Agenda item

Installation of two steam methane reformation (SMR) units for the production of hydrogen from methane extracted from Bletchingley Wellsite and layout alterations including: a compressor package, surge tank, nitrogen supply tank, the laying of pipelines adjacent to the access track, two pre-reformer units, a Distribution Network Operator switch room, one 2MW generator, a tanker loading area for three transportation trailers, and a pressure reducing separation package on some 1.78 hectares and use of the access track for export of hydrogen for a temporary period with restoration to agriculture.

Officers:

Samantha Murphy, Planning Development Team Leader

Speakers:

Peter Murphy made representations in objection to the application. The following key points were made:

1.    Concerns related to the additional Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic caused by the application.

2.    That the applicant had only recently clarified that there was no current gas production from the site, and that the proposed wellhead had been capped since initial exploration, All proposed gas extraction of the consequent emissions would be new.

3.    That the statement that there would be no increase in the production, and that the proposed development would lead to a decrease in greenhouse emissions, was incorrect.

4.    That the current gas to hydrogen proposal was the most damaging environmentally.

5.    That all the carbon dioxide produced by the high energy intensive process would be released into the atmosphere on site.

6.    That there was no realistic possibility of ‘carbon capture’ technology being viable for the installation. 

7.    That a recently commissioned report by the United Kingdom (UK) Government had warned of the dangers of direct hydrogen leakage into the atmosphere. That the application had failed to mentioned any potential venting or leakage of hydrogen during the starting and stopping of the production process or loading of trailers.

8.    That the applicant had not responded to a query related to what would happen if the transport to and from the site was disrupted.

9.    That a recent IPCC report made clear that there was no amount of new fossil fuel extraction was consistent with climate safety.

10.  That the council had declared a climate emergency and had set a target for 56% emissions reduction across all industry in the county by 2035, and that the emissions from grey hydrogen production would put the target further out of reach.

On behalf of the applicant, Jonathan Rowlatt and Ross Glover spoke in response to the public speakers’ comments. The following key points were made:

1.    That the single reason for refusal that had been identified was related to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and that the 2020 consent concluded inappropriate development however very special circumstances were accepted.

2.    That the only issue now included in the officer report was related to the physical size of the development as it had been assessed against the 2015 approved rather than the 2020 approval. When assessing against the 2020 approval the only real difference was a ~10% increase in plant site coverage and a 3 metre increase in flue hight. All other elements were as approved in 2020. The two schemes were not materially different. Therefore the very special circumstances that justified the 2020 consent still existed.

3.    That it was essentially concluded that the proposals would have no impact on the openness or character of the green belt and are not materially different from what had already been approved.

4.    That the application responded to the ongoing energy crisis, the nations energy transition, climate change, and the county’s ambitions to improve air quality.

5.    That the application responded to five of the government’s 10 points in their plan for a green industrial revolution.

6.    That the governments hydrogen policy grappled with putting in place infrastructure to facilitate the development of a future clean technology economy, and that the proposal would do exactly that for Surrey.

7.    That the Surrey low emissions transport strategy acknowledged that Surrey was one of the worst polluted counties in the UK. That the proposed project would produce fuel cell quality hydrogen suitable for powering buses, refuse collection and the like.

8.    That domestic energy production brought energy security, investment and jobs.

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The officer introduced the report and provided a brief summary of the proposal. Members noted that the proposal was for the installation of two steam methane reformation (SMR) units for the production of hydrogen from methane extracted from Bletchingley Wellsite and layout alterations including: a compressor package, surge tank, nitrogen supply tank, the laying of pipelines adjacent to the access track, two pre-reformer units, a Distribution Network Operator switch room, one 2MW generator, a tanker loading area for three transportation trailers, and a pressure reducing separation package on some 1.78 hectares and use of the access track for export of hydrogen for a temporary period with restoration to agriculture. Full details, including the officers’ reasons to recommend refusal, photographs and plans could be found from page 381 of the agenda.

2.    A Member stated that the proposal was clearly an inappropriate development for the greenbelt.

3.    A Member said that there was a positive use for hydrogen however if the extraction increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then it negated the good.

4.    That Chairman moved the recommendation which received unanimous support and therefore the application was refused.

Actions / Further information to be provided:

None.

Resolved:

The Committee refused planning application ref: TA/2021/1655