…how can over 4,000 residents object to a planning application but the local councillors and planning officers still give it the go ahead?

Planning question as opposed to this particular issue.

Do you imagine we live in a democracy?

The elected representatives are there to take the difficult decisions that members of the public won’t.

I think you know the answer, OP.

Money talks.

Depends on the objections. From a planning point of view you cant just say ‘I don’t like it’ or ‘I don’t want it here’. Any objections need to be valid with regard to the local plan. Not hard to do so it would be disappointing for the residents if they failed to do this. Also did 4000 people object or did 4000 sign a petition? The latter may just count as 1 objection.

Planning question as opposed to this particular issue.

Because you have to give a valid reason, NIMBY is not a valid reason. Any valid claims like traffic, noise, pollution (of all types) would have been considered and the company required to mitigate to an appropriate level.

Not unusual. Planning application goes in, pressure group organises thousands of boiler plate objections, council makes decision based on policy and bribes.

representatives

The clue’s in the name. They are supposed to represent the views of the electorate.

North Yorkshire county council received 4,375 objections and just 36 letters in support of Third Energy’s plans to frack for shale gas

I think it was individual objections.

To be fair, most of those objections would be ill-informed rants about how fracking gives kids diabetes. So they probably only chose to completely ignore about 1000 valid objections

Whilst I have no idea how valid the objections were, the day we see a fracking plant in the Prime Minister’s back yard is the day we’re sure it’s safe.

#northernpowerhouse

To be fair, most of those objections would be ill-informed rants about how fracking gives kids diabetes. So they probably only chose to completely ignore about 1000 4360 valid objections

FIFY

Because you have to give a valid reason, NIMBY is not a valid reason. Any valid claims like traffic, noise, pollution (of all types) would have been considered and the company required to mitigate to an appropriate level.

+1

I’d have been in favor, although I no longer live there.

FIFY

Have you ever read through a LA planning portal’s objections? 1000 valid objections was probably being generous given the usual level of mouth frothing NIMBYism. And even so, they obviously hadn’t read the application because their objections had obviously been covered otherwise it wouldn’t have been granted.

Nimbyism or not, 4000 people isn’t a whole lot of Yorkshire, even assuming all objectors were residents. The councillors got elected with many more votes, and anyway, they have a process and rules to follow.

And I say that as a resident of Yorkshire who is probably opposed to the decision (though I haven’t looked into it deeply enough to be confident of my opinion).

Probably because most the 4000 were bonkers, NIMBYs or Enemies of Reason. Good decision all in.

So those in support of fracking are 100% sure that there is minimal environmental effect or long term impact?

As for the reasons behind the objections, as a “democracy” we are supposed to have a voice. Idealistic I know.

So those in support of fracking are 100% sure that there is minimal environmental or long term effect?

Name a form of energy generation that has minimal environmental effect?

Even wind turbines kill baby robins.

Give it a go and see what happens.

as a “democracy” we are supposed to have a voice.

But if the voice just says “wibble, wibble, biscuit, wibble, science bad, wibble fishcake” then it deserves to be ignored.

It isn’t ideal but I would assume that the majority of the objections were simply from residents who didn’t want a fracking site on their doorstep rather than for valid and legitimate reasons. Councillors can’t reject an application based on the fact that someone doesn’t want something building near to where they live.

And on local TV last night there was some farmer moaning about the increase in traffic. Given that the site is on the doorstep of Flamingoland, the increase in traffic will be minimal. And I bet noise levels will be no higher than existing ones coming from the park.

The site is, in reality, in a pretty insignificantly populated area so, although it will spoil things for some people, it is probably a good choice overall (assuming the site has to go somewhere).

Name a form of energy generation that has minimal environmental effect?

Nuclear.

What do I win ?

…how can over 4,000 residents object to a planning application but the local councillors and planning officers still give it the go ahead?

It depends where you live

*adjusts flat cap, and adopts ‘chippy northerner’ stance*

I don’t think there are presently any fracking proposals for Davd Camerons Whitney constituency.

I don’t think there are presently any fracking proposals for Davd Camerons Whitney constituency.

There probably aren’t any greyhound racing tracks either, there might not even be a Gregs, should we ban those from the North too on this basis?

Nuclear.

Photograph of a fracking well and a photograph of Winscale/Sellafield to support your argument please, google earth will do.

So those in support of fracking are 100% sure that there is minimal environmental effect or long term impact?

