Jim Ratcliffe, named Britain's richest man by the Sunday Times, is the owner of a petrochemical company that is attempting to overrule a Yorkshire Council in his plans to drill a shale gas well next to a housing development.
In Woodsetts, Rotherham, residents have crowdfunded £10,000 in an attempt to pay a lawyer to help them oppose Ratcliffe's application to carry out a test core drilling on a field just outside the village.
Despite councillors in Rotherham twice refusing the planning permission for the well, on the grounds of concern for highway safety and the lack of information for control of the environmental impacts, Ratcliffe's company Ineos, continue to persist. Councillors are especially worried about the proximity of the plans to Berne Square, which holds housing for people who are elderly or ill.
Ineos have a UK Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence (PEDL) which extends into a field just beyond Woodsetts. This allows it to pursue a range of activities in oil and gas exploration as long as they meet necessary drilling and development consents and planning permission. They have appealed to the planning inspectorate for their case against the village, with campaigners describing it as "David v Goliath".
This follows from three weeks prior when Ineos submitted an application to erect a 270-metre-long fence. Dubbed "The Great Wall of Ineos", it is supposed to act as an acoustic sound barrier to help shield the estate, but the residents see it as a "prison wall to the most vulnerable people in the village".
Due to the Conservative government expressing favour for fracking, it is difficult to effectively deny planning permission, as legally their arguments must cite noise, traffic and environmental impacts instead of ideological objections. This causes an increasingly difficult case for the villages to present, as their original application was dismissed with a lack of evidence to provide a robust enough justification. Residents have put up their own money to get the best experts to challenge Ineos' inquiry.
This case is similar to that of last year, where the planning inspectorate overruled Derbyshire County Council to grant permission to Ineos in a previous endeavour. They were allowed to erect a drilling rig near the village of Marsh Lane, concluding there would be only "slight harm" in terms of the living conditions of the residents but not enough to outweigh the benefits of the exploration. This campaign saw similar protest and action from the citizens of Marsh Lane, the outcome of which was to no avail. The rig was erected despite public dissent.
