Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

(Continue on a separate sheet/expand box if necessary)

FFN finds that the justification for Policy MP12 is largely unchanged from the initial version of the Plan to which it objected in 2016, and that its extensive comments, including those in response to the draft Plan in September 2018, have received little credence from the MPA and minimal coverage/feedback in the Summary of Consultation document. There is a short explanation in one paragraph (4-108) headed by the statement “it is considered that there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development” and thus an assumed reliance upon other development management policies in the Plan to confront any adverse impact of such development. FFN regards this approach as too complacent when other MPAs in areas licenced for oil & gas exploration have seen fit to develop and adopt more appropriate policies, dedicated to the special difficulties that can be encountered by major shale gas extraction ( MPAs include North Yorkshire, Cumbria and Kirklees).

Having an all-purpose policy for all hydrocarbon minerals fails to recognise that hydraulic fracking will give rise a very different set of local circumstances compared to the conventional exploration of hydrocarbons. This is largely due to the depth of drilling and scale of the proposed surface operations should sufficient reserves be found. It should thus be treated as a special case where proposals do not necessarily merit approval solely on the basis that development management policy criteria are met.

In this sense MP12 is unsound because there is evidence (see below) of widespread harm to the environment and health (especially via atmospheric pollution and water contamination) of affected communities that shale gas-field development has caused elsewhere in the world, and this can be attributed to its sheer scale as well as poor regulation. Therefore FFN believes that the County Council has cause to be more circumspect in its treatment of applications involving exploration and production of shale gas, especially as it admits in para 4.102 that in the USA it is “exploited on a very large scale”.

The Submission Draft Local Plan of 2014 did recognise in para 4.112, that shale gas extraction is “a very intensive activity”, but tellingly, this has been omitted from subsequent versions (see now para. 4.103). The implication is that getting gas or oil out of shale rock is in the same league as getting ‘conventional’ hydrocarbons out of permeable rock formations (which allow gas or oil to flow smoothly to a well head from some distance). This is clearly misleading. In fact, high volume hydraulic fracturing of shale needs to take place deep underground using horizontal drilling which has so far occurred only in Lancashire in the UK (at Preese Hall and Preston New Road) by Cuadrilla in the period 2011- 19. In both locations, this process has been sufficiently intense to trigger significant earth tremors leading to exploration being abandoned or postponed.

The Government has recently been warned by a report from Professor Styles of the risk that deep fracking can trigger seismic activity in former mining areas ( Ref: https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2017-19/1303
http://www.talkfracking.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Fracking-and-Mining-Styles-Final.pdf ). This is a legitimate concern in the northern part of the Nottinghamshire coalfield where the most extensive shale gas resource underlies mine working areas, and in the light of Government proposals to introduce permitted development rights for exploratory drilling, so it is clear that tighter rather than looser regulation should apply in Nottinghamshire. Professor Styles has recommended high resolution mapping of fault lines and a minimum separation distance of 500m of hydraulic fracking from mine workings and 850m from any fault lines.

Since there are regular tremors recorded in parts of the county, the MPA must view seismicity reports from the appropriate regulator with great care. If shale gas production were to proceed, the biggest threat from these earth movements is of damage to well linings which can lead to leakage of toxic fluids and gases. Such leakage can in turn contaminate the groundwater resources which coincide with much of the Nottinghamshire coalfield and whose protection (including from deep drilling) should be subject to a precautionary, minimal tolerance approach (as per the EU Water Framework Directive).

It should be understood that in production hydraulic fracking can only be carried out up to a mile or so from the wellhead. This requires the building of well-pads* every few miles which leads to potentially extensive infrastructure: ie not only multiple well-pads but also roadways, generators, 24 hour lighting and pipelines etc capable of industrialising the countryside, disrupting agriculture and overwhelming local communities. The extent of cumulative impacts is likely to be considerable and thus beyond the experience of the County Council which seems as yet unable to envisage what a full-scale gas field landscape might look like.
[*NB. estimated as up to one hundred times the number of wells for the same amount of gas as in an conventional gas field]

Beyond the visual prominence of a mass of drilling rigs, fracking sites are known to create a gasfield haze at scale. This can be caused by a ‘cocktail’ of ozone, BTEX ( incl benzene & toluene),and diesel fumes from heavy vehicles and generators –which will include particulates and nitrogen oxides. In addition, the local infrastructure will be further tested by regular heavy lorry movements to carry the large volume of water required to be pumped underground and returned for disposal as contaminated wastewater.

