Transcript

Good morning members, morning members of the public, and welcome, morning officers, welcome to the planning regulatory committee, Wednesday the 26th of March. First and foremost, obviously welcome everybody coming to see us. There's no fire drill expected today, one hopes. In the event of a fire alarm sounding, please leave by the nearest exit and gather up at the top of the hill. I'm not sure how we will deal with Chris, but we will look after you Chris, don't worry. And the members of the council will deal with you up there. Mobile phones, members included, please put your mobile phone on silent. Social media in line with the guidance, use of social media. Anybody attending today's meeting can use social media. Today's meeting has been webcast and for microphone use, I think pretty well everybody's been here and they know the rules on the rules on the microphone use and how to work them. I will now say now the agenda is slightly shorter. The two items relating world and school have been withdrawn. So if anybody's tuning in for those, they will not be happening today and they will appear on the agenda at another stage. Apologies have been received the minutes of the minutes of the minutes of the minutes of the minutes of the meeting. The minutes of the last meeting, there was a technical problem, so we haven't got those to approve and they will come forward at a second date. Petitions, there are none received. Public question time, we have two questions and they've been replied. And firstly, Jackie Macy, would you like to ask a supplemented question, Jackie? We will, if you come up. Thank you. Are the committee aware of a recent study by researchers at University College London? It suggests that oil production at Horse Hill may have triggered a series of over 100 small earthquakes in and around Newdigate during 2018 and 2019. This research contradicts previous assessments of the likelihood of there being a connection between the drilling at Horse Hill and the earthquakes. The earthquakes called injury and damaged property, as well as considerable anxiety to residents across a wide area. Is the committee willing to consider this new evidence? And will they be giving serious consideration, this serious consideration when examining the planning application for fluid injection at Brockham? Or is the risk of further earthquakes one is as willing to take? Thank you. Thank you. Chairman, if I can respond to that. The issue on Brockham will be debated when that comes in. I think the purpose of public questions is to focus on matters not relevant to the live planning applications that will be debated by the committee later on this morning. When, and likewise, what the committee will consider when, and likewise, what the committee will consider when Horse Hill comes before them at some future, as yet undetermined date, they will take account of at that point. So those are matters for the committee later on this morning and at a future point when it comes to Horse Hill. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jackie. Thank you. Thank you. Sarah Freeman. Thank you in your answer for describing the latest moves by UCOG to leave the Horse Hill site. Given that the Supreme Court ruling in June 2024 made it compulsory that Surrey County Council withdraw its approval for any ongoing drilling at Horse Hill, why isn't a final date for the site clearance being arranged between the Council and UCOG? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. That is what is the subject of ongoing discussion. So we are working with them to understand progress towards clearance of the site and understand and agree what a date may be. So that is the subject of our ongoing discussion with them. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Member questions. Victor Lewanski, you submitted a question which has been answered. Do you have a supplementary question? Thank you very much. Sorry, before you go, can I just clarify? You are asking this as a local member and not a member of this committee. That's fine. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Edward. Thank you very much for the answer. My supplementary really is, has there been any pre-applications made on this particular application? Because it has been some months now and I know my residents are very, very concerned. It is just causing ongoing uncertainty without knowing whether there is anything going on with this site or what is going to happen to it. So could you please tell me whether there is any pre-applications made? No, there has not been a further pre-application submission made to us. The decision as to what to do next ultimately lies with the applicant. They have obviously heard the reasons the committee debated previously and referred it back to them. We as the planning authority will then deal with that accordingly when it comes forward. So once something is submitted to us, that will go through the necessary consultation. Or likewise, if a decision is made that that doesn't happen, there will be procedural elements that we can make public at that point. So it's still, as I understand, a matter of ongoing discussion internally within the applicant side. And they may be able to better advise as to where that is. And just very quickly, Edward, can I one tiny little bit? Just really, just in response to a different area of the council, who shall I contact? Do you know which department would be? I can advise separately perhaps. I need to double check perhaps myself. Thank you for that. Pushing, just pushing it. Careful, don't make a habit of it. Right, declarations of interest in respect of the main item. No, okay, thank you. There was a very extensive update published. Do members require any further time to review that update? No. In which case, Chris, would you like to introduce the report? Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Chair. The proposal is for the importation and reinjection of non-site derived produced water into the Portland sandstone beds to support hydrocarbon production. Brockham well site is an existing well site extending to 1.2 hectares, which currently has three well heads, BRX2Y, BRX3 and BRX4. And it's located at land at Felton's farm, approximately 570 metres from Old School Lane in Brockham. The application site is located within the Greenbelt and approximately 870 metres east of the Surrey Hills national landscape. The application is required because the water to be imported is waste product derived from elsewhere. The process will be conducted in three steps. Non-site derived waste water to be brought to site by HGV tankers. It will be stored in a brine tank as shown on the proposed plan. It will then be injected into the well. This will require a maximum of two HGV tankers per day to deliver waste water to the site. The injected waste water would restore reservoir pressure to the target pressure, which would assist with the recovery of oil from the well. The produced water from the existing well head is insufficient in quantity to restore reservoir pressure. And fresh water is not suitable for water reinjection, as it should be of a broadly similar salinity as the existing produced water to avoid swelling and mobilization of clays and deposition of salts. The reinjection therefore requires water that has an appropriately matched salinity to the existing produced water to be imported to the site. The site that is existing has arrangements for the injection of fluid and this proposal would not necessitate any change to existing surface equipment. Delivering operations of the site would take place during normal operation hours. The importation of the water to the site would continue for the life of the minerals consent, which runs to December 2036. The site would continue to be accessed by an existing access track and no changes are proposed in this access. In line with previously