Decision details

Planning Applications: County Matter Mineral Applications

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

WSCC/032/18/WCAmendment of Condition 1 of planning permission ref: WSCC/029/17/WC extending the permission by 18 months to enable the completion of phase 4 site retention and restoration.

 

WSCC/033/18/WCAmendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/032/17/WC to enable the retention of security fencing, gates and cabins for a further 18 months.

 

                                  Woodbarn Farm, Adversane Lane, Broadford Bridge, Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 9ED

 

68.1   The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services (copy appended to the signed minutes).  The report was introduced by Chris Bartlett, Principal Planner, who provided a presentation on the proposals, details of consultation and key issues in respect of the application.  The following additional points were noted:

·         Should the applicant wish to carry out further drilling and/or extract oil commercially then a further planning application would be required.  Any potential future activity is not material to the current application.

·         Since publication of the Committee report a further three objections have been received covering both applications.

 

68.2   Dr Jill Sutcliffe representing Keep Kirdford and Wisborough Green, spoke in objection to the application.  This application would increase time on site from 49 to 67 months.  Various promises made by the applicant to restore the site have not been met.  The site is not viable, as stated by the applicant themselves and other industry commentators.  The company has data, so why is more time required?  Other sites in the Weald referred to are not within WSCC jurisdiction and so should not be a consideration.  The operator has a poor record of clean-up and has been served with a Breach of Condition notice by South Downs National Park Authority for failure to restore Markwells Wood site after 2-years.  During drilling the cement bonding failed causing the well to leak and there is concern that carcinogenic and toxic chemicals escaped.  Horsham District Council expressed concerns that ‘longer term retention…would be detrimental to the landscape character of this countryside location’.  There are concerns about air and water pollution, and that drilling has taken place through a geological fault line with the potential for earthquakes.  If approved, then a financial bond should be required to secure site restoration.

 

68.3   Mr Nigel Moore of Zetland Group Ltd, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The additional 18 months requested is to allow time to review existing and new data from the existing boreholes and other nearby locations in the Weald, to understand the quality and recoverability of the oil reserves.  The scheme remains temporary and is reversible.  It is recognised that the NPPF is moving towards the transition to low carbon energy supplies but this will take time and, the meantime, the UK demand for energy is overriding.  The climate change agenda can be delivered but not at the expense of economic growth.  It will take time for UK households to transition from gas and oil boilers and for changes to take place in manufacturing and transport.  The UK is a net importer of energy and is not impervious to energy price volatility.  A managed transition to a low carbon economy will also protect jobs and tax revenues.  Retention of the site is not cost free, but it currently sits benignly, and the requested extension of time should be balanced against need, which is tilted in the favour of the later.

 

68.4   Mr Matt Cartwright, Chief Operating Officer, UKOG (234) Ltd, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  UKOG (234) Ltd (previously Kimmeridge Oil) has only operated on site for 7 months of the last 4 years.  Good relations have been built with regulators, including the Oil and Gas Authority which has extended the exploration licence for a further 5 years.  The company has tried to be a good neighbour, and has received more than 200 visitors.  It wants to share royalties.  Oil has been found in most the zones, but the question is whether they can get it to the surface at commercial rates.  Testing of the same reservoir at Horse Hill will be key to whether this works commercially across the region, and this and the other testing in the licence area is why a further 18 months is needed.  The UK economy still needs oil and gas, which drives growth, jobs and tax revenues.  Broadford Bridge is a key site.  There are potential benefits for south-east England.

 

68.5   During the debate the Committee raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers, where applicable:

 

Extension of Time for Site Restoration

Points raised What will happen regarding site restoration if the applications are not approved?  The Committee needs to decide whether the applicant has already had long enough or whether the need for more time, particularly to analyse test results, is justifiable.  It was noted that the Oil and Gas Authority has extended the applicant’s licence well beyond the period requested in these applications.  Should the applicant apply in future for a further extension then they may expect that the Committee would be quite tough in its position.

Response – If refused, the applicant would be expected to restore the site as soon as possible in accordance with existing planning permission.  However, the Oil and Gas Authority requires operators to carry out certain works so there may be some conflict.  No response was required for the second and third points, which are for the Committee to consider.