So those against fracking are 100% sure those looking for work on Teesside will ever find a job if we reject every new industry that comes along, especially ones that sound like swear words?

don’t think there are presently any fracking proposals for Davd Camerons Whitney constituency.

There wouldn’t be – there is no shale gas thought to be present in that area.

Nuclear.

Never heard of nuclear waste, then?

The size of the site seems small compared to it’s neighbour! I’m no fracking fan, but if complaints have been based around noise/traffic/visual impact then I think they were on a loser from the start!

Yep, wind turbines kill baby robins and solar cells need cadmium mines, but they produce less CO2 and methane, which may be argued is a more important factor. Or not. Lucily we have the North Yorkshire planning authority to figure it out for us.

Or maybe they just look at local impact and assess the pros and cons of fracking. I have worked in the oil and gas industry for 20 years and wrote a PhD thesis on the physics of fracture propagation, and I don’t know the answer, so if the Kirby Misterton village council have got it sorted, chapeau, as Jamba would say.

The correct answer, as already mentioned above, is that objections to any planning application have to be for a valid planning reason. Thousands of boiler plate responses saying ‘I don’t like fracking, do it it in the Prime Ministers garden instead’ can be sent but will correctly be ignored by the planning authority. The press like to insinuate that there’s a big conspiracy in these cases by printing things like, ‘More than 4,300 objections to the application were received and 100 people gave evidence during the two-day hearing. Just 36 representations in support of the application were received.’
However, the planning process isn’t the XFactor, they don’t count up the for and against votes then declare the winner.

cranberry – Member

But if the voice just says “wibble, wibble, biscuit, wibble, science bad, wibble fishcake” then it deserves to be ignored.

Though it’s a bit weird if we have a qualification process for fairly minor local decisions, but we don’t have any such process for general elections.

Though it’s a bit weird if we have a qualification process for fairly minor local decisions, but we don’t have any such process for general elections.

We have general elections, to elect MP’s, who discuss, decide, vote through various laws, policies, etc. Ditto LA elections and councils.

These filter down to the civil servants (the planning committee) who interpret them.

So you and I (as a country as a whole) voted for a government that allows fracking. It would be undemocratic then for an un-elected planning officer to overturn that.

All planning objections are is a way of bringing to the attention of the planning officer something that may have been missed, or arguing against a point made in the application.

I think the problem with discounting some objections as nimbys is not everyone is capable structuring a letter opposing specific planning points and counter arguments that have been prepared professionally.

Planning applications I have seen for shopping centres and industrial operations around here would seem quite sensible if taken at face value but are often full of traffic assessments completed on a Wednesday during school holidays, painted pavements described as cycle ways or tenuous suggestion that areas will be multi use.

You really need to be a professional planning application objector with local knowledge and a lot of time to spare to do what’s being asked.

I don’t think there are presently any fracking proposals for Davd Camerons Whitney constituency.

The mysterious case of Frack Free Witney

uncanny

You really need to be a professional planning application objector with local knowledge and a lot of time to spare to do what’s being asked.

Which is why we pay professionals at the council to decide on these things, not the great unwashed.

I can’t see what they are moaning about TBH, far worse things are approved IMO.

wilburt – Member

I think the problem with discounting some objections as nimbys is not everyone is capable structuring a letter opposing specific planning points and counter arguments that have been prepared professionally.

…

You really need to be a professional planning application objector with local knowledge and a lot of time to spare to do what’s being asked.

An objection just needs to raise the issue, not the details of it. Its down to the council to ensure the correct response has been considered, however its rare the ‘public’ can raise anything new that’s not been considered in what are typically very thorough communications between those raising the planning application and the council (and its representative).

The implementation of the plans is a different matter, and something councils are amazingly shite at policing, just as they are policing their own blunders.

Local case to me is an new estate near me. Massively opposed by locals (especially those in the other new houses next to it, go figure) but the planning documents if they bothered to read them were pulled apart by the council and made to re-submit as the main issues, traffic, were not suitably considered. Other things like environment, water drainage, etc. had all been gone through with environment agency reps.

There is another case coming up soon for a large open cast mine just outside the town, I presume from the froth on here we can count on your support to oppose this menace with internet petitions 😆

Which is why we pay professionals at the council to decide on these things, not the great unwashed.

Quote from one of the councillors who voted in in favour..

I’m not an expert, I’m not a professor. The number of professors that were talking – we get one saying yes, and one saying no.”