agreed routing, all HGVs accessing the site would do so from the south, therefore avoiding the need to pass through Brockenville Village. This would be secured via a legal agreement. The principle of mineral development in this location has already been established through previous planning permissions and so too has a succession date of the well site. The reinjection of the water has already been consented as part of these wider operations. The application is only required because of the importation of the wastewater. No harm has been identified to the water environment, visual amenity, biodiversity, highways, heritage or residential amenity. The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Greenbelt. However, sufficient very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the harms of the Greenbelt are considered to exist. These very special circumstances are that the application seeks to maximise efficiency of a well site for which an existing permission exists. Whilst comparatively small in scale, the increased efficiency of the oil recovered facilitated by this proposal is in line with objectives in relation to extraction of indigenous sources of oil and their contribution to UK energy needs. Very limited harm to the openness of the Greenbelt has been identified and the impact will be temporary until the succession and restoration of the well site. Officers consider that with the imposition of appropriate conditions that the proposed development would not give rise to significant adverse environmental or amenity impacts and should therefore be approved. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much indeed. We have one speaker, Gerry Hamilton, who's in position. Gerry, you have, as I shall explain to you, three minutes. You will try and indicate when you have one minute left. And if you can remain there for any questions of a planning nature from the committee. And the time will start whenever you're ready. Thank you. Nothing more than being woken up with the earth tremors highlighted to me the importance of making sure proper due diligence is carried out before further development is allowed. Professor David Smyth reports, Angus Energy has made serious errors in his interpretation of the geological structure of the oil field. It should be required to undertake a high resolution 3D seismic survey. Angus Energy say this is too expensive. In January, UCL published an in-depth study indicating the Surrey swarm of earth tremors could be linked to pressure changes in the Portland standstone. Seismic activity is an identified risk from water reinjection. The aim of this proposal is to significantly raise the pressure of the Portland strata. According to the planner's report, I quote, the technical consultees have carefully reviewed the proposal and raised no objections. Well, in actual fact, said consultees, Stantec offered no comment on the hydrological aspects of this application. Its remit did not apparently include induced seismicity. It is disappointing that the planning officers regard such a response as the issue having been carefully reviewed. Lack of suitable assessment to this identified risk could render Surrey County Council liable for any ensuring impacts. It is clear that oil from Brockham is being taken to Hamble export terminal to be exported, incurring climate impacts additional to those of its end use. Paragraph 15155b of the MPPF states that very special circumstances for Greenbelt development will not exist unless there is a demonstratable unmet need for the type of development proposed. Well, as some 80% of UK produced oil is exported, there is no unmet need for this development. Having the planner's report repeat the contrived claims regarding energy security and alleged need for indigenous oil production does not validate very special circumstances for this expansion of Greenbelt development. As such claims are proven to be disingenuous and they should be disregarded when considering inappropriateness of the proposal under Policy 9 of the Surrey Local Waste Plan. This company wants to create a waste disposal site and the untruth of increasing oil production from a well that is actually spent. 25 years of data shows this site is spent. The local community were promised that the site would be restored to farmland at the end of its natural life cycle. Please don't be duped into approving an unofficial waste disposal site that will leave residents fuming when the truth is realised. Thank you very much indeed. Your timing is quite good actually. Members, do you have any questions for the speaker? Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. We're just checking on somebody's availability. If you don't mind, please. Nick, where are you? Sorry about that. Unfortunately, well it's not unfortunately because we're very lucky to have Sarah looking after us, but Josh had a slight contretemps in his car this morning. It's been delayed and I'm not saying his wheels come off, but ours are looking like they're going to come off if we're not careful. But Josh, luckily it's fine and Sarah stepped in to look after us. Nick, thank you. You have, as before, three minutes. We'll try and indicate when there's time left and if you stay and answer any questions of a planning nature. Time will start whenever you're ready. Thank you. Good morning, councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today in support of our planning application. The Brockenwell site has been established for over 30 years and continues to produce oil today. With the life of the site reaching its final stages of production, our application is to use a well used technique within the oil and gas industry of fluid injection. This is often called water flooding. The purpose of this process is to maintain the pressure in the reservoir as oil is extracted. This allows us to maximise oil recovery without increasing site infrastructure. This process is already happening at Brockenwell, with existing production fluids being re-injected into the reservoir. Currently, the site separates water and oil where oil is sold and the water is re-injected. The existing water injection is always less than the total fluid extracted from the reservoir because the oil is sold. The result is a continually declining reservoir pressure and in turn production rates. To increase the pressure within the reservoir, this will require an increased volume of fluid injected into the reservoir. The additional water to be injected will be sourced from an existing hydrocarbon reservoir to ensure fluid compatibility and conserve potable water. The rate and controls of fluid injection are regulated by the Environment Agency, which we have received permission for. For absolute clarity, the injection pressure will not fracture the formation and, in fact, will be below the original reservoir pressure. So, subsequently, there will be no risk to seismicity. The benefits of this process will arrest the declining production levels and return the site back to commercial rates of oil production. By extracting the remaining barrels of oil as efficiently as possible, the proposed development will maximize oil recovery using the existing infrastructure as you soldier on your site visit. One minute left. Thank you. The proposed development will be kept relatively small with an increase of two HGV movements per day. The amount injected is about 25 cubic meters per day. This is roughly the size of a small HGV tanker. The use of the existing site to extract oil remains the most sustainable way of producing oil in the UK. Government policy remains supportive of this approach. Angus Energy will maintain an open and transparent relationship with the local parish council and its neighbours. And it's our firm belief that our application accords with the local plan and welcome the Office of Recommendation to grant planning permission. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Members, Catherine. Sorry about that. Thank you, Nick. Just to clarify a couple of things. So, essentially you have an EA permit that's already been granted for water injection and that permit was originally granted for the re-injection of the water on the site, but has been expanded to include re-injection of other water? Yes, that's correct. And that permit's already been granted? Correct. And the pressure, obviously the reservoir decline pressure curve is well known. When you applied for your original permit for extraction, did that take that into account or did that not? Yes, it did, yeah. So, you're essentially injecting water now is enhanced oil recovery, so you will recover more from the reservoir because of the injection than you will if the additional injection is not allowed? Correct. Thank you, sir. Geoffrey. Thanks. In a moment we're going to be debating, amongst other things, whether very special circumstances exist for this proposal which is on the green belt. So, I've read paragraphs 194 to 199 of our report, which are about very special circumstances. They seem to focus on convincing us that the production that is already permitted is beneficial. But what I want to give you an opportunity to do is to talk to us about why this specific process is necessary to enable the production that's already permitted, why this specific process is necessary. Another way of asking that would be to say, well, what would happen if this were not permitted? Yeah, as I mentioned in the speech, we've got a declining reservoir pressure, so as the fluid is extracted and the oil is sent off to refinery, therefore, if you look at a mass balance, the water that we're injected, there's that slowly declining pressure curve. It's basically a top-up. It's basically a top-up. We just need to top up that fluid and then that will increase the pressure and then we can get the last barrels of oil out of the existing site. So, from our perspective, it's, as the previous council mentioned, it's that enhanced oil recovery. It's an existing site, it's got existing infrastructure, ticks all the boxes for the most sustainable way of utilising that site without having to drill new wells, without having to go explore for new areas. So, you know, this process is well known in the industry of almost getting the last dregs out of that site. Jonathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you. Just three questions from me, if I may. First of all, in paragraph 9b of the report, you do mention that the EA did approve a variation... Sorry, is this a question for the speaker or for the officers? For the speaker, for Nick. Thank you. Yes. You mentioned that there was a variation of the existing commercial permit granted, environmental permit granted by the EA. Did you include that permit in your application to the offices? Because I haven't seen a copy of that, but was that included in your original application? So, Surrey County Council was statutory consultee on the permit application itself, so they would have visibility. I haven't... We didn't include the permit application with this application. It is publicly available. It has gone through all the consultation process. So, yeah, it's there. It's all out there in the public. Well, I'll develop that further with the offices. My next question relates to the... What we have here is the 2022 permission, which related to the oil will number four. And I just want to understand the distance, the physical distance between the three oil wells on the site, and whether or not and why, indeed, there seems to be no connection of any of the pipes between the oil wells. And this is relevant in relation to the permission you got back in 2022. So, can you just explain to us how close these sites are on the site in particular? I'm happy to answer it. So, you've got the three well bores at surface. They're several meters apart. From a subsurface point of view, the BRX4 goes into a completely different formation to the one we're targeting. So, we are, you know, the connectivity is not into the hydrocarbon formation we're planning to inject this fluid into. So, they're separated. So, yeah, there's natural isolation between the two, between the BRX4 and the BRX3 and the BRX2. Even though they are physically meters apart, they are in a different... On the surface. But the subsurface, it's slightly different. So, they're different formations. One's going into a formation above, one's into a formation below. So, BRX4 is not into the formation we're targeting. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. No, it was in relation to the location of the world sites. Thank you. Thank you. Simple question. The pipes don't go down straight, do they? They go at an angle from my previous knowledge of other... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I thought. It's from other sites to look at. Thank you. Okay. Members, any other questions or speakers? No? Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now, I have a comment from Helen Clack, who is the local member. Helen, unfortunately, she can't be here today. She's a Gatswick noise management executive board. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. And her comment, the application raised concerns locally and other residents have written in. And this, she commented on the site narrow public highway situated in the Surrey Hills national landscape, an area of great landscape value, et cetera. Her statement is based down to, there is concern, and these are, I would stress, Helen's words, not mine. There is concern that the applicants want to store the waste water on site before injection. Should the committee be minded to agree the officer's recommendation, I would like the committee to agree a condition that no storage facilities should be allowed on site, and that the importation and injection should match the extraction of oil at its current rate exactly. And that is the statement from the local member. And there is also, Jonathan Essex has indicated that, and I see him on there, indicated a desire to speak. Jonathan, can you hear me? Yes, thank you, Chair. Can I just, before you, you will have three minutes, and then the committee reserve the right to ask you questions of a planning nature. So, my question is, just for clarification, you're not a ward member, division member, or an adjoining, a member of a divisional, adjoining division, are you? No, I'm, no, I'm not, no. So, you are allowed to speak as a member of this council, as is your right. So, please start your three minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much. I've read the application, and I have a concern regarding the changing nature that this would bring about in terms of how the site operates. My understanding, it was mainly given permission initially as a site for oil extraction. The site's level of oil extraction has deteriorated to such a degree that the amount of fluid that's needed to be recovered from the site, I wouldn't describe it as water, because I wouldn't want to drink what comes out of the site, is getting to the same proportions as the oil amounts. And bringing in extra fluid from outside to what looks like a site that doesn't now produce very much oil at all would seem to change the very nature of this site from one which is primarily about extracting oil to primarily about disposing of fluid from other drill sites in other locations. That would seem to me to be an industrialization of the site and changing what was originally a site for extraction to a site that's really for extraction and waste processing now. My concern is this creates a precedent of what happens to oil wells in Surrey when they reach the end of their useful life. I see them when they reach the end of their useful life to be restored such that the temporary nature of the incursion of the mineral site