A GAS company has again fallen foul of North Yorkshire County Council over its plans to carry out the controversial process known as 'fracking' in Ryedale.

North Yorkshire County Council’s planning department has written to Third Energy over the way it has worded notices of its application to carry out test 'fracking' in Kirby Misperton.

The local authority’s letter states that the notices describing the application, which legally have to be advertised, failed to adequately inform people.

The council found they failed to list the plant and machinery to be used on the site, which will include a workover rig and hydraulic fracture equipment.

It also found the letters Third Energy had sent to the known owners of land also omitted text “in respect of the rights of owners or tenants of land”.

The letter states that “it cannot be considered that the notices have been duly served, published or posted in the way prescribed.”

A spokesman for Third Energy said: “The planning application has not yet been validated as duly made by the North Yorkshire County Council.

"This is due to differing interpretations of statutory legislation regarding notices required. We are communicating with the council and our application is proceeding.”

The letter also responded to a formal request from Third Energy for the plans to be considered at an extra-ordinary meeting of its planning committee in November. In its correspondence, the county council said although it didn’t object in principal to holding an extraordinary meeting to consider the plans, they would do so “when it is considered that a position has been reached whereby a report may be prepared and indeed ready to present to members”.

It is the second scathing letter from North Yorkshire County Council to Third Energy over the topic.

Several weeks ago the council informed the company of a catalogue of errors on its application to hydraulically stimulate and test various geographical formations at the Ryedale site.

Planners also rejected the first application because it lacked key details and failed to consider the effect on the 1.5m annual visitors to nearby Flamingoland.

The nine-page letter, which led to Third Energy withdrawing its application in May, said the firm had not detailed the volume of gas it expected to extract, the anticipated well reserve or the expected life of the well.

The council also said that its application also failed to mention that as a member of gas industry body UKOOG, Third Energy had signed a charter agreeing to pay one per cent of production revenues to communities near well sites.

Third Energy said the planning application ran to seven thick volumes of documentation and had contained a small number of minor errors. It said on the basis of that it had decided to withdraw the application and submit a new one, which it was confident was robust, comprehensive and accurate.