3Consolidation of guidance
39.While we were told that the guidance used in the determination of fracking planning applications is “quite fragmented” and “disparate”, we heard differing views on whether consolidating it would be beneficial.69 It was argued by some witnesses that consolidating the guidance would assist MPAs. Lynn Calder from INEOS told us:
We understand that local mineral authorities are overworked and under-resourced. This is a complex issue that they probably do not always feel like they have signed up for. We absolutely have empathy with that. Having disparate guidance is not entirely helpful to that end.70
40.North Somerset Council also supported consolidating the guidance. It told us that “having clear, comprehensive, regularly updated, easily accessed guidance in one place would make it easier for the council to review our planning policy on fracking”.71 It argued that “there are multiple sources of government information … Multiple documents makes [sic] it more difficult for the reader to access comprehensive guidance, quickly and efficiently”.72 The EA saw a role for consolidated guidance to cover all onshore oil and gas developments to reassure MPAs about the regulations that applies at each stage of such development.73
41.Nonetheless, we heard from Richard Flinton from NYCC that “if everything can be consolidated without losing the sense of what is there, I am sure that is a nice and easy thing for professionals to have regard to, but we are not coming at this from the point that there is a serious problem to be fixed”.74 This view was supported by West Sussex County Council, which stated that the Minerals section of the NPPG is “sufficiently comprehensive”75 and Dr Timothy Scott, who told us that “just putting all the guidance in one place will not improve the decision-making process”.76
42.It was noted that consolidating the guidance may be “useful to local communities”.77 Chris Hesketh from Frack Free Dudleston told us that it would help with the “greater education of the general public”.78 We were told that a comprehensive guidance document has the “potential for greater transparency, as [it] avoids the need to navigate the disparate guidance currently in place”.79
43.However, we heard from some community groups that consolidating the guidance would be of disproportionate benefit to the industry. Weald Action Group argued that consolidating the guidance would “smooth the planning process for the industry”.80 Eckington against Fracking concurred:
Planning for an industry such as this should require planners and decision makers to work with a raft of policy e.g. current Local Plans, Mineral Plans, The Human Rights Act, The Climate Change Act, Clean Growth Policy etc. We don’t believe that sections of documents such as these can be, or should be, cherry picked into one comprehensive document for this industry.81
44.Concerns were also raised about whether it is realistic and practical to consolidate all of the guidance necessary in the planning process. Norfolk County Council told us:
The reality is that proposals for fracking will impact upon a wide number of policy areas, such as water supply and pollution, waste management to name a few. In practice therefore, it will not be possible to create a single comprehensive policy/guidance document against which fracking proposals can be assessed.82
45.While the Government acknowledged that “there are various disparate bits of regulation and guidance” and that “it must be exceptionally difficult as a local authority member to know where to go for the whole gamut of this”, it told us that it did not think that the guidance should be consolidated.83 It argued that consolidation “would either render it uncertain… or blur the demarcation between, say, planning and regulatory matters, which would not make matters more effective or clear”.84
46.Instead of consolidating the guidance, we heard that creating one location for all of the guidance documents may be more appropriate. Leeds City Council proposed creating a “a web-document collection page, alongside all national guidance relating to on-shore oil and gas development, i.e. providing a ‘one-stop shop’ for all relevant stakeholders.”85 Kia Trainor from CPRE Sussex told us that it would make it “really easy for people to navigate the system”.86 Sally Gill from NCC agreed:
There is a lot of information out there that is really useful and has been very useful to us in our processes. Rather than putting it all in one document, it would be useful if it was all in one place on your website, so we knew that if we were looking at information, everything was in one place—not necessarily one document—so we could then use the bits we needed to use, so we would be sure that we had the most up-to-date list on documents, correspondence and things.87
47.We conclude that navigating the disparate guidance hinders understanding, transparency and engagement with fracking planning applications. The Government should create an online, publicly-available “one-stop shop” for all fracking guidance and policy documents. The site should clearly explain the roles of each regulatory body and provide links to guidance and policy documents including those not produced by MHCLG (e.g. Public Health England, Oil and Gas Authority, BEIS). We recommend that the proposed planning brokerage system in partnership with the Shale Environmental Regulator host such a site, subject to the changes in the remit of the brokerage system and shale environmental regulator that we propose in the ensuing chapters of this Report.
Published: 5 July 2018