News: OnDemand bus service aims to reconnect Rotherham

Residents of parts of Rotherham with limited access to scheduled bus services are being targeted by a new flexible public transport service to connect them to employment, education, healthcare, and retail.

Rothbiz reported last year that South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA) was looking to launch a pilot project around demand responsive transport as part of its work to address connectivity issues across the region following the Mayor’s decision to take control of the buses.

Using £0.95m from the government's Transport Innovation Fund (TIF), SYMCA has appointed technology partner Via for the pilot that will begin operating from 3 August for 12 months across parts of Doncaster and Rotherham. 

The service introduces a new way of travelling, allowing passengers to book shared bus journeys through the OnDemand app up to one week in advance or by phone, with no fixed routes or timetables. 

Designed to improve connections in areas where traditional services are limited, OnDemand will help people access jobs, education, healthcare and key destinations across the region. Unlike conventional bus routes, OnDemand uses intelligent technology to group passengers travelling in the same direction, offering a flexible, efficient and affordable service. 

Fares will start from £3 per journey, with concessions and discounts available, and the service will run Monday to Saturday between 5am and 6pm.  Importantly, the new service has been designed to complement not replace the existing public transport network, helping more people connect to buses, trams and trains across South Yorkshire.  

Advertisement
South Yorkshire’s Mayor Oliver Coppard said: “The People’s Network will put people first, making sure everyone in South Yorkshire can get where they need to go, when they need to get there. OnDemand in Doncaster and Rotherham brings that idea to life, with a flexible, modern service built around our everyday lives, not fixed routes or timetables. 

“Whether it’s getting to work, visiting loved ones, making an appointment or accessing education, communities in Doncaster and Rotherham will have more choice and greater control over how to travel. OnDemand is another important step towards building a public transport system that truly works for everyone – the People’s Network.” 

The Rotherham areas included in the OnDemand area are Waverley, Ulley, Morthern, Thurcroft, Brookhouse, Dinnington, Firbeck, Letwell, Todwick, Woodsetts, Thorpe Salvin and Harthill.

Users can travel within the designated operating zone. but for those travelling beyond the zone, OnDemand can connect passengers to designated interchange hubs (Dinnington, Rotherham Hospital, Rotherham town centre, Crystal Peaks) for onward travel using buses, trams or rail services.

Cllr Chris Read, Leader of Rotherham Council, said:  “It’s great to see this pilot becoming a reality. We know that as bus services have reduced in recent decades, the impact of that has been particularly felt in more rural areas. The way that public transport operates had got to change. That’s why we wanted to prioritise this opportunity for communities to the south of our borough, complementing and enhancing existing public transport, but also offering a flexibility that traditional bus services just can’t provide. 

“So if you’re at home in Todwick or Brookhouse, for example, and you need to get to the Tanyard, Rotherham Hospital or Meadowhall and back, this service provides a new convenient way to do that. I hope that people will give it a go, and their experiences will certainly help us to shape the future of public transport in the borough.” 

OnDemand South Yorkshire website

Images: Via

Read more...

News: Ineos timed out at second Rotherham fracking site

Planning permission has lapsed at a test drilling site in Rotherham.

Oil and gas exploration and production business, INEOS secured planning permission for a drilling rig to test for shale gas at Harthill following a public inquiry in 2018.

Years later the development has not started and now planning permission is no longer in place.

It comes at the same time as Ineos was refused planning permission for a second site at Woodsetts when the Secretary of State disagreed with a Planning Inspector’s recommendation and decided to dismiss the company's appeal.

INEOS appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over the non-determination of the application at a Greenbelt site between the villages of Harthill and Thorpe Salvin.

During the course of the public inquiry, Rotherham Council was satisfied by the proposed mitigation from the applicants having previously offered reasons for refusal on transport and ecology grounds.

Advertisement
The application provided temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation would involve various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well would have been drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing.

Applications were made in 2019 to discharge some of the conditions attached to the planning approval but they were never all approved by the local authority.

Chris Wilkins, development manager at Rotherham Council, explained: "The one at Harthill was approved on appeal but because they [Ineos] didn't implement the permission within the time period - becasue they couldn't discharge conditions with three years - basically the permission has run out. So that one has fallen by the wayside too.

"The two sites they had in the borough, at Woodsetts and Hartill, have now gone. Who knows if they come back with a revised scheme at one of those sites."

The government ended support for fracking in November 2019 on the basis of a report by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA), which found that it is not currently possible to accurately predict the probability or magnitude of earthquakes linked to fracking operations.

Ineos website

Images: INEOS / Turley

Read more...

News: New MP uses debut to focus on fracking

Alexander Stafford, the new Rother Valley MP, has used his debut appearance in the House of Commons to call for the current fracking ban to be made permanent.

The government ended support for fracking in November on the basis of a report by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA), which found that it is not currently possible to accurately predict the probability or magnitude of earthquakes linked to fracking operations.

Exploratory work to determine whether shale could be a new domestic energy source, delivering benefits for our economy and energy security, has now been paused - unless and until further evidence is provided that it can be carried out safely here.

Rotherham has seen two planning applications from oil and gas exploration and production business, INEOS, for similar test drilling wells. It was successful at a public inquiry over its Harthill application and appealed against a refusal for a site at Woodsetts.

A decision on the Woodsetts application is expected in April.

Advertisement

During a debate on climate change, Stafford asked the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, Kwasi Kwarteng: "Will my right hon. Friend agree with the residents of Woodsetts and Harthill in Rother Valley that the best way his Department can tackle climate change is to make the moratorium on fracking permanent?"

In reply, the minister said: "On fracking, the moratorium is what it says: we are stopping it. The only way it can be resumed is by compelling evidence, which so far is not forthcoming. So the moratorium stays and fracking, for the time being, is over."

Images: Alexander Stafford / Twitter

Read more...

News: Planning board votes on stance ahead of INEOS public inquiry

The planning board at Rotherham Council has voted on officer's recommendations to withdraw objections on highways grounds from INEOS' Woodsetts appeal process "in light of the lack of evidence."

Rothbiz revealed last week that officers believed that it could not fight its refusal of the plans by the oil and gas exploration and production business for a test drilling well on a Greenbelt site.

The plans were recommended for approval, having previously been refused on ecological grounds and on highway safety. The planning board went against officer's recommendations and refused the plans based on highway grounds and noise and general disturbance. Having been successful at the inquiry over its Harthill application, INEOS appealed against the Woodsetts decision.

