Agenda item

Report by Head of Planning Services.

 

To consider and determine the following applications:

 

WSCC/078/19 - Amendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/033/18/WC to enable the retention of security fencing, gates and cabins for a further 24 months.

 

WSCC/079/19 - Amendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/032/18/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/078/19 - Amendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/033/18/WC to enable the retention of security fencing, gates and cabins for a further 24 months.

 

WSCC/079/19 - Amendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/032/18/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

 

4.1     The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services.  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.  It was noted that recent objections include one that states that the Loxley Well site and Horse Hill sites in Surrey have problems with water; an application for the former has been refused by Surrey County Council.  The agent for the application has confirmed that the applicant is still testing at Horse Hill and the data from Loxley Well is not determinate for the application being considered.  Therefore, the comments received would not alter the recommendation in the Committee report.

 

4.2     Dr Jill Sutcliffe, Chairman of Keep Kirdford and Wisborough Green, spoke in objection to the application.  Following drilling two years ago the applicant stated that the oil well produced “little of commercial value” and they would restore the site if nothing was found, so there is no economic gain in retaining the well.  During the drilling phase local residents were impacted by the increases in HGVs and damage was caused to the A29 junction, costing £27k to repair.  The continued production and use of hydrocarbons adds to greenhouse gas emissions and there is concern that temperate increases could cause loss of coastal land in West Sussex if sea levels increase.  The UK is not meeting emissions targets.  There is a legal requirement that planning authorities must address climate change.  The applicant’s financial position is a concern; a bond should be established to ensure site restoration takes place.  Contamination from chemicals should well integrity fail, and because of highlighted faults in the Weald, are a concern for the environment.  Nothing has been found at the site and both the NPPF and the Joint Minerals Local Plan require restoration and aftercare ‘at the earliest opportunity’.

 

4.3     During Dr Sutcliff’s presentation, the Committee paused at 10.55 a.m. due to Cllr Millson losing connection with the virtual meeting and resumed at 10.57 a.m. without Cllr Millson.  The Committee paused again at 10.59 a.m. due to Cllr Atkins losing connection and resumed at 11.00 a.m. when connection was re-established.

 

4.4     Mrs Caroline Instance, an interested party, spoken in objection to the application.  The County Council is hypocritical and inconsistent by making a climate pledge whilst allowing hydrocarbon extraction.  There is no need for the development; testing has not found anything of commercial value and will not do so in future.  The applicant has given no reasonable reason for the delay and should restore the site.  Hydrocarbons still in the ground should not form part of the Join Minerals Local Plan that states that oil and gas still have a part to play.  Fossil fuel extraction must cease so the country can meet its Paris Climate Accord commitments.  It is stated that oil from the site would be used for plastic, but the County Council climate pledge urges us ‘pass on plastic’.  Impacts on residents during drilling included a three-fold increase in traffic.  Cycling and walking is being encouraged, so there should be no increase of dangerous HGVs.  Increased water at the site could impact the water table and residents’ properties. The Committee report does not cover wider environmental impacts caused by extraction of hydrocarbons.  The longer the site remains unrestored the greater the impact; the sooner restitution takes place the sooner wildlife will benefit.  The County Council should be trying to increase biodiversity by improving land.  This application appears to be a delaying tactic to avoid paying for restoration.  Restoration by October 2020 is urged.

 

4.5     Mr Matt Cartwright, Commercial Director UK Oil & Gas PLC, spoke in support of the application.  Initial delays were due to interruptions by the previous site owner and transfer of the site to UKOG.  UKOG discovered the Kimmeridge Ridge oil reservoir.  Data is required from the Horse Hill site in Surrey.  Data has also been obtained from a further three wells across the Weald Basin.  UKOG has plans for an analogous well at Loxley in Surrey.  Significant analysis is required to test the Kimmeridge reservoirs at Broadford Bridge, hence the extension of time requested, which is driven by the complexity of the geology.  Covid-19 has changed travel and work behaviours; it has become clear that not all single use plastics derived from oil are bad, e.g. PPE.  The UK must establish vital, speedy supply chains, including a steady UK supply of hydrocarbons that does not rely on unstable sources outside the UK that often do not have the same environmental and safety controls.  A UK supply reduces carbon emissions from international transport.  Transition to a low carbon future is happening but many technologies will take years to embed.  Short term and aggressive target setting will do more damage than good. Oil and gas still has a place. UK production will also help with the economic recovery.

 

4.6        Mr Nigel Moore, Zetland Group, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The application is for an extension of time, but the development remains temporary and reversible; no new works are planned and no new impacts predicted.  Time is needed to review existing information from planned testing at this site and others in Weald Basin.  The time needed is due to access issues e.g. restricted visibility from 6 inch well pipe at surface level, and time to understand the characteristics of reserves, predict quality and potential recovery.  Security of the UK’s oil and gas industry is of national importance and public interest.  Transition to alternatives must be more responsible and smarter to meet climate change objectives, but cannot be at the expense of growth and competitiveness.  A managed transition can maximise the recovery of the UK oil and gas industry and insulate the UK from the vulnerability of import dependency.  Covid-19 revealed that our key life sustaining systems are being run with no margins of safety; ‘global and just in time’ must be replaced by ‘local and just in case’ and this site can help with that.  The impact on the economy has been two decades of growth lost in two months.  2050 net zero emissions targets require economic resilience in 2020 and we need to back British business to achieve this.

 

4.7        Cllr Pat Arculus, local County Councillor for Pulborough, spoke on the application.  It is hoped to move towards a situation where fossil fuels are no longer needed in future.  However, we have seen a great increase in the need for, and use of, plastics during the coronavirus pandemic, all of which come from oil.  The County Council should be encouraging alternatives and working towards this.  It is hoped that site and fossil fuels will not be needed in future but, for the current application, it is unlikely that a delay will do any harm.  It is not certain that forcing early restoration of the site is required.  When restoration does occur, the money must be there to do it properly.  If restoration were to happen now there would be an increase in work and traffic.  It is not ideal that oil field is there but, in terms of this application, a delay is not an issue.

 

4.8        In response to points made by speakers Planning Officers provided clarification on the following:

 

·        Regarding requests for a financial bond, conditions (both applications) require restoration of the site.  As set out in paragraph 9.35 of the report, Paragraph 48 of PPG Minerals Guidance explains that bonds are justified only in exceptional circumstances or when using novel approaches, which is not the case with this site.  The Oil and Gas Authority is responsible for checking that operators have the appropriate assurances in place.

 

4.9        The Committee paused at 11.24 a.m. when connection with Cllr Millson was re-established.  It was confirmed that Cllr Millson, having missed a significant part of the meeting, would be unable to participate in the vote on the application.

 

4.10     During the debate the Committee raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers and Legal Officers, where appropriate:

 

Other sites in the Weald Basin

 

Point raised – Clarification was sough regarding the relevance of other sites in the Weald Basin and the progress on these sites?

 

Response – The Loxley Well application has been refused permission by Surrey County Council.  Horse Hill site has permission for production, but testing is still taking place.  The applicant is seeking a suite of data to enable a clearer picture of the Weald Basin; however, the application is not reliant on the other sites.  Irrespective of the Surrey sites, this application is in line with planning policies. 

 

Precedence of legislation

Point raised – It was question whether there other legislation might take precedence over current planning policies and guidance?

 

Response –  The application must be determined in accordance with current planning policies and material considerations.

 

Planning applications for extensions of time

 

Point raised – It was queried that if there were to be delays in the evaluation of other sites would another extension of time be required for this site?  And, whether such requests for an extension is normal?

 

Response – The current applications are for extensions of time to 31 March 2022.  Planning Officers cannot pre-judged what the applicant might wish to do at that time.  Applications for extensions of time are not unusual and each application is considered in accordance with policies and material considerations at the time.

 

Delays at the planning site

 

Point raised – It was questioned why nothing has been done at the site in last two years?

 

Response – The applicant is seeking to understand the bigger picture for the Weald Basin by analysing data from this and other sites.

 

Lighting

 

Point raised – Reassurance was sought that no lighting, including emergency lighting, would be allowed on site.

 

Response – Hours of working during restoration are detailed in condition 6 in Appendix 2 of the Committee Report.  Site restoration would take six weeks.  The applicant has not requested any security lighting; however, should the Committee wish to propose a condition stating that there should be no lighting on site this would be acceptable.

 

Protection for the environment

 

Point raised – It was queried whether conditions are in place during restoration to protect the environment, e.g. protection during the bird nesting season.

 

Response – There would be no impact on nesting times.  Restoration relates to the concrete pad and the access road, and the application would not be removing trees or doing work outside the site area.

 

Comments on the application

 

Point raised – It was noted that the number of objections to the application far outweighs the number of supporting comments.

 

Response – Planning Officers consider the substance of objections and comments and take into account material considerations, not the numbers.

 

Delays in the planning process due to Covid-19

 

Point raised – It was noted that the previous planning permissions have expired, and clarification was sought on whether or not a delay in the applications being heard, due to the Covid-19 situation, would have any impacts.

 

Response – These applications were submitted ahead of the expiry of the previous planning permissions.  The applications were due to be heard in March, before the previous permissions expired, but have been delayed because of the Covid-19 situation.  This will not impact these permissions if granted.

 

Data on timeframes for phases of work on site

 

Point raised - Clarification was sought regarding the data on the table in section 3.5 of the Committee report, in relation to best and worst case scenarios and the time for the work in each phase compared with the length of time the applications were granted for.

 

Response – The table, which was provided with the original planning application, refers to the expected best and worst case scenarios and predicted timeframes for each phase of the work, as it was expected at the time.  Phases 3a and 3b, plus drilling phase (not shown in the table) are complete and not permitted under this application.

 

Willow Prospect

 

Point raised – Clarification was sought regarding the reference to the name ‘Willow Prospect’ in relation the original 2013 planning application, as noted in paragraph 3.1 of the Committee report.

 

Response – This is assumed to refer to the Weald Basin and is believed to be a change of name over the years.

 

Climate concerns

 

Point raised – The concern that the applications are contrary to the County Council climate change pledges are understood; however, there will be an ongoing need for oil and gas until we switch to low carbon alternative provided it doesn’t have an adverse impact on the environment and local residents.  This application shows no serious, adverse impacts.

 

Response – None required.

 

4.11     The committee considered a proposal by Cllr Montyn, seconded by Cllr Quinn, that a new condition be added requiring that no lighting, including emergency lighting, be permitted at the site, and that wording for the new condition be delegated to the Head of Planning.  The amendment was put the Committee and approved unanimously.

 

4.12     The substantive recommendation, amended by the new condition as approved by the Committee and noted in minute 4.11 above, was considered by the Committee and approved by a majority.

 

4.13     Resolved – That planning permission be granted for:

 

i)     WSCC/078/19, subject to the conditions and informatives set out at Appendix 1 of the Committee Report, as amended by the Committee; and

 

ii)   WSCC/079/19, subject to the conditions and informatives set out at Appendix 2 of the report, as amended by the Committee.