By e-mail
21 February 2014
South East Office
39-41 Surrey Street
Brighton
BN1 3PB
Application Number: SDNP/13/05896/CM
Location: Nine Acre Copse Vann Road Linchmere West Sussex
Proposal: The installation of a well and associated infrastructure, including access
road and soil bunds, for the drilling of a vertical borehole and contingent horizontal
borehole from the same well for the exploration, testing and evaluation of
hydrocarbons for a temporary period of three years
Dear Sir/Madam,
Friends of the Earth OBJECTS to this application for development on the grounds:





It does not meet the core purposes of the National Park;
It is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework;
There would be unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural environment
It is inconsistent with the precautionary principle and EU water legislation;
It is incompatible with the need for planning to reduce climate change
emissions
National Park purposes
This development does not meet the two core purposes of the national park –
“To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the
area”
“To promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special
qualities of the Park by the public”
The development comprises an industrial activity that is not in keeping with the Park
purposes. Although this is seen as a temporary test project the fact that it could last
for 3 years will impact on the National Park. The tranquillity and beauty of the area
will be affected not just by the drilling itself but by the increased HGV traffic in the
area.
National Planning Policy Guidance on National Park development
The development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework as regards
National Parksi, since onshore oil and gas exploration is not in the public interest and
impacts on the local and wider environment will be significant (for the reasons set out
below).
National Planning Policy Framework guidance on major developments in National
Parks states:
“ Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these
designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be
demonstrated they are in the public interest”
The applicant has not demonstrated that this is an exceptional circumstance and the
alternatives sites assessment report refers only to the PEDL 231 area when Celtique
Energie have other licenses in West Sussex .
Unacceptable adverse impacts and the Precautionary principle
The precautionary principle is a principle at the heart of environmental law to which
the UK Government has committed since it signed the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development in 1992. This states (at Principle 15) that, “where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation”. Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union declares that EU policy on the environment “shall be based on the
precautionary principle”. We are concerned that the local authority with respect to
this application is not applying a precautionary approach in a case with a high level
of public interest.
The precautionary principle finds specific expression through international and EU
law instruments to which the UK is a signatory (and in the case of EU law, bound)
including the Water Framework Directive, the Groundwater Directive and the
Habitats Directive. The Water Framework Directive (and its daughter Directives,
including Groundwater) applies strict standards and controls in relation in particular
to groundwater.
There is growing evidence in the UK and globally of the serious environmental
impacts from hydraulic fracturing including to ecology, climate, water resources, air
quality and seismic activity. The European Commission has identified water
contamination, water resource depletion, air pollution, biodiversity impacts and noise
as high risk concerns in its report ‘Support to the identification of potential risks for
the environment and human health arising from hydrocarbons operations involving
hydraulic fracturing in Europe’ August 2012
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/fracking%20study.pdf).
Whilst the company has not applied for permission to frack at the site, the activities it
intends to carry out there are directly connected to fracking and may in fact be
similar. For example, the use of chemicals in drilling muds and significant increases
in truck movements.
On these grounds, we believe that the local authority must take a precautionary
approach and refuse the application on the basis of the risk of significant
environmental impacts.
Further, we believe the application is contrary to wider policy as regards mineral
extraction on the basis that it may have “unacceptable adverse impacts” within the
meaning of paragraph 143, National Planning Policy Framework for the reasons set
out below.ii
Paragraph 144 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that when
determining planning applications, local planning authorities should "ensure in
granting planning permission for mineral development, that there are no
unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human
health [...]"
We object on the grounds of the following unacceptable adverse impacts:
Horizontal drilling
We are concerned that the developer has applied to drill horizontally, but that
insufficient information about this activity is given. There has been no assessment of
the impact of horizontal drilling within the land. The application should not be decided
until a full 3D geological survey has been undertaken, submitted and made available
for public consultation. A 3D survey is arguably also required in order to adequately
assess the hydrogeology of the strata which is important in order to assess water
impacts (see water section below).
The fact that the company wishes to drill horizontally, together with Information about
the geology in the area, implies that should gas or oil be discovered it would lead to
a need for hydraulic fracturing.
Professor David Smythe - a Professor of Geophysics - has establishediii that due to
the geology of the Sussex Weald Basin, any hydrocarbon extraction will need to
make use of hydraulic fracturing. He has also pointed out that the area is prone to
faults making it extremely difficult to judge any impacts of hydraulic fracturing. (Faults
can provide pathways to groundwater for pollutants including methane).
It is our view that if hydrocarbons could have been extracted conventionally this
would have been done in the past, rather than using a more expensive and risky
technology such as fracking.
Given the uncertainty about the nature of the rock and the hydrogeological setting,
we believe that the Authority must apply a precautionary approach which, in this
case, would mean refusing the application.
Proximity to housing
The site is approximately 120 metres from the nearest property. This is too close.
Nearby residents will be affected by noise, visual intrusion and disturbance from
construction and ongoing operations. They will also be adversely affected by the
increased traffic.
Traffic
The increase in HGV vehicles is detrimental to the first core purpose of the National
Park. The type of rural roads in this area make this an unsuitable site.
Noise and light
It is unacceptable to have industrial drilling rigs working 24/7 in an area that is
currently tranquil and rural. This is not in keeping with the village, nor the National
Park status.
Water and groundwater
There is inadequate information about water use and impacts on water, particularly
in terms of transport, extraction, pollution and potential leakage from the site. The
area lies within a surface water safeguard zone and partially within a groundwater
vulnerability zone. iv The impacts on wildlife and livestock from potential pollution do
not appear to have been assessed. We are unclear on whether the drilling muds to
be used will be oil based and whether any chemicals to be used have been
disclosed.
