Agenda item

A petition has been received which has triggered a debate at Cabinet Committee.  The debate will be time limited to 45 minutes

(1)       The Committee received a petition submitted to Kent County Council related to the issue of fracking, and which had obtained over 2,500 signatures supporting the statement set out below:

“We the undersigned petition the council to call on Kent County Council to adopt a presumption against development consent for exploration or extraction of fossil fuels in Kent. The presumption against development should include, but not be limited to, extraction of shale gas, shale oil, coal bed methane and underground coal gasification, whether by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) or other means. Sustainable development is defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Development of onshore oil and gas cannot be sustainable for the reasons set out below.

Justification:

1.         It is not sustainable to develop new sources of fossil fuels. If climate change is to be limited to 2°C, which is necessary to avoid catastrophic impacts, 80% of proven fossil fuels reserves cannot be burnt. We note that, with one quarter of the county less than 5m above sea level, Kent is very vulnerable to the rise in sea level that will result from our changing climate.

2.         All water supplies in Kent are severely stressed. Fracking requires very large quantities of clean water (almost 19 million litres per frack). There is not an adequate water supply in Kent to sustain fracking.

3.         Fracking produces very large quantities of polluted water which contain radioactive elements from deep underground. Water treatment plants cannot safely dispose of this waste.

4.         Water supplies can be polluted by fracking due to pollutants leaking from the shale rock, or from wells drilled through an aquifer. There are many cases of water pollution from fracking documented in the USA.

5.         Kent’s roads are already busy with many heavy goods vehicles. Development of onshore oil or gas extraction would require many truck movements, increasing the heavy vehicle goods traffic on Kent’s major and rural roads.

6.         We value the peace and amenity of Kent’s countryside, and oppose onshore oil and gas development that would industrialise rural Kent. Production from onshore wells is short-lived, requiring many wells to be drilled.

7.         Financial analysts, the Chancellor and the onshore oil and gas industry all accept that development of shale oil and gas in the UK will not reduce the price of gas.”

(2)       As required by the Council’s petition scheme, petitions with over 2500 signatures must be submitted for debate at a Cabinet Committee and as such this petition was received for consideration.

(3)       Also in accordance with the scheme, Professor Tim Valentine, lead petitioner for the Keep Kent Frack Free petition was invited to address the Committee.  His 500 word statement is attached as an appendix to these minutes and was available to Members before the meeting for consideration.  

(4)       Mr Valentine referred to the following issues which he believed would be detrimentally affected by fracking:

i.          The environment and the valuable countryside of Kent

ii.         The health of residents of Kent

iii.        The quality of water supplies in Kent.

(5)       Mr Valentine also expressed concern regarding the lack of opportunities for local people to influence the planning process – including a reference to the KCC officer response which stated that some of the issues of concern were not able to be addressed by the County Council as part of the planning process as they were the responsibility of other (non-elected) organisations and the reluctance of the government to release an unredacted version of its report into the impact of fracking on the rural economy.

(6)       The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr David Brazier, responded to the petitioner’s statement.  He said he was committed to listening impartially to the views of residents on any matter and that it would be inappropriate for him to take a view at this stage.  He said Kent County Council was the Mineral Planning Authority and, as such, would be responsible for only one part of a complex regulatory process to which any planning application would be subject and that many other government bodies would also be involved.

(7)       The appropriate considerations for the County Council in determining any application were related to the use of land and, to be clear about what could and could not be considered, a position statement had been released in 2013 and was included in the agenda papers for the meeting.  The County Council must consider those issues which it is charged with considering and it could not do otherwise. In particular he said the authority could not adopt a blanket predetermination towards refusal of any future planning applications as to do so would contravene planning law and would expose the council to a risk of legal challenge.

(8)       Mrs Thompson, Head of Planning Applications, spoke at the request of the Chairman. She said that:

i.          DCLG guidance set out the principal issues that Mineral Planning Authorities should address and that these were set out in the position statement.  These issues were intrinsically linked with the overall sustainability of any application put before the committee and, as such, she hoped that some of the petitioner’s concerns might be allayed.

ii.         There were no live applications for fracking related activities in the county and none were anticipated in the short term.

iii.        She strongly advised against the adoption of any presumption whether it be in support of, or opposed to, fracking as the council had a statutory duty to test any application on its merits and in accordance with planning policy and guidance at the time the application was made.  Any blanket policy would leave the council open to legal challenge and any members of the Cabinet Committee, who also sat on the Planning Applications Committee, might be seen to have pre-determined any future application by voting on or taking a strong view during the discussion in progress.

(9)       The Chairman opened the matter for discussion.

(10)     Mr King put forward a point of order, but more correctly described as a motion, to amend the recommendation in the report, in the light of the statements made by Mr Brazier and Mrs Thompson, that the report be noted but no comments be made or further discussion had.  Mr Balfour seconded the motion.

(11)     Mr Caller said Members present were capable of understanding the legal position sufficiently well that they could make comments and ask questions without risk to the impartiality of the authority in determining any future planning applications and as such the debate should be allowed to continue.

(12)     Further comments were made and questions put, in particular that:

i.          The fact that the petition asked for the council to take action which it was not able to, because of its statutory duties and the risk of legal challenge, demonstrated a general lack of understanding which might be addressed by having an informed discussion;

ii.         Raising the profile of public concerns about fracking by raising a petition was appropriate;

iii.        Members might wish to avail themselves of a report on the matter produced by Dover District Council which had identified potential issues for the locality if fracking were to be allowed;

iv.        Members should consider asking the government to release its report on the impact of fracking on the rural economy in an unredacted form.  This would show support for the petitioners without supporting or opposing fracking thereby protecting the council from any risks identified during the debate.

(13)     The Chairman put to the vote the amendment to the recommendations within the report. The details of the vote on Mr King’s suggestion that the report be noted and not further discussed for reasons set out in the debate were as follows:

For: Stockell, Balfour, Simpkin, Harrison, Pearman and King

Against: Macdowall, Baldock, Caller, Eddy, Whybrow and Chittenden

(14)     The motion was carried by the Chairman’s casting vote.