 


 

Dates of the Restoration Period

Points raised – Clarification was sought regarding the restoration period, which is stated as October 2019 to March 2020

Response – Restoration should only take 6 weeks but this must be done during the autumn/winter planting period, which is why 6 months has been allowed.

 

Changes since the last application WSCC 029/17/WC

Points raised – Have there been any material change to the site or impacts caused since the last application was approved?  Have there been any further works carried out on the site?

Response – A new Minerals Local Plan has been approved and the NPPF has been updated, but officers consider that the applications still accord with both.  The flow testing, as permitted under application WSCC/029/17/WC has been completed in the last year.  Equipment was removed after the flow testing and the site is clear other than hard-standing, a container (placed over the well-head for protection and security) and site fencing and gates.

 

Expiry dates of current applications WSCC/029/17/WC and WSCC/032/17/WC

Point raised – Why have the applications for extension of time been submitted so close to the expiry dates of the previous applications?

Response – The applications were submitted at least 13 weeks prior to the expiry dates of the previous applications.  As at the date of this Committee meeting, the applicant is not in breach of any planning permission.

 

Restoration (financial) bond

Points raised – Can a financial bond be required from the applicant?

Response – National guidance indicates that a bond or financial guarantee is typically only justified for quarries or development which requires ‘novel’ approaches.  Officers consider that application WSCC/032/18/WC does not fall into that category.  In addition, the Oil and Gas Authority carries out checks into the insurance and financial status of the operator to ensure they have sufficient funds/coverage for the operations, including site restoration.  Unlike quarries or landfills, the cost of restoration of this site would not be excessive, because it requires only the sealing of the well and reinstatement of the land to an agricultural field.

 

Impact of HGV Movements

Point raised How do the predicted HGV movements of 22 per day for the 6 weeks of restoration compare with existing movements.

Response – There are no HGV movements at the moment because no work is being undertaken on the site.  No assessment of HGV movements was carried out for these applications, though it was for the initial application which the Highways Authority concluded acceptable.  The proposed 22 movements per day will be for a very limited period of time during restoration. 

 

Local Member

Point raised Has the local member commented on these applications?

Response – No comment has been received from the local member.

 

Fencing

Point raised Is the heras fencing at the front of the site required for security purposes?  And, if not, when will it be removed?  It was suggested that removal should be required by condition.

Response – The heras fencing is not required for security purposes and therefore, the applicant has agreed that it is to be removed.  The only authorised fencing on site would be that permitted through application WSCC/033/18/WC.  Any other fencing must be removed or a new application submitted to retain it.

 

Comments from Horsham District Council

Point raised – Dr Sutcliffe quoted concerns raised by Horsham District Council on the impact on landscape character; why is this not in the report?

Response – This quote is taken from previous Horsham District Council comments regarding application WSCC/029/17/WC.  It was clarified that Horsham District Council has not responded to application WSCC/032/18/WC.  Mr Oakley clarified that a response was received on 16 July 2018 to application WSCC/033/18/WC only, and it is noted in the Committee report that the District Council had no comments to make.

 

68.6   The substantive recommendation for application WSCC 032/18/WC was proposed by Lt. Cdr. Atkins and seconded by Mr Barrett-Miles and was put to the Committee and approved by a majority.

 

68.7   Resolved – That planning permission for application WSCC 032/18/WC be granted subject to conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the report, as agreed by the Committee.

 

68.8   The substantive recommendation for application WSCC 033/18/WC was proposed by Lt. Cdr. Atkins and seconded by Mr Barrett-Miles and was put to the Committee and approved by a majority.

 

68.9   Resolved – That planning permission for application WSCC 033/18/WC be granted subject to conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 2 of the report, as agreed by the Committee.

 

68.10 The Committee recessed at 1.07 p.m. for lunch and reconvened at 1.30 p.m.  Ms Lord left the meeting during the recess.

 

 

Publication date: 26/09/2018

Date of decision: 11/09/2018

Decided at meeting: 11/09/2018 - Planning Committee

Accompanying Documents: