Agenda item

Since the publication of the report officers reported that additional comments had been received in connection with the application. These comments had been circulated to members in the Committee's update and had been placed on the Council's website to be viewed by the public. A further representation had been received since the update was published but this did not raise any further material planning issues that had not already been addressed in the report.

Amanda Suddaby, an objector, commented as follows:-

·         Six years, six applications, over 20 different planning conditions, 100s of objections and still no real work begun.

·         Six years of stress for local people to whom this development would bring no benefit – only harm.

·         It was disingenuous to claim that Covid had caused the delay - so clearly untrue.

·         Misrepresentations had characterised this project, including hollow claims about oil prices, jobs, taxes and energy security.  The jobs would go to a few specialized personnel from elsewhere, Egdon did not pay taxes (they ran at a loss), and arguments about energy security were untenable. 

·         The site might produce 50 barrels a day (200 if it far exceeds Egdon’s expectations). 50 bpd was less than 1/3 of 1/100^th of 1% of UK consumption - 0.003%. It was negligible, but the harm to local communities and habitat was significant.  It could so easily be replaced by renewable energy, better for the economy and planet.

·         We were at a crossroads. Covid had proved that we could change and people were willing to make sacrifices for the greater good and for the safety of the young and vulnerable.  We must do the same with climate change.

·         Parliament had committed to the 2050 target. This required rapid changes across the economyand all aspects of society. Everyone needed to be involved in reaching this target at all levels of government starting now.

·         Concerns about climate and ecological breakdown were escalating. We knew our future depended upon protecting the environment.

·         Yet, here, we had an Ecological Appraisal that was more than three years old, compromised drain access and only part of the site had been assessed by the Environment Agency.  All the areas that might not comply with regulations were simply excluded.  And no EIA.

·         I, like others listening, knew that it was difficult for the Committee to say “no” to oil development, but you could make decisions based on current evidence. This was no longer sustainable development.

·         People of Lincolnshire would applaud your courage and vision if you seized this opportunity and choose to protect us today.

·         Egdon had had six years and the world had changed. Enough was enough. Please refuse this application.

Amanda Suddaby was not asked any questions by Members.

Paul Foster, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·         Planning permission was granted to Egdon for an extension of time in May 2018. Objectors immediately launched a judicial review of the validity of the Council’s decision in the High Court. Although the challenge was successfully dismissed by the Council in October 2018, it left Egdon with a little over two years for exploration and restoration.

·         Changes were needed to the design of improved environmental protection measures (i.e. using a HDPE impermeable membrane) and, on the advice of Lincolnshire Police, to make the site more secure.  The level of protestor activity at Biscathorpe in early 2019 meant that Egdon needed to completely re-think what was needed in terms of security personnel and facilities. Liaising with and advice from the police was key. Planning permission was granted in July last year for these changes.

·         Egdon fully intended to construct the site before this summer. The seriousness of the impact of COVID-19 only became evident in mid-March when Egdon discussed the need for a further extension with the Council's officers.

·         COVID-19 had certainly contributed to the delay in restarting works.  The issue the onshore oil and gas industry faced was that people had been put on furlough or laid off and contractors and suppliers were not up to speed. The onshore industry was as susceptible as all other industries–but the skills were very unique; when rigs stopped operating personnel went elsewhere and there was not a pool of skilled operators ready to step in so there would inevitably be a time-lag for both drilling and restoration.

·         COVID had also significantly delayed the process of securing regulatory approvals from the Environment Agency; a permit that should have taken four weeks to issue actually took six months and was not issued until the end of July this year.

·         Egdon therefore sought a short 12 month extension of time to complete the work. This would allow enough time to build the site, drill, undertake flow tests as required and either restore the site or submit a further planning application in the case of a discovery.

·         Secondly, there was a misconception that fossil fuels were becoming redundant thanks to advances in green energy. The reality was that fossil fuels still remained the dominant source of energy supply. The vast majority of cars, HGVs and aircraft in the UK still used oil.

·         The UK produced 52 million tonnes of crude oil in 2019, primarily from the North Sea, but we consumed 59 million tonnes so we were reliant on imports.

·         Exploring for and finding reserves of oil in the UK would help to reduce the need for imports, improve our ability to meet net zero targets of greenhouse emissions as overall carbon emissions were lower.

·         Finally, I want to add that Egdon understood and regretted the uncertainty within the local community about completing the works at North Kelsey.  Egdon was seeking the shortest possible extension to complete the work.

A Member asked Paul Foster whether the applicant had any evidence to back up its decision that it was prepared to start work at the site before today's application. Paul Foster stated that on the word of the applicant they had been ready to make a start on site and had investor support. The applicant was waiting for a permit to be issued by the Environment Agency which had not been received until the end of July.

Councillor C E H Marfleet, a neighbouring local Member, commented as follows:-

·         He was the local Division Member for Biscathorpe which had had similar issues to the applications before the meeting, today.

·         He stated that Paul Foster had alluded to the delay being caused by Covid, which, in his view, was incorrect. The application had been given an extension some time ago. The applicant was not allowed to proceed because a Condition prevented any work taking place during the bird nesting season.

·         The applicant had been examining the site for six years. How long was temporary?

·         The preparations at Biscathorpe, operated by the same applicant, had been disorganised.

·         He drew attention to page 65 of the report where there was not any mention of oil in the policy context.

·         The applicant had failed to contact the Internal Drainage Board for Biscathorpe and needed to follow the procedures.

·         This was a rural location.

·         The Council needed to demand more professionalism from companies like the applicant.

Officers stated that this application was in connection with a request to extend the time limit for the restoration of the site only and therefore other issues should not be considered. Officers stated that with regard to the applicant's site at Biscathorpe it had been the police who had requested that the applicant should install security. Officers stated that if permission was granted and the applicant subsequently found viable reserves there would be a need for the applicant to submit a further planning application and then this would provide an opportunity for further comments.

Comments by Members included:-

·         The applicant had had six years to finish on the site and had provided no evidence to support the delay. The application should therefore be refused.

·         The views of local people were understandable and the comments made by Holton le Moor Parish Meeting that the delay would only create uncertainty was supported. The extension, if approved, should be the final extension given by the Council unless there were good reasons otherwise.

On a motion by Councillor D McNally, seconded by Councillor T A Ashton, it was –

RESOLVED (11 for, 2 against and 0 abstentions)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.