Chris Wilkins, development manager at Rotherham Council, explained at a board meeting this week: "Following the refusal of the planning application the Transportation Unit have reviewed the information raised by Members in relation to safety concerns and, while recognising that these concerns are valid, do not consider that they would warrant a refusal of planning permission for the proposed development.

"For reasons of transparency and to allow an independent review of this assessment the Highway Authority [the Council] has then attempted to commission consultants who could re-assess the information and represent the Council's case at the forthcoming Public Inquiry.

"Responses were received from five separate consultants who had reviewed the information but were unable to provide a robust case to support the reason for refusal. One further consultant has indicated that they would be prepared to provide expert evidence in support of the highways reason for refusal but the information provided is not considered to be sufficiently robust to defend the decision to refuse the application on the highways grounds."

Costs to the Council and legal advice also points to the highway grounds refusal being withdrawn and that the decision is seen as "pragmatic and appropriate."

Advertisement

The noise and general disturbance reason will still be defended at the appeal by the Council, especially in relation to the HGVs used in developing the site. Woodsetts Against Fracking (WAF) have gained "Rule 6" status, which means that they will have equal standing to the Council and INEOS at the public inquiry and can still raise objections on highways and other grounds.

Richard Scholey, of WAF also spoke at the meeting and said that members voting to refuse planning permission in September was "a fine example of the planning system working as it was intended as planning officers should not have the final say on planning decisions." He added that nothing had changed since members voted for refusal.

The campaigner also accused the Council of self-protectionism and a lack of transparency.

Ian Ferguson, senior highway development control officer at Rotherham Council, told the board that he feels that the highways reasons for refusal would be "very difficult to defend" at an appeal.

Planning board member Cllr. Jenny Whysall, said: "At the meeting where we refused this application, I can't actually see any reason to change the views that we put forward then. And I'm not saying this lightly - I've thought long and hard about this - I think we have to look at what we do, and are, as a planning board because it seems to suggest to me that we are superfluous if we accept that officers are always right. And I say that with admiration for our team of officers but I think on this one, we have a moral obligation.

"We have every right to disagree and it's no reflection on anyone when we do that. We are not professional planners but we do know the places that we represent."

Fellow planning board member Cllr. John Williams: "We have got to have the confidence as decision makers that the Council has got a good chance of winning that appeal because to do otherwise, I think, is irresponsible. Cllr. Whysall talked about a moral responsibility but we also have a legal responsibility. We have to make good, responsible, sound and legal decisions."

He added that the consultants not being able to provide a robust case showed that there was a strong reason to remove the reasons for refusal.

The planning board voted to approve the recommendation to remove the highways grounds from the appeal objections.

INEOS said in a statement: "This has been a waste of time and money for everyone involved and we are disappointed that this objection was mounted in the first place. The Council has now acknowledged that defending a Planning Enquiry on the grounds it presented was a futile exercise that would incur significant cost and that dropping it was pragmatic and appropriate. We regret that this outbreak of common sense didn't occur earlier and that the Council's frivolous attitude to public money still continues in the form of their other objections to the scheme."

Images: INEOS

Read more...

News: Judge dismisses case over INEOS planning decision

A judge has sided with oil and gas exploration and production business, INEOS, and dismissed a legal case to overturn a planning inspector's decision to approve proposals for a test drilling well in Rotherham.

The community group Harthill Against Fracking (HAF) brought the challenge against the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government over a decision of the Planning Inspectorate last year.

The case relates to INEOS submitting an updated travel plan before the public inquiry where it was successful in obtaining planning permission. Rotherham Council had initially set out its stance that it would refuse the plans on transport and ecology grounds.

The application provides temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation will involve various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well is set to be drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing.

Mrs Justice Andrews DBE heard both sides of the claim that whether, in refusing the request from HAF to adjourn the planning inquiry so that they could consider new highways material, the planning inspector acted in breach of the rules of natural justice.

The case, heard in Leeds at the start of the year, showed that HAF relied on the Council to make the running in terms of opposing the appeal and calling expert evidence in opposition to INEOS on the two grounds of refusal.

Advertisement

Rotherham Council complained to the Planning Inspectorate that it had insufficient time to read, digest and respond to the new report from consultants AECOM, before it had to serve its own evidence.

INEOS argued that, although the AECOM report was 140 pages long, there were only nine pages of operative text describing the changes in the enhanced traffic management plan.

The authority's transport planner went on to state that the updated plan provided mitigation to his earlier concerns and reasons for refusal. The Council's planning board did not agree and the Council's position on the appeal remained one of opposition to the grant of planning permission on grounds of highway safety.

The Inspector ruled that the AECOM report should be accepted in evidence without an adjournment. INEOS representatives would answer questions on the report on day one before representations in the second week of the inquiry, in order to giver interested parties further time.

Solicitors for HAF argued that the timings and the decisions taken by the planning inspector were unfair.

The judge concluded: "The Inspector's refusal to adjourn the Inquiry and the reasonable and proportionate measures he adopted instead to cater for the position of interested parties, including the claimant, did not deprive the claimant of a reasonable opportunity to challenge INEOS's case and put his and HAF's opposing case on the appeal. There was no procedural unfairness, and there was no material prejudice. This statutory challenge must therefore be dismissed."

Images: INEOS / Turley

Read more...

News: Verdict awaited on Rotherham fracking court case

A judge's verdict is awaited in the legal battle to overturn a planning inspector's decision to approve proposals for a test drilling well in Rotherham.

The community group Harthill Against Fracking (HAF) have brought the challenge against the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government over a decision of the Planning Inspectorate last year.

The case relates to the oil and gas exploration and production business, INEOS, submitting an updated travel plan before the public inquiry where it was successful in obtaining planning permission.

HAF say that because of the late evidence and their outstanding request for an adjournment, which was not decided upon until the first day of the hearing, they did not know the full case they had to meet until the inquiry had started. Consequently, they were unable to adduce evidence or make submissions, informed by an expert, in relation to opposing INEOS' case.

Advertisement

In Leeds last week, HAF asked the court to consider whether, in refusing their request to adjourn the planning inquiry so that they could consider new highways material which emerged just before the inquiry was due to start, the planning inspector acted in breach of the rules of natural justice.

Les Barlow, co-chairman of HAF, said: "Fracking is a divisive issue across the country and it is crucial that local communities are properly involved in decisions relating to fracking which could affect their natural surroundings. We believe that our voice was diminished in this process due to the inspector’s refusal to adjourn the inquiry so that we could properly consider the late evidence which was submitted by INEOS."

