Oil and gas well at Dunsfold refused permission
Drilling application turned down for a second time
An oil and gas well at Dunsfold was refused planning permission last week (27 November), for the second time.
UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) asked for temporary consent for three years, to explore a site south of Dunsfold Road and east of High Loxley Road.
County councillors said they worried that the drilling would ruin the landscape and that HGVs coming off Horsham Road onto Dunsfold Road would pose a risk to safety.
Epsom West councillor Bernie Muir said it was not satisfactory to speculate some jobs might come along when actual jobs were under threat.
Two neighbours told the committee how their businesses, which they said contributed a combined £4.5 million to the local economy, would be ‘crippled’ by the erection of a 37 metre-high oil rig.
Tom Gordon, at High Billinghurst Farm, provides a venue for weddings boasting beautiful views.
While Ashley Herman, of Thatched House Farm, runs the cancer awareness and holistic health festival Trew Fields, which attracts 1,000 people each year and whose campsite is just 100 metres from the proposed well.
Shere councillor Keith Taylor said a production site at Albury in his ward did not cause any problems.
But Dr Andrew Povey, councillor for Cranleigh and Ewhurst, said it was wrong to make a comparison with a site where extraction was taken away by pipeline:
"I cannot think of anything worse, when you’ve this designated area of outstanding natural beauty, to put a 37m tower in it defies belief".
Cllr Povey said the A281 had four right angle bends and that a signpost at the junction with the B2130 said it was unsuitable for HGVs.
Andy Stokes, a planning officer at Surrey County Council, said the signage was advisory only; he had not found any evidence of HGV tyre tracks on the verges and there had been no accidents involving HGVs.
Cllr Povey said: "There have been a whole series of accidents around those corners and the fact that none have involved an HGV, thank goodness, because it would have been a lot worse."
Chartered town planner Nigel Moore, part of the design team for the UKOG application, said 934 HGVs already use Dunsfold Road weekly and ten more a day would not make a material difference.
HGV movements would have been allowed 9am-5pm Monday to Thursday and 9am-1pm Friday and Saturday, and the site would have operated 7am-7pm Monday to Friday and 9am-1pm Saturday.
Victoria Young, councillor for Waverley Eastern Villages, was unhappy that conditions of a traffic management plan would only have come after the application was decided.
She also said the development of up to 2,600 homes at Dunsfold Garden Village could be called into question.
These were said to be critical to Waverley Borough Council’s local plan.
But West Molesey councillor Ernest Mallett said he did not foresee a problem:
"Surrey is very short of housing and they sell almost before the roof is on.
"It isn’t unusual to have mines which run under property."
Mr Moore said exploration was a matter of national importance.
He told the committee: "We need gas now to keep the lights on, and we’ll need it in the future, because we’ll still consume 70% of the gas we do today in the year 2050, the year when we are meant to become a net zero greenhouse gas emitter.
"The UK is currently a net importer of gas, and if we do nothing about this, in 2050 we’ll be dependent on other countries for 86% of our supply.
"Given that gas is a key commodity for our manufacturing base and it heats our homes, hospitals and schools, this level of exposure would amount to a national security risk, as any interruption in supply would have a significant and adverse impact on our economy and social wellbeing.
"Domestic gas is therefore the insurance policy we need, to protect ourselves from any external threat to turn the taps off or spike the prices."
He added: "The liquified natural gas we import from the United States, Russia and the Gulf, has a greenhouse gas content four to five times higher than UK gas.
"We can do wonderful things with our environment, but it counts for nothing if we continue to import."
County councillors debated the proposals for three-and-a-half hours before voting to refuse by six votes to five.
This is the same margin as in June, when Surrey County Council’s planning committee first voted on the application.
That decision was deemed unlawful after many people complained there had been procedural irregularities, in what was the committee’s first meeting held remotely.
It was alleged some members who voted may not have been present for the whole meeting because of technical difficulties, and that some were seen on screen to be communicating with family members.