Fracking battle in VoG

Documents now historical of the first 'test drilling' application.
Opposition in the Vale spear-headed wider opposition and stimulated the eventual defeat of the applications in south Wales.  Through a first rejection and then fighting a public inquiry - where Dwr Cymru let us down with a late withdrawal of objection - the delays meant Coastal Oil & Gas were unable to get financial backing.  Their application was founded in the fragile hype of fracking riches with no evidence that south Wales geology could deliver.  The Coastal Oil&Gas wide boys instead turned to Kent, leaving their Llandow permit in south Wales to expire and losing their options on land at Llanthrithyd and Dyffryn.

VoG Officers' report to Planning Committee on 29^th Sept.2011  
original posting as Fracking Application 08/10/2011  150

2011/00812/FUL Received on 17 August 2011 Coastal Oil and Gas Limited

Unit 1, Llandow Industrial Estate, Llandow

Drill and test the in situ lower limestone and associated strata for the presence of gas
RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of

five years from the date of this permission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision deferred on 29 Sept pending a site visit.

HERE IS THE FULL REPORT

Unit 1, Llandow Industrial Estate, Llandow   Drill and test the insitu lower limestone and associated strata for the presence of gas

SITE AND CONTEXT

The application relates to a site of just under 0.2 ha within the Vale Business Park

(Llandow Industrial Estate). The site is an open area of level concrete

hardstanding, probably originating in the wartime use of the site as an airfield.

The site is surrounded by industrial units, many of which are vacant.

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

This planning application is a revised version of a previous submission (ref:

2011/00115/FUL) which was withdrawn on 12 April 2011 due to the discovery of a

dwelling house within the Llandow Business Park which had not been taken into

account in the submitted noise assessment. Further noise assessment work has

since been carried out to address this omission, and additional information on

proposed traffic movements has also been included as part of this submission.

This is a full application for the drilling of a single 160 mm diameter borehole to investigate potential gas resources that may exist in the Carboniferous Lower Limestone Shales and Upper Devonian measures.

The application is made by Coastal Oil and Gas Limited for the purpose (as

defined in their submissions) of “drilling to take core samples of Limestone shales

with a view to future possible capture and supply of shale gas (unconventional

gas) as a clean energy supply and also to penetrate the Upper Devonian

measures to test for the presence of conventional gas”.

The drilling is estimated to be to a depth of approximately 650m, and forms part of

a continuing program of sampling across South Wales, permissions having

previously been granted in Bridgend County Borough Council and Neath Port

Talbot County Borough Council. The applicant advises that further applications

are pending in both these areas and one is due to be submitted to Rhondda Cynon Taf Council.

In supporting information, the applicants advise that shale gas (natural gas

produced from shale) is becoming an increasingly important source of gas in

North America and potential resources exist in many other parts of the world.

This application does not propose hydraulic fracturing, often known as ’fracking’,

but rather relates to exploration to see if there is any potential for such viable exploration at the site in future.

The applicants hold a 50% share in a Petroleum Exploration and Development

Licence covering the western Vale of Glamorgan granted under the Petroleum Act

1998 by the former Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory

Reform in July 2008. Whilst exploratory boreholes such as this are normally

permitted development under Part 22 of the Town & Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), that Part specifically excludes

boreholes for petroleum exploration, including hydrocarbon gases, so that

planning permission is required for this proposal.

The submissions indicate that the drilling operation as a whole will take up to 10

weeks, this being sub-divided into the following stages:

 Site Establishment (up to) 1 week;

 Drilling (up to) 5;

 Testing (up to) 2;

 Borehole Restoration (up to) 1; and

 Site Clearance (up to) 1.

The hours of work during the site establishment and site clearance period will be

10 hours per day 08.00 hrs until 18.00 hrs excluding Sunday, with the drilling,

testing and restoration period being 24 hour, seven days per week.

Manufacturer’s specifications for the proposed drilling rig (DCR 18 Conrad Combi

500 HD) have been submitted. The drill rig would be a standard lorry size or track

mounted and carried on a trailer. The rig would be transported to the site very early in the morning when traffic is limited. Ancillary equipment, including tanks and mess cabins, will be delivered similarly.

On completion all machinery and buildings will be removed and the hole will be

plugged with concrete prior to restoration of the surface to a state similar to the existing concrete slab.

To assist Members consideration, the applicant’s supporting statement is provided at Appendix A.

PLANNING HISTORY

There is an extensive planning history on the industrial estate, but the only

application of relevance relates to the following:

2011/00115/FUL : Unit 1, Llandow Industrial Estate, Cowbridge. Drill and test the

insitu lower limestone shale and associated strata. Withdrawn 12 April 2011.

CONSULTATIONS

Llandow Community Council. To date no representations have been received.

It is noted, however, that on the earlier proposal Llandow Community Council

objected on the grounds of potential pollution of the water table and note concerns

in the USA where gas extraction has taken place close to residential areas.

Colwinston Community Council has responded as follows:

“Colwinston Community Council wishes to record its opposition to the above

proposed exploratory shale gas drilling application. World-wide evidence

indicates that even exploratory exercises are extremely noisy and, in view of their

24/7 nature, invasive and disruptive, and because of the geological nature of the

underlying rock strata, there is also the probability that a much wider area, even

wider than that of the drill site, will be affected by the transmission of noise and

seepage of pollutants associated with the process. The environmental risks are

therefore, in the view of this Community Council, unacceptable and the application

should therefore be refused.

