The JMWP Consultation Visit frackfreeyork.org.uk for a link to the consultation page Download parts A and B of the publication response form if you plan to use it Enter your contact details in part A of the form Note your response is not anonymous Don't put Frack Free York as your organisation as we will submit our response later Email your response to mwjointplan@northyorks.gov.uk

Legality and Soundness The rules of the consultation say that you must respond based on legality and soundness Friends of the Earth have written two letters objecting to this limitation If you ignore the restriction, you should include Friends of The Earth's argument against it If you ignore the restriction you may not want to use the response form

Friends of the Earth Argument Despite the mineral planning authority’s limited scope to the consultation focusing on legal compliance and adherence to the tests of soundness in the NPPF I feel that as Policy M16 has changed considerably since the Preferred Options consultation, the consultation scope should be widened to accommodate more general commentary as per the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) England Regulations (2012). These regulations do not limit the scope of consultation at the Regulation 19 (‘Publication’) consultation stage.

Friends of the Earth Guide: Climate Change The plan does not comply with Section 19 (1A) of The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 This would require policies to contribute to mitigation of and adaptation to climate change Policy M16 should give special consideration to the climate change impacts of fossil fuel use and methane leakage Frack Free York advise you to also refer to Policy D11 here

Policy D11 Proposals for minerals and waste development will be permitted where it has been demonstrated that measures appropriate and proportionate to the scale and nature of the development have been incorporated in its design, construction and operation in relation to: i) Minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions by incorporating energy-efficient siting, design and operational practices including those relating to bulk transport of materials;

Friends of the Earth Guide: Local Impacts on the Environment and Health Landscape and Visual Environment Health and Wellbeing Traffic Impacts

Friends of the Earth Guide: The Precautionary Principle The precautionary principle should be applied to unconventional oil and gas development due to unknown environmental effects The risk to water quality means the precautionary principle should be applied under the EU Water Framework Directive

Friends of the Earth Guide: Environmental Impact Assessments All applications for unconventional oil and gas development should require an Environmental Impact Assessment

Friends of the Earth Guide: Policies M16, M17 and M18 Climate Change The Vale of Pickering and the Yorkshire Wolds should be included in the protected sites in M17 The buffer zone in M17 should be extended to 750m There should be no exceptions allowed in the buffer zone EIA European Protected Sites: Buffer Zones needed due to noise and light No account taken of indirect impacts on air quality No account taken of indirect impacts on highway safety The policies take a yes if approach

Policies W10 and W11 Policies W10 and W11 govern waste development This includes waste water from the oil and gas industry The arguments on Environmental Impact Assessments and the precautionary principle also apply to these policies

Part B You will need a copy of Part B for every policy you object to and every type of argument you make For each argument you have to choose legality or soundness If you choose soundness you have to choose one of four subcategories All of these arguments are based on soundness and “justified” and “consistent with national policy”

“Justified” means “The plan should be the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.” “Consistent with national policy” means consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Part B: Climate Change One of the Core Planning Principles in Paragraph 17 of the NPPF is to “support the transition to a low carbon future” Paragraph 94 of the NPPF calls for “proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change.” Unconventional gas does not do this. Kevin Anderson views shale gas as not compatible with the UK's obligations on climate change Findings from the USA found high methane emissions Policies M16, M17, M18 and/or D11 therefore need amending

Part B: Air Quality and Health The 500m buffer zone around homes etc. in policy Policy M17 is similar to established practice with wind turbines Such a small buffer zone is not justified Oil and gas development has a greater noise impact than wind turbines Oil and gas development has air pollution impacts and traffic impacts that wind turbines don't Therefore a larger buffer zone should be used

Part B: Air Quality and Health (contd.) Paragraph 17 of the NPPF includes a commitment to “contribute to conserving the natural environment and reducing pollution” Paragraph 124 of the NPPF, “planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values and National objectives for pollutants”

Part B: Water and the Precautionary Principle Paragraph 100 of the NPPF “Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from the areas at highest risk” Paragraph 143 calls on local authorities to set environmental criteria so that there are no unacceptable impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health from impacts on the flow and quantity of surface and groundwater and the migration of contamination from the site

Part B: EIA Due to the environmental impacts of oil and gas development the decision not to require EIAs for them is not justified The size of the area to be developed should not determine whether or not an EIA is needed, as the impacts of air pollution, water pollution and climate change extend beyond the site

Part B: Wildlife M17 has a buffer zone for residential areas. M16 has a buffer zone for National Parks and AONBs based on landscape issues There is no buffer zone for SSSIs, European protected sites and other wildlife sites Given the impact of noise, air pollution, traffic and water pollution on wildlife, this is not justifed

Part B Wildlife (contd.) Paragraph 118 of the NPPF “proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted” Although the impact zones of SSSIs etc. are recognised in policy D07 there should also be a specific mention of buffer zones in M16 or M17

Part B: Wording of Policies Policies M17, M18 and D07 all include wording in which development will be approved if a condition is met This wording is not justified as it introduces ambiguity into the JMWP A proposal could meet the conditions in M17, but not M18 or vice versa Therefore the wording should be changed to state that development will not be permitted if the condition is not met

Part B: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy D01 includes the presumption in favour of sustainable developlment as required by the NPPF Paragraph 119 of the NPPF states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply if the development requires assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives Oil and gas licensing rounds require such an assessment Therefore policy D01 should state there is no presumption in favour of sustainable development for oil and gas development