Plans to extend an oil site and build a new pipeline should be refused unless more information is provided because it could affect a prehistoric cemetery, historians have warned.

An official response to the proposals said the oil company, Egdon Resources, had been advised more than a year ago to carry out archaeological field work on the land at Wressle, in north Lincolnshire.

The company had accepted there could be prehistoric archaeological remains in the area, including a bronze age barrow cemetery on the pipeline route.

But the results of any field surveys were not included in the planning application submitted to North Lincolnshire Council last month. 

The proposals for Wressle, the UK’s second largest onshore oil producer, include increasing the site’s footprint by about a third, drilling two new wells and installing a 600m gas pipeline.

The council’s historic environment officer, Alison Williams, commenting on the proposals, said:

“The planning authority cannot make a balanced planning decision nor agree any mitigation measures that may be appropriate in accordance with policy until the archaeological evaluation fieldwork is undertaken and the results made available for consideration.

“The application as it currently stands does not contain sufficient information about the archaeological interest and significance of the site to allow such an assessment [of the  archaeology] to be made.”

She advised there should be a “holding objection” until the fieldwork results could be reviewed.

But she added:

“If the applicant does not submit the information and the application has to be decided in its current form, the application should be refused”.

Ms Williams said the current application failed to comply with national and local planning policy. It was contrary to paragraphs 200 and 201 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy C26 of the local core strategy and policy HE9 of the local plan, she said.

In her formal advice to council planners, she said pre-application guidance had been given to Egdon Resources in March 2023. The company had been advised to carry out desk-based research and fieldwork, including a geophysical survey and excavation of sample trial trenches.

Ms Williams said the application site was in an area where there was “potential for significant archaeology” from the bronze age and prehistoric eras.

“The applicant has submitted an Historic Environment desk-based assessment that identifies the potential.

But she said:

“Contrary to our advice, the applicant has not submitted the results of archaeological field evaluation with their application.”

Ms Williams said the field evaluation should be carried out by a suitably qualified archaeological contractor, following guidance from Historic England and the Chartered Institute of Archaeology.

It should include:

1. Geophysical survey of proposed extension site and pipeline route
2. Excavation of sample trial trenches to determine the nature, extent, state of preservation and importance of any archaeological remains

Specifications for the two stages should be agreed with council staff in advance, she said.

After the field evaluation, the applicant should update the Heritage Statement, Ms Williams said. The revised document should explain what steps would be taken to avoid, minimise or mitigate any harm to the significance of archaeological heritage assets.

Other responses to Wressle plans

Anglian Water: No comment

Appleby Parish Council: Agreed in principal to the proposal but had reservations about the impact on residents in Clappgate from site construction and maintenance and the transport of any extracted oil.   

Environment Agency: No objection but the application did not include a hydrogeological risk assessment. The site will also require variations to its existing permit.

Humberside Fire and Rescue: The proposals should include adequate access and water supplies for fire fighting

National grids: No gas or electricity transmission assets affected

Details of Wressle planning application

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.