Indeed the range of issues from the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance on Onshore Oil & Gas (DCLG July 2013) that MPAs are obliged to satisfy themselves about for such applications, and indeed the very publication of such guidance, should serve to underline the merit of a separate policy incorporating ‘tailor-made’ measures. Moreover, in the interests of public health and environmental protection when applying these measures, it is hoped that the County Council will avoid relying entirely on advice on from overstretched and underfunded Government agencies, notably the Environment Agency, and should avail itself of independent advice that is based on peer reviewed academic studies.

MP12 is also unsound because it fails to take climate change objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008 properly into account. A key reason for concern about proposals to extract large volumes of methane gas is that they involve a fossil fuel which, when burnt, will generate significant carbon emissions. This brings into question whether the County Council is truly “committed to tackling the causes of climate change …and securing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” through the planning process (see paragraph 3.30), especially in light of the legal requirement within the ‘Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,s19(1A).

The MPA is hamstrung partly by policy advice from the Government which has supported fracking activity mainly on the basis that it can provide a bridge to a low carbon economy. However this claim has been quashed by a High Court decision in May 2019 which has subsequently led to a revision of former para 209a (NB. It now becomes para 205) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Elsewhere, however, para 149 of the revised NPPF urges that “Plans should take a proactive approach in mitigating and adapting to climate change…” which surely provides a good platform for reconsidering Policy MP12.

At present it appears that the MPA is too ready to trust the effectiveness of MP12 and a range of development management polices in dealing with the significant social, economic and environmental upheaval that the shale gas industry might bring to communities in the county. The already drilled site at Misson in Bassetlaw is the likely stage for gauging the level of such upheaval shortly since planning applications are expected for its production stage later in 2019. One often overlooked factor is the considerable business risks taken by fracking companies. The costs of developing unconventional gas fields are high, such that many of the companies are highly indebted. Indeed there is a history of losses and capital restructurings amongst operators such as Island Gas ( involved at Misson ) -which has lead to sell-offs and the abandonment of sites to avoid legal or planning enforcement action. Given this potential outcome, it is wise for MPAs to insist on a sizeable public insurance bond at the planning stage in case of abandonment or a major pollution incident prior to the satisfactory completion of restoration measures.

Since methane is the most damaging of greenhouse gases, a willingness to entertain applications for unconventional hydrocarbons, which will be burned or escape into the atmosphere (NB complex extraction techniques run a high risk of leakage), is at odds with Policy SP3 which aims “to minimise the impact of minerals development upon climate change” and “move towards a low carbon economy”. This stems from a fundamental inconsistency in the NPPF.
FFN recommends that the aspiration for a low carbon transition should be deleted to accord with the recent High Court decision (by Justice Dove) referenced above, and that the MPA should pursue an approach taken in the adopted Kirklees Local Plan (2019). Under Policy LP42 (Proposals for production of hydrocarbons) Kirklees MPA has brought forward a requirement that applications “will be considered against the following criteria”: including… “h) Where a proposal demonstrates that it will have a net zero impact on climate change.”

For these all of the above reasons, FFN has consistently disputed the conclusion in paragraph 4.108 that “there is no justifiable reason in planning policy terms to separate shale gas from other hydrocarbon development. FFN believes that a separate policy approach -as has been favourably treated by the Inspector at the Public Examination of the North Yorkshire Minerals & Waste Joint Local Plan (2018) – is important to ensure that certain matters, particular to proposals involving fracking, are always considered in planning decisions. This has been demonstrated in North Yorkshire where a number of issues were considered requiring specific policies for hydraulic fracturing, including:
• A definition of hydraulic fracturing suitable for the planning system: “Hydraulic fracturing is the process of opening and/or extending existing narrow fractures or creating new ones (fractures are typically hairline in width) in gas or oil bearing rock, which allows gas to flow into wellbores to be captured.”
• 500m buffer zones
• Maximum wellpad density
• A financial guarantee or bond as standard

