First point, things should first be regulated by actual laws - not random complaints voiced after said action is taking place. If fracking is legal, it's legal. If it isn't then it isn't.
Second it's very simple. For any kind of property right people care about, allow it to be bought and sold. In most places, the property owner owns the air space up to a certain height. This should mean that "views" are irrelevant since they were never owned.
If a place is so wealthy that they are more concerned about aesthetics over functional improvements; energy from fracking, housing for workers, etc. then let them buy them but the rights to compensate everyone else.
Law is already very complex, and the permitting/approval process extends that to specific sites, cases, situations, and necessarily involves a lot of regional and local executive branch politics. (Which can be good and bad. Eg. an industrial region has a lot more expertise, real knowledge, folks who know the subtleties, companies that can do the site survey, the impact assessments, the planning, etc. And a different region might be a big national park, where they focus on that. Both legal. Great.)
It's impossible for statutes to optimally declare priorities for everything upfront.
And a war is the unfortunate vis maior that can lead to having to build a pipe through the park.
The US code is far bigger then what any single person can fully comprehend. This likely holds true for Denmark and the EU if you add up all laws in force.
So it's likely impossible to determine if a complex activity, like fracking in a specific location, is fully legal without years of ground work.
No "single person" is trying to determine if fracking in a specific location is legal, right? That's the domain of large companies with large staffs who are well familiarized with all of the regulations, isn't it?
Second it's very simple. For any kind of property right people care about, allow it to be bought and sold. In most places, the property owner owns the air space up to a certain height. This should mean that "views" are irrelevant since they were never owned.
If a place is so wealthy that they are more concerned about aesthetics over functional improvements; energy from fracking, housing for workers, etc. then let them buy them but the rights to compensate everyone else.