Agenda item

Report by Head of Planning Services.

 

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

 

WSCC/001/22 - Amendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/078/19/WC to enable the retention of security fencing, gates and cabins for a further 24 months

 

WSCC/002/22 - Amendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/079/19/WC extending the permission by 24 months to enable the completion of phase 4 site retention and restoration

 

at Wood Barn Farm, Adversane Lane, Broadford Bridge, Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 9ED

WSCC/001/22 - Amendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/078/19/WC to enable the retention of security fencing, gates and cabins for a further 24 months

WSCC/002/22 - Amendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/079/19/WC extending the permission by 24 months to enable the completion of phase 4 site retention and restoration

at Wood Barn Farm, Adversane Lane, Broadford Bridge, Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 9ED

 

5.1        The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services, as amended by the Agenda Update Sheet (copies appended to the signed copy of the minutes).  The report was introduced by James Neave, Principal Planner, who gave a presentation on the proposals, details of the consultation and key issues in respect of the applications.  In addition, a further third-party representation had been received on the day of the meeting; however, the content did not affect the Officer’s recommendation to the Committee.

 

5.2        Dr Jill Sutcliffe, an environmental scientist, representing the Keep Kirdford and Wisborough Green group spoke in objection to the applications. The applicant has previously stated four times that the site will be restored, so it is questioned how many times this can be permitted to go on.  An independent observer has made the following comment about the site: “low reservoir productivity indicates zone likely not economically viable” and the company itself has stated “flow rates…are likely sub commercial”.  This Committee report describes the site as being “of an industrial character within a rural setting”.  It is a rural part of both the country and the county, which should not be subjected to an industrial scale operation.  The infrastructure is not suitable.  Concerns have been raised about well integrity and the possibility of toxic chemicals having leaked out.  The NPPF paras. 210 h) and 211 e) state that restoration should take place at the “earliest opportunity”.  Para. 55 states that “Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations.”, hence the reason for applying a time limit on the previous planning permission.  Para. 59 states, “Effective enforcement is important to maintain public confidence in the planning system.”  There is no real evidence to support that more time is needed.  The climate emergency and the drive towards net zero carbon emissions are vitally important.  Climate policy should consider such planning applications.

 

5.3         Mr Matt Cartwright, Commercial Director, UK Oil & Gas PLC, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The well site, built in 2014, only undertook 7 months of exploration activity in the next 36 months whilst UKOG took ownership.  Oil to surface has been achieved. The ‘Kimmeridge’ reserve is regional, but it must be confirmed.  In 2020 the Committee was informed about planning consent at Horse Hill in Surrey, but a legal challenge has delayed progress.  It is hoped to progress later this year.  The required data from this site is still needed for analysis for the Broadford Bridge oil site.  Wider world events are acknowledged.  Although Covid showed we can live greener lifestyles, the need for a secure supply chain, e.g. for PPE, was demonstrated.  The bedding-in of net zero is happening, but it is a challenge that will take years.  The Broadford Bridge oil site’s primary aim is to contribute to UK domestic supply, but a secondary aim is to repurpose the well for geothermal energy.  The war in Ukraine has shown how the impacts of Russia, as a commodity superpower, have affected costs - businesses have been particularly affected by price increases - and dependence on external supply and the UK’s neglect of our own energy security.  Right now, there is a perfect storm of insufficient renewables combined with insufficient fossil fuels.  UK supply would mean not outsourcing to countries with less regulation and poor environmental records and would reduce international transport.  It would free the UK from the whims of dictators.

 

5.4        Mr Nigel Moore, Planning Manager at Zetland Group Ltd, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The application is to extend the life of a temporary planning consent.  The additional 24 months will allow time for review, followed by site restoration.  No new drilling works are planned, no new impacts are predicted, and the proposal remains temporary and reversible.  The proposal seeks to defer restoration to enable a review of existing data in light of data to come, including the mix of oil and gas and pressures and flow rates.  Restoring the Broadford Bridge oil site prematurely would sever the link to a possible vital source of oil and gas.  UGOK is exploring new, less harmful, methods of oil recovery, which could be used at Broadford Bridge if it matures to production.  Under this application, actions remaining would be to seal the wells, remove fencing, scrape back the top soil and re-seed, so residential amenity would not be harmed.  Effects of landscape character, ecology, water environment and water neutrality are acceptable or can be made so through conditions already approved.  There are very few objections and no statutory consultees have objected.

