The truth of the matter is that these recent proposals cast more doubt and confusion on the matter. For instance, the ban would only apply to surface locations and fracking underneath these protected landscapes would still be permitted. Additionally, depending on the landscape designation, the depth at which fracking can take place varies – in National Parks it would be 1,200m whereas SSSIs would only be 1,000m for example. Then there is the issue of the legislation itself. The rules regulating drilling depths are set out in legislations, whereas the bans on surface locations would only be a condition placed on newly awarded licences and a policy statement for existing licences in which the Secretary of State would signify that she/he is “not minded” to permit fracking. This does not sound like a ban to me.

Despite all this the fact is that all the regulations only apply to something called “associated hydraulic fracturing” – that is fracking in which more than 1000 cubic metres of fluids are used in any one stage or more than 10,000 cubic metres in total AND only when drilling into “shale or strata enclosed in shale”. What about other non-shale tight formations such as those in the Weald Basin? What about other unconventional methods?

The fact of the matter is that any bans that may or may not find their way into the rule book would only apply to drilling which fits the new legal definition of ‘associated hydraulic fracturing’. It will, it appears, still be possible to drill and frack in protected landscapes such as the South Downs National Park so long as less than 10,000 cubic metres of fluids are used or a different method of drilling is employed.

It is these questions which Mr Herbert now needs to seek written assurances about if we can truly believe his conviction that protected landscapes will not be fracked (on the surface at least).

Martin Dale
For and on behalf of CPRE Sussex (Horsham District)