Agenda item

The Committee received a report which sought planning permission for the temporary installation of 12 site security and welfare cabins, five water bowsers, generator and associated facilities at land to the east of Smithfield Road, North Kelsey Moor, Market Rasen.

It was reported that two further comments from local residents had been received since the agenda pack had been circulated and were set out in the update which had been circulated to the Committee the previous Friday.

Officers guided members through the report and set out the main issues to be considered in the determination of this application.

Amanda Suddaby, a local resident, spoke as an objector to the application and made the following points:

·         The Committee were asked to also consider the motivation and reasoning behind this application.

·         Egdon sought to enlarge the site, and add 12 more cabins and other infrastructure, double the number they had at Biscathorpe.  All of which would be brought on site (in winter) without a proper access track or groundwork. Yet more unsuitable loads on a county lane.

·         The peaceful rural landscape was being industrialised and eroded piece by piece.  This site was beginning to resemble a prison compound with its high fencing and lighting towers.

·         To justify this, Egdon cited protests at Biscathorpe and Laughton.  At Laughton there were no protests – only observers, and the protests at Biscathorpe were small, good natured and utterly peaceful, only ever taking place during daylight hours, with only two arrests and as yet no convictions.

·         She was on occasion one of those protestors and never witnessed anything untoward.

·         Were they (Egdon Resources) worried about being observed and monitored? Was this an issue of secrecy rather than security?  Monitoring by the public was very often the only way that breaches came to light.

·         Egdon claimed to be an experienced operator, they claimed that there were protests at Laughton, but had not mentioned them before now.  These provisions could have been last year in their last variation, so why didn’t they?

·         Why had Egdon so exaggerated the threat from protestors at Biscathorpe.  It was queried whether security issues were being used to enlarge the site so they can house all of their staff.  This application revealed that Egdon knew they had no social license for this scheme.

·         Peaceful protestors were not villains, as history had proved.

·         We are in a climate emergency, facing the sixth mass extinction, caused largely by fossil fuels, we cannot afford to burn existing known reserves, let alone seek out more.  We must move away from this retrogressive industry.  It was time to take a leap forward and send a message to the fossil fuel industry.

·         The protests at Biscathorpe had been misrepresented to allow Egdon to expand the site, this was not sustainable development and these measures were not justified.  Please refuse this application.

Paul Foster spoke on behalf of the applicant and made the following points:

·         Members would be only too aware that in recent years, onshore oil and gas exploration in the UK had attracted considerable interest from a small number of active protestors.  Egdon had a duty of care to ensure that its employees and subcontractors, deliveries, visitors and, indeed, protestors were protected from risk of injury, and that its lawful operations were allowed to proceed unhindered.

·         The improvements in the existing fencing which Members had just agreed would help to prevent protestors gaining access to the site.  However, the nature and scale of protestor activities at Biscathorpe in January and February had raised the prospect of similar activities at North Kelsey.  Egdon had been advised by Lincolnshire Police to install security and welfare facilities prior to the start of construction works.

·         The application before the Committee sought temporary planning permission for 12 security and welfare cabins – the same number as at Biscathorpe – five water tanks, a silenced generator and fuel tank and two mobile lighting towers.  The cabins would be located on a site area of less than a fifth of an acre immediately adjacent to the wellsite.  The changes to the site would be minimal – there would be no need for any topsoil to be stripped or removed as the units would be stationed on track matting.  This would allow for natural percolation of surface water run off at existing greenfield rates.

·         All the units would be single storey in height.  Egdon Resources was happy to agree to a condition requiring a security lighting scheme to be submitted and approved before works commenced.

·         All external views would be largely obscured by mature trees and hedges.  As a result, the temporary compound would not have a significant visual impact on the local landscape, the setting of any heritage asset or distant views from the Wolds AONB and the Viking Way.

·         There would be a small number of vehicle movements associated with the installation and removal of the security facilities.  Traffic volumes generated by the proposal would be negligible and would not have an unacceptable impact on the road network.

·         The proposal was not intensifying the exploration operations of North Kelsey.  The units would be there purely to provide a secure and safe environment for the personnel carrying out approved wellsite operations.

·         In summary, the proposal by Egdon was a prudent and measured approach to the active opposition to the onshore oil industry in relation to the extraction of fossil fuels.  There was a need for such facilities, on the advice of Lincolnshire Police, whilst any effects would be temporary and reversible.  It was also highlighted that the proposed facilities were detailed as a "worst-case scenario" and may – if circumstances allowed – be far fewer in number in reality.  The Committee was asked to accept the recommendation of officers and grant planning permission.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the applicant, and the following was noted:

·         In terms of recommendation 1 – that all portable building, plant and machinery would be removed and the land returned to its previous use as agricultural land on or before 31 December 2020, it was queried whether this was possible, and the Committee was assured that the site would be restored to agricultural land on or before that date.

·         In view of the evidence of continuous applications over a period of time, it was queried how sure the Committee could be that Egdon would not come back asking for extensions.  However, members were reminded that it was for the Committee to determine the application which was before them.

Councillor C L Strange, as the Local Member, made the following points:

·         Biscathorpe was a very different case, and was granted planning permission even though the site was located near very sensitive chalk streams.

·         There had not been a good relationship between Egdon and local people for Biscathorpe.  This was different altogether.

·         There was surprise that it needed to be such a large development.

·         The police had been involved and had provided advice.

·         It was requested that the moment that the land could be restored to agricultural land it should be and that the enforcement team would encourage them to leave the site as soon as possible.

·         It was important to keep in proportion what the Committee was dealing with.  A similar and retrospective application came forward at Biscathorpe, but on this occasion it was foreseen rather than retrospective, which one member commented that they welcomed. 

·         The conditions stipulated that the land would be returned to its present state once the works had completed.

·         It was clarified, that the 6^th mass extinction which had been referred to by the objector in their speech, was not being caused by fossil fuels as stated, but instead by increasing population levels.

·         It was commented that it was right that people working at the site had appropriate facilities.

On a motion proposed and seconded, it was

RESOLVED (11 in favour, 1 abstention)

            That planning permission be granted.