 

5.5     Cllr Charlotte Kenyon, the local County Councillor for Pulborough, spoke on the application.  All of the previous speakers’ points were of interest, including the climate consequences, but also the need for a domestic oil and gas supply and stability of energy supply.  However, it is understood that this site will provide only a small contribution to supply.  It is not fully clear that the extension is justified given what has been found to date.  This is the fourth extension requested for this site in nine years.  Repeated extensions can undermine public confidence in the planning system, particularly if reasons don’t appear to be new or based on new evidence.  The South Downs National Park Authority has had to issue an Enforcement Notice for the restoration of UKOG’s site at Markwells Wood, leading to concern about their commitment to the restoration of the site at Wood Barn Farm.  The definition of temporary is something lasting only for a limited period of time.  It was queried how this can be a temporary borehole or if it is not to be limited by enforcement of the restoration requirement.  How long does the applicant go on looking for oil and what is to prevent a further request for temporary planning permission?  West Chiltington Parish Council has raised objections and it would be useful to understand how these objections have been unpicked.

 

5.6     In response to points made by speakers Planning Officers clarified the following:

 

·        The application is to retain existing infrastructure and restore the site at the end of the 24 month period. 

 

·        No application for exploration has been received and that matter cannot be considered. 

 

·        Planning applications must be considered on their merits each time they are received. 

 

·        This planning application was received prior to the expiration of the previous planning permission.

 

·        The site is regulated through permits from the Environment Agency (EA) and other authorities.  The applicant has an EA permit that controls potential impacts to the water environment.

 

·        The site had planning permission prior to Natural England’s water neutrality statement being issued.

 

·        West Chiltington Parish Council stated the site should be restored immediately and raised a question about a bond to secure the restoration.  Para. 9.17 of the Committee report addresses the matter of bonds or guarantees; however, bonds should only be required in exceptional circumstances.

 

5.7     The Chairman pointed out that previous planning applications cannot bind future applications.

 

5.8     During the debate the Committee raised the points below and a response or clarification was provided by the Planning and Legal Officers, where applicable, as follows:

 

Need for a UK Oil and Gas Supply

 

Points raised – Both sides of the argument for and against oil production could be seen.  The possibility of the Broadford Bridge oil site adding to UK supply may help with price stability, which is important given the current cost of living crisis.  It was also stated that onshore oil production is only 1.71% of the whole UK production and 80% of UK oil is exported.  This site would provide a commercial production in a global market, so it cannot be expected to provide cheaper oil for UK residents.  Clarification was sought on whether The British Energy Security Strategy is orientated towards promoting production as opposed to maintaining the background potential capabilities for future production and how this has a bearing on the application site.  Clarification was sought on how this site fits into the overall resource in the south-east versus its viability as a standalone site, noting that in the original planning application the site was described as being located within the Willow Prospect, and whether there is enough evidence to suggest that this site is dependent on the Horse Hill site in Surrey and the Loxley site.

 

Response – In relation to The British Energy Security Strategy, this has not changed the overall national context contained within the NPPF with regard to the provision of minerals extraction as part of the national economy and the need for oil.  The JMLP also provides for hydrocarbon exploration as part of minerals extraction.  Without checking back on the detail of previous planning applications, it cannot be stated whether the site was originally proposed as a standalone site; however, it has been made clear that the application site forms part of the same geological formation as other sites that the applicant is awaiting data on, including Horse Hill in Surrey.

 

Need for Proposed Extension in Time and Site Restoration

 

Points raised – The site does not yet appear to have proved that there is enough flow from the well or an available oil resource and all evidence appears to indicate the Broadford Bridge well is not commercially viable.  A decision to approve the planning application may just push the restoration of the site further away.  The South Downs National Park Authority has had to take court action to force the applicant to restore their Markwells Wood site; this does not inspire confidence that the Broadford Bridge oil site would be restored at the appropriate time, and it is likely to affect the public’s confidence in the planning process.  One member pointed out that if the previous planning permission ran out in March 2022 and site restoration takes 6 weeks, then restoration work should really have started in February 2022; so, it was queried why a commencement date is not applied by condition, rather than a completion date. 

