IT was a testy start for the public inquiry into ‘fracking’ plans for Ellesmere Port with the planning inspector in charge accused of “prejudging” the outcome.

Roger Griffiths, the barrister representing Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWaC), said a pre-inquiry note by the inspector appeared to question the relevance of planned evidence from two climate change experts.

This gave the impression that his decision was pre-determined, Mr Griffiths said.

The testimonies of the experts would be crucial to the council’s argument that its planning committee was right to reject energy company IGas’s plans to test for shale gas at Portside.

CWaC councillors decided last January that the ‘flow test’ application failed to mitigate the impact on climate change.

Inspector Brian Cook, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, interrupted Mr Griffiths’ opening to clarify his position.

Speaking on day one of the inquiry at Chester Town Hall, he told the barrister: “I’m slightly alarmed that you are suggesting I have prejudged this issue.”

Mr Cook stressed that it was down to the council’s legal team to convince him of the relevance of their evidence and he had in no way already made up his mind on the matter.

The inquiry – which comes after IGas appealed against CWaC’s decision - is the first in the UK to look into the impact of an onshore gas site on climate change.

It began with a passionate demonstration outside the town hall by anti-fracking campaigners chanting ‘we said no!’.

Opening the hearing, IGas’s barrister Giles Cannock stressed that the application had attracted no objections from statutory consultees such as the Environment Agency (EA), Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

The well at the site in Ellesmere Port had already been drilled so there would be little further impact on the area.

Mr Cannock added: “There will be no drilling or deepening of the well and, contrary to the concerns of local residents, no hydraulic fracturing is proposed and no ‘matrix acidization’ is proposed.

“If I get nothing else across in my opening, I would like this to be understood.”

All processes and materials to be used are approved by the EA, which would also regulate any gas flaring.

Mr Cannock told the inquiry that evidence of earthquakes and other effects known to have happened in America were not relevant as the US has a “fundamentally different regulatory regime”.

“This is not, and never has been, an application for hydraulic fracturing,” he explained. “This planning permission, when properly understood, should be granted.”

However, CWaC barrister Mr Griffiths said it was clear IGas was not taking the issue of climate change seriously enough as a reason for the application’s refusal.

This was shown by the company’s lack of any proposed expert scientific evidence to support its own arguments, he said.

“This case raises issues of major public importance,” Mr Griffiths said. “Climate change is a serious threat to society and ecosystems.”

The inquiry is set to last until Wednesday or Thursday next week, after which the inspector will make his decision.