HOW TO OBJECT TO FRACKING POLICY AT FIFE COUNCIL BY midnight tomorrow (8 Dec) This is especially pertinent to those who live in Fife, so please disseminate this quickly to any contacts or Networks you have in Fife as quickly as you can, and please impress on them the urgency. You can still object if you live outwith Fife, and this planning document impacts directly upon those on the other side of the Forth in Portobello. Register or log in to Fife Planning portal at: lpconsult.fife.gov.uk/portal Navigate to ‘FIFE PLAN – Proposed Local Development Plan’ Then click on ‘Comment on a Policy’ Scroll down to ‘Policy 15: Minerals’ Then click on ‘add comment’ You can upload a file, such as the one I uploaded Title: Letter from Minister for Local Government and Planning, Derek MacKay MSP Description: Confirming the new Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). As you know, the proposed draft policies on onshore oil and gas were widely welcomed, particularly the removal of the perceived presumption in favour of development and the need for proposals to provide adequate buffer zones between sites and settlements. Following extensive public consultation and rigorous scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament it was clear that concerns remained over buffer zones and community engagement. The final policies in the SPP have been strengthened further to address these concerns. This letter from the Minister for Local Government and Planning MSP Derek MacKay confirms the current national policy stance. Then in the comment box, this is what I sent. You might want to do a slimmed down version and put in your own thoughts and concerns: 7 DECEMBER 2014 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PLANNING) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2008 EXAMINATION OF PROPOSED FIFE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (“the LDP”) UNDER S. 19 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 REFERENCE: ‘Fife Local Development Plan: Consultation Draft Minerals Supplementary Guidance’ OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION RESPONSE TO: ‘Draft MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE’ 1) I would like to comment on the implications arising from the newly published [Scottish Planning Policy (“the new SPP”)] and [National Planning Framework 3 (“NPF3”)] for the FIFE LDP: DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE SECTION 5.3 and LDP policy response to hydraulic fracturing and coal bed methane gas extraction. 2) In addition, I would like to identify the differences between each old and new document and comment on their significance for the LDP. The new SPP contradicts your policy in the following areas: a) a presumption in favour has been removed and replaced by opposition or more stringent guidelines; b) the LDP should pay greater and more explicit attention to the assessment of cumulative impact, as various representations suggest; c) buffer zones remain inappropriate; and the criteria in DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE address all of the requirements set out in d) paragraphs 237 and 240 of the new SPP. 3) Additionally, I would like to submit evidence from a meeting beween Laura Eaton-Lewis and independent Geologist, Angus Miller PhD (specialist in Seismology and the Midlands Valley) which provides evidence that current legislation being considered under the UK Infrastructure Bill is in contradiction with recommendations from the British Geological Society Shale Report for UK Governement, and current industry protocols for safety. There is no current Scottish Government energy or economic policy that would explicitly support the favourable position expressed in FIFE LDP: DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE SECTION 5.3. I make the following response: 1.1 The new national policy framework (consisting of NPF3 and the new SPP) is not explicitly supportive of unconventional gas development, whereas the wording of Policy FIFE LDP: DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE SECTION 5.3 in the LDP appears to be, thereby putting local and national policy in conflict. There are fundamental differences between past and present national planning frameworks that must be taken into account in reviewing the LDP. The inclusion of support for unconventional gas development in the proposed LDP is in contradiction to the new national policy framework. I understand that in Falkirk such a change was made to the LDP and it was a late change of some significance which appears to have resulted from a single submission to support a material interest, based on a national planning framework that has now been superseded and is now more cautious in relation to CBM, and was met with significant opposition from Community Councils and over a thousand local residents. In Fife there is clear evidence that the community does not support this policy, as can be seen in the opinions of over 2,500 signatories to the online petition entitled “Fife Council: Dont allow the burning of coal under the Firth of Forth” and over 49,000 signatories to the online petition ‘Ban Fracking in the Central Belt of Scotland’. Thus, the wording of policy FIFE LDP: DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE SECTION 5.3 reflects neither the position of the new national policy framework, nor the will of the local community, nor, it appears, the principle that local planning policy should be neutral and in the wider public interest. Revised wording, therefore, should reflect these and be consistent in tone with a neutral wording. 