Environmental group fails in challenge to licence variation for fracking firm
The High Court has rejected all grounds of a challenge by environmental group Friends of the Earth (FoE) to the Environment Agency’s decision to grant a licence variation to fracking firm Cuadrilla Bowland.
Cuadrilla was granted the variation in December 2017 for work at its site at Preston New Road, Lancashire, which has been the scene of numerous anti-fracking protests.
In Friends of the Earth Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd [2019] EWHC 25 (Admin) Supperstone J ruled that while the case was arguable none of the grounds of challenge was made out.
The variation amended the injection limit of 765m3 of fracturing fluid per day to a limit of 765m3 per hydraulic fracturing stage.
FoE argued that the agency breached the requirements of The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016/1154 and the Industrial Emissions Directive by failing to adequately consider whether electrocoagulation would constitute the ‘best available technique’ for the treatment and re-use of ‘flowback’ fluid.
It also argued that the agency breached its duty to encourage use of the emerging techniques at the site when deciding whether to grant the variation and failed to consider FoE’s representations.
The judge heard technical evidence on ‘flowback’ fluid - which is pumped to the surface during fracking, then subjected to ultra violet disinfection and returned.
He said the agency was not required to review Cuadrilla’s waste management plan for the fluid as there would be “no substantial changes to the operation of the waste facility”.
The waste management plan did not impose any constraint on the number of stages of fracking per day and so it could not be argued that the agency proceeded on the basis of an error of fact over the change to permitted rates.
Supperstone J added: “I do not accept that the agency ignored the claimant's representations made on 4 December 2017 [as] the Variation Decision refers to them under the heading ‘Advertising and consultation on the Draft Decision’.”
Mark Smulian
