Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Submission on Environmental Risks of Fracking
Just before Christmas (23rd December), we submitted evidence on the danger of fracking in Kent to a Commons Select Committee. The Environmental Audit Committee is undertaking an inquiry looking at the potential risks to water supplies and water quality, emissions, habitats and geological integrity.
We fear fracking could damage the aquifer which supplies 70% of the county’s water. The gas and oil deposits are no more than 600-700m below the aquifer, the Chalk of the North Downs. There is also a risk that geological faults in the area would be re-activated allowing gases and fracking fluids to leak into the chalk and so contaminate the water supply.
We recently published a detailed report on the water resource implications of shale gas and oil exploration and development in East Kent and the Weald. This has formed the basis of the submission to the Audit Committee.
We make the point that planes of structural weakness developed along fractures in the rocks allowed vertical slippages of up to 100m. These are the sites of earthquakes that occurred over a period of more than 200 million years but are still regarded as active, as evidenced by the Folkestone earthquake (magnitude 4.3) of 2007. There were also notable earthquakes in 1382, 1500 (when six people were killed), 1776 and 1950.
The licensed area, Woodnesborough, Tilmanstone and Shepherdswell, also features up to 10 public supply boreholes. These would be at risk in the event of any escape of contaminating fluids as a result of fracking operations.
Hydraulic fracturing involves injection of a water/sand/chemical mix (some of the constituents being hazardous or toxic) under high pressure in order to break up the shales and release the trapped methane. CPRE Kent is concerned that this process can also fracture and disrupt other adjacent rocks and re-activate the high angle faults creating new pathways for migration of gases and fracking fluids into the overlying Chalk, and from here into the soil and the springs and seepages feeding the tributary streams of the Rivers Great Stour, Little Stour and Dour. The Great and Little Stour support the irrigation of the areas of intensive agriculture below Canterbury. Contamination can also result from failures in the construction of the boreholes – casings and grout seals can suffer corrosion, rupture or fragmentation, providing additional opportunities for the migration of contaminants.
CPRE Kent Director Hilary Newport said: “We have submitted strong arguments backed by scientific evidence to the Environmental Audit Commission detailing our very serious concerns about fracking. We fear the potential danger to Kent’s water supply is too big a risk.
“We await with interest the Committee’s report and the Government’s response to it.”
The deadline for submissions was 31st December 2014. The Terms of Reference of the Environmental Audit Committee can be viewed here.
January 5th 2015
- 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