1.2 National Planning Framework 3 1.2.1 The table below sets out in full the wording relevant to CBM from National Planning Framework 2, published in 2009 (“NPF2”) and from NPF3, for the purposes of comparison. 1.2.2 NPF3 paragraph 4.26 states that CBM “could” contribute to secure energy supplies in the medium term, whereas NPF2 recommends that planning authorities “should” consider onshore gas extraction in developing their local plans. There is a fundamental difference in the meaning of the words “should” and “could”. The former implies recommendation, the latter, recognition that a thing is possible. 1.2.3 It is submitted that initial support in NPF2 for CBM extraction (linked with carbon capture and storage) has been turned from a recommendation (“should”), to a more muted expression of a potential benefit (“could”) of CBM for national energy security in NPF3, one which is tempered by a significantly more precautionary, approach to the assessment of its effects on communities and the environment that was not evident in NPF2. 1.2.4 To understand the significance of the statement in NPF3 that CBM could contribute to Scotland’s energy security “in the medium term”, it helps to look at paragraph 235 of the new SPP, which recognises the “national benefit of indigenous coal, oil and gas production in maintaining a diverse energy mix and improving energy security”. This includes all fossil fuels, not just CBM. This suggests that, provided indigenous supplies of coal, oil and gas continue to be available in the short term, there is no demonstrable need, in terms of energy security, for CBM development, albeit there might be in the medium term, subject to the caveat that such development has “negative environmental and community impacts” which it will take “careful planning to avoid”. 1.2.5 NPF3 also emphasises that Scotland should be a low carbon place and that is one of the specific outcomes referred to – see page 2 and Chapter 3. Coal bed methane (CBM) is a fossil fuel, producing significant amounts of carbon dioxide when burned, so it cannot be described as a low carbon fuel. Furthermore, when emitted to the atmosphere unburned, fugitive methane’s impact as a greenhouse gas on climate change is over 30 times greater than that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. Thus, until the climate impacts of CBM extraction are fully understood, given the precautionary approach stressed in the new national planning framework, to adopt a local development plan that supports CBM extraction at this stage would be contrary to the low carbon aspirations of NPF3. 1.3 Scottish Planning Policy 1.3.1 The precautionary purpose behind the most recent changes to the SPP in relation to unconventional oil and gas is helpfully set out in a letter from the Minister for Planning and Local Government to Friends of the Earth Scotland (attached as Appendix 1 to this response), issued the same day as the new SPP was published. That letter, in particular its acknowledgement that “this is an emerging area of scientific research, where evidence about potential health impacts is developing”, reflects the new caution about community and environmental impacts in NPF3. 1.3.2 The table in Annex A sets out in full the relevant policy wording from the previous Scottish Planning Policy, published in 2010 (“SPP 2010”, paragraphs 236 to 238), from the Scottish Planning Policy consultation draft issued in 2013 (“the consultation draft”, paragraphs 166 to 179) and from the new SPP (paragraphs 234 to 248), for the purposes of comparison. 1.3.3 It is evident from the table that the new SPP, despite a wider scope which now includes all mineral extraction, still contains much more detailed and stricter policy on onshore oil and gas extraction than SPP 2010. 1.3.4 The shift of Government’s position from supportive to precautionary is best highlighted in the change from “operators should take into account the potential effects on neighbouring uses and use directional drilling wherever feasible” in SPP 2010 (paragraph 238), and the 2013 consultation draft, to the following guidelines in paragraph 245 in the final version: · applicants should undertake a risk assessment (which the letter attached as Appendix 1 makes clear is an “additional requirement” over and above environmental impact assessment); · the risk assessment should be developed in consultation with local communities (as well as statutory consultees); · the risk assessment should clearly identify potential risks using a source- pathway-receptor model; · the risk assessment should explain how measures will be used to monitor, manage and mitigate the risks; and · the evidence from the risk assessment should lead to buffer zones being proposed, to be assessed by planning authorities; · if a buffer zone is considered inadequate, planning permission should be refused. 