Anna Dews, solicitor at law firm Leigh Day, added: "Our client believes the planning inspector's decision was wrong in law because, by allowing INEOS to adduce late evidence and refuse our client's subsequent application for an adjournment, the inspector acted in breach of the rules of natural justice.

"We hope that the High Court will agree with our client's arguments and quash the decision, allowing for a fresh inquiry in which all parties can properly consider all the information available and fully participate."

Images: INEOS / Turley

Read more...

News: INEOS appeal Rotherham refusal

Oil and gas exploration and production business, INEOS has submitted a planning appeal to overturn Rotherham Council's decision to refuse permission for a second test drilling well in the borough.

In September 2018, the planning board at Rotherham Council unanimously voted to refuse plans for a Greenbelt site at Woodsetts.

The application would provide temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation would involve months of various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well would be drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing.

Now planning consultants, Turley, have submitted paperwork to the Secretary of State to appeal the decision.

It now looks likely that another public inquiry will take place to hear the arguments for and against.

In June 2018, INEOS was granted planning approval for a drilling rig to test for shale gas in nearby Harthill following a public inquiry. INEOS appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over the non-determination of the application at another Greenbelt site.

Advertisement

In submitting the second set of plans for Woodestts, INEOS urged the council to vote for approval in order to "avoid the potential for a second appeal, and the associated costs claims that may be made in light of the lack of evidence behind the reason for refusal."

The updated plans were actually recommended for approval, having previously been refused on ecological grounds and on highway safety. INEOS provided additional ecological surveys and data following earlier criticism and pointed to the decision of the planning inspector in the Harthill case.

When plans were determined, planning officers said that the highway reasons for refusal could be defended at a public inquiry if a subsequent planning appeal is made.

Campaigners in the borough are still battling INEOS. A community group has been granted a hearing date for a judicial review into the planning inquiry which favoured INEOS and its proposed development at Harthill. It centres on when updated plans from INEOS were made public and the group not knowing the full case they had to meet until the inquiry.

INEOS wants to carry out further tests on the suitability of the area for hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

INEOS website

Images: INEOS / Turley

Read more...

News: INEOS Harthill judicial review moved to 2019

A legal battle to overturn a planning inspector's decision to approve proposals for a test drilling well in Rotherham has been pushed back to January.

Rothbiz reported last month that a community group had been granted a hearing date for a judicial review into the planning inquiry held earlier this year which favoured INEOS and its proposed development at Harthill.

The hearing was set to take place on November 13 at the High Court in London as it has been categorised a "Significant Planning Court Claim."

The hearing for the application has now been scheduled to be heard in Leeds Court on January 25 2019.

The case relates to the oil and gas exploration and production business submitting an updated travel plan, leaving Rotherham Council in a difficult position just weeks before a public inquiry.

Advertisement

The inquiry took place in June and the Harthill Against Fracking (HAF) group say that because of the late evidence and their outstanding request for an adjournment, which was not decided upon until the first day of the hearing, they did not know the full case they had to meet until the inquiry had started. Consequently, they were unable to adduce evidence or make submissions, informed by an expert, in relation to opposing INEOS' case.

The group has been given permission for a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the decision of the Secretary of State, given by his planning inspector. HAF is asking the court to consider whether, in refusing the request to adjourn the planning inquiry, the inspector acted in breach of the rules of natural justice.

Having been given the "hurry-up" by Government, INEOS appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over the non-determination of the application for a drilling rig on Greenbelt land between the villages of Harthill and Thorpe Salvin. It said it had encountered "unreasonable delays" in dealing with Rotherham Council. The company is hoping to carry out tests on the suitability of the area for hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking.

Images: INEOS

Read more...

News: "Let communities decide" on fracking

Rotherham Council leader, Chris Read has joined 850 councillors and other elected representatives in signing an open letter opposing government proposals to allow fracking companies to undertake exploratory drilling without local planning applications.

Rothbiz reported earlier this year that the Government said it would consult on whether shale exploration should be treated as permitted development, which enables certain types of work to be carried out without the need to apply for planning permission.

INEOS appealed to the Government's Planning Inspectorate last year for a decision on its proposed test well at Harthill with Rotherham Council upset by the way the oil and gas exploration business took the decision out of the hands of its planning authority.

Over 800 councillors have signed an open letter calling for the withdrawal of proposals that treat exploratory drilling by fracking companies as permitted development, and to respect the rights of communities to make decisions on shale gas activities through the local planning system.

The Government is proposing that exploratory drilling for shale gas should be granted planning permission through a permitted development right. This right means fracking companies don’t need to apply for planning permission from the local authority. Permitted development is a category of planning originally designed to facilitate minor structural changes to homes such as extensions and putting up sheds.

Advertisement

The government consultation closed on October 25 and has prompted hundreds of Councillors to express concern that the proposals are an affront to local democracy and risk industrialising the countryside. The letter – sent to the Secretaries of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, James Brokenshire MP and Greg Clark MP – has also been signed by MPs, Parish Councillors, and London Assembly Members.

Cllr. Chris Read said: "Permitted Development is designed for minor home improvements, not major industry. Ministers should drop these proposals."

Rotherham Council's approved response to the consultation, said: "The Council does not consider that any such non-hydraulic fracturing exploration should be permitted development, primarily as it would remove the local level of decision making and local accountability that communities expect.

"Whilst exploratory drills are not for full hydraulic fracturing (fracking), they can still have a significant impact on the locality, as evidenced at Harthill and Woodsetts. The correct route for such development is through the normal planning application and, where necessary, appeal process."

Plans for a test well at Harthill were approved by the planning inspector. The Woodsetts plans were refused by the planning board at Rotherham Council.

Images: INEOS

Read more...

News: High Court date over Rotherham test drilling decision

A community group has been granted a hearing date in its legal battle to overturn a planning inspector's decision to approve proposals for a test drilling well in Rotherham.

Rothbiz reported in April that the oil and gas exploration and production business, INEOS, submitted an updated travel plan regarding its proposed development at Harhill, leaving Rotherham Council in a difficult position just weeks before a public inquiry.

The inquiry took place in June and Harthill Against Fracking (HAF) group say that because of the late evidence and their outstanding request for an adjournment, which was not decided upon until the first day of the hearing, they did not know the full case they had to meet until the inquiry had started. Consequently, they were unable to adduce evidence or make submissions, informed by an expert, in relation to opposing INEOS' case.

