Latest News

Ecotricity      Britain's leading green energy supplier     

Ecotricity promises 100% green electricity and Britain’s greenest gas, complete with a Frack Free promise – that it will never use shale gas as part of its energy mix. It offers one tariff and one price for all of its customers.

If you are considering switching to a greener energy supplier then please choose Ecotricity. Please go to the Ecotricity web site here and select RAFF  on the right hand side of the page. For each new customer RAFF will receive a £60 donation from Ecotricity, which will help us fight fracking in the Fylde and beyond. Thank you.                                                 

Sign FoE’s petition to stop fracking companies dumping waste under your home

 The UK Government is trying to push through legislation not only to frack under your home without your permission, but also to to allow fracking companies to use ‘any substance’ under people’s homes. And leave it there. This could be nuclear waster – anything. If you disagee please sin Friends of the Earth petition here. Thank you.



The UK Gov is trying to push through legislation to allow fracking companies to use ‘any substance’ under people’s homes. And leave it there. </p>
<p>Disagree? Sign our petition:



Cuadrilla injunction granted – judge describes costs as ‘considerable’

Reproduced from Drill or Drop? Independent evidence-based reporting of the exploitation of onshore oil and gas and the campaign against it

The interim injunction granted to the drilling company Cuadrilla and a group of Lancashire landowners to prevent protests on proposed fracking sites has been extended unopposed at Manchester High Court.

But the judge rejected the company’s application for legal costs of £54,000 against a single anti-fracking campaigner. It was also confirmed for the first time that Cuadrilla is paying the legal costs of the landowners.

The case centred on four areas of land at Little Plumpton and Roseacre, where Cuadrilla has submitted two planning applications to drill and hydraulically fracture shale gas wells. It was brought following the establishment of an anti-fracking camp by a group of grandmothers for three weeks in August in a field belonging to one of the landowners.

At a hearing on August 28th, the claimants (Cuadrilla and the owners) sought an injunction against “persons unknown” and a wide range of anti-fracking groups. That case was adjourned when an anti-fracking campaigner, Tina Louise Rothery, asked for more time to consider opposing the injunction.

Today’s case was against Miss Rothery, “person’s unknown” and anyone who accessed the land. It centred on legal costs because Miss Rothery did not contest the terms of the injunction.

Tom Roscoe, for Cuadrilla and the landowners, said Miss Rothery was liable for the costs because the claimants had been the successful parties. He said evidence of this included the end of the occupation of the field days before the first hearing.

If Miss Rothery had not requested an adjournment, Mr Roscoe said, there would have been no need for today’s hearing. He said the claimants had sought to limit the costs, which otherwise would have been above £100,000.

Mr Roscoe said Miss Rothery had played a key role in organising the occupation of the field and she had publicised the action. He also accused her for making misleading statements about the previous hearing.

He said the rights of freedom of expression and assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights did not legalise trespass or protect a person from liability for costs.

When asked by Judge David Hodge why no VAT had been added to the costs, Mr Roscoe said it was because the VAT could be claimed back. “Is this because Cuadrilla is paying”, asked the judge. “Yes”, said Mr Roscoe.

Felicity Williams, for Miss Rothery, said there should be no order for costs. She said the claimants had not been successful because at the previous hearing they had failed in their attempt to outlaw any actions that encouraged or instructed people to oppose fracking. The only issue that divided the two sides had been the timescale of the injunction against trespass, she said, and Miss Rothery had sought to come to an agreement over that.

Miss Williams said the costs of £54,000 was “manifestly excessive”, adding: “there is a danger that the level of costs will have a chilling effect on the rights to protest and on access to the courts”.

She said additional evidence submitted by the claimants today was unnecessary and some of it duplicated material submitted at the previous hearing. She also accused the claimants of trying to tarnish Miss Rothery’s reputation. Miss Williams said there had been confusion about the scope of the injunction imposed by the previous hearing and this had been clarified only by a transcript made available recently.

Judge Hodge said he was satisfied the claimants had won the case, to which members of the public gallery wearing anti-fracking black and yellow shouted “absolutely not” . The judge extended the injunction to 28 days after a decision was made on planning permission. If this was unexpectedly delayed, he said, the injunction could continue for no more than two years.