1.3.5 A theme which has remained consistent throughout the development from old to new SPP is the requirement, where a Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence (PEDL) extends across local authority boundaries to “provide a consistent approach to extraction”. As PEDL133 also extends across Stirling and Falkirk Council’s area, it is therefore necessary to examine their proposed plan. 1.4 Stirling and Falkirk Council policy 1.4.1 Falkirk Council’s Modified Draft Local Development Plan was published following examination by a Reporter in early 2014 – relevant extract attached as Appendix 2. It is submitted that the Stirling Council’s Primary Policy 11, which refers to CBM extraction, is neutral in tone and therefore more in keeping with NPF3. We therefore submit that policy FIFE LDP: DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE SECTION 5.3, which currently appears to express a presumption in favour of CBM extraction, should also be neutral in tone (see 1.6.1 see below). 1.5 LDP Consultation Process 1.5.1 In the development process for the current LDP, CBM extraction receives only cursory mention in the DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE SECTION 5.3, 1.5.2 The first mention of “support” for coal-bed methane extraction is representation by Dart Energy (Europe) Ltd in response to the Main Issues Report (CD15) for Falkirk Council. It is the sole response which calls for policy support for CBM: “given the incremental and long term nature of coal bed methane (CBM) exploration and production support within the LDP is essential...suggested supporting text and a policy on unconventional gas is proposed” Their argument is based on the apparent support given by the previous national planning framework represented by NPF2 and SPP2010. “National policy seeks to encourage the extraction of unconventional gas.” And it should be noted that the applicant had a material interest in the subsequent change to the policy wording. 1.5.3 In the final Consultation Report (CD14), Falkirk Council’s response to Dart Energy’s representation acknowledges “the potential for coal bed methane” but in no way indicated to the local community that they might expect the proposed minerals policy should, or would, be supportive. 1.5.4 When the proposed LDP was published, the novel and unexpected policy change in FIFE LDP: DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE SECTION 5.3 in support of unconventional gas has not been advertised to the local community for their consulation and very few people know about this consultation process, despite widespread public opposition to UGC extraction. The general view of local residents should not only be a material consideration in relation to this policy, particularly when weighed against the single argument for support, but it also emphasised the precautionary approach which would soon become prevalent in the new national policy framework. 1.5.5 I therefore that submit that as FIFE LDP: DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE SECTION 5.3 appears to have been drafted, in response to a single representation in support of a material interest, when NPF2 was in force, it is now incumbent on Fife Council to take the subsequent objections of a significant number of local residents, and the more muted expression of potential benefit in NPF3 into account (see 1.6 below) when considering the wording of the policy in relation to CBM. 1.6 Conclusion 1.6.1 Under consideration of all of the above, I respectfully submit that to make Fife’s proposed LDP consistent with the neutral and precautionary position on onshore oil and gas extant in the national policy framework, the general response by local residents and Community Councils, and in Fife Council’s proposed minerals policy, the express provision of support in section 5.3 of FIFE LDP: DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE SECTION 5.3 must be changed as follows: Policy FIFE LDP: DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE SECTION 5.3 Mineral Resources 3. The extraction of coal bed methane will not be supported unless the applicant can demonstrate that there are national or economic interests which would outweigh the community or environmental impacts or that the proposal is environmentally acceptable or can be made so. 1.7 Additional Comments 1.7.1 In response to the my points 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d) about NPF3 and the new SPP: . a) A presumption in favour has been removed – as confirmed by the letter attached at Appendix 1, which says that stakeholders welcomed “the removal [in the consultation draft] of the perceived presumption in favour of development” – and replaced by more stringent guidelines, notably those that appear in the new SPP at paragraphs 240, 245 and 246. . b) Insofar as cumulative impact can be understood as meaning the accumulation of impacts over time within the same development, as old phases are completed and new ones begun, the new SPP does “encourage operators to be as clear as possible about the minimum and maximum extent of operations” in order that such future cumulative impact can be assessed at the exploration phase. In the DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE Sections 6.45 and 6.46 make no reference to the monitoring of water quality. Planned unconventional gas extraction is associated with the risk of gas or contaminated water escaping into local ground water or into the sea-bed of the Firth of Forth. It is therefore essential for communities close to this activity that monitoring of water quality takes place regularly, transparently and close to drilling sites. Sections 6.45 and 6.46 make no reference to baseline monitoring of any kind. In order to make an accurate assessment of the