Having been given the "hurry-up" by Government, INEOS appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over the non-determination of the application for a drilling rig on Greenbelt land between the villages of Harthill and Thorpe Salvin. It said it had encountered "unreasonable delays" in dealing with Rotherham Council.
The company is hoping to carry out tests on the suitability of the area for hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking.
The Council's transport planner had to put forward the authority's reasons for refusal focusing on highways issues at the inquiry whilst having the professional opinion that the updated mitigation proposals would mean that the application could be approved.

Advertisement

The group has been given permission for a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of the decision of the Secretary of State, given by his planning inspector. HAF is asking the court to consider whether, in refusing the request to adjourn the planning inquiry, the inspector acted in breach of the rules of natural justice.

The hearing will take place on November 13 at the High Court in London as it has been categorised a "Significant Planning Court Claim."

Les Barlow, chairman of HAF, said: "Our group of local residents is very concerned about the impact of fracking on our local community and environment and we were keen to be part of the planning process to voice our concerns. We hope that the court will acknowledge that, as a result of the Planning Inspector's decision to admit the late evidence and refuse an adjournment, the original planning inquiry was unfair and we hope that the court will order a fresh inquiry so that we can properly argue our case."

Anna Dews, solicitor at law firm Leigh Day, added: "Our client believes the planning Inspector's decision was wrong in law because the Inspector acted in breach of the rules of natural justice. By admitting key evidence, served on our client by INEOS only ten days before the inquiry started, and about which our client was unable to respond properly, we believe the inspector breached the common law.

"The judge who granted permission, also provided our client with an Aarhus environmental costs cap. This is an important step forward not only for our client but also other groups campaigning to protect the environment."

Images: INEOS / Turley

Read more...

News: INEOS Woodsetts plans recommended for approval

INEOS' re-submitted plans for a second test drilling well in Rotherham are being recommended for approval, having previously been refused by the Council's planning board.

Rothbiz reported in June that following the conclusion of a successful appeal over plans at Harthill, the oil and gas exploration and production business re-submittted plans for a Greenbelt site at Woodsetts.

The application would provide temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation would involve months of various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well would be drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing.

The site, which is on agricultural land at Dewidales Wood, close to Woodsetts, Rackford Farm, Anston Stones Wood (a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)) and Lindrick golf course, would be restored after the activity has taken place and tests will be carried out on the suitability of the area for hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

In March, members of the planning board voted unanimously to refuse the plans on ecological grounds and also added in another reason for refusal based on highway safety.

Now the same board members are being recommended to approve the plans by council planners.

Advertisement

INEOS has provided additional ecological surveys and data following earlier criticism and has pointed to the decision of the planning inspector in the Harthill case.

The applicants stated: "This application has been re-submitted to offer an opportunity to rectify that decision [the refusal] and thus to avoid the potential for a second appeal, and the associated costs claims that may be made in light of the lack of evidence behind the reason for refusal."

Updated transport analysis and mitigation measures have also been submitted, following initial concerns raised by Highways England. The Council's Transportation Unit concludes that "safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved and the cumulative impact of the development in transport terms is unlikely to be severe."

A number of conditions are proposed regarding the route to the site including signage, escort vehicles (when required), convoy systems and restricting any abnormal loads to traveling between 10am and 4pm.

On the other previous reason for refusal, a report to the planning board states: "Overall the [Council's] Ecologist considers that the supporting information on this aspect of the application, whilst lacking in some detail, is now sufficient to overcome the earlier reason for refusal, and subject to final lighting details being submitted as part of a condition, this aspect can now be considered acceptable."

The report adds that fracking forms no part of the application and that the proposals have been assessed on their own merits. Weight has also been given to proposed changes in national policy.

Like previous applications, a number of objections have been submitted. Other issues assessed include landscape, safety, air quality, noise and hydrology.

INEOS website

Images: Marriott Drilling / INEOS / Turley

Read more...

News: INEOS re-submits application for second Rotherham test well

On the back of a successful appeal, oil and gas exploration and production business, INEOS has re-submitted a planning application for a second test drilling well, which was previously refused by Rotherham Council's planning board.

The plans state that additional survey work has been undertaken and that the decision at the appeal shows that councillor's concerns over transport have not been backed up by evidence and that ecological reasons for refusal "would be difficult to defend."

The Government's planning inspector recently allowed an appeal for INEOS' initial plans to test for shale gas at a Green belt site at Harthill. This decision has given the firm confidence to re-submit a similar set of plans for a site at Woodsetts that were refused on similar grounds - transport and ecology.

The application would provide temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation would involve months of various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well would be drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing.

The site, which is on agricultural land at Dewidales Wood, close to Woodsetts, Rackford Farm, Anston Stones Wood (a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)) and Lindrick golf course, would be restored after the activity has taken place and tests will be carried out on the suitability of the area for hydraulic fracturing.

Advertisement

The Council's ecologist considered that the first application had a significant lack of supporting data due to lack of, or incomplete surveys and as such the Council could not adequately assess the submitted details. In March, members of the planning board voted unanimously to refuse the plans on ecological grounds and also added in another reason for refusal based on highway safety.

The senior highway development control officer at Rotherham Council had ultimately been happy with INEOS' transport management plans for both Harthill and Woodsetts. At the recent inquiry into the Harthill proposals, the plannig inspector concluded: "I am satisfied that there would be no residual, cumulative and severe impacts from the proposal that would make it unacceptable on transport grounds"

Resubmitting the plans on behalf of INEOS, planning consultants, Turley said: "The Inspector has clearly made his decision based on the technical evidence, and has given little weight to the points raised by members, as these were not supported by evidence of any harm. We consider that the same approach would be adopted in respect of the highways reason for refusal proposed by members for the Woodsetts application.

"This application has been re-submitted to offer an opportunity to rectify that decision and thus to avoid the potential for a second appeal, and the associated costs claims that may be made in light of the lack of evidence behind the reason for refusal."

On ecology, INEOS states that the Council's reasons against the Harthill and Woodsetts proposals are similar and that "given the Council's position under cross examination and the ultimate withdrawal of the reason for refusal at Harthill, we consider it would be professionally very difficult to seek to defend the same reason as applied to the Woodsetts development.

"We consider that the ecology reason put forward to refuse it can no longer be substantiated. This again offers the Council the opportunity to avoid a future Inquiry and potential claims for costs based on there being no evidence to support the reason for refusal."

INEOS website

Images: INEOS / Turley

Read more...

News: INEOS granted planning permission for first Rotherham test well

Oil and gas exploration and production business, INEOS has been granted planning approval for a drilling rig to test for shale gas in Rotherham following a public inquiry.