The most comprehensive review of peer reviewed studies on the impacts of fracking has been produced by the Concerned Health Professionals of New York. The sixth edition dated June 2019 (https://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/) lists the following emerging trends:
1. Regulations are simply not capable of preventing harm.
2. Fracking and natural gas are incompatible with climate solutions.
3. Fracking and the disposal of fracking waste threaten drinking water.
4. Drilling and fracking contribute to toxic air pollution and ground-level ozone at levels known to have health impacts.
5. Public health problems associated with drilling and fracking include poor birth outcomes, reproductive and respiratory impacts, and cancer risks.
6. Occupational health and safety risks for workers are severe and include both physical and chemical hazards.
7. Earthquakes are a proven consequence of both fracking and the underground injection of fracking waste.
8. Fracking infrastructure poses serious potential exposure risks to those living nearby.
9. Drilling and fracking activities bring naturally occurring radioactive materials to the surface.
10. Drilling and fracking activities harm wildlife through multiple pathways.
11. The economic instabilities of fracking exacerbate public health risks.
12. Fracking raises human rights and environmental justice issues.
13. Health professionals are increasingly calling for bans or moratoria on fracking, based on a range of health hazards and as reviews of the data confirm evidence for harm.


It should be noted that the geology and land use in the UK is not comparable to the USA because of greater faulting and a higher population density with greater proximity to areas in residential, employment and infrastructural use - eg railway lines. In addition, as has been previously highlighted, if fracking takes place in proximity to former coal mine workings in Nottinghamshire, there is an added risk of triggering faults that are already susceptible to movement and subsidence.

Furthermore, we would like to see more explanation of what the MPA interprets as “unacceptable environmental impact” in MP12 (1b) when assessing the location of proposed oil & gas development. This part of the policy cannot be effective without some criteria on how unacceptability is to be determined, particularly against a presumed “national need to explore and develop new domestic sources of oil and gas” (para 4.104). For instance, it raises questions as to what type of impacts are acceptable without mitigation, and if there are permanent adverse effects, is mitigation sufficient as a temporary fix? Surely an overriding need cannot be justified if unacceptable harms exceed claimed benefits? More clarity is required, perhaps in Policy SP5, for the benefit all parties if these policies are to be implemented fairly and effectively.

In an ideal world, FFN hopes that a change of Government policy would obviate the future need for unconventional extraction of shale gas in England. The bans (or moratoria) on fracking activity already established in Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Germany,and New York State after comprehensive studies provide evidence of widespread concern about the adverse impacts and about increasing fossil fuel dependency in the face of an escalating climate crisis.

In the interim, if the County Council is minded to convert Policy MP12 or to create a new separate policy applying solely to proposals for unconventional hydrocarbons, FFN recommends that the MPA includes the additions indicated by Nottingham Friends of the Earth in a separate submission -which is copied in section 6 below.
(Continue on a separate sheet/expand box if necessary:

FFN recommends that attention to the following matters, which are specific to hydraulic fracking, will assist the MPA in modifying or re-writing Policy MP12 so that it attains soundness.

Suggested addition to Policy MP12 (Oil & Gas)

A condition should be added to Policy MP12 to ensure that any proposed development will not compromise the Council’s duties in relation to climate change mitigation, and will be fully compatible with statutory climate emissions targets and carbon budgets during the Plan period.

Suggested additional Policy MP12a (Hydraulic fracturing)

Policy should be added to address problems specific to hydraulic fracturing, including:

• A definition of hydraulic fracturing suitable for the planning system, such as that discussed in the North Yorkshire Minerals & Waste Joint Plan Examination (“Hydraulic fracturing is the process of opening and/or extending existing narrow fractures or creating new ones (fractures are typically hairline in width) in gas or oil bearing rock, which allows gas to flow into wellbores to be captured.”).
• Minimum separation distance from homes and other sensitive sites.
• Minimum separation distance from former mine workings.
• Minimum separation distance from fault lines (and a requirement to make use of high resolution mapping, as recommended by Professor Peter Styles).
• The site boundary of the development to include in 3-D the full extent of any horizontal drilling.
• Maximum well-pad density.
• Financial guarantee.
• Protection of the Sherwood sandstone aquifer.
• Arrangements for adequate provision of water supply and disposal of toxic waste water.
• Measures to avoid unacceptable impacts of vibration and induced seismicity.
• Measures to avoid air pollution, including BTEX and radon.
• Measures to protect people working on site, for example from silica dust, radioactive water and gases, and emissions from compressors.
• A risk assessment to demonstrate beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that any risk of adverse impacts has been eliminated