However, in the event that approval is considered appropriate, it should be

conditional on the provision of adequate Public Liability Insurance. In terms of the

exploration exercise the evidence of such projects elsewhere suggests that a minimum un-conditional cover of £500 million would be required with up to £2000 million for any extraction programme.

Colwinston Community Council also wishes to place on record its objection to the

assertion that any objections to a future extraction application and its

consequences are unacceptable in the context of this application. The whole

objective of the proposed exploration is to determine the viability of extraction and

therefore if the results are commercially positive the results will be used to negate

and dismiss the grounds for environmental opposition. Since the environmental

and, not to say the least, resource ownership questions are potentially extreme,

these factors also justify refusal of the current application.”

St. Donats Community Council has responded as follows:

“There is great concern regarding potential noise pollution, particularly because of

the intended 24-hour operation throughout the duration of the test. The

settlements of Marcross, St. Donats and Monknash are significantly close to the

site, and it must be stressed that existing sources of noise from the area are often

clearly heard. It is felt that the additional noise from this drilling process would be

intrusive, both to the residents of the area and to the large amount of livestock in

the surrounding agricultural land, particularly during the hours of darkness.

We consider that the emphasis on attracting tourists, and on a sustainable 'green'

local and national agenda, could only be compromised by the implications of this

application in a location which is very close to the Heritage Coast and other notable Conservation Areas and is due to host Wales's great cultural festival, the National Eisteddfod, during 2012.

We are also concerned that this re-submission is, by the applicants own

admission, apparently made necessary because a major omission was made on

the original application regarding a dwelling house near the site. This provides us with no confidence as to the ability of the applicants to adequately survey the area and provide environmental assurances.”

Environment Agency Wales has no objection subject to conditions controlling

the disposal of foul and surface water, the approval of a working method

statement, and the provision of precautionary facilities for the storage of oils, fuels

or chemicals. They also offer advice to the applicant on their requirements to

address such matters, as well as informing of the need for their Environment

Officer to carry out a pollution prevention visit at the site during any future site

preparation and drilling/testing, as well as advice on other permitting regimes.

Their letter is attached in full as Appendix B.

The Council’s Highway Development Team raise no highway objections

subject to the applicant adhering to the access arrangements identified within

item, 6.6 of their supporting information (namely number of movements and the

movement of large vehicles from the south via the A4050, A4226 and B4265 to

avoid Llysworney Village).

The Director of Legal, Public Protection and Housing Services

(Environmental Health : Pollution) have made a number of representations on

the application and response to subsequent information. The final conclusions are summarised as follows:

“1. A noise impact assessment with regard to surface plant and drilling

operations. We understand drilling is a 24hr, seven day week operation. In isolation and in combination.

The noise assessment provided ref: 2594/ENS1 alludes to the low

background noise levels experienced during the night time period in the

vicinity. Having received technical specifications of the drill rig, he has

confirmed he is happy with the submitted noise assessment and offers no

objection on noise grounds. He also confirms this is based upon noise

based on plant layout and recently provided drill rig noise and that he is

happy that the nearby site users are unlikely to be affected at the given

level, concurring with Hunter Acoustics submission in respect of calculating noise impact on nearby office uses.

2. An agreed vibration impact assessment will be required prior to and during

any permitted drilling. Whilst this is an exploratory borehole it may well be

challenged and an assessment agreed with the Local Planning Authority

can provide useful information on any impact upon local amenity. This can be appropriately conditioned.

3. An agreed scheme will be required on the control of dusts from any surface storage of arisings.

4. I have checked our known private water supplies database. There are

none within a 4.9km radius. There may be others we are not aware of however.”

Local Ward Members (Llantwit and Llandow-Ewenny) were also consulted.

To date no representations have been received.

Dwr Cymru / Welsh Water. To date no representations have been received. On

the previous application, however, they advised that on the basis that this

application is for an exploratory borehole, DCWW has no adverse comments to

make. They did, however, advise that future proposals for gas extraction have the

potential for contamination of groundwater, such that any future application should

be accompanied by an Environmental Statement considering such matters. Any

representations on the current application will be reported at Committee.

REPRESENTATIONS

Given its location within the industrial estate, there are no immediate residential neighbours, although a single house – Six Wells Farmhouse – is located in the industrial estate approximately 250 metres to the north. The other two closest dwellings to the site are The Grove, over 500 metres to the west and Sheepleys’ Farm, some 500 metres to the north.

In addition to the above residential properties, extensive notifications have been

undertaken with all premises within the industrial estate and other nearby

residential properties, while notification was also given to those persons who

submitted representations on the previous application (approximately 250 individual letters having been sent out as a result of the above). The application was also advertised by site notice on 22nd August 2010.

In response, at the time of writing in excess of 250 letters of objections have been

received to the development, raising objections which can generally be

categorised into concerns over:- traffic, noise, ground water pollution, chemical

pollution, the potential for this proposal to lead to further drilling / significant

objections to the impact of ‘fracking’, potential impact on next year’s Eisteddfod.