INEOS appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over the non-determination of the application at a Greenbelt site between the villages of Harthill and Thorpe Salvin.

During the course of the recent public inquiry, Rotherham Council has been satisfied by the proposed mitigation from the applicants having previously offered reasons for refusal on transport and ecology grounds.

Planning inspector, Stephen Roscoe, has now issued his decision report concluding that INEOS' appeal should be allowed and planning permission be granted.

The application provides temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation will involve various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well is set to be drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing.

The Council's objections focused on the use of "country lanes which are considered to be unsuitable to cater for the significant increase in commercial vehicular traffic" and it also considered that the supporting ecological information was deficient.

The Council initially objected to the late submission of an updated transport mitigation plan from INEOS but the authority's transport planner stated that it provided mitigation to his earlier concerns and reasons for refusal. The Council's planning board did not agree.

The updated report was allowed by the inspector but he added that the appellant (INEOS) "chose a poor mechanism by which to put forward the Enhanced Traffic Management Plan" as it was a 140 page technical report where around only nine pages contained updated information.

The inspector's report also confirmed that the Council withdrew its objection to the proposal on ecological grounds during the inquiry. However, local and national campaign groups were also able to present their objections at the inquiry.

Advertisement

The decision was made on the whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the effect of the proposal on the existing uses of the highways in the surrounding area.

On the Green Belt issue, the planning inspector was satisfied as mineral extraction is not considered inappropriate development under national planning guidelines and because of the temporary nature of the development.

On highways, the decision discusses a number of sub issues, such as HGV movements and the mitigation proposed such as passing places and the use of banksmen. Planning inspector, Stephen Roscoe, said: "I do not consider that the proposal would be likely to have an unacceptable adverse effect on the use of these lanes by other vehicles."

Roscoe adds: "I consider that there would be some inconveniences to pedestrian users together with some loss of amenity. This would not however be unacceptable in terms of highway safety and amenity."

The proposals involve building a drilling rig and drilling vertically, deep into the ground to find out how much gas is in the shale. This does not involve fracking but the inquiry discussed matters relating to the controversial process.

Other issues such as the landscape and biodiversity were also addressed. Planning inspector, Stephen Roscoe, concluded: "I have found that the development could have a negative, but not significant, impact on features of biodiversity value for the period of the development.

"I have also found that the development would detract from, and be harmful to, the landscape and visual character of the surrounding area. These matters would not however outweigh the benefits from the investigation proposed in terms of future energy supplies, to which I give great weight."

On ecology, the decision concludes: "The development would not be likely to, directly or indirectly, result in the loss or deterioration of sites, habitat or features that are considered to be irreplaceable due to their age, status, connectivity, rarity or continued presence."

The permission is set to come with a number of conditions, including a detailed traffic management plan, a noise management plan, a dust management plan, the creation of a community liaison group, limiting the hours of work, etc.

For example, HGVs accessing the site would need to have left the surrounding highways by 19.00 on weekdays and 13.00 on Saturdays.

Kevin Barron MP, whose Rother Valley constituency covers the Harthill area, said that he was "very disappointed" and added that he would continue to fight the decision as he still believe their are "too many unanswered questions around fracking in areas of old mine workings."

Chris Read, leader of Rotherham Council, added: "It is disappointing that Government inspectors have granted planning permission for exploratory drilling in Harthill, going against the view our democratically elected planning board had taken.

"INEOS' insulting decision to by-pass the Council's planning process and take its application direct to central government should be of concern to everyone involved. Planning inspectors also allowed them to submit late evidence ahead of a public inquiry into this matter, which was doubly frustrating to me.

"Residents in the area must be wondering what chance they had when this is how the system works."

INEOS website

Images: INEOS / Turley

Read more...

News: Future Rotherham fracking plans could be taken out of council hands

Rotherham Council was upset by the way INEOS' oil and gas exploration took the decision out of the hands of its planning authority for a test drilling well but they may not get the chance to determine forthcoming applications if the Government pushes through changes to the way shale exploration plans are dealt with.

The Government said it would consult on whether shale exploration should be treated as permitted development, which enables certain types of work to be carried out without the need to apply for planning permission.

INEOS appealed to the Government's Planning Inspectorate last year for a decision on its proposed test well at Harthill.

Having been given the "hurry-up" by Government, INEOS said that it had encountered "unreasonable delays" in dealing with Rotherham Council on its plans for a drilling rig on Greenbelt land.

A recent planning inquiry heard objections from the Council and from local and national campaign groups whilst INEOS put forward reasons why the plans should be approved.

In Westminster last week a written statement on energy policy was put forward which focused on the planning system and speeding up decisions relating to shale exploration.

In 2015, the Government set out a range of measures to help ensure every planning application or appeal was dealt with as quickly as possible. However, recent decisions on shale exploration planning applications remain "disappointingly slow" against a statutory time frame of 16 weeks where an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required.

For the two INEOS sites in Rotherham - Harthill and Woodsetts, Council planners determined that the proposed projects fall outside the remit of the EIA regulations.

The applications would provide temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation would involve various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well would be drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing.

Advertisement

The statement set out a range of measures to facilitate timely decisions on shale exploration decisions. To be treated as a material consideration when deciding on plans, it discusses the importance of shale to the UK economy.

For example, the Government said that it would continue to treat appeals against any refusal of planning permission for exploring and developing shale gas, or against any non-determination "as a priority for urgent determination by the Planning Inspectorate, making additional resources available where necessary."

The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will also actively consider calling in shale applications particularly where statutory deadlines have been exceeded.

Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, said: "Shale gas development is of national importance. The Government expects Mineral Planning Authorities to give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy. This includes shale gas exploration and extraction.

"Mineral Plans should reflect that minerals resources can only be worked where they are found, and applications must be assessed on a site by site basis and having regard to their context. Plans should not set restrictions or thresholds across their plan area that limit shale development without proper justification.

"We expect Mineral Planning Authorities to recognise the fact that Parliament has set out in statute the relevant definitions of hydrocarbon, natural gas and associated hydraulic fracturing. In addition, these matters are described in Planning Practice Guidance, which Plans must have due regard to. Consistent with this Planning Practice Guidance, policies should avoid undue sterilisation of mineral resources (including shale gas)."

A revised planning practice guidance on shale development is set to be published when the revised National Planning Policy Framework has been launched and a planning brokerage service and £1.6m shale support fund is being launched to support planning authorities.

