The WW received the following comment concerning a recent post. We believe this to be of such importance to our borough we have now included the information provided to us.
Here’s our post.
Email: protect.dunsfold@gmail.com
If folk truly want to help they should listen to Cllr Ernest Mallett on the webcast around 1 hour 23 minutes and to the subsequent clarifications from lawyers on what this committee is empowered to do – which is very little.
Cllr Mallett is very clear that NOW is the time to examine the whole project and Surrey planning officers have been disingenuous in suggesting that we need not worry as the implications for production can be considered when there is a subsequent application.
Residents can still raise their objections here
https://planning.surreycc.gov.
Here is the Webcast
https://surreycc.public-i.tv/c
He states
“the fact is that the exploration and appraisal stages which we have approved predicate production if in fact that production is possible, if it is not possible it does not happen … to a large extent in my opinion the production phase doesn’t necessarily — is not looking to planning as being a natural area for refusal.
He goes on to assume there is no carbon cost of exploration while transport costs automatically are assumed to cost more emissions.
Mallett opines that we must stick by rules and conventions even if unpopular.
95% of the reasons for refusal on production are the same as for exploration and so have already been dealt with then – not small and temporary then? exploration predicates production permission at the discretion of the explorer.
In this case we should be expecting Cllr Mallett to move that the officers were wrong to waiver a full Environmental Impact assessment before the “small and temporary” decision on Dunsfold. The application MUST be deferred so that the genuine planning matters that will be involved in the production of hydrocarbons from the site can be investigated in full including all options on pipelines for both gas and oil, local powerstations and so on.
As he so eloquently says, giving permission to explore “predicates” that permission to produce will be granted if commercial production is found to be possible.
Surrey Planning Lawyers state that the only real power that they have is to determine if the development is an acceptable use of the land and they must assume that all the other regulatory agencies will do their job.
So far from it being a trivial decision on a “small and temporary” application this is the first and only opportunity for Surrey MPA to review whether this site is an appropriate use of land for the next 25 years. There will not be another opportunity to examine this and…
Mallett goes on to say that our duty is to produce local hydrocarbons because of the carbon emissions arising from importing by sea. In this he ignores the fact that you need about 10 exploration wells to get one producing well – each exploration well causes significant emissions and pollution so every exploration well as a minimum should be required to buy carbon credits to the value of 10 times the carbon emitted during drilling one exploration well which can be traded back when production starts at the rate per barrel of the carbon emissions associated with transporting that barrel by sea.
In fact a more certain and much easier way to reduce the emissions in the round might not be to explore for oil locally but to invest in reducing the emissions of supertankers that are bringing oil from already developed production resources – we already know where all the oil is that we can possibly burn before we must meet our Net Zero obligations.
Apparently Cranleigh Cllr Liz Townsend – can stand no more – as pipes continue to burst all over Cranleigh and the nearby villages. Despite hammering home her concerns at a Flood Forum headed by MP Anne Milton – incidents are getting worse – not better! Bombarding the utilities with e-mails isn’t getting the results she wants, for her increasingly frustrated residents.
