Issue - meetings

Report by Head of Planning Services.

The Committee is asked to consider and determine the following application:

WSCC/045/20 – Temporary permission for exploration and appraisal comprising the removal of drilling fluids and subsequent engineering works with an extended well test for hydrocarbons along with site security fencing and site restoration.  Lower Stumble Exploration Site, London Road, Balcombe RH17 6JH.

WSCC/045/20 – Temporary permission for exploration and appraisal comprising the removal of drilling fluids and subsequent engineering works with an extended well test for hydrocarbons along with site security fencing and site restoration.  Lower Stumble Exploration Site, London Road, Balcombe RH17 6JH.

10.1   The Committee recessed at 10.47 a.m. to allow all speakers to join the meeting and reconvened at 11.00 a.m.

10.2   The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services, including changes to conditions as amended by Agenda Update Sheet (copy appended to the signed copy of the minutes).  The report was introduced by Chris Bartlett, Principal Planner, who gave a presentation on the proposals, details of the consultation and key issues in respect of the application.  21 further objections were received and considered following publication of the Committee report; these had not affected the recommendation before the Committee because the concerns raised were the same as those already outlined in other objections.

10.3   Mrs Sue Taylor, local resident and representative of Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association spoke in objection to the application.  The development represents major development in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  There are no exceptional circumstances and the proposed development would not be in the public interest and it is therefore contrary to Policies M7a and M13 of the West Sussex Joint Local Minerals Plan and paragraphs 170 and 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The applicant may have a PEDL license, but planning and environmental permissions still need to be considered.  The potential maximum of 300 barrels of oil per day would not contribute to UK energy security.  The UK could meet its oil needs with much reduced domestic production and it has access to diverse and politically stable oil imports.  It is not true that oil produced in the UK has a lower carbon footprint than overseas imports.  Some UK produced oil is exported.  The proposed development carries a real risk of economic, social and environmental damage to Sussex.  The flare would be on 24 hours per day during the full year of testing.

10.4   Mrs Rachel Hall, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  The number and size of HGVs would have an impact on residents, including pupils at the school, users of the scout hut and the church.  The location of the school, which is below pavement level, the need for open windows due to COVID-19 and position of the play area near the road means there are concerns about children’s exposure to pollution.  This includes NOx, carbon monoxide and benzene.  Particulate matter stays in the body and can cause long term health problems; therefore the proposal would be in contrast to NPPF paragraph 205b regarding human health.  Noise from HGVs also disrupts lessons.  The development stands in opposition the school’s teachings on greener lifestyles and general public concerns about climate change.  The 2018 flow test caused an acrid, creosote/varnish-like smell; this proposal would mean this would be repeated for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10