A number of these letters are based upon a ‘standard’ text which, for Members information, reads as follows:

“I want to express our concerns regarding the resubmitted application for an

exploratory bore hole at the site in Llandow to search for shale gas. As you will

note this application is close to our village and I am concerned about the impact it

will have upon our environment and quality of life in the village particularly noise

pollution, additional transport through the village, contamination of our local water

supply and general impact upon this beautiful area and the many tourists we are

currently attracting. How can you justify the financial and economic support the

council is currently offering for the Welsh Eisteddfod, which will be sited at

Llandow next year - which will greatly promote our area as a wonderful tourist

destination and then accept this planning application?

I am alarmed and very concerned by this planning application. Whilst I appreciate

that this is an application for merely exploration purposes, the concerns I have are

for the potentially far-reaching consequences of this research activity for communities across the Vale.

If shale gas were to be found, an application would be much harder to refuse, no

matter how Councillors, residents and farmers of the area feel, due to current

financial circumstances. So please, help us stop this application now before the

beautiful countryside we all enjoy is gone forever.

This is one of the most precious parts of South Wales and it is hard to understand

how any company would consider such an activity in such a sensitive area. It is close to the Heritage Coast and is next to areas of Grade 1 agricultural land, very little of which exists across Wales.”

My main concerns regarding this exploratory application are:

 The noise levels during the proposed 7 weeks. Not only will the drilling

machinery itself create a substantial amount of noise 24 hours a day, but

the associated noise levels of movement of the metal rods + equipment

associated with the drilling process will be significant and in addition to the data provided.

 The impact on local businesses is already an issue, with several

businesses located on the industrial estate noting that they will move

premises and away from the area should this application be approved. The

Llandow business park is an essential employer for the Western Vale and

allowing the exploration for gas would undermine existing businesses and

reinforce low status, prejudicing their future role and potential for inward investment in and for the Vale.

 The impact on residents in the area will be significant too – from constant

noise levels, increased traffic in the area, and concern over potential

environmental and health concerns regarding escaping gases and water

contamination. A big threat too of course is the substantial drop in house

prices, devastating the whole local economy, should shale gas be found.

 Water pollution is a real concern, with several private bore holes in the

immediate vicinity – though Welsh Water do not record this in their response to the planning application.

 The presence of gas drilling + mining would also be incompatible with and

undermine the investment made by the Vale in securing the National

Eisteddfod at Llandow, as a shop window for general economic and

tourism investments in the Vale of Glamorgan.

 There will be a detrimental impact on the already anticipated boom in

tourism in the Vale of Glamorgan if this exploratory gas mining application

is approved, as many investors and visitors alike will turn away from a potential gas mining area.

The use of the land at Llandow for local businesses and recreational purposes is

important to the Llandow, Wick, Llantwit Major and Cowbridge communities, to the Vale Authority’s strategy and to Welsh Government policies. I trust that you will take my strong objections into account.

These objections include letters received from Alun Cairns MP and Jane Hutt AM,

copies of these representations being provided at Appendices C and D.

In addition, a number of the objections have been received from local businesses

in and around the Llandow area, both within the Business Park and from further

afield, expressing concern about the impact on their businesses, largely as a

result of potential impacts from noise, vibration and additional traffic.

A number of examples of the letters of objection are provided at Appendix E.

REPORT

Planning Policies

The Development Plan for the area comprises the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted

Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011, which was formally adopted by the Council

on 18 April 2005, and within which the following policies are of relevance:

ENV27 - DESIGN OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS

ENV29 - PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

MIN1 - MINERAL EXPLORATION

Issues

Members will recall that a previous application, ref: 2011/00115/FUL, for the same

development was previously withdrawn by the applicants prior to being

determined at Committee.

Having regard to the nature of submissions, the local context and the nature of

representations received to this application, the main issues to consider relate to

the principle of the proposed operations, including the risks of pollution from the

works proposed, and any impact on local amenity as a consequence of such

operations, with particular regard to noise, vibration, dust, and the impact on the

local highway network.

The Hydraulic Fracturing / Fracking Process

Exploitation of proven shale gas resources elsewhere in the world has received

mixed publicity, with some developments in the USA allegedly having had

detrimental effects on water resources. Whilst any application for exploitation

here would have to be considered very carefully, and would undoubtedly require

the submission of extensive environmental information as part of an

Environmental Impact Assessment, this should not be confused with the current

proposal which involves the drilling of a single borehole to assess the bedrock

strata. No ‘fracturing’ of the rock using high pressure chemicals, as may be

needed to extract any gas found, is proposed. In this respect, the operation

currently proposed is very similar to other geological exploration boreholes that

have been drilled in the Vale in recent years.

P.176

While a large number of representations have raised objection to the knock-on

implications of allowing the test drilling, insofar as a successful test may lead to

subsequent applications for commercial exploitation in the area, the current

application is for test drilling only. In this respect, while the objections are

acknowledged and understood, as are the potential implications of such test

drilling leading to further application(s) for commercial exploitation, nevertheless it

is considered that there are no justifiable or sustainable grounds for objection to

the current proposal on the basis that it may lead to such future development. In

this regard it is again emphasised that the impacts of any future proposal can only

be made at that time.

