Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Is Fracking Really Safe?
With the release of the recent expert report, fracking has, once again become the topic du jour. What many people, including the government have seemed to miss is that the recent expert report was only seeking to establish whether risks of seismic activity could be mitigated. At protect kent we have much more deep rooted concerns about the potential damage that fracking could result in.
One of our biggest fears is the possibility of aquifer pollution from the ‘slick’ water that would be used to frack a well. This water is usually a combination of water, sand and a variety of chemicals, some of which could be toxic. When a well is fractured, this water is pumped at extremely high pressure into the shale rock below the ground. At a very basic level, our concern is that if some of this water escapes the well, it could end up in our drinking water. This is quite obviously a bad thing.
As you’ll all know, Kent is an extremely water stressed county. We currently have a hosepipe ban and with the many new developments the county is constantly under threat from, our water security is becoming less and less assured. A huge amount of water can be used in a high pressure frack. Each of the wells can be fracked repeatedly, with between 7 and 11 million litres being used to extract the shale gas. Where will this water come from? Will a company be allowed to frack for shale gas whilst the rest of us collect water from the standpipe in the street? I wonder…
Whilst fracking may well result in Greater energy security in the short term, it’s not a game changer. What the UK should be doing is attempting to invest its money and resources into renewable sources of energy that are future proof. By perpetually investing in fossil fuels we are simply looking to energy technologies of the past, and this failure to progress could well cause us many, many problems in the future.
What do you think?
- A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
- There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
- There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.
The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:
- There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
- A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
- Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
- Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.
Concerns about the rush to submit the plan
The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.
As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.
Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.
Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.
The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.
Further information
