstrate air quality impacts for HGVs travelling for Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) on route to site25. The recent submission version of the North Yorkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan - specifically Policy M17 - incudes such an allowance within its transport policies.26

32. The potential for fracking developments to impact on local landscape designations within other statutory development plans (such as Rushcliffe Borough) should also be recognised within fracking policies at the county level, such as recognised by the North Yorkshire Minerals and Waste Joint Plan following representations by ourselves and other local groups:

In some parts of the Plan area affected by PEDLs (Petroleum Exploration and Development License), areas of locally important landscapes have been identified in District and Borough local plans. Where these continue to form part of the statutory development plan, and are relevant to a proposal which falls to be determined by North Yorkshire County Council as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority, regard will be had to the requirements of any associated local plan policy.27

33. While positive, such wording should be included within the relevant fracking or landscape policy wording itself, gaining greater weight when applications are considered going forward for hydrocarbon developments. We would ask Notts. CC to factor in consideration for locally protected landscape designations in other district/borough plans within its future minerals policies.


Matter 3: Precautionary principle

34. Friends of the Earth considers that, in order to be consistent with national policy, forthcoming policies should require screening for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for all hydraulic fracturing proposals.

35. Row 2(e) of the Table in Para.1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 provides that surface industrial installations for the extraction of coal, petroleum, natural gas and ores and bituminous shale shall be considered 'Schedule 2 development' where the area of the development exceeds 0.5 hectare, triggering EIA screening where development is likely to introduce significant effects to the environment. It should be noted that this provision is not specifically particular to hydraulic fracturing projects.

36. Among safeguards introduced by the Infrastructure Act 2015 relating to onshore hydraulic fracturing, a new Section.4A was inserted into the Petroleum Act 1998 whereby the Secretary of State is not to grant a hydraulic fracturing consent unless satisfied that certain conditions have been met. s.4A(5) comprises a table setting out those conditions and the documents by which the Secretary of State may be satisfied that the condition is met. So far as is relevant, s.4A(5) provides that:

Column 1: conditions

1 The environmental impact of the development which includes the relevant well has been taken into account by the local planning authority

Column 2: documents

A notice given by the local planning authority that the environmental information was taken into account in deciding to grant the relevant planning permission

37. The Government's guidance document on s.4A replicates the above table, providing guidance in a third column, 28, which in relation to row no.1 cited above, provides as follows:

'The environmental impact of the development which includes the relevant well has been taken into account by the local planning authority. A notice given by the local planning authority that the environmental information was taken into account in deciding to grant the relevant planning permission The local planning authority (this is defined in section 4B to include the Secretary of State) is expected to provide a notice, copied to the Licensee, confirming that the environmental information was taken into account when it decided to grant the relevant planning permission. Licensees can provide BEIS with the notice as evidence of compliance with condition 1. We would expect the environmental information taken into account by the local planning authority to be in the form of an environmental impact assessment (EIA). Licensees can also provide a copy of the environmental statement which was provided to the local planning authority.' [our emphasis added]

38. In line with our submissions to previous consultations, the above Government guidance, in common with the broader approach under the 2015 Act, reflects the precautionary principle. Any forthcoming Minerals Plan should reflect this approach within its policy wording.


Matter 4: Surface and Sub-Surface Restrictions (non-fracking)

39. We would ask the plan-making authority to ensure adequate protection to be provided against all types of unconventional hydrocarbon development, including schemes utilising fluid amounts below the thresholds set out within legislation29 and policy30 for "protected areas" (re "associated hydraulic fracturing" or AHF).

40. Sound hydrocarbon policies aim should protect the surfaces of 'protected areas' (and indeed other sensitive designations and landscapes outside of such areas) from non-AHF development. For example, an unconventional drilling operation proposing the use of 999 m3 fluid at any stage (and less than 10,000 m3 fluid total) would fall outside of the AHF definition and be theoretically permitted (subject to other policy tests) within protected areas. Indeed, Friends of the Earth have objected to proposals in other parts of the England, due to very similar impacts to "hydraulic fracturing" developments.

41. One such proposal went to Public Inquiry in November 2017 after having been refused twice (following two separate applications) on water quality by North Lincolnshire Council31. The developers maintained the proposals did not meet the AHF thresholds and therefore associated risks to water quality (and other local impacts) were not comparable to hydraulic fracking. This "non-fracking" scheme however - in our view - presented almost identical landscape, water, noise, ecology and traffic impacts as an AHF scheme. For example, the scheme proposed the injection of a hydrochloric (mud) acid mix to form hydrofluoric acid deep underground, in order to "wash" the borehole and free up hydrocarbons. This acid mix was to be pumped 1800m down the well to:

"create hydrofluoric acid deep underground within the Ashover Grit and near wellbore area, and this reaction then dissolves the fine particles and solids that are blocking the natural pores of the rock, and blocking the perforations (holes) in the arising".32
42. Following the above process, a one-off proppant squeeze was then proposed, whereby tiny ceramic beads were to be injected into the ground at pressure to open up pores/fractures and prop them open to allow hydrocarbons to flow. The council centred their defence on risks to water quality (specifically linked to a local aquifer), stating despite appropriate permitting from the EA, the associated risk had not been satisfactorily mitigated. On the 4th January 2018, PINS dismissed the two appeals, citing that water quality was indeed a concern33, despite the scheme not officially being AHF, but a form of fracking.