Principle of Drilling

Policy MIN1 of the Unitary Development Plan supports mineral exploration works

unless there would be an unacceptable impact on landscape character, visual

amenity, nature conservation, residential amenity, the Glamorgan Heritage Coast,

surface water and ground water resources or scheduled ancient monuments and

historic landscapes. The only criteria relevant to this case are residential amenity

and water resources, although these are broadened to consideration of matters

relating to noise/ vibration, traffic and potential impacts on the local area in

general. Individual impacts are addressed below.

The supporting text to Policy MIN1 also makes clear that the grant of planning

permission for exploratory work will not indicate a presumption in favour of future exploitation.

Visual Impact

The site forms part of a wider industrial site and is largely surrounded by other

buildings. The site is also in a relatively poor condition at present, being used for

little other than storage of lorries etc. In this context, the temporary siting of the

12m high rig and associated equipment will have minimal impact in local views. In

any respect, the rig and equipment will only be in place for a limited time, such that any impacts are temporary.

Noise Impacts

As detailed above, the revised application has been supported by an updated

noise report carried out by Hunter Acoustics, which includes assessment of the

impact on the nearest residential property at Six Wells Farmhouse. In addition,

following contact with the agent, further submissions have identified the technical

specifications of the proposed drilling rig, as well as given further consideration to

the impact on nearby office uses.

The report submitted with the application concludes that “we would not therefore

assess noise from the drilling works to be an issue on this site”.

The Council’s EHO initially stated that the noise assessment could not be relied

upon since it relied on as yet (at that time) unsupported data for the sound power

and or pressure level for the drill rig and other associated plant. The subsequent

technical specifications of the drill rig, however, together with details on generator,

compressor and vibrating screens have been assessed, and the EHO has now made it clear that he has no objection to the proposal in terms of any impact of noise on nearby homes or businesses.

In response to local concerns about the impact of local businesses from the

drilling noise, Hunter Acoustics have further stated as follows:

“The closest offices are approximately 60m from the drill site – predicted noise

levels from the drill (source rating 74dB(A) @ 1m) would be around 48dB(A) outside the office.

Taking a 15dB loss through a partially open window gives 33dB(A) (aroundNR28).

BS8233 ‘Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings’ quotes 40-50dB(A)

for offices – we are therefore predicting levels well within office criteria.”

The Council’s EHO concurs with this calculation and similarly raises no objectionsin this regard.

In conclusion on noise matters, therefore, it is emphasised that the application site

is located within an industrial area, with the nearest residential dwellings being

some 260m and 500+ metres away, these being generally well-screened by large

industrial buildings. In this respect, and having regard to the Council’s

Environmental Health Officer’s assessment of the impacts associated with this

temporary proposal, it is concluded that although drilling is to take place 24 hours

per day, the limited timescale, distance from dwellings and degree of screening

are such that any noise impact on residential amenity would be minimal, and

transitory at worst. In addition, any impact from noise associated with the

proposal on local businesses would not be so great as to justify withholding

consent, especially bearing in mind the temporary (maximum 10 weeks, 5 weeks

for drilling) duration of the works.

Vibration

The impact of ground vibration from the operation has also been considered but

from extensive experience with drilling in quarries it appears that any ground

vibration created by drilling is restricted to a very small area around the rig.

In their submissions, the applicant states that a number of factors will limit the

effects on vibration on local residents, including the formation of local bedrock,

and the use of rotary drilling methods to minimise vibration. They also that they

will, if required, undertake a vibration monitoring scheme prior to and during the

drilling period in accordance with BS 6472-1:2008 and BS 5228-2:2009. In this

regard, the EHO has raised no objections but considers it is appropriate to require

a Vibration Impact Assessment (before and during) to inform their analysis of

impacts at the site in the expectation that complaints may be received.

Dust

The EHO has raised no objection subject to an appropriate condition requiring an

agreed scheme on the control of dusts from any surface storage of arisings.

Water Resources

Issues of water resource protection from a single exploratory borehole are also

likely to be limited. The submissions indicate that the control of ground water

during the drilling of this well will by the density of the drilling fluids which would

prevent any major water ingress. The main aquifer has been identified in the

Carboniferous Limestone and this will be completely sealed with steel casing

cemented into place, which they advise is a recognised method of sealing an

aquifer by the Environment Agency.

In this regard, the Environment Agency has raised no objection subject to the

imposition of appropriate conditions to prevent pollution and the EHO has advised

that their known private water supplies database shows none within a 4.9km

radius. There may be others they are not aware of however.

The schemes required by the EAW conditions will need to be approved and

implemented on site before any drilling takes place.

Impact on Highway Safety / Transport Network

Given the relatively low level of traffic associated with the proposal, there would

be no adverse impact on the highway network as a result of the use itself. The

highway officer has raised no objections to the development, but considers that

the use should be conditioned to accord with the supporting information about

movements which is primarily related to the movement of HGVs from the south

via the A4050, A4226 and B4265 to avoid Llysworney Village. An appropriate

condition is therefore recommended to that effect.