In addition, an early stage consultation is scheduled for summer 2018 on the principle of whether non-hydraulic fracturing shale exploration development should be treated as permitted development, and in particular on the circumstances in which this might be appropriate. Permitted developments derive from a general planning permission granted not by the local authority but by Parliament.

Consultation would also take place on the criteria required to trigger the inclusion of shale production projects into the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime. Included projects are decided by the Planning Inspectorate, the national government executive agency.

Claire Perry, Energy and Clean Growth Minister, said: "British shale gas has the potential to help lower bills and increase the security of the UK's energy supply while creating high quality jobs in a cutting-edge sector. This package of measures delivers on our manifesto promise to support shale and it will ensure exploration happens in the most environmentally responsible way while making it easier for companies and local communities to work together."

Images: INEOS

Read more...

News: INEOS' Harthill planning decision awaited

Planning officers at Rotherham Council are unsure if the Government's planning inspector will approve or refuse plans for a test drilling well at Harhill.

During the course of the recent public inquiry, Rotherham Council has been satisfied by the proposed mitigation from oil and gas exploration and production business, INEOS.

INEOS appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over the non-determination of the application for a drilling rig on Greenbelt land between the villages of Harthill and Thorpe Salvin.

The Council had set out its stance against the scheme with reasons for refusal focusing on highways issues and a lack of detail in the submitted ecological reports.

The application would provide temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation would involve various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well would be drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing.

Shortly before the public inquiry, INEOS submitted further details which meant that the Council's transport planner had to put forward the authority's views at the inquiry whilst having the professional opinion that the updated mitigation proposals would mean that the application could be approved on transport issues.

The inquiry, which ended last week, heard objections from the Council and from local and national campaign groups whilst INEOS put forward reasons why the plans should be approved.

Advertisement

Chris Wilkins, development manager at Rotherham Council, said: "We are waiting now for a decision from the inspector - anticipated to be four to six weeks. Hand on heart, I've got no idea which way it will go.

"Obviously INEOS put up extra information late on in terms of highways. And the ecology issue, we felt, was addressed during part of the inquiry process but residents were there raising a number of concerns that the inspector has to take into account before he comes to his decision."

Wilkins added that the authority has not yet had any follow up to INEOS's second set of plans for a similar exploratory well at Woodsetts that were refused by the planning board in March. The Council is anticipating that INEOS will either appeal the decision or submit a revised application with new studies to address the concerns of the council ecologist.

The company is hoping to carry out tests on the suitability of the area for hydraulic fracturing.

INEOS website

Images: UKSE

Read more...

News: No backtracking from Rotherham Council in opposition to INEOS

The oil and gas exploration and production business, INEOS, has submitted an updated travel plan regarding its proposed test drilling well at Harhill, leaving Rotherham Council in a difficult position just a week away from a public inquiry.

The authority's transport planner believes that updated plans provide mitigation to his earlier concerns and reasons for refusal. The Council's planning board does not agree.

Having been given the "hurry-up" by Government, INEOS appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over the non-determination of the application for a drilling rig on Greenbelt land between the villages of Harthill and Thorpe Salvin. It said it had encountered "unreasonable delays" in dealing with Rotherham Council.

The planning board discussed the application in January where members agreed with the authority's planning officers who put forward reasons why the application would be refused based on concerns over the impact on the highways and on ecological surveys and assessments undertaken by the applicant that "fall considerably short."

The decision would form the basis of its stance at a public inquiry, which is due to start at Riverside House on April 24.

The application would provide temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation would involve months of various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well would be drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing.

The Common Road site would be restored after the activity has taken place and tests will be carried out on the suitability of the area for hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

Advertisement

Earlier mitigation measures drawn up for INEOS were rejected by the Council's transport planners. The proposals could generate a maximum of 70 daily vehicle movements during the site development and measures such as passing places and junction improvements were deemed to "not satisfactorily address the road safety concerns regarding the introduction of a significant number of additional large commercial vehicles along these narrow country lanes."

Now the traffic management plans have been enhanced with the addition of a number of new passing places to address concerns regarding the conflict between traffic, cyclists and pedestrians.

For example, ten formal passing places are now intended on Packman Lane, an increase from the three previously intended. Where passing places are not visible to oncoming road users, INEOS intends to control traffic movements through using a banksman and "Stop / Go" signs.

The new mitigation means that a temporary traffic regulation order (TTRO) would not now be needed. The authority was unlikely to approve the original order put forward by INEOS.

Following an urgent addition to the agenda, Ian Ferguson, senior highway development control officer at Rotherham Council, told members of the planning board this week: "It is considered that the enhanced traffic management plan measures constitute a significant improvement and satisfactorily address road safety concerns. Opposition to the development on road safety grounds could not therefore be justified subject to appropriate conditions."

Following input from local campaigners and councillors, members of the planning board discussed the updated transport plans. Critical of the applicant for submitting further information close to the start of the public inquiry, the members went against the recommendation to remove transport grounds from the authority's opposition to the proposal.

The decision means that the Council's transport planner will have to put forward the authority's views at the inquiry whilst having the professional opinion that the updated mitigation proposals would mean that the application could be approved on transport issues.

The authority's opposition will continue to be on transport and ecological grounds and the applicant will also have to address concerns from other objectors regarding the use of Greenbelt land, noise, drainage, etc.

INEOS website

Images: INEOS / Turley

Read more...

News: Second set of INEOS plans recommended for refusal

The ecologist at Rotherham Council has put forward a number of reasons why INEOS' plans for a test drilling well at Woodsetts should be refused.

Rothbiz reported last month that, unlike the Harthill application, the Woodsetts application can be supported from a highways point of view, despite transport objections being raised from the local parish council and campaign groups.

The application would provide temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation would involve months of various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well would be drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing.

The site, which is on agricultural land at Dewidales Wood, close to Woodsetts, Rackford Farm, Anston Stones Wood (a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)) and Lindrick golf course, would be restored after the activity has taken place and tests will be carried out on the suitability of the area for hydraulic fracturing.

The application is set to be discussed by the Council's planning board next week and the planner's report sets out all related issues including the Greenbelt use and impacts on traffic, water, noise, landscape and heritage.

Consultees such as Public Health England, Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency are not objecting to the plans.

The proposal is not considered to represent inappropriate development in the Greenbelt and on transport, the report concludes that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved with the cumulative impact of the development in transport terms considered unlikely to be severe.

Advertisement

However, the report makes it clear that the ecological information submitted by INEOS and its planning consultants, Turley, is insufficient.

