05/13/0018 Anna’s Road EIA for First Horizontal Well
Lancashire County Council has issued guidance to residents as to issues that are “material” to the application and valid planning issues.
- Scale, appearance and design of the proposal
- Impact on residential amenity
- Impact on the character of the area
- Effect on nature conservation and trees
- Effect on highway safety and parking
- Effect on Conservation Area or Listed Buildings
- Effect on private property values (mention anyway as prices are already effected)
- Disturbance during construction (mention anyway as construction will be continuous)
- Matters covered under other legislation, e.g. Waste management (mention anyway as legislation is inadequate)
- Loss of view across somebody else’s land
- Personal issues with the applicant
- Private rights of way
- Land ownership or boundary disputes
- Trade competition
The following are examples of matters that can be planning reasons for objecting:
- Appearance (design, materials to be used etc)
- Impact on existing residents, for example overlooking, loss of light etc (residential amenity)
- Traffic, parking or access problems from the completed development
- Drainage problems
- Contrary to Planning Policies (National or Local)
The following are NOT relevant planning reasons and will not be taken into account:
- Loss of view
- Impact on property values
- Neighbour disputes
- Land Ownership and problems with actual construction
- Wider business interests
- Personal information about the applicant
Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Examples
I’m writing to you to object to planning application 12/00576/FUL for the following reasons:
- Environmental Damage. The proposed development is for a technology that has a proved track record of environmental damage. In particular the applicant has a history of environmental damage in CBM developments in Australia.
- Lack of local benefit. It is confirmed in the application that the development will provide very little in way of local benefit. At most a small number of administration jobs may be created. This does not mitigate the potential environmental loss the area will suffer.
- Water Pollution. The development will involve the dumping of large amounts of polluted water. Withdrawal of large amounts of water could affect the local water table. Whilst the applicant may require a SEPA regulation SEPA’s remit does not cover all aspects of the development, the water depletion and the cumulative affect of this and future developments as this technology is being exploited before Scottish environmental regulations have been updated to reflected the growing evidence of the damaged caused by CBM production.
- Areas of SSSI. Protected nature reserves, historic woodlands and local wildlife sites are all potentially affected. Due to the delicate nature of various sites within the proposed development I’m concerned that any accidental pollution could have a even higher impact that at other sites. It is also clear that the produced water will be piped through and disposed of into SSSI & Ramsar sites.
- Climate Change. Despite assertion in the the application CBM is a fossil fuel. The applicant shows no evidence that use of CBM will reduce the use of other fossil fuels. The use of CBM will increased Scotland’s CO2 emissions. The application take no account of fugitive emissions (methane escaping from the coal bed into the atmosphere). These have been shown to be considerable in other developments are are even more damaging to the climate than CO2.
- Extent of proposals. This proposal is only viable if numerous additional site are included in the future.
- Local Plan. The SCLP states “that new development will be provided for to meet the economic and social needs of the district in a manner which does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and to enjoy a high quality environment. It continues that all development must, insofar as practicable, protect environmental assets, conserve resources and keep environmental impacts to a minimum.” This proposal appears to contradict this.
You can see loads more examples of objections on the Moodiesburn Coal Bed Methane application in Lanarkshire that was withdrawn after 209 objections (11/01318/FUL). Some of these objections are very detailed and take issue with specific sections of the application.
Even if you are not a resident you can object and the examples below contain a combination of planning issues and personal testimony.
SHALE Gas (Fracking) Examples
Dear Planning Officer
Objection to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in Lancashire.
I object to plans by Cuadrilla Resources to carry out horizontal drilling at Anna’s Road exploration site, Westby, and to the applications to extend the time to complete their testing programmes at Preese Hall Farm, Weeton and Grange Road, Singleton (application numbers05/11/0431 and 05/12/003) and Banks.
Drilling for shale gas poses serious risks to the environment and health, Experience in the USA has linked fracking to water and air pollution, and in the UK it has already caused earth tremors.
I am concerned that exploratory drilling for shale gas will open the way for large scale exploitation of the Lancashire countryside. There are serious concerns that shale gas extraction will cause water pollution and harm wildlife and natural habitats. It will also make it harder to reduce our carbon emissions and meet climate change targets.
Lancashire County Council must reject further fracking and instead support harnessing the vast renewable energy resources in Lancashire including wind. Investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency will secure a clean and green energy supply for the future and provide thousands of green jobs for the county and across the UK.
Dear Development Control Officer and Members of The Planning Committee
(DevCon – Please copy to Planning Committee Members)
Re Planning Application no. 08/12/1032:
I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to this planning application, which will bring no real tangible benefit to the area but on the contrary is very likely to lead to serious environmental damage to the whole region. Pollution of the River Ribble would devastate local farming interests; also Banks Marsh, in the Ribble Estuary National Nature Reserve, is one of the most important sites in the United Kingdom for wintering wildfowl. It is an area of international significance, having been declared a Ramsar Site as well as a Special Protection Area (SPA) – to jeopardise such an important national treasure would surely constitute rank irresponsibility.
As a one-time resident of this region I have spent a number of very enjoyable holidays in the area. I must assure you that if this threat to the local environment, including possible pollution of local water supplies, goes ahead then I will not be visiting your area again. I believe this view will be shared by many others, nationally and internationally, and I would ask you in your considerations to bear in mind that ‘threat to local businesses’ (tourism, in this case) is a material planning consideration.
Together with threats to farming and an internationally-significant conservation area, I personally would consider this constitutes more than adequate grounds for refusal.
I respectfully urge you to reject this application.
Please feel free to add via comments