The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
The economic benefits of home produced oil will far outweigh the petty local politics and the "independent" planning inspector is bound to accept that. The Council know full well they will lose an appeal but they do need to show community support if only to ensure local votes. Expectations are $80 per crude barrel by summer, just when the Government does not want higher imports
Take your pick on why it was recommended.
"10. Overall Conclusion and Recommendation
10.1 This application seeks an extended well test for hydrocarbon development for up to 12 months, in addition to other short-term activities, at an existing site within the High Weald AONB.
10.2 The NPPF gives ‘great weight’ to the benefits of mineral extraction and national guidance notes that energy supplies should come from a variety of sources, including oil and gas. On balance, and taking account of the latest national energy policy, it is concluded that there is a need for the development to contribute to national energy security and supply.
10.3 With regard to the acceptability of the development in this sensitive location, it is considered that the application is for ‘major development’. Therefore, following an assessment in accordance with Policies M7 and M13 of the JMLP, it
has been concluded that there are exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest for the application to be permitted.
10.4 As above, it considered that there is a national need for the development and, furthermore, there would be a benefit to the local economy. Although there are alternative sources of local and national supply, the operator is constrained by the extent of the PEDL area and it is considered the use of the site would represent an ‘acceptable environmental option’ when compared with developing a new site within the licenced area, which would be more expensive and with no guarantee of success.
10.5 The extended well test and associated activities have the potential to result in adverse impacts on the highway, local communities, landscape character and the local environment, issues that have been raised in the large number of objections to the application. Balcombe Parish Council has objected to the application, but no other statutory consultees have objected, subject to the imposition of conditions and having regard to relevant policy and guidance.
10.6 It is concluded that the number of vehicles required to carry out the development is not significant enough to raise concerns regarding highway capacity or road safety. Emissions from the development would be controlled through the planning regime as well as through the Environmental Permitting and health and safety regimes which would ensure that water quality would not be compromised and that emissions to air would be acceptable.
10.7 The High Weald AONB has the highest level of protection, with the NPPF directing authorities to give ‘great weight’ to conserving its landscape and scenic beauty, in addition to giving ‘great weight’ to the extraction of minerals. On balance, it is considered that the impact of the proposed development on the AONB, and the character of the area in general, would not be unacceptable."
+ another 3 reasons.
The reasons do have to be published.
Don’t hold much for our future either in UKOG or the country at large if these people are listened too, zero carbon means that we are prepared to sit in darkness a few days each month and close our business down, what happens when the sun don’t shine or ain’t strong enough or the wind don’t blow, this is a reality and can’t be changed, but who listens to common sense in the UK ?
Exploration
My view is unchanged.
There are local councilors who are going against the planning officers recommendation which is based on national policy guidence.
It happened at Wressle. Loxley is next in line for the planning inspector & we will have to see what GL decides for Balcombe. I await UKOG coming to the local authority with Arreton.
It is worth a though why the planning authority changed there recommendation to the planning committee to recommend this time?
Was it just a shorter EWT or was there other reasons in the national policy that they know that the national policy review will overrule on appeal which would be very costly for the council to defend?
The UK government will have to keep the lights on, buisness running & people in jobs as it will not be able to furlough the nation between now & 2050 to achieve net zero having waived a magic wand.
Seems that GL didn’t bother to attend the planning committee - see link below.
https://westsussex.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/544819
as pointed out on the ANGS board they do know the reason but they need to see it in writing before considering an appeal - that kicks the can down the road for another month - they don't have the cash to test Balcombe anyway
George Lucan of Angus led a webinar yesterday evening.
Angus do not yet know the official reasons for the rejection of their application.
Wizard
Just wondering if you have a view on this week’s Balcombe planning refusal.
The West Sussex planning committee introduced a couple of new grounds for refusal such as;
1) The application did not conform with ‘exceptional circumstances’ criteria to warrant approval . i.e. the Balcombe field has negligible reserves.
2) Granting approval would contradict current national government policy on oil and gas.
Loxley would seem to be similar and Arreton probably stands no chance, since two previous wells at same location were dry holes.
https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?CaseID=3268579&CoID=0