Campaigners win permission for Court of Appeal challenge to fracking decision
Campaigners have this week been granted permission to appeal a Planning Court ruling allowing fracking at a site in Lancashire.
In April this year Mr Justice Dove dismissed legal action brought by Gayzer Frackman and the Preston New Road Action Group (PNRAG).
Frackman and PNRAG had challenged the Communities Secretary’s decision to overturn Lancashire County Council’s rejection of an application by energy business Cuadrilla to drill for and extract shale gas through fracking.
Lord Justice Jackson has now given both permission to appeal.
Law firm Leigh Day, which is acting for PNRAG, said its appeal was based on four grounds, namely that the Secretary of State and the Inspector made errors of law by:
- misinterpreting a policy protecting against harm to the landscape;
- wrongly applying the National Planning Policy Framework;
- denying a fair hearing during the planning inquiry; and
- using a "wildly different" test for assessing the impact on the quality of life of those living nearby.
Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith said: “This news is extremely positive, and we are very pleased that the Court of Appeal agrees with our assessment that our arguments have sufficient prospects of success to warrant an appeal hearing.
"Encouragingly, Lord Justice Jackson also concurred that our point about the National Planning Policy Framework is indeed a matter of general public importance, given the correct application of the rules will have far reaching effects for many other planning law cases. We are also relieved that PNRAG has costs protection in the appeal, as it did in the planning court. We will be pushing for a hearing next month.”
Estelle Dehon, a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers, who is instructed (together with Mark Willers QC of Garden Court Chambers) by Richard Buxton Environmental & Public Law for Mr Frackman, said: "In granting permission, the Court of Appeal said Mr Frackman’s case raises issues of ‘general public importance’.
“There are three key issues. First, whether the cumulative impacts of fracking on climate change (because of admitted greenhouse gas emissions) were properly taken into account when the Government granted permission for fracking at PNR.
“Second, whether the 'extended flow testing stage' is shale gas production in disguise and if the Government properly considered the environmental impact of that stage.
“Third, should the Government have adopted a precautionary approach to granting permission because of the evidence it had of the health impacts of fracking and whether the Government acted rationally to rely upon other regulatory regimes when concluding that the unknown health risks of fracking could be controlled."
Gayzer Frackman said: “I am grateful that the Court of Appeal recognised the importance of our appeal and the appeal by Preston New Road Action Group, which test the Government's 'drill first, ask questions later' approach to fracking.
“The Government must be held to account for failing to protect UK citizens from the health impacts of fracking and the untold damage it will cause to our environment, our climate, and those living near the site in Lancashire.”