onto the greenbelt is minimised in terms of its time duration rather than being extended through a waste processing activity being placed on top, such as seems to be quite common on quarry sites. But I've never seen it yet until this application in the case of an oil well site. So my concern is this is an industrialization, a shift from the primary use of a start from oil extraction as a profit generator to one as a waste processing activity. One minute left. And I would raise concerns about that. So my concerns are firstly, is this is this right? Is this kind of end the way we would wish oil sites to end their life in Surrey and whether we are properly regulating to make sure we don't use control of what's happening on this and other sites through a potential approval of this application? Thank you. Thank you very much. If you just stay on, I appreciate your in another meeting. So thank you for coming out of that. Anybody questions for the speaker? Ernest? No? You're itching too. No? Anybody wish to ask? No? Jonathan, thank you very much indeed. And Chair, thank you very much for listening to your contribution to your meeting here today and wish you all the best in delivering an outcome. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Right. So there's two questions there from non-present members. Do we wish to respond to those or should we go on to the general member? I'll open it up. Right, members, I will now open the meeting for member comments and questions to the officers. Ernest? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I was a member of the previous application when we were dealing with this oil well. And then as of now, it's a very isolated site. Very few people would even know it's there. Even if they know it's there, there can be very little, well, very little interference with their daily life at all. I don't accept what the member has just said about how somehow or other he's trying to make a relationship between the original extraction allowed and the present extraction if it's allowed. I can't really see the difference. Extraction is extraction and there may be different methods at different times. And I don't think it's much of an argument to try to say that the present extraction is somehow not in line with normal practice. I've looked at the report and it seems to me that there's a detailed analysis in the report of impact on a large number of situations. And I can find no specific thing in the report where it appears that there is any real impact on anybody or anything in terms of this oil well continuing with extraction. It's not a new issue in the sense that we're not faced with approving or not approving a new oil well as we were with the Horse Hill situation, which in fact was approved, but then fell in the Supreme Court. Anyway, my view on this is that there really isn't any great issue in terms of what's being proposed. Oil is needed for the national economy. What we can produce ourselves. We don't have to buy overseas. It may not be a huge amount. And that, of course, the fact that it isn't huge amounts is very much in favour of the local population because it means that any disturbance from traffic or any other reason is very, very minimal. So my view is entirely to support this application. Thank you. Thank you very much. Catherine. Thank you, Chair. I guess I have a couple of questions for officers. Firstly, there's obviously no real reference to the Horse Hill decision in the papers, and I understand that that's because the Horse Hill decision was based on an EIA-related site and the decision that's been made by officers, it's not an EIA-related site, therefore it's not relevant. And I understand the arguments that have been made. However, and also just to talk about the environmental agency permit. So obviously that permit was issued in 2022, back end of 2022, which is again before the Horse Hill decision was made. And also before, you know, before the additional research that's been flagged by speakers was undertaken. I also understand that it's below the frack pressure, so that it shouldn't cause further fractures, which shouldn't generate further earthquakes. But I do have concerns about the fact that although we are essentially the request is to allow the import of water, which has already been agreed by the Environment Agency, and I understand that's there, not ours, and I understand we have to separate the two things. And that decision was made predates the legal decision on Horse Hill. I also understand that by allowing this, we are increasing the amount of oil that will come out of that site. We are enhancing oil recovery. It's all the way through the report. And in doing that, we are increasing the amount of oil that's extracted, and therefore when it's burnt, there is an environmental impact associated with that. And I guess really what I want to understand in clearer terms, you know, and I understand why the report's written the way it is, but for us to make a decision, I think we need to understand your position on why the Horse Hill decision does not in any way impact our decision. Why the fact, sorry, I'm going to keep going just for a little bit longer, then I promise I'll be quiet, Sean. Why, you know, because it is enhanced oil recovery. If we don't inject the water, there will be less oil recovered from that well. And I understand that there's conflict here because there's legislation that says we have to maximize recovery of minerals from sites. I completely understand that. It's a completely standard process, water flood, enhanced oil recovery, all of those things are entirely standard on oil fields. But I don't want us to make a decision that will later be challenged in court. I want your advice and a very clear statement to all of us as to why those things don't come into play in the decision that we should make, Sean. Thank you. Press this slide. Thank you. First, to the point on Horse Hill more generally and why I think the timing of the permit is not effective. Let me preface that as well. Obviously, the permit is a completely separate regulatory regime and is not something that is open to decision here. It is decided elsewhere. But the question raised in the Horse Hill Finch Supreme Court judgment is specifically framed around whether or not the issue of downstream emissions should be considered where there is an environmental statement required because of the environmental impact assessment regulations. So the piece of legislation that it was examining, that it was based upon, is the EIA regulations, which is obviously separate to then permitting regimes. In terms of this application, what we do on all applications, to be honest, is screen them against those regulations to see whether or not it is the view of officers, as it is a delegated authority, as to whether or not an environmental statement may be required. That exercise was done in this application. What that exercise looked at was the extraction that would be achieved with this method of enhanced oil recovery. It's been referred to with this method of water injection. So the decision that it does not meet that threshold of requiring an environmental statement has considered the additional oil recovery within it and still concludes that it doesn't meet the threshold that is set in the EIA regulations as an indicative threshold of when one should be required and is some way below. So it is the view of officers that this is not an application that requires an environmental statement. By that fact, the decision of the Supreme Court decision is not relevant. That's triggered by an application which would or triggered an association with an application which would require an environmental statement. The screening report does go slightly further in that it also looked at whether or not, if you did consider those emissions, what the impact would be. So even though, arguably, it