Lancashire councillors prevented from blocking proposals for UK's first fracking site, says council member

'Secret' legal advice is being used to influence vote, claim Lancashire coucillors

Protesters were demonstrating against the applications from energy firm Cuadrilla to start two fracking operations on nearby sites (AFP/Getty)

Lancashire councillors were prevented from blocking proposals for the UK’s first fracking site after receiving a legal warning that refusal would be “unreasonable” and risk a costly court appeal, a council member has claimed.

County councillors had been due to decide whether or not to approve the UK’s first fracking site, near Preston, on 24 June. However, after adjourning the meeting several times, they decided to postpone the final decision until 29 June to allow them more time to process “secret” legal advice they had been given earlier in the day.

According to one of the those present, Councillor Paul Hayhurst, the advice essentially said they had no legal grounds for blocking the application and if they did so they could expect a costly legal battle with the applicant – the gas company Cuadrilla – which they would probably lose. As a result, he believes the councillors went from a position where they were ready to block the development to one where they were narrowly in favour.

“I feel the mood of the members was that they wanted to reject the application. I’m pretty sure most of them wanted to turn it down but were left in a position whereby, with what was hanging over them, they couldn’t do that,” Cllr Hayhurst told The Independent.

“Members felt that they were being pushed to vote against a rejection on the basis that they would incur considerable costs for the council. It’s a complete farce and puts everybody in an extremely difficult position. Members should be allowed to vote the way they want,” he added.

David Manley QC, an independent planning and environmental law expert from Kings Chambers Manchester, published the advice he had verbally given the councillors in private, after they demanded he make it public. In it, he points out that the Lancashire planning officers recommended to their councillors last week that the project in Little Plumpton should be waved through.

He adds: “I have not seen any evidence that could credibly justify a contrary conclusion… While a refusal which is not backed by substantial objective evidence cannot be described as unlawful, it nonetheless can readily be described as unreasonable in planning terms. It is highly likely that the applicant will appeal… there is a high risk that a costs penalty will be imposed on the Council.”

Last night, Cllr Hayhurst said the written advice published by the QC was “nothing like as strong” as the verbal advice he gave the day before. Councillor Michael Green agreed, saying: “The advice had very much been couched in black and white terms. There are more nuances in this advice.” But other councillors present said the two versions were roughly the same.

Experts also disagree on whether the legal advice received by the councillors was correct. One planning consultant said there was nothing unusual about giving the councillors legal advice and nothing unusual about the advice they were given.

“I sit on planning committees all the time and lawyers quite often advise committees that they need to think carefully before making a decision and the risks that decision would open up. It is normal for that type of thing to happen,” said Matthew Sheppard, of the Turley Associates planning consultancy.

But Friends of the Earth’s legal adviser Jake White claimed: “It is flawed. It fails to address a number of important considerations including health or noise impacts properly,” Mr Manley could not be reached for comment, while Lancashire County Council declined to comment.

In a separate development, councillors unanimously agreed to block a second fracking application in Lancashire over traffic issues.