Agenda item

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

Five public questions were received. The questions and responses were published within a supplementary agenda on 26 November 2024.

1. Jackie Macey asked the following supplementary question:

Surrey County Council may believe that it did not permit the continued drilling and extraction of oil at the Horse Hill site since the quashing of the planning permission in June 2024. The continued extraction has been at the operator’s own risk of formal enforcement action. However, it is clear to many that by ignoring this unlawful activity for months, the council is giving a green light to drilling which was only stopped as a result of extensive adverse media attention. The council has recently and fairly promptly issued a stop notice where an area of land close to Horse Hill was being used to unlawfully deposit waste materials and it states that this has been done as an immediate remedy of the most harmful aspects of the unlawful development, and yet when the highest court in the land recognised that the extraction at Horse Hill site will cause the environment harm, the council failed to act. Will the council now take formal steps to ensure that the oil that has been produced since the Supreme Court judgement is not sold and the company do not profit from their unlawful and harmful activity in Surrey?

In response to the final part of the question, officers stated that they were aware that the question was raised in correspondence that Surrey County Council had received and were considering a response. In response to the first part of the question, officers stated that it was not permitted, in that the operator was advised and told that the continued extraction was unlawful, and that an enforcement investigation was beginning which does take time. In regard to the other site raised in the public question, officers stated that each site had its own circumstances which should be investigated properly, and that there was a key difference between an operator that is looking to work with the council towards a voluntary cessation, as with the Horse Hill site, and an operator that it not looking to work with the council. It was added that the purpose of the planning enforcement system was to seek remedy to planning harm.

2. Jakki Phillips asked the following supplementary question on behalf of Deborah Elliott:

Thank you for the written responses to previous questions asked about the unlawful oil production at Horse Hill, which referred to correspondence between the council and applicant as to when the applicant intended to submit additional information to set out the position in relation to the development and redetermination of the planning application. Has a timescale for this been set and can you share it with the public?

In response, officers stated that the definitive timescale on the submission of information had not been set as it was a matter of ongoing conversation. The officer added that details would be shared when available.

3. Neville Kemp asked the following supplementary question:

In the committee’s reply to Cllr Jonathan Essex’s supplementary question at the previous meeting, it was stated that the investigation had taken time, and that the work remained ongoing, and the investigation was still live. I would like to ask the committee what remains to be investigated and what outcome would bring the investigation to a satisfactory conclusion?

In response, officers stated that they were still reviewing information which had been obtained, as referred to in the previous response, which would inform next steps. The officers added that ‘monitoring’ was also an active element in terms of monitoring what the operator was doing at the site in terms of their cessation and remediation of the site. Part of the review of information obtained by officers was to inform further decisions as to what the conclusion of the case would be. The investigation and monitoring would remain live until officers were satisfied that the matter is resolved.

4. Trish Kyi asked the following supplementary question on behalf of Sarah Freeman:

How will Surrey County Council ensure that UKOG (UK Oil and Gas) will not recommence unlawful drilling at the Horse Hill site?

In response, officers stated that the enforcement system could not pre-emptively prevent something as it was a reactive system. If offices were to received evidence that there had been the recommencement of extraction, officers would need to consider a robust course of action at that point in time.

5. Cllr Bob Barnes (Salfords & Sidlow Parish Council) asked the following supplementary question:

In relation to the Crosswinds site, where illegal tipping had taken place for 30 to 35 days, the councillor thanked officers for implementing an enforcement order and noted that the tipping had finally stopped. Now that the works have ceased, will Surrey County Council continue proceedings against the landowners and waste licence firms who were fully aware that they were complicit in illegal activities of waste dumping. Further to this, can you please advise what enforcement action, with a timeline, will be undertaken to ensure the landowner reinstates the site to its original state as a green belt field. What is Surrey County Council doing, in relation to an environment impact assessment screening report, to test the land for contamination?

In response, the officer confirmed that while the cessation of waste importation at the Crosswinds site was an important step, further action was required to address the remediation of the land, including the removal of the illegally dumped waste. The enforcement team was considering the necessary actions to achieve this, including setting appropriate timelines, but noted that due to the complexities of the situation, the process might take a significant amount of time. Regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening, officers clarified that the council had screened, and would continue to screen, any actions taken, or applications received to determine whether they constituted EIA development, which was assessed based on thresholds of significant environmental impact. However, it was noted that concerns regarding land contamination from the waste might fall under the jurisdiction of the Environment Agency and other regulatory bodies and could require separate considerations.