doesn't need to, it went that little bit further and concluded that they would not have a significant effect or a significant impact even if you did look at that fact. So hopefully that goes some way to answering why it's the view of officers that that judgment doesn't impact upon us today in the same way as it might do on the other. Geoffrey. Well, first I found that exchange extremely interesting. I just wanted to worry away a bit at this issue of whether very special circumstances threshold is met, given the concerns. Because you heard what I asked earlier. Obviously, my reason for asking was that clearly there have been comments around the fact that the reasons cited for import are contrived, that there's insufficient evidence about water available on site. There's even, you know, an accusation upon, I don't comment particularly on the merits of it, but that it's just a, basically this is just a waste disposal scheme. I mean, obviously the point is that this is inappropriate development on the Green Belt. So, we maybe should ask ourselves whether very special circumstances could be said to exist if this is not strictly necessary, this process. So that's why I asked the question. It may be that the case is made in paragraphs 22, 23 of our report, and in what we've also heard today, it may be that case is made. But I did note that the response I had referenced sort of getting the last few barrels out. Obviously, that's a colloquial term. I'm not quite sure exactly what that amounts to. But if what we are permitting is around the imperative of getting the last few barrels out, does that really constitute the very special circumstances that are required for this sort of Green Belt development? I mean, that's what I was going to ask. I also note what Catherine asked and just had a supplementary thought about what, whether getting the last few barrels out, sorry, using that colloquial term, constitutes something new in terms of oil extraction that isn't necessarily implied by the original approvals. I've heard what you've already said in response to that, but I thought I would just reiterate that thought. Thank you very much. Sorry, Chairman. If I just pick up on that last point perhaps first in terms of additionality of extraction. The original parent permission, the 2006 permission, placed no limitation on what could be extracted from the site. So there is the capability under that permission to get as much oil as is possible out of that site. As Chris said in his presentation, this permission is necessary because in order to do that, they're having to bring in the wastewater. But if there was another method that they could employ that didn't require a separate planning permission, there's no limitation in the 2006 permission as to what could be extracted from the site. It is the view of officers that obviously the very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm to the greenbelt. I think it's worth being clear that the harm to the greenbelt arises as by virtue of the fact that there is some harm to openness and the MPPF then instructs us that that has the impact. But it is also the view of officers that that's a very limited harm to openness and that there's no any other harm arising that then also needs to be outweighed. I think the point I sort of want to focus on is that there's obviously a view of people who have spoken that those very special circumstances are contrived or are coming from a particular direction. But I think for the purpose we are here to act as the county planning authority, that direction they are coming from is government planning policy and government policy that exists to support such an industry and support industry generally and support the economy generally. And very clearly also saying that great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction is a particular key phrase that pulls out from the MPPF. So whilst there may be views as to whether or not people as individuals outside of the planning authority agree with that, that is the framework in which we must operate as the determining authority on the application. Ultimately, the decision makers are the committee and it is for them to balance the very special circumstances that exist against the harm that they may find of the application. But it's certainly very much the view of officers that those points raised in the report do constitute very special circumstances which would justify the approval of the application. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Can I just come in here? I'm just looking at the basis of the report where it's the proposal seeks plan permission for non-site derived wastewater. And I think this word waste is actually distracting in so far. It may be a technical phrase. But the water coming in, in simplistic terms, the water on site is the wrong type of water for want of another expression. And the water to come in is more or less on site. It's a greater salinity. It's more suited salinity to come in. Yeah. Yeah, sorry. To explain that point on the wastewater situation is that the water as existing on site, so in a reservoir, you've got a mix of oil and oil and other fluid. So as it comes up, it's split. And then that water is re-injected into the well to assist with, to raise the pressure to assist with oil extraction. What this wastewater is, is that water that's been split off from another well site. So Brockham are responsible for Lidsey well site. And I forgot the name of the other one, another one, sorry, over towards Crawley. So it would be where that process has taken place and the water has been split from an existing reservoir, which has to be of a similar salinity, as I explained in the presentation, to be injected back into the Brocken site. So it's not wastewater in the sense of water collected from here, there, anywhere, puddles or anything like that. It is from existing well sites. So it's pre-used water, if you'd like, for another description. And that is coming up, the two tankers. So it's not being stored on site. Can we pick on that point, please? Yeah, so there's a, you'll see on the site plan, I don't know if you can put it up on the, the green. Yeah, the green tank there is annotated as a brine tank. And that's where the water would be temporarily stored before it was then re-injected when it was required. But that is the same place where the water is stored. The produced water from the existing operation is stored as well. So if the applicant wanted to store an abundance of pre-used water, that would necessitate a fresh application. Because they are limited on the amount of water that can be stored in that. And that green tank has permission. But anything else, another two, three, whatever tanks, would require further permission. And then we'd have to go through the whole test of green belt and all of that. Yes? Yes. So this application is not proposing any other physical infrastructure to be brought onto the site. So if at some later date another piece of equipment was needed, then any necessary permissions would have to be sought at that point. But that tank can be used for the storage of water currently. So it's permissible to have the water in it. Thank you. Sorry, Chair. Just to add as well, the 2006 permission had a condition which removed permitted development rights. So anything would require additional. So the belt and braces goes on that. Thank you. Jonathan. Thank you, Chair. The report in paragraph 18 talks about this permission, the 2021 permission and condition nine, which was attached to that permission, which says very clearly only site-derived fluids shall be used in connection with the development hereby permitted. No wastewater or other liquid waste produced at other sites shall be imported to or used for injection at the site. I'm just trying to understand. And, of course, the reason for that is to comply with the policy MC14 and also MC5 of our own minerals plan. I'm just trying to understand what makes this application different given the conditioning posed on the application back in 2021. Then, just in terms of the concerns raised by members of the public and other interested parties, one is risk to groundwater from the migration of toxic fluids. Do you consider that a concern, one that perhaps needs to be dealt with by way of a condition? If so, if not, just explain why not. The same in relation to seismic shifts. That's been a concern raised by other interested parties. Is there a risk, a seismic shift risk with this application, should it be approved? And then, in terms of the impact of these HDVs, two movements, four movements a day, but two vehicles, I think, accessing the site each day. What you're saying is that that will be mitigated against in some way by way of a legal agreement. What sort of legal agreements are we talking about there? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I'll respond to some and I'm sure I'll get Chris to come in as well. On that first point regarding the condition to the 2022 permission, sorry, I was giving the wording back in front of me as well. That is a different permission to the one you're considering. That permission has not yet actually been implemented as to what it gave permission to do. The wellhead is there, but the extraction it gave permission for has not yet been implemented. So, that condition is not yet in force, if you like, because that permission has not yet been implemented. Nevertheless, it's clear as you view the site and as the applicant explained, they are physically distinct from one another. Should that permission be implemented, it expires, the three years for implementation expires November this year. Should that permission be implemented, then obviously no wastewater could be imported or injected in association with that wellhead. Unless the applicant sought a different planning permission if they wished to. So, that would be a matter for a future consideration. As you look at the reason for that condition, apologies, my screen has taken me away from it. The reason for that condition was essentially clarifying the terms of that application. It didn't cite or preclude another application being sought. In fact, it just made clear that such an application would need to come forward if that was what there was. So, it wasn't placed because of a particular harm. It was more about limiting the scope of that permission. Just picking up on the other couple of points then raised. The risk to groundwater fundamentally is a point that has been considered within the report, but also falls within the remit of the Environment Agency as to groundwater pollution and protection. The site does have existing membrane and the site does have existing infrastructure to deal with water, the control of water, the control of surface water and the control of the impact on groundwater. Because it's obviously been an established site for some time. And there's been no concerns raised. And from the Planning Authority's perspective, there's no concerns in relation to that. When it comes to the concerns raised around seismic activity, earthquake activity, it's clear within the planning practice guidance, in particular that cited around minerals applications, that it is right and proper to not duplicate the controls of other regulatory regimes. And I just want to check if I get the name correct. And that the mitigation of seismic risks, the Department of Energy and Climate Change is responsible for those controls. And it's clearly stated within planning practice guidance that as a planning authority, you should presume that those other regulatory controls are going to have the necessary effects and be conducted properly. There's nothing before us to suggest that they wouldn't be. So I don't believe there is anything in terms of seismic activity related to this application that would not enable us to grant planning permission. And the last point, I think, was around HGVs. Chris may be able to speak to this and may pick up on the other points as well. Yeah, apologies. Can you repeat the question in relation to HGVs? Yes, thank you. Just in paragraph 139, you talk about a legal agreement being agreed, we have concluded between ourselves and the applicant to ensure compliance with the conditions on the access to the site by HGV vehicles and the number of times per day that might happen. What sort of legal agreement are we talking about? Yes, it would be with a section 106 as per as has been done on the previous planning permissions for the reason of those vehicle movements. And you'll notice that there's a condition restricting the amount of HGVs and that there's been no storing up or laying up of vehicles on the site either. Can I just come in? Whilst you're different in the sizes of HGVs, I can assure you it's virtually impossible. We know from experience for an HGV to come through Brockham Village. We came through on a coach which met a tractor and there was millimetres between. Fantastic with the driving by the coach driver. But there is a lay down route and it is documented. So it's definitely in place. Geoffrey. I feel like I want to explore whether there's any appetite for debating a motion for refusal on the grounds that very special circumstances have not been demonstrated to outweigh inappropriate developments on the green belts. I suppose one way of exploring that would be to move that motion to see what happens. But I just wondered if there was any kind of member commentary or any other commentary on that. I mean, obviously the final decision is for members, but just in terms of what you would need to make sure you are considering is it would need to be very clear as to what members' view is on the weights to be given to the different factors that would need to be pulled into it. So what would members' view be on the weight to be given to any harm that they view as arising? Obviously we are instructed by the NPPF that substantial weight needs to be given to the fact of inappropriate development. And that's what in Boffers' view is then outweighed by very special circumstances. Members may view there being any other harm as well, that the weight they need to give to that. And I think they would need to be very clear as to the weight that they then are giving to the very special circumstances. And I would just point out that some of those terminologies around weight in terms of where we are instructed to give significant or great weight is derived from the National Planning Policy Framework. I mean, it's clearly up to the committee to do that one, but do you want to park that and I'll come back as other members won't think. Catherine, you are there and then Victor. Thank you, Chair. I guess I have a slightly different concern, Sean. Having looked at the environmental permit, there's no quantity on the environmental permit in terms of the volume that can be injected. But yet there's a quantity in the papers, our papers. And the quantity in our papers is 25 meters cubed per day. And as far as I can tell, based on a quick calculation, that's more than the oil that's being extracted every day. And based on my understanding of physics, if you extract a volume and then inject a higher volume, pressure goes up. It's not maintained. And all of the discussion we've had has been about maintaining pressure. Now, I understand that that's something the EA should be determining. But because there's no volume included in the permit and because we're permitting something, I'm suddenly slightly concerned that we have overstepped what we should be doing. And if we knew that number was higher, we should have gone back to the EA and questioned it. And I'm uncomfortable having just, and that's my fault because I'm an engineer. So I'm going to go away and I'm going to look