Similar Test Drilling Approvals

Members should be aware that Bridgend CBC has approved at least two similar

exploratory boreholes, these being on the former St. Johns Colliery site (Bridgend

reference P/06/999/FUL and P/06/999/FUL).

Other Matters

A number of local residents have raised concerns about the impact on the

Eisteddfod planned for Llandow next year. The impacts as described above,

however, are considered to be minor in nature and to have no material impact on

such an event, even if they were to be conducted at the same time. Should

Members consider such concerns to be of overriding importance, then a condition

could be recommended requiring that the drilling operations are not undertaken

during the 2012 Eisteddfod (between 4th and 11th August 2012).

Concluding Comments

In conclusion, it is noted that there have been a substantial number of objections to the proposal, both in terms of the physical impacts of the drilling itself and to the potential impacts associated with any future commercial exploitation as a direct result of the test drilling. Nevertheless, while these views are wholly acknowledged, and the extent of concern about the test drilling itself and any future exploitation as a consequence, a factual analysis of the proposals leads to the conclusion that, whilst the potential environmental impacts of gas exploitation would require very careful consideration of any subsequent planning application, there are no reasonable or sustainable grounds on which to refuse this specific small-scale, temporary, proposal for a single exploratory borehole subject to the precautionary conditions to control environmental impacts as outlined in the recommended conditions below.

CONCLUSION

The decision to recommend that planning permission be granted has been taken

in accordance with Section 38 of The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act

2004, which requires that, in determining a planning application the determination

must be in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations

indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises the Vale of Glamorgan

Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011.

Having regard to the provisions of Policies MIN 1, ENV27 and ENV29 of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan it is concluded that the proposal meets the

objectives of those policies in respect of amenity, protection of ground and surface

water resources and the character and appearance of the local area.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of

five years from the date of this permission.

Reason:

To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990.

2. No operations authorised by this permission, with the exception of the site

restoration works set out in Section 7.10 of the supporting statement

submitted with the application, shall take place after a period of eight weeks

following the commencement of drilling operations on the site.

Reason:

In the interests of amenity and to meet the objectives of Policy MIN 1 of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan.

P.180

3. The drilling rig to be used in the drilling operations hereby approved shall

be a DCR 18 Conrad Combi 500 HD (with a typical noise level at 1 metre

not exceeding 74 dBa) in accordance with the submitted equipment profile

and specification, unless otherwise approved in writing by the local

planning authority.

Reason:

In order to protect local amenity in accordance with Policy ENV29 of the

adopted Unitary development Plan, since the impact on nearby properties

has only been assessed by the submitted noise assessment on the basis of

a 74dBa noise level at 1m as identified on the manufacturers equipment

profile and specification.

4. Notwithstanding the submitted documents, prior to any drilling taking place

on the site a detailed working method statement shall be submitted in

writing to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and all operations

shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:

Since the construction phase of any proposed development poses

significant risks to controlled waters, specifically diffuse pollution to the

water environment arising from ground works, and in the interests of

amenity and to meet the objectives of Policies MIN 1 and ENV27 of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan.

5. Drilling shall not commence until such time as a Vibration Impact

Assessment – covering monitoring prior to and during the drilling period in

accordance with BS 6472-1:2008 and BS 5228-2:2009 - has been

submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority, and the

development shall thereafter be monitored in accordance with such agreed

scheme.

Reason:

To inform the Council’s analysis of any impacts at the site from vibration

caused as a result o the drilling hereby approved, and to comply with Policy

ENV29 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

6. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels and chemicals shall be sited on

impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The size of

the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the

tank plus 10%. If there is a multiple tankage, the compound should be at

least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank plus 10%. All filling

points, vents and sight glasses must be located within the bund. There

must be no drain through the bund floor or walls.

P.181

Reason:

To prevent pollution of the water environment, and to ensure compliance

with the terms of Policy ENV27 of the Unitary Development Plan.

7. Full details of a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water drainage

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority and the approved scheme shall be fully implemented in

accordance with the approved details prior to any drilling operations or site

preparation taking place on the site. The approved scheme shall include

proposals for the treatment and disposal of suspended solids from surface

water run-off and shall include emergency procedures to be implemented

where any failure results in the pollution of controlled waters.

Reason:

To mitigate the risks of pollution and to ensure compliance with the terms of

Policy ENV27 of the Unitary Development Plan.

8. Within three months of the completion of drilling operations all plant,

machinery and buildings shall be removed from the site and the site shall

be restored in accordance with the details set out in Section 7.10 of the

statement accompanying the application or any alternative scheme that

may first be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:

In the interests of amenity and to meet the objectives of Policies MIN 1 and

ENV27 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

9. Prior to any drilling operations taking place, a scheme for the treatment,

storage and disposal of any dust created by the operation shall be

submitted in writing to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and

the approved scheme shall thereafter be retained in operation throughout

any periods of drilling on the site.

Reason:

In the interests of amenity and to meet the objectives of Policies MIN 1 and

ENV27 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

10. Vehicular access to the site shall only be made in accordance with section

6.6 of the supporting information and, in particular heavy traffic (such as the

rig, drill pipe and cabins) shall approach and leave the site only from / to

the south via the A4050, A4226 and B4265 to avoid Llysworney Village.