He described the costs as considerable and questioned both the hourly rate and the number of hours sought by the claimants. “In my judgement”, he said, “it would not be just to visit considerable costs of bringing these proceedings on one of the trespassers just because she raised her head above the parapet and submitted to be joined to the proceedings. If she had kept quiet the burden of costs would have fallen on the claimants and Cuadrillla. It seems to be to be wrong that she should be subjected to excessive costs.”

He ordered that a separate judge should assess the costs and, as he put it, “scrutinise their reasonableness and proportionality”.

The judge said that in seeking the adjournment, Miss Rothery made today’s hearing inevitable. “In these circumstances I am certain that Miss Rothery has to bear these costs on her own”. He suggested that she invite people who supported her to contribute.

Farmers say ‘NO!’ to fracking




Farmers from the Fylde and Lancashire have said a resounding ‘NO’ to fracking. About 10 tractors and large agricultural vehicles brought traffic to a standstill in Preston City centre yesterday as Frack Free Lancashire protesters led the tractor cavalcade along Fishergate to County Hall, where a full council meeting was taking place. The anti-fracking protestors also met up with Friends of the Earth at County Hall who were campaigning for clean solar energy over dirty shale.

Lancashire farmers are letting the County Council know they will not tolerate the approval of planning applications from Cuadrilla to carry out operations on or near their land. As the tractor cavalcade pulled away, a light aircraft with a “Keep Lancashire Frack Free” banner flew round and round County Hall before taking its message to Blackpool.





A massive thank you to all of those involved. Special thanks go  to Tony Holden for organising the farmers and to Andy for the wonderful fly-by. The farming community is being torn apart by the likes of Cuadrilla who are offering farmers large sums of money to turn agricultural land in industrialised fracking pads. Hats off to the brave farmers who showed their true colours at yesterday’s event.

Fylde Borough Council’s Planning Meeting “even worse than a pantomime” “nothing short of a momentous shambles”

Earlier this month, Fylde Borough Council voted to approve their officers’ recommendations to object to both of  Cuadrilla’s  planning applications – Preston New Road (Little Plumpton) and Roseacre Wood. As well as objecting, the committee also beefed up the reasons for refusal.

We covered the meeting very briefly but deliberately didn’t go into huge detail. This is because we don’t fully understand the workings of the council but it was mainly because we knew Counterbalance would cover it and would do so much better than we could ever do!

Once again RAFF congratulates Counterbalance for its fair reporting, attention to detail and injection of humour into its account of what was a frustrating, tedious and long day. The item is very long but as Counterbalance explains “that’s because this meeting of Fylde’s Development Management Committee addressed probably the most important planning issue there has ever been in Fylde Council’s history.” We think this is a very important document that will be referred to again and again. You can read it here.

Fylde Borough Council vote to object to Cuadrilla’s planning applications

Today (17/09), Fylde Borough Council voted to approve their officers’ recommendations to object to both of  Cuadrilla’s  planning applications – Preston New Road (Little Plumpton) and Roseacre Wood. As well as objecting, the committee also beefed up the reasons for refusal.

Although Fylde Borough Council are only a statutory consultant, and it will be Lancashire County Council who make the final decision, this is still  a tremendous victory for Frack Free Lancashire. The public were given a chance a speak at today’s meeting and many took up the opportunity. They were all tremendous and our councillors heard about the health risks, the effects on people’s day to day lives, the lack of regulations, the fears that our water might be contaminated, the environmental impacts and lots more. 

Congratulations to all the activists and campaigners who have been working for more than three years to get to this point. Let’s keep piling on the pressure and get yet more signatures and show Lancs County Council that they have no option other than to reject these applications.

Shale gas rejected in Sussex – Lancs residents call on county leaders to follow suit

The South Downs National Park has today unanimously rejected an application from Celtique Energy for shale gas and oil drilling near the village of Fernhurst in Sussex. This follows an earlier planning refusal for the company to drill in Wisborough Green, which was turned down by West Sussex County Council in July this year (1). The applications did not involve fracking – the controversial technique of injecting water and chemicals underground at high pressure to find gas trapped in rocks - but would likely lead to it in the future.

The decision to reject drilling throws the spotlight on Lancashire County Councillors who are expected to make a decision on Cuadrilla’s applications for fracking sites off Preston New Road near Little Plumpton, and near Roseacre in the Fylde in November.