at numbers and I'm going to, you know, I always do. And I know that that's not necessarily a planning thing per se, but I am concerned that we are setting something in what we've done that should be covered by a different agency. Thank you, Chairman. I mean, I appreciate, as you say, there is a difficulty there because what falls within our remits is the planning authority. But it sounds like your concern is perhaps we are imposing a limit that is at odds with the permit, but also raises this question as to how much is actually going to go in and how much is permitted to go in. I mean, my understanding of the framing of the application by the applicant is they are seeking upper limits. They are not resolving to inject 25 cubic meters a day. I don't think the permission requires that amount to be injected per day. That is an upper limit. And the basis of the application is to achieve that reservoir pressure. And as does happen with applications, obviously they don't want to have to constantly be changing it. So we're looking for the absolute maximum, but they can perfectly legitimately operate beneath that that doesn't raise any concerns. I think the difficulty I would have with the sort of issue brought up by Councillor Powell is where that is actually giving rise to a planning harm that would impact upon our decision. It could be something we do want to flag in some form of informative, that there is this issue that maybe the applicant needs to think about how they ensure things are in line. It may to some degree speak back to the point that Councillor Essex was raising about the characterization of the site. And I think it's very clear in planning terms, the characterization of the site will not change to be a waste disposal site. It is primarily an oil extraction site and the activity is only being permitted in association with that. And as Chris alluded to or Lutu said in his presentation, you know, the end dates are all tied back to that. So there's not going to be any ability for this to become, not under this position, for this to become a retained waste disposal site that this activity becomes the primary function of. So I understand the issue, but I'm not entirely sure how it is something that leads to a planning harm that would change our recommendation or change or be able to therefore be necessarily addressed in condition. Well, that's interesting, just the last few words, because I've just come back to the statement from the local member who said that part of what she was saying is the condition that the importation injection should match the extraction of oil at its current rate exactly. Because as you say, there's an upper limit. Well, that doesn't say it works to a lower limit and you can go up to the upper limit, which, you know, with our resident physicist, you can, you know, you could bring up, it creates an imbalance. You know, I understand that creates an imbalance. So therefore, maybe the, I would suggest, and to the officers first and foremost, that the local member's suggestion of condition creating that balance is possibly one way forward on this. I think the issue then sort of goes back to the other point, which is the, sorry, I was trying to find the right word, but us stepping into a regime that's beyond the purview of planning. So that would normally be the kind of thing that you would expect to be more regulated through permitting or essentially through that, through a different regulatory regime. And if we impose a condition, we're potentially making the conflict more overt, whereas at the moment it's in the terms of the application rather than being locked into a condition. And, and again, there would be an argument also, if you, on a planning perspective, there's no limitations placed on them currently. So we would have to be able in our reasoning for any such condition, explain why this gave rise to a harm that needed to be mitigated through that. And, and I think it, it's, it's a difficulty that I'm, I'm not sure we would solve. Okay, so do we go for an informative then? Vice Chairman, do you want to come in? Chair, through you. Vice Chairman, they're not asking for the storage to be increased. So whatever goes into the site is limited by the amount of storage that exists already. They're not asking for storage increase, no. So there is only that tank at the moment. Victor, you want to come in? Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Edward. Just following what Geoffrey was saying earlier, Am I, is it the case if we reject this application, the applicant basically won't be able to extract these last few barrels of oil that they were talking about? Or is it the case it will just be at a slower rate? And are we talking thousands of barrels, these, you know, last few barrels that they're talking about? Or is it just a few hundred? So I'm not sure about that. Yeah, thank you. In terms of the number, according to the applicant's statement, they say that based on the simple estimation of additional recovery, it could be achieved through increasing recovery, incremental production of 300,000 barrels of indigenous-produced oil can be achieved by injection of produced water, which is the existing injection well. So if they don't inject this, I'm all right in saying that they won't be able to extract these 300,000 barrels? What would happen is they would not be able to do it via this method. Technically, the permission doesn't, they have a permission to extract that. So if there was another route that they could extract that through, which, you know, didn't need this extra permission, then they could. So they would not be able to use this method to extract that remaining oil if this permission was not granted. We have a suggestion from Geoffrey that there is a refusal. And the officer said, to do that, we need some sound planning, defendable conditions for that refusal. You would reason and clearly show the weighting of factors in that reasoning. So, Geoffrey, do you want to pursue that recommendation if the committee is minded to support you? And have you got any suggestions on reasons why the committee should agree on that should be agreed? No, my reason for refusal along those grounds would be on the basis that it is for the applicant to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist. So it would be to contradict the idea that that has been demonstrated. That would be the basis on which I would be making that move on that. I would be cautious about anything being phrased in that way because it is not that the applicant has to demonstrate it. I mean, the applicant should be clear in their application what their view is. But ultimately, a decision maker could find very special circumstances where they hadn't been put forward by an applicant. So if, in a completely hypothetical scenario, if someone were to refuse something because they don't believe very special circumstances existed, they would be saying, my view as the decision maker is that they don't exist. You may phrase that technically as, you know, they have not been demonstrated to exist. But you are saying you have not seen any evidence that very special circumstances exist at the point of making the decision. Yeah, yes, I mean, obviously the motion would use the passive voice and say that the reasons had not been demonstrated. I wouldn't, unless you want to contradict me, I wouldn't see that it was, the onus would be on me to kind of say, you know, what they might be and why they don't exist. Absolutely, the decision maker doesn't need to sort of come up with other things that might exist. But you would need to be clear as to why you've discounted those things that have been proffered as very special circumstances. So you would need to be clear as to why you were saying, actually, the weight that should be given to the national policy is lesser. I'm not wasting the committee's time. I'm