Andy Godfrey, ecological development officer at Rotherham Council, makes a number of points on the applicant's habitat surveys.

For example, the Phase 1 habitat survey did not include Dewidales Wood, an area of ancient woodland that is 25 metres from the site. The applicant was denied access but the ecologists expected surveys to be carried out from the adjacent bridleway or from the site.

The report states: "The lack of survey work on breeding birds, badgers or other wildlife by the applicant within Dewidales Wood means that it is not possible to know what is present and consequently the Council does not know what might be impacted." The authority cannot tailor mitigation for the woodland due to lack of data.

The ecologist is critical of the surveys for badgers, bats and breeding birds. For example, the applicant's Environment Report states: "No birds were observed on the proposed site during the extended Phase 1 habitat survey or during subsequent visits to the site for bat surveys." The Council's ecologist considers it unlikely there were no birds whatsoever on any of the surveys.

The ecologists also doesn't agree with the impacts, such as lighting, construction and development and noise, being considered "Not Significant."

The report concludes: "Overall, the Council's ecologist considers that the application has a significant lack of supporting data due to lack of, or incomplete surveys and as such the Council cannot adequately assess the submitted details.

"The Council considers that the applicant has submitted insufficient evidence of attempts to try alternative methods where access could not be obtained. It is not considered that these issues could be satisfactorily considered and it is therefore recommended that the application is refused on lack of ecological information n and in conflict with paragraph 118 of the NPPF." This is the national planning guidance which states that local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

Having been denied the chance with the first set of INEOS plans at Harthill, members of the planning board will vote on whether to refuse the plans on March 8.

On INEOS' proposals for a shale gas test drilling well in Harthill, the public inquiry is set to begin on April 24 at Rotherham Town Hall and could last two weeks.

INEOS website

Images: INEOS / Turley

Read more...

News: Fracking firm finding favour with second set of Rotherham plans

INEOS looks to be in a better position to achieve planning permission for its second identified site in Rotherham at Woodsetts.

The planning board at Rotherham Council recently confirmed its objections to INEOS' plans for a test drilling well at its first site Harthill over highways and ecology issues. As it stands, these same issues are not considered by the authority as reasons for refusal for the second site at Woodsetts.

If approved, both applications would provide temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation would involve months of various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well would be drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing.

The site would be restored after the activity has taken place and tests will be carried out on the suitability of the area for hydraulic fracturing.

Rothbiz reported last month that the decision on the Harthill site will be made following a public inquiry that is scheduled to begin in April.

Both sites are within the borough's Greenbelt. Rotherham Council planners considered that the Harthill proposals do not represent inappropriate development in the Greenbelt - often a reason for refusal. The decision was justified by planners over the relatively short term period and that plans include proposals to restore the land after use (any potential future fracking activity would require a further application).

Plans were submitted last year for the second site which is on agricultural land at Dewidales Wood, close to Woodsetts, Rackford Farm, Anston Stones Wood (a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)) and Lindrick golf course.

On the Harthill site, planners concluded, and planning board members agreed, that the proposed traffic management plans were inadequate and that they were unsatisfied that it includes adequate mitigation in terms of protecting the safety of other road users on the intended route along Packman Lane and Common Road.

Advertisement

In responding to the details of the Woodsetts plans, Ian Ferguson, senior highway development control officer at Rotherham Council, states that it can be supported from a highways point of view, despite transport objections being raised from the local parish council and campaign groups.

The proposals would lead to a "significant percentage increase" in traffic through Woodsetts but the actual number of HGV movements as a result of the proposals are considered to be "relatively modest."

A maximum of 60 HGV movements a day are estimated by the applicants. The route to and from the site includes vehicles travelling along the C70 from Gateford roundabout which is considered satisfactory for HGVs.

With a 30mph limit through the village and mitigation measures such as signage and the use of convoys and escorts, the traffic management plan is unlikely to be put forward as a recommended reason for refusal.

Ferguson said: "I am of the opinion that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved and the cumulative impact of the development in transport terms is unlikely to be severe. Accordingly, the development can be supported from a highway aspect, subject to a number of conditions."

The conditions include a traffic management plan being signed off by the Council, new signage being installed and further details being submitted regarding on-site vehicle areas, parking and turning.

On the Harthill plans, the borough's ecologist put forward a reason for refusal based on being unsatisfied with the ecological surveys and assessments undertaken by the applicant. On the Woodsetts plans, the ecology officer has asked for more surveys and information before a decision is made.

The consultation period for the Woodsetts application is set to end on February 16.

As it stands, a decision will be made by councillors on the planning board who showed their frustration and upset at INEOS "bypassing" local decision-making and "treating local democracy with contempt" and taking the application straight to a national planning inspector.

INEOS website

Images: INEOS / Turley

Read more...

News: Date set for public inquiry into INEOS' Rotherham plans

A date has been set for the public inquiry on the determination of INEOS' proposals for a shale gas test drilling well in Harthill.

Last week, the planning board at Rotherham Council confirmed its objections to the plans for a site between the villages of Harthill and Thorpe Salvin that involves building a drilling rig and drilling vertically, deep into the ground to find out how much gas is in the shale.

The members agreed with the authority's planning officers who put forward reasons why the application would be refused based on concerns over the impact on the highways and on ecological surveys and assessments undertaken by the applicant that "fall considerably short."

With INEOS submitting an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate last year, it essentially meant that the application was refused.

Having been given the "hurry-up" by Government, INEOS said that it had encountered "unreasonable delays" in dealing with Rotherham Council on its plans for a drilling rig on Greenbelt land between the villages of Harthill and Thorpe Salvin.

The decision has been taken out of their hands but the planning board still met to establish its stance before a public inquiry where a planning inspector will have the responsibility of deciding on the application.

The inquiry is set to begin on April 24 at Rotherham Town Hall and could last two weeks.

It is likely to be similar to an ordinary planning appeal which can follow on from when an application is refused. The applicant and planning authority setting out their arguments to an independent planning inspector, in this case Stephen Roscoe, based on national and local planning matters.

Advertisement

A meeting of the Planning Board was put back to early 2018 with Cllr. Atkin, chair of the planning board at Rotherham Council, stating last month that it was INEOS that asked for an extension so that they could overcome the objections.

The application would provide temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation would involve various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well would be drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing. It would use large plant, machinery and HGVs in site development and operationally.

Rothbiz reported last week on the Council's reasons for refusal and these were described to the planning board.