Bob Dennett from Residents Action on Fylde Fracking said:

“We are really pleased to hear that another application to drill for unconventional oil and gas has been turned down. More and more councils around the country are saying no to fracking and declaring themselves frack-free. We are now looking to Lancashire County Councillors to show the same concern for communities and our environment and say no to fracking here.” (2)

Helen Rimmer, Friends of the Earth North West campaigner said:

“It’s fantastic news that drilling has been refused in Sussex and a National Park has been protected – but communities across the country still face the threat of fracking particularly here in Lancashire. We don’t need dirty fracking and the economic benefits have been hugely exaggerated - according to Cuadrilla’s own documents the frack sites in the Fylde will only create 11 jobs.

“It’s time to build a clean energy future based on efficiency and developing our significant potential for renewable power, which could create thousands of new jobs in Lancashire.”


1. The Fernhurst application was recommended for refusal by planning officers on the grounds of no overriding public interest, impacts on rural tranquillity and unacceptable noise:

The Wisborough Green application was turned down on transport grounds and impacts on residents and highways

2. Newcastle City Council has passed a motion against fracking this month following other councils who have passed motions against it including Manchester, Dover, Brent, Brighton

Cancer risk from fracking: Fylde medic speaks out

The following is a letter sent by Dr Frank Rugman, a Fylde medic, to the local Lytham St Annes newspaper on 30/08/14. The paper didn’t publish it but you can read the full text of the letter below.It considers the effects of benzene, which is found in the flowback water from fracking, on public health.

This letter, together with the recently published leaflet from Breast Cancer UK, on the possible links between fracking chemicals and breast cancer, offer further proof about the detrimental effects of fracking on public health.

Fracking & Human Cancers:

Benzene causes cancer in humans, in particular acute myeloid leukaemia.

A positive association has also been reported between exposure to Benzene and lymphoma, acute lymphocytic leukaemia, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and multiple myeloma.

Benzene is found in unleaded petrol / gasoline, cigarette smoke, chemical manufacturing and is also present in fracking flow-back water. Occupational exposure to Benzene occurs via inhalation or skin absorption. Benzene exposures in the workplace are supposed to be limited by regulations, but some oil and gas production activities in the USA are exempt from those standards.

The USA Centers for Disease Control & Prevention have just published preliminary data (21 Aug 2014) indicating that occupational exposure to Benzene vapour during Fracking can exceed regulations and present a risk during certain flow-back fluid work activities.  The study is unusual in that it did not simply rely on air samples. The researchers also took urine samples from workers, linking the exposure to absorption of the toxin in their bodies. In several cases Benzene exposures were found to be above safe levels.

The research also found that airborne concentrations of hydrocarbons, in general, and Benzene, specifically, varied considerably during Fracking fluid flow-back and can be unpredictable. Hydrocarbon emissions during flow-back operations also showed the potential to generate flammable and explosive concentrations depending on time and where measurements were made, and the volume of hydrocarbon emissions produced.

Unlike the USA, the Fylde is relatively densely populated.

Are residents living near Fracking sites about to become the innocent victims of an industrial experiment?
Dr Frank Rugman
MB ChB, MSc (Distinction) FRCPath, FRCP(London)

Residents urged to object to fracking before deadline

Residents groups opposed to fracking in the Fylde have urged people to object to proposals for a major shale gas site off Preston New Road near Little Plumpton, before the end of the official consultation deadline this Friday (5 September).

Already several thousand objections have been lodged to the application for four horizontal fracked wells which would involve 24 hour drilling and flaring, around 100 million litres of freshwater, the creation of 21 million litres of contaminated wastewater and support only 11 jobs (1). This includes 4,500 objections specifically for the Preston New Road site from Friends of the Earth supporters and 5000 objections gathered by the Frack Free Lancashire alliance of local groups for both the Preston New Road and Roseacre sites.

Lancashire County Council is expected to make a decision on the two applications from fracking company Cuadrilla in November.

Patricia Davies of Preston New Road action group , a member of the Frack Free Lancashire alliance, said:

“We have been overwhelmed by the support we have received from local residents and businesses. Thousands of objections have been lodged to this site and we urge anyone who cares about protecting the Fylde environment to do so before Friday. It is clear that local residents don’t want the Fylde fracked.

“Fracking will industrialise the Fylde, and risk our air, water, land and health with no gains for local residents but huge gains for Cuadrilla and their friends in Government.

“We call upon Councillors to fulfil their elected responsibility, and listen to and protect our local community by saying a decisive no to this industry.”