not sensing that there's a great desire to seize upon what I'm saying. So, you know, I'm happy to let it rest unless this enthusiasm for what I'm saying suddenly emerges. Right, one suggestion, but Catherine, you wanted to come in on something. Yes, I've just pulled up the decision notice for the environmental permit, and it does raise a question about what controls are there that the pressure in the reservoir will remain safe. And the response reads, the installation permit contains, so this is not the amendment but the original permit, the installation permit contains limits on the produced water injection rates and the rates which have been determined to be appropriate from an environmental perspective. This is discussed in the installation permit decision document. The potential for water injection of produced water to cause earth tremors or other geological effects is outside the scope of a Schedule 23 EPR. So, essentially, the permit that they got was really about radioactive materials being injected rather than about volumes or reviewing data based on other information. So, I think an informative to basically ask that that is reviewed by the EA would be appropriate based on their own decision notice because there are other issues being raised and that it should review the impact of the research that was referenced earlier. It's not a planning issue, but I think it... I'm concerned that we are... It looks like we're increasing the volume in what we're agreeing based on the papers, even though potentially we're not for all the reasons you've described, but I would be really uncomfortable if it's not included in there somewhere as an informative. I understand it's a permit issue. I truly understand that. I would just say, absolutely, if members do resolve with that informative, I would just suggest we finalise the wording, and I can share that with Councillor Powell and yourself, Chairman, after the meeting if we get to that point. Ernest. Mr. Chairman, I totally oppose that. We are not the technical adjutants in this discussion. It's entirely down to the EA. If the EA is satisfied, it's not within our remit. And also, I'd point out that informants have no actual legal standing whatsoever, and so it's a completely pointless diversion for the committee to be considering taking. I do wish... I mean, this is not a technical committee of the EA. This is a planning committee, and we're here to look at planning reasons. And we shouldn't be listening, even, in my opinion, to discussions about technical matters which are not our remit. I totally oppose this, and while I'm speaking, I would like to say this. I have a long experience on planning committees, and if we are not careful and we get led by certain members into going for a refusal or, indeed, an amendment that isn't actually well backed and backed completely by technical officers and so on, then we run the risk of putting this council into hundreds of thousands of pounds of costs. If somebody goes to appeal because we're making a rather silly and pedantic reason for refusal and the inspector says that that doesn't stand up on appeal, then the applicant can go, in this case, for all of his costs that would have occurred had we had permission, but he's actually had to delay it in the course of refusal or other things. And, you know, I think some members on this committee are treating planning in a true light. They're treating it as a personal matter. It's not a personal matter. It's what the rules say and what our remit is, and that's what we should stick to. Right. I'm not going to get involved in that part of the argument. What I'm going to say, though, is one of the strengths of this committee, of all committees of the County Council, is the wide variety of members with a variety of skills and independent views, with a small I, I point out, maybe it picks me up on that, but that they can bring to the table. And then the skill of us all is distilling that information and arriving at a defendable, I underline that word, reasoning on decision, which is placed on a serious onus that we have, a serious responsibility. But I think that is the strength of this committee. And we have some various talents that people bring to the table. But I hear what you say on informative, and I'm not going to get sucked in that argument. And I leave that to the legal team, if they wish to comment on that. But thank you, Ernest. Right. Okay. Geoffrey, you are not pursuing the refusal. Right. We've been through this. There are differing views. There are concerns on this. Catherine, are you looking for... We've had two suggestions on informative, accepting that it is something you... I had one from a local member, and I think... They are. Yeah. Stop reading my script, please. They dovetail together, I was going to use the word. But I think, do we want to put most of those in and have one informative, which I'm going to let you lead on that one, because, you know, Helen's made these... Well, I was having said that. It is very much that the importation injection should match the extraction of the oil. The wording can be sorted out in due course, so I'm not going to design that wording now. And how would you... What else would you like to bring into that? I think we just need to recognise the permit and the EA's responsibility. I think we can work about... I think we know what we want to say. We just need to work at it offline if people are happy with that. Absolutely, I can do that. I think I would just be cautious from Chairman what you were saying around Councillor Clark's comments. You wouldn't want to put on an informative that was attempting to impose a limit that went beyond the scope of what a planning permission potentially should do. So it may be, again, reflecting in the concerns Councillor Powell has sort of raised as to how that relates back to the permitting regime, but not specifying a, you must do X rate. How about no additional storage facilities to be allowed on site? It comes back to the point that Cathy was making about the impact of the more water going in on site and the impact on the... It's creating that balance, and somehow we need to arrive at some wording that is going to meet that balance. Yeah, we can look at creating that balance and making sure the applicant's aware of the different regulatory regimes, they must be creating that balance across, between, but across as an informative, it's a advisory. That I accept. So, members, there is a recommendation contained in the papers, and there is an informative already on the update. I'm using that word softly, and I find it. It's in the packets. The recommendation added informative on page six of the supplementary information. I'm not quite sure why that's adding informative, but I think then that should be left to the... Chris? Yeah, just to explain, it's just a standard informative to consider applications in a positive and proactive manner. It should have gone on at the point that the agenda was published. Right. Members, we have that and the new informative, the wording to be agreed with the officers, vice chairman and myself. Are we agreeable to the recommendation members? Please indicate. Sorry, is this a general approval? Yes. Against? Members, that has been carried nine votes to one, if my math is correct. Thank you for that. That is the end of the agenda. Thank you, members of the public, for being here. Thank you for those on the internet. The next meeting is on the... where I find the right date, pardon. The 23rd of April. But before I go there, can I wish Ernest a very happy birthday at the weekend? Is it the weekend, or...? Thank you. Thank you. April 6th, I'll be 90. 90. I look forward to reading your book on how you manage it. That's all I can say. But have a wonderful time, and... I'll tell you if I survive the party. Let's hope you do. Thank you very much, everybody. Goodbye.