Lancashire councillors refuse permission for fracking at coastal site
Members of Lancashire County Council's Development Control Committee have voted to refuse an energy company’s application to explore for shale gas at a site near Blackpool.
Cuadrilla had sought to conduct drilling, fracking and testing the flow of gas at the site at Preston New Road, Little Plumpton.
The application was refused on the grounds of noise and visual impact.
The Development Control Committee also refused a separate application for the same site to enable Cuadrilla to monitor its operations because of impact on the landscape.
Cllr Marcus Johnstone, cabinet member for environment, planning and cultural services, and member of the Development Control Committee, said: "This is one of the biggest planning decisions ever put before Lancashire County Council. The development control committee has listened very carefully to many hours of evidence both for and against the proposal, and considered the report of the council's planning officers.
“The decision to refuse this application has been reached by a vote of the committee, which is composed of elected councillors, and each member of the committee has ultimately cast their vote based on the evidence they have heard and whether they think the proposal is acceptable in planning terms, and to the people they represent."
Friends of the Earth north west campaigner Furqan Naeem, said: “People in Lancashire and across the UK who have been tirelessly campaigning against fracking will breathe a sigh of relief today….
“In the teeth of massive pressure from Cuadrilla and Westminster, Lancashire’s brave county councillors have voted to protect their citizens and the local environment - the winners today are democracy and the people of Lancashire.
“Both Cuadrilla and the Government must respect Lancashire’s decision and not try to force unpopular fracking on these communities.”
Planning officers had recommended approval of the application, subject to compliance on certain matters such as working hours.
On 24 June Lancashire published an advice note from a QC, which was commissioned after a councillor had proposed refusal of the scheme as being contrary to a policy (DM2) in the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Development Framework of the Core Strategy.
This is a general policy which is broadly supportive of minerals activity so long as a range of potential impacts can be kept to acceptable levels.
In his note David Manley QC of Kings Chambers highlighted how the county council’s own specialist advisory service had not objected to Cuadrilla’s proposal and had categorised landscape impacts as moderate and without significant effects upon the Coastal Plain Landscape Character Type or the Fylde Landscape Character Area.
The service had noted the effects as temporary and reversible and acceptable in landscape terms, with the reporting officer also concluding an absence of unacceptable landscape/visual impacts.
“I have not seen any evidence that could credibly justify a contrary conclusion – on any view, impacts are highly localised, temporary and reversible,” the QC said.
Analysing other potential amenity impacts, the QC said the case officer had unsurprisingly concluded compliance with the relevant policy.
Manley added: “I am unaware of any objective evidence that can gainsay the above conclusions. While a refusal which is not backed by substantial objective evidence cannot be described as unlawful, it nonetheless can readily be described as unreasonable in planning terms.
“If a refusal based on DM2 (or any other generalised policy) were to be issued, it is highly likely that the Applicant will appeal. In the absence of clear evidence to gainsay the views of the various consultees….. and the case officer, there is a high risk that a costs penalty will be imposed upon the council.”
The QC added that if a refusal based on the policy were to be issued, the case officer cannot give evidence at any appeal, as his position would be "impossible".
“Moreover, I anticipate that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a reputable independent planning consultant to defend LCC’s position,” he said. “The reality, therefore, is that a Member or Members will have to give evidence.”
Councillors last week refused application for a separate site at Roseacre Wood. Officers had recommended refusal in that case.