Reason:

In the interests of highway safety an to ensure compliance with Policy

ENV27 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 to Chair and Members of the Planning Committee,
Vale of Glamorgan Council.

original posting as FoE Fracking reps 20/10/2011  81

Vale of Glamorgan planning application on Fracking at Llandow 2011/00115/FUL

We write on the assumption that Councillors might wish to reject this application, but are unable to find the Officers' report helpful in this regard. We draw support from the 29th Sept. letter to Gordon Kemp from Carwyn Jones.

Our case is that this letter gave the Council a clear steer for shale gas to be given wider consideration and treated more restrictively than applications for well-known coal and conventional oil/gas extraction. You can best do that by treating it as staged EIA-development.

The applicants say “with a view to future possible capture and supply of shale gas (unconventional gas) as a clean energy supply”.

• This accepts it is not simply test drilling, but exploration leading to exploitation. It could and should be treated as the initial part of a staged application.
• This dismisses environmental impacts with the assertion it is a “clean energy supply”, which can and should be challenged at this stage.
  The officers dismiss the first point with “there are no justifiable or sustainable grounds for objection to the current proposal on the basis that it may lead to such future development”.

• Let's point out this statement is not planning law, and is in particular contrary to Environmental Impact Assessment law, under which secondary, cumulative, short and long-term, permanent and temporary, as well as direct impacts including uncertainties have to be assessed (EIA Regs 1999 as amended)
• The First Minister's letter of 29^th October to the VoG Leader stated a “precautionary approach should be taken” and “additional environmental considerations” included. It referred to Minerals Planning Policy Wales (MPPW) which specifies “an environmentally acceptable way” of operation and being “consistent with the principles of sustainable development” for unconventional gas development.

As the applicant has failed to show environmentally acceptable or consistent with sustainable development, MPPW says there's a

“case in land use planning terms for placing more restrictions on the development”

than ordinary local environmental safeguards. These restrictions would in principle reflect the broader objectives of sustainable development and the UK's carbon targets.

On EIA-screening, the second Welsh Government letter of 29^th Sept reminded the Planning Officer that the Council has responsibility for screening the application as possible EA-development (EIA Reg.4(5)). We think you would find no difficulty in deciding that the development of shale gas extraction would qualify as Schedule 2 and require EIA as likely to have significant effect on the environment, when the 'cumulation' criterion of Schedule 3.1 is included. It follows you will decide the first part of this staged development also requires EIA.

Hence the lack of EIA with Environmental Statement is sufficient reason for rejecting the application. There has been no screening report, so no approval by the officers that would have to be overturned. You merely point out the authority cannot approve a permit without submission of an Env. Statement (EIA Reg 3(2).

You will of course be told that for Blackpool, the local authority did not treat the fracking application as staged and requiring EIA. Nor did Bridgend over Maesteg. Both might be regretting their lax approaches. It's up to the Vale of Glamorgan with the implicit support of the First Minister to take this initiative.

We append extracts from the EIA Regs 1999 with interpretative comments.

Yours sincerely,

Barry/Vale Friends of the Earth

Extracts from EIA Regs [interpretative comments in italics]

Schedule 2 2 (d) Deep drillings [the total area of surface works over several extraction sites in the VoG (~4km apart) is very likely to exceed the indicative threshold of 1 ha].

Schedule 3.1 The characteristics of development must be considered... the cumulation with other development... the risk of accidents, having regard in particular to substances or technologies used [uses the bare word 'development' not 'the (particular) development']

Schedule 4.1 the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements [the words 'whole development' imply the whole of staged development].

Barry&Vale FoE statement to Fracking Inquiry,  22-23 May’12 at Barry Dock Office

original posting as  Fracking Inquiry 02/06/2012  71
Appeal by Coastal Oil and Gas Limited,      

Site at Unit 1, Llandow Industrial Estate, Llandow

PLANNING INSPECTORATE REF. NO: APP/Z6950/A/11/2167112

Vale of Glamorgan planning application 2011/00115/FUL

Keith Stockdale, coordinator of Barry & Vale Friends of the Earth will represent the group.  The evidence covers the following headings:

• Exploration is part of staged EIA-development
• Failure on EIA-screening
• Public Opinion is 'material' in planning decisions
• The Environment Agency is Compromised
• ANNEX correspondence with the EA

Exploration is part of staged EIA-development.

Friends of the Earth argued this point over the planning application, but submitted it too late for the officers to respond.

The 29th Sept. letter from First Minister, Carwyn Jones to the then leader, Gordon Kemp, gave the Council a clear steer for shale gas to be given wider consideration and treated more restrictively than applications for well-known coal and conventional oil/gas extraction. This is best done by treating it as staged EIA-development.

The applicants said “with a view to future possible capture and supply of shale gas (unconventional gas) as a clean energy supply”.

• This accepts it is not simply test drilling, but exploration leading to exploitation. It could and should be treated as the initial part of a staged application.
• The VoG officers dismissed the point with “there are no justifiable or sustainable grounds for objection to the current proposal on the basis that it may lead to such future development”.
• Let's point out this statement is not planning law, and is in particular contrary to Environmental Impact Assessment law, under which secondary, cumulative, short and long-term, permanent and temporary, as well as direct impacts including uncertainties have to be assessed (EIA Regs 1999 as amended)
• The First Minister's letter of 29^th Sept.** stated a “precautionary approach should be taken” and “additional environmental considerations” should be included. It referred to Minerals Planning Policy Wales (MPPW) which specifies “an environmentally acceptable way” of operation and being “consistent with the principles of sustainable development” for unconventional gas development.