1. Figures for freshwater usage and wastewater creation taken from the Scheme Parameters document in the planning application: Appendix B – Scheme Parameters 7500m3 water to be used in drilling (Table B6.1) and between 89,500 to 112,500 m3 of water during hydraulic fracturing (B7.1) and 21,500m3 of flowback wastewater (B8.2). Figures converted to litres.
Figures for jobs taken from the Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement (Section 5)

Poor day in court for Cuadrilla as it tries to censure the world

Yesterday (28:08:14) an interim injunction was granted to Cuadrilla and a couple of farmers and landowners, preventing future occupation of land  around the Little Plumpton site where Cuadrilla wants to frack. News of the injunction and an eviction notice was served to the ‘Nana Camp’  at the end of last week, despite their announcement that they would be packed up and away by the time of the eviction.  (BTW the term ‘served’ is used very loosely to describe a plastic bag containing hundreds of pages of text and photos, thrown into the camp field on a wet and windy day).


The Nanas and their Solicitor Simon Pook had to face the six plus Cuadrilla legal team at the High Court in Manchester. It was the first hearing of the case brought by Cuadrilla and named farmers for possession of the field in great Plumpton and various claims for damages. The Judge heard that the site had already been vacated by the Nanas and that they needed time to assimilate the details of the charges against them. He subsequently decided after much careful deliberation, which lasted most of the day, that the Nanas did indeed need more time to look at evidence.  Most of  it was addressed to persons unknown ranging from people on social media to named groups of unknown persons. The farmers were allowed possession and an injunction preventing trespass, which would stay in place until the date of the next hearing on October 8th. Cuadrilla’s other demands were refused.

The Salford Star offers some good coverage on the case. It’s important to note that Cuadrilla’s action didn’t just include the Nana camp and Reclaim the Power, but also every local group in Lancashire, Frack Off, etc and bizarrely,  anyone `encouraging and instructing’ people to protest via social media! Not one single individual was named. The Salford Star says: “There was laughter in the public gallery and even the judge smiled as fracking company Cuadrilla and fellow claimants tried to ban everyone in the world who might be opposed to fracking from going to Little Plumpton. The judge realised that those terms, if they had been applied would have breached Article 10 and 11 of the European Convention and had them taken out of the order because it would breach human rights. ”

The case for the injunction `preventing further trespass’ was adjourned until October 8th, to give time for people to object. The Salford Star quotes the defendant’s solicitor Simon Pook as saying: “The injunction has been overturned until it comes back to court in October. If this does comes back we will get rid of it, the judge has told them. I’d be very surprised if it does come back…”

The Lytham St Annes Express also covers it with predictable imbalance – as yet, its online item includes quotes from Cuadrilla, plus their solicitor, but none from any of the defendants. Posters in the Comments section below the item have also remarked on the imbalance:

“I am surprised that the local press appear to only be reporting one side of this story,…the poor farmers who will actually be paid handsomely for any disruption. The local residents groups wrote to all local papers with their side of this story yet nothing has been published. Please consider those people who will be directly affected by this horrendous industry and stop trying to make out all protestors are loonies. I am just an ordinary member of the public (who was neither for or against fracking) but after months of research now realise this must be stopped at all costs or it will damage our environment and affect our local tourism and agriculture businesses. To say anything else makes me think people have not looked into this closely enough. We are not nimbys…we just care for our wonderful countryside and value our rural heritage.”


And this post is from someone who was obviously at the hearing:

“Hmmm, spin machine in overdrive already it appears.

1) The only field affected by the injunction is the one the protectors occupied. No others.
2) Cuadrilla’s attempt to effectively stifle all protest at all of their sites/potential sites was dismissed as “too vague”.
3) can we stop referring to the 10 local farmers as if there are ten farms here backing Cuadrillas plans, this is a long way from reality. As I understand it there are 2 farms backing this and the individuals named are all members/family of those farms.

Cuadrilla’s attemps to quash public protest has, in reality, been dealt an expensive blow today and it shows how desperate they are getting that they honestly thought they’d have a chance of pushing this “blanket ban” through the legal system.

Despite what is being pumped out in certain sections of the media via a very expensive, well-oiled PR machine, this battle is still a long, long way from over and Cuadrilla, IGas and co know it, hence their increasingly desperate and ill thought out legal attempts to silence the public.

The fat lady hasn’t even started gargling yet.”