The decision of North Yorkshire county council to allow fracking (Campaigners vow to fight fracking permit, 25 May) was based on limited information. I enquired some weeks ago whether there was or would be a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA), and was told in essence this was too difficult and not required for a planning decision. An SCBA would examine not only the economic viability of a scheme but also the social costs to the community of pollution and damage to the local amenities. One clear social cost will be the damage and repair costs caused by thousands of heavy lorry movements on rural roads. These costs would be borne by the taxpayers of North Yorkshire, as now sanctified by the council, and not the drillers and government so enthusiastic for the fracking.
John Launder
Skipton, North Yorkshire

• I sat through the two-day planning meeting to decide the fracking application at KM8, Kirby Misperton. More than 80 most persuasive and eloquent objections were made by two professors, a former UN climate change adviser, medical professionals, planning consultants, and businesspeople, along with well-informed and passionate members of the community. There were more than 4,000 letters of objection and only 36 in support. Every argument was totally dismissed by the applicant and planning officer as if it were complete nonsense. The end debate, which lasted no more than 20 minutes, made it clear that some but not all members had not been receptive to opposing views and revealed through their comments they had only a basic grasp of the risk associated with fracking. The decision could obviously have been made without any meeting or representations. In all a travesty of democracy and very disrespectful to the people of North Yorkshire.
Michael Tanner
Nawton, North Yorkshire

Continue reading…
Source: Guardian Environment