Coastal Oil & Gas dismissed environmental impacts at the planning stage, with the assertion it is a “clean energy supply” - we challenge this as both untrue and insufficient to assess all environmental factors.

• The CCW pointed out there are protected species - great crested newts and lesser horseshoe bats - within 800m of the drilling site, which could be disturbed by the noise and lighting for the drilling operations.
• There is abundant evidence from fracking operations in the USA that the drilling in itself may use drilling fluids that contain harmful chemicals or may mobilise toxic chemicals from the rocks. Maybe the company can now offer information on the drilling fluids (2.1b), on their statement that “disposal of surface and groundwater will not cause pollution” (2.1c) and that “other boreholes in the region have not caused problems with groundwater” (2.1d), but that information should have been detailed for the planning application.
• The applicant asserts (2.1a) the drilling would not “affect groundwater in the immediate area” or distant areas. This is a very strong claim – since drilling to 650metres depth would inevitably pass through groundwater, it cannot but “affect” that water, even if not significantly or adversely.
• The VoG Council EHO proposed conditions on vibration from the drilling and on dusts fron any surface storage of arisings, both of which are possible environmental impacts.
• The appellants intend in their statement of case to answer legitimate evidence that there could be significant environmental impacts. This is sufficient to demonstrate that the Environmental Impact Regulations 1999 could be triggered. However, no screening opinion was sought from the VoG Council to test if the drilling is EIA development.

As the appellant has failed to show it's environmentally acceptable or consistent with sustainable development, Minerals Planning Policy Wales (MPPW) says there's a

“case in land use planning terms for placing more restrictions on the development”

than ordinary local environmental safeguards. These restrictions would in principle reflect the broader objectives of sustainable development and the UK's carbon targets, but no information has been supplied for setting such restrictions – such information is complex and should be supplied as part of an EIA.

Reliance on similarities with the Cuadrilla is insecure. Professor Cartwright at the VoG Seminar “referred to the geology in Lancashire and the Vale as being very different and that generalisations should not be made” (VoG Council record, 17^th Oct. 2011). While the minister said in the Commons Debate on 3^rd Nov. 2011 that pollution of groundwater was inconceivable from strata in Lancashire “thousands of feet deep”, the strata to be drilled at Llandow are much shallower at 650 metres. As pollution has been reported in the USA from some 1200 feet deep, specific consideration of the local geology is clearly needed.

Failure on EIA-screening

The second Welsh Government letter of 29^th Sept reminded the Planning Officer that the Council has responsibility for screening the application as possible EIA-development (EIA Reg.4(5)).

The first issue in deciding this is whether the test drilling could have significant impact on the environment, including impact on protected species (CCW representations) and on groundwater.

The VoG Council agreed with Dwr Cymru that test drilling might have affected the Schwyll aquifer – with springs near Ewenny. While Dwr Cymru in the end decided it would not affect their abstraction of drinking water for Bridgend, the appellants have not considered if it might affect other aquifers, feeding private supplies used by farmers and off-mains dwellings, several private bore holes being reported in the immediate vicinity, for which the VoG Council is responsible. (The Council officers' report did not deny this, saying there may be some though there are none within 4.9km on their known private water supplies database).

The second screening issue is whether the test drilling is part of staged EIA-development. If so, there is little argument that the development of shale gas extraction would qualify as Schedule 2 and require EIA as likely to have significant effect on the environment, when the 'cumulation' criterion of Schedule 3.1 is included. Dwr Cymru informed the VoG Council that proposals for “gas extraction have the potential for contamination of groundwater, such that any future application should be accompanied by an Environmental Statement”. It follows that the first part of this staged development also requires EIA.

Hence the lack of EIA with Environmental Statement is sufficient reason for rejecting the appeal. Under EIA Reg 3(2), planning authorities and the WG Minister cannot approve the development without submission of an Env. Statement.

While other planning authorities have not treated drilling applications for fracking as staged, requiring EIA, the Council was given support by the First Minister's letter to do this. We submit that the Inspector should now do so and agree that it's an EIA-development.

Extracts from EIA Regs [interpretative comments in italics]

Schedule 2 2 (d) Deep drillings [the total area of surface works over several extraction sites in the VoG (~4km apart) is very likely to exceed the indicative threshold of 1 ha]

Schedule 3.1 The characteristics of development must be considered... the cumulation with other development... the risk of accidents, having regard in particular to substances or technologies used [uses the bare word 'development' not 'the (particular) development']

Schedule 4.1 the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements [the words 'whole development' imply the whole of staged development].