43. Before the above PINS decision, mineral planning authorities might have been forgiven for thinking that non AHF proposals were unlikely to introduce similar levels of impact or concern as fracking schemes. National legislation, planning policy and guidance seem to be worded to suggest that "protected areas" should only be protected from AHF schemes, when in fact, almost identical risks are applicable to smaller proposals using either identical methods (or acidisation).

44. Our view is that local policy protections are needed against non-AHF proposals for these areas and also others without such protections. Notts.CC would be justified in ensuring its hydrocarbon policies attempted to capture the subtle variations of non AHF schemes oil and gas operators are beginning to use to get around surface and sub-surface constraints for AHF within legislation and OPPG34. While the Wressle proposal was not proposed in a protected area, it could well have been. Local policies should therefore replicate relevant protections in place for "protected areas" and AHF, to ensure local communities and their environments are better protected from non-AHF schemes - including those proposing acidisation.


Matter 4: Coal Phase Out

45. Coal fired power generation was currently the subject of a coal phase out announcement35 and consultation document36. Coal power generation is around 700-1000g CO2 p/Kwh and is therefore incompatible with the recommended CCC target of 100g CO2 per Kwh for electricity power generation by 2030. It is clear that the Government is setting a limit to coal-fired power generation, in light of the need to reduce climate changing emissions - which is inextricably linked to the burning of fossil fuels.

46. Government's response issued in January 2018 has reinforced this view, with unabated coal capacity limited to 1.3GW by 2025,"with all other unabated coal power stations taking closure decisions in the years ahead of that"37.

47. There is therefore a clear end-point in mind in government energy policy and a recognised decline in the need for coal. We would ask the council to have these considerations in mind when formulating coal extraction policy.

48. Finally, we would ask that the wording of paragraph 149 of the NPPF (subject to any review later this year) on coal extraction is also reflected in any forthcoming policies, namely:

"Permission should not be given for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations; or if not, it provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission. Matter 5: The Sustainability Appraisal"

Matter 5: Sustainability Appraisal


49. We have noted from consultations with other mineral Authorities that within their Sustainability Appraisals, the suggestion that shale gas production could lead to carbon savings (and therefore positive impact on SA), is an approach we find questionable when available evidence suggests that Government is not able to meet the Committee on Climate Change's (CCC) three tests38 that are required to justify shale gas production in the framework of current and future Carbon Budgets. The third of these tests states that "emissions from shale exploitation will need to be offset by emissions reductions in other areas of the economy to ensure UK carbon budgets are met".

50. Hydraulic fracturing - at any stage - is not considered compatible within the framework of these tests. Planning decisions made at the county level cannot secure any legal commitment to lower imports of natural gas (as suggested by test three). In addition, carbon capture and storage is in abeyance; there is insufficient understanding of methane leakage from fracking activities at its different stages (linked to the other two CCC tests)39; and subsidies for renewable energy have been scaled back (re reasonable alternatives). The potential for any positive impacts from fracking is doubtful and available evidence demonstrates that the approval of such fossil fuel extraction merely adds to the amount of fossil fuels extracted and that there is no displacement or substitution40 (as required by the CCC).

51. The MPA should bear the CCC's findings in mind when scoring for relevant hydrocarbon, but especially for unconventional hydrocarbon policies e.g. 'reducing climate change' objective with the SA.

52. Assuming the UK Government cannot meet the CCC's 3 tests, and when additional factors such as methane leakage41 and the burning of the extracted hydrocarbon are taken into consideration, our view is that likely impacts for the 'reducing climate change' objectives are more likely to be (as an example):

o "Higher negative effects on the achievement of the SA objective. For example, a significant negative contribution to an issue or receptor of more than local significance"
o "Uncertain impacts of the objective on the baseline".

Conclusion:

54. Overall, we would ask the plan-making team to take on board the majority of our concerns regarding:

- The climate change s19(1a) duty - ensuring mitigation and adaptation are accounted for in fracking policies;
- Provision of adequate protection from local impacts;
- The screening of all hydraulic fracturing schemes in line with the precautionary principle;
- Making suitable provision for non-AHF schemes in that they present similar risks to AHF developments, despite not being protected within current legislation or national policy and guidance;
- Coal phase-out: and policy reflecting recent government responses and national policy to ensure the plan's soundness; and
- Making sure the SA incorporates findings from evidence, especially that given by the CCC in terms of the three tests that are required to be passed should fracking be allowed to be rolled out across England and Wales;