We note that the Environment Agency has requested that a “Risk Assessment to the
Water Environment” is provided before any development takes place - to include:
“An overall assessment of the impacts to groundwater from the drilling operation and
use of drilling additives”
It is our view that planning approval should not be given before the assessments
requested by the Agency are completed and approved.
Air Quality
The application contains inadequate information about air quality impacts, in
particular fugitive methane emissions, and the risks are therefore unknown. The
“principle elements of the Proposed Development” summary at the beginning of the
Project Description chapter makes no mention of erection of flares or venting
equipment. Whilst this is described later in the document it is unclear what size of
flare will be used.
Paragraph 4.65 of the Project Description chapter mentions that the flare stack could
“vent or flare” produced gas during the Extended Well testing phase. The Air Quality
chapter states that “it is not possible to quantify the amount of gas (if any) that might
need to be flared” but makes no mention of venting.
Uncertainty about water and air impacts requires the planning authority to apply a
precautionary approach. Venting is very harmful in carbon terms because methane
is a vastly more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2v (Venting may also have
significant air quality impacts). We are concerned that the Authority may struggle to
grant planning permission which is legally robust if the impacts of these activities
have not been fully evaluated and taken into account by the Authority.
Landscape and visual impacts
The scheme will have adverse impacts on the landscape and will affect views from
public rights of way. This is incompatible with the purposes of the National Park.
Wildlife and heritage impacts
We are concerned that wildlife will be affected by the operations – particularly the
lighting, noise and potential water pollution. The site is adjacent to ancient woodland
and close to a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The impacts on these are not fully
known.
Monitoring
Before conventional or unconventional drilling begins, it is essential to establish
baseline levels of pollution at the site in order to be clear about the impact which
exploratory activities will have. Baseline monitoring must be factored into the
decision making process through environmental assessment and this is particularly
important as regards air and water quality. The developer should be subject to
planning conditions to ensure that it continues to monitor for example, air and water
quality, at regular intervals throughout the period of the permission in order to rapidly
identify any material deterioration in air or water quality.
Climate change
The extraction and use of shale gas will make it much harder to meet our legallybinding climate change targets. The South Downs National Park Authority has an
important role to play in tackling climate change and national Planning guidance
affirms that climate change is a core principle.
The climate change impacts of an over-reliance on gas are very serious, with the
Committee on Climate Change (CCC) concluding that to meet our carbon budgets,
electricity generation must be almost entirely decarbonised by 2030. The CCC have
warned that ‘excessive use of unabated gas-fired capacity… would be incompatible
with meeting legislated carbon budgets’ and the Climate Change Act. vi
The Tyndall Centre at Manchester University conducted an assessment of the
climate and environmental risks from shale gas and concluded that shale gas
extraction poses ‘significant risks to human health and the environment’ and that
there is no evidence to back-up industry claims that shale gas could be a transition
route to a low carbon future vii
The latest Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change reportviii demonstrates that
extreme weather is being caused now by climate change, and will in the future. This
will lead to the occurrence of more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature
extremes, heat waves with a higher frequency for longer and more intense and
frequent extreme rainfall, resulting in flooding.
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 states in relation to climate change
that it is a core planning principle (para 17): “support the transition to a low carbon
future” and (para 93): “Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure
radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions…”.
Whilst the carbon impact of a single shale gas well may be unlikely to breach carbon
obligations of itself, it is essential (and in keeping with Annex II of the EIA Directive
re. screening) that the planning authority undertakes a cumulative assessment of
carbon impacts from developments in its area which include the impact of this
application. This assessment should take account of all impacts arising out of the
exploration for and development of the well included in the application, including
from combustion by any means of the gas extracted. Local government must take its
climate change obligations seriously and refuse damaging developments.
Scope
Whilst we note that the developer has committed not to undertake fracking, the
scope of the application is nonetheless broad enough to encompass this technique
(given the reference to “testing”). Since the impacts of fracking have not been
assessed through EIA, we believe the scope of the planning permission (if granted)
must explicitly exclude fracking to ensure that assessment of the impacts of this
particular activity is undertaken and that the Authority maintains effective control and
oversight of the use of the site.
Conclusion
The application to drill is contrary to the purposes of the National Park and the
National Planning Policy Framework as regards the Parks. The application is at risk
of breaching wider NPPF policy as regards minerals extraction and development
because it may have “unacceptable adverse impacts”. The application contains
inadequate information about a number of impacts meaning that a precautionary
approach must be applied and the application should not be granted.
Finally, the Authority must refuse this application on climate change grounds
because of the carbon impacts of shale gas activities.
Please keep us informed of progress of the application and the date at which the
committee will make a decision.
Yours sincerely,
Brenda Pollack
South East Campaigner
On behalf of Friends of the Earth
i
NPPF Paragraph 116 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2
iii
Submission to House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee Nov 2013
http://www.davidsmythe.org/fracking/Smythe%20shale%20gas%20submission%20to%20HoL%20v1.5.pdf
iv
http://maps.environmentagency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?value=GU27+3NJ&lang=_e&ep=map&topic=drinkingwater&layerGroup
s=default&scale=9&textonly=off&submit.x=0&submit.y=0#x=488407&y=128834&lg=1,2,&scale=9
v
The US Environmental Protection Authority states: “Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on
climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period” http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html.
vi
http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/EMR%20letter%20-%20September%2012.pdf
vii
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/coop_shale_gas_report_final_200111.pdf
viii
IPCC 5th Assessment Report – Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policy Makers
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf