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 submitted. The questions and responses were published within a supplementary agenda on 25 February 2025.

1. Deborah Elliott asked the following supplementary question:

In response to my question, you implied that the original planning application at Horse Hill had been returned to Surrey County Council to reevaluate and give a new decision. As the Supreme Court ruled the planning permission granted was illegal, what amendments have UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) made, or Surrey County Council asked for, to make the application comply with the Supreme Court ruling?

In response, the Planning Development Manager explained that the Supreme Court’s quashing of the application meant the decision was invalid, and the application had been returned for reconsideration. A Regulation 25 letter had been sent to the applicant outlining the necessary revisions to the environmental statement, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision and updated guidance. The authority had not yet received a formal response from the applicant, and confirmation had been sought from the applicant’s agent regarding the submission timeline.

2. Jacqueline Phillips asked the following supplementary question

The public questioner stated that they had looked for the application on the website but could not find it. They asked where the application could be found and where the letter, which had been mentioned earlier, could be located.

In response, the Planning Development Manager confirmed that the information could be located within the online planning register on the Surrey County Council website. Further to this, the Planning Development Manager confirmed that the Regulation 25 letter was sent on 18 December 2024.

3. Jackie Macey asked the following supplementary question:

I’m pleased to hear your assurance that drilling has finally ceased at Horse Hill. In your reply, you state that you've asked for UKOG’s programme to complete the removal of equipment from the site. Has this now been shared with the Council? Also, has it been possible to ascertain how much oil production is typically involved when minimum maintenance flow is required? As I understand it, 1/3 of the usual monthly production was produced in 15 days on the site, which doesn’t appear to be very minimal.

In response, the Planning Development Manager stated that, in relation to the 'minimum maintenance load’, the issue had been examined during the period of the relevant flow. However, further exploration would be required to fully address the question as the situation had resolved itself once the period ended. The matter would be revisited to determine if a more detailed response could be provided. Regarding the final programme of works from UKOG, the Planning Development Manager confirmed that no final programme had been received at that time. Discussions were ongoing, and efforts were being made to understand the timeframes UKOG was working to. Once these were clarified, they would inform the next steps.

4. Aet Annist did not ask a supplementary question. 

5. Sarah Freeman asked the following supplementary question

In response to my public question about monitoring visits to the Horse Hill site, we were reassured that there had been a recent visit on 4 February 2025. I would like to know if any of those inspecting the site were told when the site would be fully cleared of the unlawful development. Is there a final date that UKOG have agreed to fully vacate the site?

In response, the Planning Development Manager stated that no final date had been agreed for the removal of equipment from the site. Discussions had taken place during the site visit, but the applicant had not provided a definitive timeline. Monitoring officers had made it clear that there was still an expectation for the equipment to be cleared.