 

Response – Paras. 9.2 to 9.7 of the Committee report address the need for the proposed extension of time.  The applicant has stressed the commonality of the sites through the same oil reserve and the time that would be required to analyse and evaluate data.  Para. 100 of the relevant PPG guidance states that the evaluation stage and available appraisal phases can be reliant on information received from other sites.  The Committee must balance the need for time for analysis and testing against any impacts associated with the delay to restoration of the site.  Under the previous planning permission, the site was due to be restored by the end of March 2022.  If a new planning application had not been received, then enforcement action could be considered to require the site’s restoration.  In setting dates for restoration, planting seasons must be taken into consideration.  The necessary conditions and safeguards are in place to ensure site restoration at the relevant point. 

 

Impacts of Fossil Fuel Development / Environmental Concerns

 

Points raised – The Committee report does not place enough emphasis on the impacts of fossil fuel development or climate change, and it was questioned what weight should be given to The British Energy Security Strategy when weighed against other policies and guidance.  The report makes reference to areas outside the red-line application site and the applicant relies on studies, some of which are in other counties; it is questioned why this application is different from other applications where only the area within the red-line can be considered.  Fossil fuel exploration is much more expensive than renewables.  Whilst this application would see no impact on water neutrality, any future exploration or production at the site would have an impact.

 

Response – Matters pertaining to The British Energy Security Strategy are addressed in para. 6.20 of the Committee report.  However, this is not an application for oil extraction, but to maintain the site in its current dormant state and restore it at the end of a 24 month period.  The question of water neutrality would only be relevant to any future applications.

 

Temporary Planning Permission and Public Confidence in the Planning System

 

Points raised – Clarification was sought regarding what is temporary planning permission, bearing in mind that the NPPF states that sites should be restored at the “earliest opportunity”.  One member noted that the site is lying dormant and because of this there is no harm, so no reason not to extend the temporary permission once again.

 

Response – Policy M23 and para. 8.12.8 of the JMLP provide for extensions of planning applications, provided there is a need.  Temporary planning permission depends on the nature of the application, but temporary can be for a number of years.  The Committee needs to balance any impacts of delayed restoration of the site against the need for the proposed extension of time.

 

Number of Objectors

 

Points raised – The number of objectors was raised by one of the speakers.  It was noted that there were over 500 objectors to the previous planning applications for this site (applications: WSCC/078/19 and WSCC/079/19), which had permission granted in March 2020.

 

Response – The applications have been advertised and notified in the same way as the previous applications.  It is difficult to speculate on the higher level of interest in the previous applications; however, it could have been driven by a number of factors including interest in the Balcombe oil site, media coverage and interest from campaign groups at the time.

 

Community Liaison

 

Points raised – Clarification was sought on what previous engagement has taken place with the local community and whether or not a Community Liaison Group exists.

 

Response – During a previous phase of the oil site development there was community engagement by the applicant.  However, there is no conditional requirement for community engagement via a formal liaison group, and this is not recommended for this application, since the site lies dormant.

 

Concerns about the Well Integrity

 

Points raised – In the absence of any contrary information from the Environment Agency, any concerns about the integrity of the well would not be reasons for refusal of the application.

 

Response – None required.

 

Public Rights of Way

 

Points raised – One member stated that he had asked at the virtual site visit whether any Public Rights of Way had been closed off and the answer from the Planning Officer was no.

 

Response – None required.

 

5.9     The substantive recommendation including changes to Conditions and Informatives as set out in Appendix 1 of the Committee report, as amended by the Agenda Update Sheet, was proposed by Cllr Montyn and seconded by Cllr Atkins and approved by a majority.

 

5.10   Resolved – That planning permission be granted subject to the Conditions and Informatives as set out in Appendix 1 of the report and amended, as agreed, by the Committee.