impact of unconventional gas extraction, there must be baselines of air, ground water and surface water quality. These should take place for at least one year before any activity begins to allow for seasonal variations and ideally for several years to allow for variations in weather between years. Without these baselines, any attempt to hold potential polluters to account will be restricted and environmental monitoring would therefore be insufficient to protect the environment. . c) It is quite clear that buffer zones based on the new risk assessment have become extremely important, to the extent that an inadequate proposal for a buffer zone may lead to a refusal of planning permission. Section 6.53 makes reference to buffer zones of 500m to protect communities from noise, dust, vibration and visual intrusion. This buffer zone does not consider the potential for air and water pollution which should necessitate a much larger buffer zone. We suggest 2,000m as recommended by Friends of the Earth Scotland and implemented in New South Wales, Australia. Latest Scottish government policy states that buffer zones should apply to all onshore oil and gas activity. . . d) Impacts on “individual houses”, as set out in paragraph 237 of the new SPP, are not covered by policy DRAFT MINERALS SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE. Nor are any of the guidelines in paragraph 240 (or indeed many in paragraphs 245 and 246). 1.7.2 Additional evidence gathered from a meeting between Laura Eaton-Lewis and independent Geologist, Angus Miller PhD (specialist in Seismology and the Midlands Valley) which provides evidence that current legislation being considered under the UK Infrastructure Bill is in contradiction with recommendations from the British Geological Society Shale Report for UK Government, and current industry protocols for safety. The UK government and Scottish Government are committed to reducing emissions and increasing renewable energy sources, both of these goals will be set back by UCG extraction. There is a scientific consensus amongst all earth scientists that only 20% of known fossil fuel reserves can be burned, UCG is therefore untenable in this context. If UCG extraction is to be considered for planning permission, independent geologist Angus Miller recommends on the basis of industry recommendations that planning regulations require the following as a minimum: : a) provision of adequate community restoration bonds to cover cleanup and restoration in the event of community damage, pollution and well failure b) Baseline studies of water, air and soil must be carried out for at least a year by an independent body, such as SEPA. This does not currently happen and would have to be undertaken at cost to the company. This is essential to measuring pollution and safety levels and showing the absence or presence of public health effects. c) a 2km buffer zone between communities is an essential safety measure, since wells can and do fail, leading to contamination of groundwater, farmland and air d) As recommended in the British Geological Society Shale Reports, there should be absolutely no drilling at all between a barrier distance of 304m from the bottom of the lowest existing mine. This is due to risks of subsidence from collapse of mines. Independent geologists actually recommend a more stringent minimum safe depth of 500m as per protocol in USA and Australia. e) Planning should consider fully the risks of the geology under settlements which include fractures and fissures from historic mines, meaning that in such geologies, leakage of gas and fluid from hydraulic fracturing and goal gasification is highly certain. f) Current UK plans in the infrastructure bill to allow seismic activity of up to 3.5 magnitude is too problematic for the geology of the Midland Valley and Fife area and causes collapse of mines through and under mines. Independent geologists recommend maximum of 2.0 magnitude. g) British Geological Society have baseline level of seismic activity, and show there are currently very few big earthquakes but lots of tunnel collapses in coalmines, some serious subsidence related to shallow mines. Since the demise of the coal mining industry there are no longer many seismic stations around preventing BGS from recording such small events now. There is case for installing seismic monitoring equipment to ensure monitoring is done properly to prevent recurrent collapse of historic mines (the impact of which would be subsidence and leakage of gas and fracturing fluid into the surrounding environment) h) For planning permission to be granted you need to have a process in place to monitor: Depth, Where earthquakes might be, where contamination might happen. The Fife and Midland Valley area is a very fractured coalfield and fractures will be bad. i) New Scottish Planning Policy includes recommendations for Green belt, and protection of the coastal environment at a high level, as guidance for Local Authorities. Council Planning should ensure that this policy is followed and on that basis what should and shouldn’t be allowed If communities are to experience a truly safe extraction of UCG in the particular geology of the Midland Valley, these safeguards are reasonable to provide the minimum level of public health.
Posted on: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 20:19:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015