Agenda item

To answer any questions received from local government electors within Surrey in accordance with Standing Order 85 (please see note 6 below).

In regard to the Horse Hill site, Officers made a statement in addition to the responses to the public questions.

Following discussions between the council’s Planning Enforcement and Monitoring Team and the operator, oil production has ceased at the site at Horse Hill which we are pleased to note. However, discussions remain ongoing between the council and the operator and the investigation remains live in the sense of working towards full suspension and demobilisation at the site.

Further to this, officers read aloud a public statement from the operator of the site.

Five Public Questions were submitted. The questions and responses were published within a supplementary agenda on 29 October 2024.

1.    Deborah Elliott asked the following supplementary question:

In UK Oil & Gas PLC’s (UKOG) recent statements, they say there have been in talks with Surrey County Council since June. Could you confirm and provide evidence of this? If this is true, why has drilling been permitted by the Council in the interim without any planning permission in place?

In response, officers stated that they could not provide evidence while in the meeting but confirmed that there had been an ongoing dialogue with the operator. As per the published public question responses, the council had not permitted drilling and that it was the council's position that the extraction of oil at the site is unlawful. Officers agreed to provide a full written response outside the meeting.

2.    Jackie Macey asked the following supplementary question:

The delayed action from Surrey County Council has led Chris Coghlan MP to say Surrey County Council owe residents of a full explanation of their conduct over the last four months. You state in your response that you UKOG has been put on notice. When did this happen and exactly what does this mean?

Officers stated that, as mentioned in the previous response, 'put on notice' meant that UKOG had been informed the extraction was considered unlawful and that there had been ongoing dialogue over the past four months. Officers agreed to provide a detailed written response outside the meeting.

3.    Sarah Freeman did not ask a supplementary question.

4.    Jacqueline Phillips asked the following supplementary question:

Can Surrey County Council please confirm that they will require an Environmental Impact Assessment which takes full account of direct and indirect emissions from all extracted, to be submitted by Horse Hill Developments Limited or UKOG for any future or redetermination of the planning application at Horse Hill?

Officers stated that, in respect of the application where the permission was quashed, it was now back with the county for redetermination. This would require consideration of the environmental impact assessment threshold, along with an environmental statement, before any redetermination could take place. Officers could not confirm anything regarding other planning applications, as they did not yet know the content of any forthcoming applications. However, it was noted that any permission or application submitted would have needed to be mindful of the Supreme Court's decision.

5.    Neville Kemp asked the following supplementary question:

On 2 October 2024, thanks to the dedicated journalism of Ruth Hayhurst of Drill or drop, it was revealed that, until last week, when, curiously, the company announced a suspension of their operations, Horse Hill Development Limited were continuing to extract oil in flagrant disregard of the Supreme Court judgement in June, which had found against the Council's decision allowing continued production. In its failure to uphold this judgement over the past four months, and moreover, to honour its declaration of a climate emergency in 2019, are we to infer a Council bias in favour of the oil and gas industry?

In response, the Chairman acknowledged that part of the question was outside the remit of the Planning and Regulatory Committee. The Chairman agreed to provide a written response outside the meeting.