Agenda item

Report of the Chief Planning Officer

The Cabinet considered the report of the Chief Planning Officer indicating that Sefton Borough Council had been consulted by Lancashire County Council (LCC as the decision-making body) on a planning application for the construction of a temporary wellsite and associated access track, drill, hydraulically stimulate and test two petroleum exploration boreholes including drilling rig (maximum height 60m) and associated plan and equipment, followed by wellsite and restoration.

There was a restricted timeframe to comment on the planning application and approval was sought to respond to LCC, in the form of an objection.

Members of the Cabinet asked the following questions and the following responses were given by the Head of Economic Growth and Housing:

The Council has a resolution opposing fracking. What weight does this carry in the planning process?

·       The Council’s opposition to fracking in general and the planning process are two separate considerations.

Whilst the Council may object to a particular type of development, it carries little weight in the planning process as the Council is still legally obliged, as the local planning authority, to assess each planning proposal on its individual merits.

This is what we have done as part of this consultation, and we believe that the proposal does not form a reliable basis to assess the impacts on residents of this Borough. To avoid any argument that the Council is predetermined on such proposals, the Planning Portfolio Holder (who is also Chair of Planning Committee), has left the room during this item and taken no part in the discussion or decision. This will allow him to chair any Planning Committee meeting where a fracking proposal is on the agenda.

·       Is it normally a requirement for any relevant traffic impacts beyond the area of the lead planning authority to be taken into consideration in determining the acceptability f any proposal, and if so, do you feel this has satisfactorily occurred here?

All traffic impacts should be properly assessed, and they include those within the area controlled by the relevant planning authority and the area of neighbouring authorities.

With this proposal, traffic will use roads and junctions within Sefton, and we believe that the Transport Statement does not adequately address this because it does not take into account forecast traffic flows and committed development in Sefton and does not consider the impact of large and heavy construction traffic on our junctions and bridges.

·       We take impact on air quality very seriously. Do you believe that this proposal will have a harmful effect on the air quality of Sefton residents?

The situation is unclear at present. The air quality impact assessment has been based on modelling rather than using local data, and we feel it would be more beneficial to gather actual data on ambient air quality to help verify the modelling undertaken. This would provide a more reliable basis to assess any impacts and identify appropriate mitigation.

·       Will this proposal have a harmful impact on Sefton residents in terms of noise from associated machinery and traffic?

There could be harmful effects on the amenity of Sefton residents from potential changes in machinery used on site, and we suggest that this operate within ranges to ensure new machinery does not breach any agreed thresholds and harm residents. No details are provided to show how noise will impact on the nearest Sefton residents, including noise associated with construction traffic, and we feel appropriate monitoring must be provided, with a clear action plan on what will be done if noise levels or hours of movement are breached.

·       The proposed drilling mast at 60m in height is quite significant. Do you think this will harm wildlife?

Our ecological advisors (MEAS) believe that the mast could pose a danger to birds (bird strike), yet their Environmental Statement does not give any consideration to this. The Habitats Regulations Directive also requires the proposal to consider the in-combination effects of other schemes, but provides no details of this.

Decision Made:      That:

(1)      it be noted that the proposal was a Key Decision but had not been included in the Council's Forward Plan of Key Decisions. Consequently, the Leader of the Council and the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Regeneration and Skills) had been consulted under Rule 27 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules of the Constitution, to the decision being made by Cabinet as a matter of urgency on the basis that it was impracticable to defer the decision until the commencement of the next Forward Plan because of the tight timeframes in order to respond to the neighbourhood consultation from Lancashire County Council, in order to make the authority aware of the views regarding the planning application;

(2)      it be noted that on 25 January 2018 the Council resolved to oppose fracking in the Borough of Sefton, or fracking outside its Borough, which could affect residents within its Borough;

(3)      to agree the Council’s response to this application as this Council objects to the proposal and wishes to see the application refused, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 3.3 and 4.1 of the report, and that Lancashire County Council be reminded of the Council’s position, as set out in paragraph 1.5 of the report.

Reasons for the Decision:

To ensure Lancashire County Council is aware of the Council’s views regarding the planning application in the interest of Sefton Borough residents and for such views to be considered as material considerations in the determination of the planning application.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Alternatively, the Council could not respond to the neighbouring authority consultation. However, any views of the Council would not be considered in the Lancashire County Council’s determination of the planning application and this is deemed inappropriate.