Councillors and committees

Agenda item

Minerals and Waste Application WA/2019/0796 - Loxley Well Site - Land South of Dunsfold Road and East of High Loxley Road, Dunsfold, Surrey

The construction, operation and decommissioning of a well site for the exploration and appraisal of hydrocarbon minerals from one exploratory borehole (Loxley-1) and one side - track borehole (Loxley - 1z) for a temporary period of three years involving the siting of plant and equipment, the construction of a new access track, a new highway junction with High Loxley Road, highway improvements at the junction of High Loxley Road and Dunsfold Road and the erection of a boundary fence and entrance gates with restoration to agriculture.

 

Due to the Covid-19 situation, planning site visits are not able to take place therefore footage of this site can be accessed on the webcasting portal which can be accessed here (select the Resources tab):

 

https://surreycc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/515802

 

 

 

Minutes:

Officers:

 

David Maxwell, Senior Planning Officer

Caroline Smith, Interim Planning Group Manager

Stephen Jenkins, Interim Planning Development Manager

Andrew Stokes, Transport Development Planning

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

Joss Butler, Committee Manager

 

The Principal Lawyer summarised the legal position in relation to this item. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 1.

 

Speakers:

 

Sarah Goodwin made representations in objection to the application. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 2.

 

Tom Gordon made representations in objection to the application. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 3.

 

Ashley Herman made representations in objection to the application. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 4.

 

Chris Britton made representations in objection to the application. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 5.

 

John Gray made representations in objection to the application. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 6.

 

Ashley Ward made representations in support of the application. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 7.

 

The applicant’s agent / applicant, Nigel Moore and Stephen Sanderson, spoke to the Committee in response to the public speakers’ comments. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 8.

 

The Local Member, Victoria Young, spoke for three minutes. The speech presented to the Committee is attached to these minutes as Annex 9.

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

1.    David Maxwell, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report and provided Members with a brief summary. A supplementary agenda was published on 26 November 2020 which included an update sheet for the item. Additional representations are attached to these minutes as Annexes 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.  Members noted that the proposal was for the construction, operation and decommissioning of a well site for the exploration and appraisal of hydrocarbon minerals from one exploratory borehole (Loxley-1) and one side - track borehole (Loxley - 1z) for a temporary period of three years involving the siting of plant and equipment, the construction of a new access track, a new highway junction with High Loxley Road, highway improvements at the junction of High Loxley Road and Dunsfold Road and the erection of a boundary fence and entrance gates with restoration to agriculture.Members noted that the County Highway Authority had raised no objections to the application subject to conditions. The full report and annexes are located from pages 3 of the meeting’s agenda.

 

The Committee adjourned from 11:39am to 11:47am.

 

2.    Members asked for clarification on the difference between ‘grey hydrogen’ and ‘green hydrogen’. It was noted that ‘green hydrogen’ was from renewable energy and ‘grey hydrogen’ was from fossil fuels. It was however noted that there was no reference to hydrogen in the planning statement submitted by the applicant. 

3.    Members stated that, if found, they understood the benefits of hydrogen discovery to the nation however asked for guidance on how that should compare to the impact of the development on the local community. Officers stated that the impact had been assessed in depth in the officer report

4.    Officers stated that it was important for Members to keep in mind that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that mineral extraction should be facilitated and that, when determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy. In response, a Member said that they would like clarification on exactly what benefit gas would bring to the nation in terms of volumes. Officers reminded Members that the purpose of the application was for exploration and appraisal and therefore they were unable to confirm details on volumes. Officers went on to remind Members that the application should be considered on its own merits as submitted rather than outside material.

5.    The Committee highlighted that the applicant had made comments on the potential economic investment in the local area however Members were not clear on how the local community would get a monetary benefit. It was also noted that the report outlined that there was a condition proposed related to the development using local supplies which was not accepted. With regard to the first comment, officers stated that, due to the details of the application, it should be assumed that the development would have a benefit in Surrey. In regard to the proposed condition, officers stated that the applicant had previously issued a statement to address the concerns raised in the June 2020 Planning and Regulatory Committee. Eight new or amended conditions were suggested however officers recommended that the condition on local procurement and economic growth was not included due to guidance that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed when necessary. Officers stated that the condition was not necessary to make the applicant acceptable. In response to the comment from officers regarding benefits to Surrey, a Member stated that it should not be assumed that jobs would be available to the local community and that the impact on the local economy should be seriously considered.

6.    Members noted that the applicant had stated that they would ensure operations do not impact the Trew Fields Festival for 2021, 2022 or 2023. It had also been stated that the applicant would also communicate with local businesses and residents to ensure impacts were minimised or kept to an acceptable level.

7.    A Member stated that existing local businesses were already impacted by the pandemic and felt that the operation would adversely impact them even further. It was also added that the public speakers in objection spoke very strongly against the application and that Members should give consideration to this.

8.    A Member noted that the speaker who spoke ‘for’ the application stated that operations would not interfere with the wedding venue on weekends and would also not interfere with the Trew Fields Festival.

9.    With regard to Government direction, a Members stated that the Government’s ten-point plan for green industrial revolution did not refer to fossil fuels. Officers responded that it was a gradual transition from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy and that Government policy recognised that there was still a need for oil and gas.

10. A Member felt that much of the committee’s discussion in objection to the application was not relevant to planning regulations.

11. A Member stated that it was clear climate change was happening and that it was important to consider the impacts on children.

12. A Member felt that residents’ impression of an oil and gas site was worse than the reality and that there were examples in Surrey of what a properly managed extraction site looked like. Other Committee Members did not agree that it was fitting to compare the application to other sites due to its context and impact on the local community.

