Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
The dash to frack
This morning’s release of the report from the UK Onshore Operators Group highlighted the huge potential benefits to the economy of pressing ahead with the exploitation of shale gas. Here in Kent we are increasingly concerned by the overly-enthusiastic emphasis on potential economic benefits which is being highlighted by groups like UKOOG. The word ‘potential’ is the focus of our concern. These benefits can not be guaranteed, and in fact, many within the industry such as Cuadrilla have acknowledged that shale gas extraction simply will not lead to lower energy prices, and the oil and gas industry can never guarantee that its exploration will find economic quantities of gas.
However, if the UK Government does press ahead with its commitment to fracking, we are opening our countryside up to a host of environmental damage as a result, as well as its guaranteed industrialisation with more HGV movements http://modafinil200mg.net along narrow lanes, large pipes to take the gas away, and development in places it simply should not be allowed.
There are particular concerns over the risk to our precious water resources in Kent, which, according to the Environmet Agency, is already seriously water-stressed. Kent’s underlying geology is characterised by a high density of faults and there is no way in which any operator or regulator could anticipate the re-activation of a geological fault, which would lead to serious risk of an escape of contaminants into underground water resources. Once triggered, there is little that can be done to control or alleviate that contamination.
We want to be certain that a rigorous, evidence-led debate has taken place and a strong regulatory and inspection environment has been put in place before the UK Government commits to shale gas exploitation, so that ‘potential’ environmental damage doesn’t become a reality.
- 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