Mitigation measures drawn up for INEOS have not been approved by the Council's transport planners. The proposals could generate a maximum of 70 daily vehicle movements during the site development and measures such as passing places and junction improvements have been deemed to "not satisfactorily address the road safety concerns regarding the introduction of a significant number of additional large commercial vehicles along these narrow country lanes."

Planning consultants, Turley, spoke to the members of the planning board, outlining why the Common Road plans should be approved. The proposals will enable INEOS to carry out tests on the suitability of the area for hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

Disappointed with the Council's reasons for refusal, the consultants found comfort in the fact that all of the statutory consultees, such as the Environment Agency, Public Health England, The Health and Safety Executive, The Coal Authority and South Yorkshire Police, offered no objections to the proposals.

With the application receiving over 1,300 letters, not one in support, representatives from various local and national groups, as well as local ward councillors, also had their voice heard, putting forward their concerns.

Rotherham Council planners are of the opinion that other concerns raised are not significant or substantial enough to be included as reasons for refusal alongside highways and ecology issues. However, representatives still have the right to raise the issues at the public inquiry.

Councillors on the planning board then spoke on the plans, showing their frustration and upset at INEOS "bypassing" local decision-making and treating local democracy with contempt.

An emotional chair of the planning board, Cllr. Alan Atkin, said: "As chairman I don't tend to speak much from the chair. I don't think it is appropriate but on this occasion I think I concur with what some people are saying.

"Our planning officers are some of the best in Britain and they have been treated badly by INEOS. Quite frankly, it's shameful, the way they've acted.

"We have got many testimonials from people up and down the country saying that our planning officers bend over backwards to help developers. And the way that INEOS has dealt with us is appalling."

Voting at the meeting, the members showed how they would have voted if it was down to them to judge the application - unanimously agreeing with the officer's recommendation for refusal.

Cllr. Atkin concluded the meeting by saying: "We'll see what happens at the inquiry."

INEOS website

Images: INEOS / Turley

Read more...

News: Rotherham Council reiterates reasons for refusal for Harthill shale gas test well

The planning board at Rotherham Council would have been recommended to refuse INEOS' application for a shale gas test drilling well at Harthill - had the decision not already been taken out of their hands.

Having been given the "hurry-up" by Government, INEOS appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over the non-determination of the application.

INEOS said that it had encountered "unreasonable delays" in dealing with Rotherham Council on its plans for a drilling rig on Greenbelt land between the villages of Harthill and Thorpe Salvin.

As Rothbiz reported earlier this week, the proposed traffic management process is currently the main issue between INEOS and the Council with the authority also unsatisfied by the ecological surveys and assessments undertaken by the applicant.

INEOS' oil and gas exploration and production business selected a site between the villages of Harthill and Thorpe Salvin for shale gas exploration, which involves building a drilling rig and drilling vertically, deep into the ground to find out how much gas is in the shale.

The application would provide temporary permission for a maximum of five years and the operation would involve various site investigation surveys and site preparation before a period of drilling, coring and testing. A well would be drilled to approximately 2,800 m using a drill rig of maximum 60 m rig height followed by three months of testing. It would use large plant, machinery and HGVs in site development and operationally.

The Common Road site would be restored after the activity has taken place and tests will be carried out on the suitability of the area for hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

Advertisement

With INEOS submitting an appeal, it essentially means that the application is refused. Rotherham's planning board will now meet to determine its reasons for refusal and establish its position before any inquiry by the Planning Inspectorate and defend it in the same way it would at a standard planning appeal.

The planning board will meet in public on January 25. Around 1,300 representations have been received, all are in objection to the proposals.

Officers make recommendations to the planning board in order to inform members and support discussion before a vote is taken.

A report to the planning board sets out all of the key issues for and against the proposals gaining planning permission following consultation with experts within the authority and at other interested organisations such as the Environment Agency, Public Health England, The Health and Safety Executive, The Coal Authority and South Yorkshire Police.

For many issues, such as flood risk, heritage, ground contamination, visual impacts, and noise, the plans, and mitigation proposals, have been considered acceptable by Rotherham's planning department.

Regarding the site being in the Green Belt, exploration and appraisal of a mineral resource are not inappropriate activities by definition.

In this case, the report states: "The provision of the 60m rig, security fencing and the temporary portacabins, as well as other ancillary equipment, would have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt, though this would be over a relatively short term period, at the end of which the site would be restored with all equipment/fencing/bunding being removed. As such, it is considered that the proposals do not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt."

One reason for refusal is based on ecology issues even though the impact on wildlife, trees and hedgerows is likely to be low to moderate. The report concludes: "However the deficiencies and omissions within the supporting ecological data are of such significance such that these deficiencies cannot be satisfactorily overcome through the imposition of conditions."

Andrey Godfrey, ecological development officer at Rotherham Council explains: "Given the high public concern with this application, the applicant needs to ensure that they have done everything necessary to ensure the application complies with the law and best practice. I consider that the ecological surveys and assessments fall considerably short in a large number of areas."

As reported earlier this week, Ian Ferguson, senior highway development control officer at Rotherham Council is yet to be convinced by the amended traffic management plan (TMP) from INEOS.

The Council have been unsatisfied that it includes adequate mitigation in terms of protecting the safety of other road users on the intended route along country lanes. It is also unconvinced that rigid 9m long vehicles could safely negotiate the Common Road/Harthill Field Road junction (pictured, below).

The proposal could generate a maximum of 70 daily vehicle movements during the site development and establishment stage and 60 among the subsequent phases. The impact of the proposal's traffic on Bondhay Lane and Common Road was confirmed as being above 10% with HGV increase above 30%.

INEOS want to implement a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order to control periods of one way traffic by signs and/or banksmen directing traffic along a diversion route.

The report to the planning board concludes: "It is not considered that all vehicles could negotiate this route in a safe and satisfactory manner, in particular at the Harthill Field Road junction with Common Road. Therefore, the measures would not satisfactorily address the road safety concerns regarding the introduction of a significant number of additional large commercial vehicles along these narrow country lanes.

"Limited informal passing places currently available do not allow for a standard sized car to pass a large commercial vehicle. Furthermore, vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders would be particularly at risk along those parts of the route where there is no verge.

"Overall, despite the submission of additional information these concerns cannot be satisfactorily addressed.

"Therefore it is considered that the proposal fails to satisfactorily address highway safety concerns raised, along with insufficient ecological details submitted, and the application is recommended for refusal on these grounds."

INEOS website

Images: INEOS / Turley / Google Maps

Read more...