13. Members asked for clarification on the current situation following the council previously agreeing that an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) designation would be treated the same as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) designation. Officers said that, in planning terms, planning decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan and other material considerations and that the weight attributed to other policy, compared to the development plan, was limited.

14. Officers stated that they felt the need for the application was justified.

 

The Committee adjourned between 12:41pm to 12:50pm

 

15. Officers summarised the details of the application and stated that it was not reasonable to suggest that a business would fail due to the application. The impact on the business should be considered but should be weighed against the details of the application. Some Members of the Committee did not agree with the officer’s statement.

16. Officers highlighted that the applicant conducted a site search of 23 sites and the Dunsfold site was considered to have the least impact on the environment and local community

17. Members stated that it would have been favourable to have pictures of the screening around the site in the winter rather than during the month of May. Officers confirmed that the applicant had dealt with this by superimposing pictures of the wellsite to better understand how it would look during the wintertime. 

18. A Member highlighted that the policy MC14 said that there should be no significant adverse impact arising from the development and they did not feel that was the case. It was also stated that there should have been a proper assessment of the impact on the local businesses. 

19. With regard to highways, Members were concerned that Dunsfold Road was not suitable for HGVs. There was also concern that additional HGV use would cause cyclists and pedestrians to be more at risk. Members further stated that additional traffic would also impact the future Dunsfold Park Garden Village development. Officers confirmed that the road was only partially unsuitable for HGVs and that the relevant section, between the A281 and High Loxley Road, was suitable. It was further confirmed that there would be a maximum of 20 HGV movements per day which made the risk of additional traffic accidents low.

20. In response to Members’ concerns related to whether traffic lights or banksman would be used on the local road, Officers explained that that there was a desire to minimise the use of traffic signals due to their impact on traffic. Members noted that details of the use of banksman and traffic lights and further traffic related details would be made available within the Construction Management Plan (CMP). It was further noted that there was a requirement within the CMP condition that consultation with the local events business should be undertaken to understand their traffic flow needs. Officers also stated that the advisory signage present was to discourage the through routing of HGVs.

 

The Committee adjourned between 13:17pm to 13:47pm

 

21. A Member of the Committee highlighted that the application was for exploration and therefore any discussion related to potential discoveries was irrelevant. It was also stated that mineral extraction would be necessary as the nation converts to greener energy. In regard to the impact on Dunsfold Park Garden Village, the Member explained that it was usual practice to mine tunnels under housing and that it should not affect housing prices. Furthermore, the Member stated that it was not a requirement for the applicant to consider the impact on other businesses. Concerns were also raised that the Committee’s discussion related to the highways impact of the application and the lack of proper planning arguments.

22. The Committee asked whether there were any examples of UKOG not complying with transport management plans for other sites within Surrey. Officers stated that they were not aware details of breaches however Members should note that the application should be considered on its own merits.

23. Members noted that late written representation outlined concerns regarding the impact on the Dunsfold Park Garden Village. Officers stated that details were outlined within the update sheet which was published on 26 November 2020.

24. Cllr Penny Rivers moved a motion for refusal due to the significant adverse impact which arose from the development. It was stated that the proposal was in conflict of planning policies MC1, MC14 and MC15. The motion was seconded by Dr Andrew Povey.

25. Officers highlighted that the development was for a temporary period of three years for exploration and appraisal and would involve a drilling rig that would be present for a limited period. Members noted details of other similar developments in Surrey which did not have adverse impacts on the environment or local businesses. It was further confirmed that there were no regulatory or technical objections to the current application.

26. Cllr Andrew Povey spoke as seconder to the motion and stated that he endorsed Cllr Penny River’s reasons and raised concerns related to the impact on local businesses, highways and impacts on the landscape.

 

The Committee adjourned between 14:27 and 14:57

 

27. The Chairman provided Members with a summary of the debate.

28. The Principal Lawyer reminded Members that, although the cost consequences of a decision were not a material planning consideration, Members should bear in mind the importance of having proper planning reasons that would stand up to scrutiny supported by robust evidence.

29. The Chairman asked Members to vote on the following reasons for refusal which were agreed by Cllr Penny Rivers and Cllr Andrew Povey:

 

Reason 1: It has not been demonstrated that the highway network is of an appropriate standard for use by the traffic generated by the development, or that the traffic generated by the development would not have a significant adverse impact on highway safety contrary to Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy MC15.

 

Reason 2: It has not been demonstrated that the applicant has provided information sufficient for the mineral planning authority to be satisfied that there would be no significant adverse impact on the appearance, quality and character of the landscape and any features that contribute towards its distinctiveness, including its designation as an Area of Great Landscape Value, contrary to Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy MC14(iii).

 

30. Six Members voted for the motion and five Members voted against. There were no abstentions. Therefore, the motion for refusal was carried.

 

Actions / further information to be provided:

None.

Resolved:

That the Committee REFUSE application WA/2019/0796 due to the following reasons:

 

Reason 1: It has not been demonstrated that the highway network is of an appropriate standard for use by the traffic generated by the development, or that the traffic generated by the development would not have a significant adverse impact on highway safety contrary to Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy MC15.

 

Reason 2: It has not been demonstrated that the applicant has provided information sufficient for the mineral planning authority to be satisfied that there would be no significant adverse impact on the appearance, quality and character of the landscape and any features that contribute towards its distinctiveness, including its designation as an Area of Great Landscape Value, contrary to Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy 2011 Policy MC14(iii).

 

Supporting documents: