In late 2013 and early 2014, during huge daily protests at Barton Moss which aimed to delay vehicles entering and leaving the IGas exploratory drilling site, scores of people were arrested by Greater Manchester Police. While many of the subsequent charges have been dropped or thrown out of court, over forty cases of aggravated trespass are still ongoing.
As part of the defence, lawyers acting on behalf of those charged have argued that their actions were valid as the `activity taking place was unlawful in that it was causing damage to the environment'.
During the case, which began last year, evidence was heard of huge contamination at Barton Moss. In March this year, District Judge James Prowse acknowledged the "dangerously high concentrations" of PAHs (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon) found from samples taken near the IGas site (see previous Salford Star article click here).
Indeed, the case rested on the defence assertions of three potential offences resulting from the activities of IGas... firstly, `the depositing on the field adjacent to the site of the clay removed from within the site during its construction'; secondly `the increase in the concentration of PAHs and heavy metals in the field as a result of the movement of soil during the construction of the site'; and thirdly, `the pollution of water with contaminants arising during the construction of the site'.
On the first point, the dumping of mud, Judge Prowse in his written verdict yesterday, following Monday's Manchester Magistrates Court hearing, agreed that "The legislation is somewhat opaque, deriving as it does from an EU directive".
IGas basically escaped from being rapped over this because the Environment Agency's witness, Mrs Scott, considered that its mud dumping activity was within the terms of the company's planning licence... "Even if she is wrong as to the law, if that was the Agency's view it would afford a defence to IGas" wrote the Judge in his verdict.
In other words, the EU directive is woolly and the Environment Agency, which is supposed to be regulating all activity relating to drilling, was hardly being robust. The Judge also raised the point that there was "no clear evidence of background readings for pollution from prior to the construction of the site", which can be seen as another Environment Agency failing, in relation to the second and third points, about soil and water contamination.
During the summing up of the case the defence argued that there were "real dangers of uncertainties about ground water activities" around the site, with levels of pollutants four times higher than they should be. The defence argued that, while it accepted the contaminants came from historic waste disposal and not from the drilling, the site activity had `mobilised' toxic pollutants.
Judged Prowse agreed in his verdict that "There is evidence of an increase in levels of PAHs and heavy metals adjacent to the site, raising an inference that the construction of the site has had a part to play", and that "The variations allow the drawing of an inference that material has been disturbed during the construction of the site". However, he added that "If the process of construction was the cause of small-scale increases in levels of pollutants this was, in my judgment, incidental to the construction process itself..."
Judge Prowse concluded that "In the circumstances I do not find that any of the defendants in these conjoined proceedings are able to rely on the defence of unlawfulness".
Reacting to the ruling, Helen Chuntso, from BIFF (Britain and Ireland Frack Free), slated the Government's current dash for shale gas...
"This case has, in detail, brought to light the complexities of the regulatory processes" she explained "The shortcomings of the Council planning system, unaware at the time of allowing the permit, has resulted in the excavation of glacial mud required for shale exploration, rather than the shallower, permit-stated coal
bed methane well.
"The Environment Agency's supposed 'Gold Standard Regulation' has revealed how waste can be dumped off permit" she added "This case has been crucial in highlighting that the recently enforced 16 week turnaround time for councils to grant shale exploratory permits is unwise and dangerous for all."
Lawyers for the defendants are not commenting on the verdict as the cases are ongoing, but two things should concern residents. Firstly, Salford residents might want to know to what extent fields and watercourses around the Barton Moss exploratory drilling site are contaminated and whether crops grown for human consumption have been contaminated.
Secondly, residents should be aware that the findings of this case only relate to Barton Moss, where no fracking actually occurred. It was an exploratory drilling site for coal bed methane, which went further in looking for shale gas conditions.
Despite the findings of the case, there are still questions hanging over the Environment Agency, Salford City Council and IGas which will become clearer in the coming months...
* Main photo by Steven Speed
(1).jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.JPG)
(2).JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