Public Opinion is 'material' in planning decisions 

The VoG Council received “a substantial number of objections”, some 250, to the planning application. As the Vale Says No case says, the Council responded to that public concern in turning down the application. While the Council's evidence fails to give weight to public opinion, Planning Policy Wales does say this is a valid material consideration in planning decisions. The effects of a development on, for example, health, public safety and crime can also be material considerations, as can public concerns in relation to such effects. WG Quick Guide on Planning (4)

We argue that this applies in the present case. Public concerns are-well founded, drawing on the mass of experience with fracking in the USA, and seeing that UK experts and authorities have not reached settled views on the technical and geological aspects. Allowing this appeal would over-rule local democracy.

The Environment Agency is Compromised

The Head of the EA and former Labour politician, Lord Chris Smith, has declared Britain needs  fracking to meet energy needs, leapfrogging the EA's policy-making process: Fracking should be given the go-ahead because it could stop Britain having to rely on gas imported from abroad for cheap energy, the head of the Environment Agency has said (Daily Telegraph 8 May 2012)

Lord Smith is reported as “confident” potential risks can be fully understood and appropriate regulations can be put in place.  Yet

• a scientist would take care not to claim “full” understanding of risks, especially when 20 years of fracking in the USA hasn't resulted in full understanding there.
• The groundwater Directive prohibits the discharge of List 1 substances into groundwater – these are present in rock strata, though the processes by which they are mobilised depend on local detail and are largely unknown.
• If the EA accepted zero tolerance of mobilisation of List 1 substances, they could not be confident that any practicable regulation would meet this requirement. They are likely instead – as for Quadrilla's fracking – to ignore the onus set on applicants by the groundwater directive to permit only if they show zero (or non-detectable) release of List 1 substances.

We asked the EA to supply documentation supporting Lord Smith's statement, but they could only refer us to earlier material (ANNEX below). They avoid the word “support” by using “reflect”:

“Our position reflects the Government’s support of industry’s endeavours in pursuing unconventional gas energy sources”

We note that the Westminster Government has now “rejected shale gas technology as a solution to Britain's energy crisis, conceding it will do little to cut bills or keep the lights on” (Government backtracks on fracking Matt Chorley, Independent on Sunday, 20 May 2012 :

Ministers decide there is not enough gas under UK to justify controversial 'earthquake' drilling

The Independent on Sunday has learned that industry experts made clear at a meeting attended by senior ministers, including David Cameron and Ed Davey, the Lib Dem energy secretary, that the UK's reserves were smaller than first thought and could be uneconomical to extract.

Now senior coalition figures have agreed that shale gas has the potential to be deeply controversial without securing major benefits in lowering carbon emissions or reducing energy costs.

Hence the EA's failure to give priority to firm application of the Groundwater Directive and act as an independent regulator, due apparently to a desire to 'reflect' Government policy, has now been left high and dry by the policy change.

Locally the EA was no better. At the VoG Scrutiny committee on 17 Oct. 2011, the regulator (John Harrison, Environment Agency) was asked about the European groundwater directive, which forbids discharges of some chemicals to groundwater and is strongly restrictive on many others. Since this Directive supports the bans of fracking in France and parts of Germany, why is the EA in England and Wales not applying it similarly?

… it’s one of the things we will take into consideration (John Harrison replied) when we have an applicant’s information on their permit application (not reported in the VoG record)

That shows failure to respect the absolute ban on List-1 chemicals - the EA policy was and still is to try fracking and see if there are any problems, rather than ban it until we know the groundwater will not be polluted (highly unlikely on US experience). Though government tells us to rely on the EA to protect our environment, this exchange showed we can’t.

Barry/Vale Friends of the Earth 21^st May 2012

--------------------------------------------------------------

ANNEX  correspondence with the EA

"Enquiries, Unit" <enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk>

Date: 15/05/2012 16:19

Subject: 120515/FH27 Lord Smith's statement/interview on Fracking

Information on how we, and other organisations, regulate unconventional gases can be found via the link below:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/133885.aspx

Please find below the response from our Environment & Business team.

Key messages - from reactive media briefing (20th Feb 12)

• The UK Government supports industry’s endeavours in pursuing unconventional gas energy sources so long as the tapping of these proves to be technically, economically and environmentally sustainable
• Even as the UK moves towards a less carbon intensive future, oil and gas will remain a vital part of our energy system for years to come
• Our position reflects the Government’s support of industry’s endeavours in pursuing unconventional gas energy sources whilst ensuring that the environment and communities are protected
• Our key role is to determine whether an operation poses a risk to surface and ground waters and we are deciding on the appropriate regulation on a site-specific basis
• We believe the current regulatory framework gives us the tools we need to protect the environment – and we are continuing to keep this under review

Our Chairman has given his conditional support to the expansion of the controversial "fracking" method of extracting natural gas from shale rock in the UK. Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17987356 andhttp://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5i7nX4lpX1hmTQgfhmRpan_EPuQnw?docId=N0164721336492776319A

  

From: Max Wallis [mailto:WallisMK@cardiff.ac.uk] Sent: 11 May 2012 14:40 To: Enquiries, Unit
Subject: Lord Smith's statement/interview on Fracking

re. Lord Smith's statement/interview that he backs Fracking

Could you please show if Lord Smith's statements in the media reflect agreed policy of the Environment Agency and supply or refer me to relevant documentation, other than that on the webpage relating to shale 'unconventional' gas?

Thank you for your help.

Max Wallis, Barry & Vale Friends of the Earth