2^nd May 2014

West Sussex County Council has issued a statement in response to charges that it ignored its own motion on approving oil and gas developments when it gave the green light to Cuadrilla’s plans at Balcombe.

Opponents of Cuadrilla’s application to flow test its oil exploration well argued that a motion passed by the full council in October last year was incompatible with granting planning permission.

The motion stated:

The County Council will consider granting planning permission for exploration, appraisal and/or production only after considering the following matters:

(1) that arrangements to meet, monitor and enforce the conditions attached to the planning permission (including those relating to the Minutes protection of the local environment) are adequate.

(2) that local communities will be fully consulted prior to exploration, appraisal and/or production, and that the developer has minimised, mitigated or compensated for any damage to the local environment.

(3) that community benefits from exploration, appraisal and/or production can be secured through consensual or voluntary arrangements with the developer.

Balcombe resident, Louisa Delpy, spoke against the application at Tuesday’s planning committee meeting. She said the conditions proposed by council officers were not adequate; the community had not been fully consulted and there had been no benefits proposed by the developer.

Ms Delpy said: “In the terms of this motion alone, councillors must vote to oppose this application.”

Bill Acraman, the county councillor for the area that includes Balcombe, recommended the application be deferred. He told the committee: “If we give permission today then we are going against the spirit of that motion from last year.”

But the committee voted to approve the application by 12 to one.

When asked by InvestigatingBalcombeAndCuadrilla.com how this decision squared with the motion passed last year, the council issued the following statement:

West Sussex County Council’s planning committee today approved plans for temporary oil and gas exploration at Lower Stumble Wood near Balcombe subject to additional conditions in response to objections raised to the application by Cuadrilla.

The conditions were that:

• 24-hour light monitoring around the edge of the site be undertaken to protect wildlife
• Proposed access routes to be reconsidered by Cuadrilla as a result of concerns raised.
• That all sound from the site be continuously monitored.
• That a liaison group is established between residents and Cuadrilla .

Heidi Brunsdon, Chairman of the Committee, said after the decision: “As Chairman I thought the debate was robust. Members gave all the issues a good airing and the further conditions we agreed might not go as far as some would have wanted, but we feel they were proportionate and fair in addressing the issues that members of the committee had surrounding this application.”

More than 100 members of the public attended today’s meeting at County Hall North in Horsham.

Lib Dem councillors, James Walsh, (Littlehampton East) and Morwen Millson (Horsham Riverside) proposed and seconded the motion last year. We asked them whether they thought the planning committee’s decision was compatible with their motion. We’ll let you know what they said if, and when, they respond.

The rules for agreeing motions are covered by the council’s standing orders. These include:

• Motions must be submitted within an agreed time before the meeting
• Motions must be included in the agenda of the meeting
• Motions must be relevant to something over which the County Council has power, or which affects the county. (16.5)
• Factual background information about a motion will be provided before the meeting
• In most cases the council will not allow motions that rescind other motions passed in the previous six months. motions which are inconsistent with any decisions made within the preceding six months or motions to the same effect as one which has been rejected within the past six months.
• Once a motion has been seconded, it cannot be altered or withdrawn by the proposer without the consent of the county council.

The meeting of the full council on October 18th approved Cllr Walsh and Millson’s motion and there is nothing to suggest that it did not follow the rules.