Overnight working at Brockham. Photo: Brockham Protection Camp
Correspondence seen by DrillOrDrop shows that the planning application submitted by Angus Energy for its Brockham oil site late last year has been found to be invalid by Surrey County Council.
We reported that the company had submitted an application on 20 December 2017.
According to pre-application discussions between the company and the council, Angus appeared to be seeking retrospective permission to drill the sidetrack well, BRX4Z. It also wanted consent to evaluate the flow and volume of oil from the well.
The application and its documents were not published on the council’s web site after Christmas.
An email from a council officer to a resident last week now provides an explanation.
The email, dated 17 January 2018, said:
“The application was found to be invalid and the applicant has been informed. A revised submission is awaited and will be considered on its merits.
“We will let you know when a valid application has been received.”
Redacted version of email
A spokesperson for Surrey County Council said the authority was waiting for additional information form Angus Energy. The application would then be validated and put online. The spokesperson was unable to say when this would be.
“Production from two Brockham wells in Q1”
The council email was sent two days after Angus Energy told investors it would be producing oil from two wells at Brockham in the first quarter of 2018 (January-March).
In a statement, the company said it would reactivate the currently suspended well, BRX2Y, to resume production from the Portland reservoir.
The statement also said it would begin production in quarter one from BRX4Z, which drilled through both the Portland and Kimmeridge formations.
The BRX4Z has been the subject of a planning dispute for a year. Angus has maintained it did not need planning permission to drill the well and the council said it did.
To meet the timetable of production by the end of March from BRX4Z, Angus’s planning application would have had to be ready to go before Surrey County Council’s planning committee on either 21 February 2018 or 21 March 2018.
Meeting this target now looks unlikely.
Drilling at Brockham. Photo: Brockham Protection Camp
Questions over production from the Brockham sidetrack
It also looks unlikely that Surrey County Council had been expecting an application for production, based on correspondence with the company.
Documents released under a Freedom of Information request have given more details on pre-application discussions between the company and the council over oil production from Brockham.
In one document, requesting a screening opinion, Angus Energy made it clear that it was seeking what it called “production evaluation” of the sidetrack and not long-term production. The company said:
“In order to assess BRX4Z it will be subject to an extended period of production evaluation in order to confirm whether the volume and flow of oil is economically viable to support commercial production.
“In order to allow sufficient time to complete this process, permission will be sought for a 3 year period. Wherever possible these works will utilise the existing site infrastructure.”
The company also said:
“The proposed application will not seek permission for long-term production.”
Surrey County Council wrote to Angus on 7 November 2017 to confirm that the application did not need an environmental impact assessment (link to email).
Two days later, the council’s planning development manager wrote to the company to “clarify a couple of points”.
This email said:
“Firstly, production evaluation is not a terminology that we are familiar with. We understand this to equate to appraisal, the second stage of development as stated in the NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework], and not production, the third. We consider that the temporary nature of the proposal points towards this.”
The email from the council continued:
“Secondly, after further consideration, our view is that the proposed application would be for a stand-alone permission”.
The council said the application would not seek to vary a permission granted in 2007 for oil production at Brockham until 2036.
According to the email, that permission, reference MO06/1294, related solely to two other wells at the site, BRX1 and BRX2.
The email concluded:
“I trust that now you have received our screening response, a planning application will be submitted shortly. If you would like to meet with officers in advance of your submission, we would be happy to accommodate that.”
Comment from Angus Energy
DrillOrDrop invited Angus Energy to comment on the invalid application. This post will be updated with any response.
The company added to the FAQ section of its website on 21 January 2018. DrillOrDrop report on this response and link to the website.
Updated on 21 January 2018 to include a redacted version of the email with the permission of the recipient and on 22 January 2018 to include a quote from Surrey County Council
Categories: Regulation
DRILL OR DROP? 
Makes you wonder if Angus Energy intend to go ahead regardless of what the Council say, and argue about it afterwards as they did before?
Angus really don’t care about planning permission. They’ve broken it on countless occasions already so we should kick them off the site not give them retrospective or more permissions. They can’t be trusted.
What a shambles , one year on from blatantly ignoring planning permission whilst openly telling investors that they had all permissions in place . If this is how oil and gas companies think they can behave then they deserve the consequences . They can’t be trusted , something that had to be highlighted by those who kept their eyes open at Brockham . [Edited by moderator]
Hell yes!
Oops they have messed it up again!
Has anyone noticed that when an Oil and Gas company makes a hash of something, like this Invalid planning application, there appears to be an absence of comments from the usual one or two pro-frackers (plus their numerous posts under various pseudonyms)?
Investors in AE do appear to have been misled. They could consider re-investing in renewable energy sources.
Totally agree Waffle , it’s good to see Angus helping to show how badly they run their business , if they can’t do simple paperwork and choose to ignore planning law they I dread to think what their safety measures are like.
Wonder why “invalid” is in quotes!
Just might be a clue there. But, it is a cold damp weekend and I’m sure some can do with the “excitement”.
“Invalid” is placed in quotes to show it is a direct quotation from one of the parties – in this case Surrey County Council.
In planning terms a valid planning application comprises:
* Information requested on the standard application form
* Mandatory national information requirements, including a design and access statement if one is required
* Information specified on an Local Planning Authority’s local list
See the Planning Portal – https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200126/applications/58/the_decision-making_process/3
If an application fails one of these tests, it is said to be invalid, and the Planning Authority will request extra information from the applicant in writing, by phone or email.
In this case, the “excitement” comes because Angus have announced they will be producing from 4 wells by the end of Q1. This delay, concerning the controversial BRX4Z, makes that timetable very amibitious.
You state there is a delay…but in actual fact you have no idea if there is one and are merely speculating on that potential eventuality. SCC are not holding a planning meeting in January so if Angus Energy do need to supply further information to SCC it could well be that this is done in time for the February or March meetings and no delay incurred whatsoever.
Apologies that I didn’t express myself clearly. I should have said “This delay in validating the application…” You are quite right that the planning process may be completed in time for the February or March SCC planning meeting, but I think the timetable for achieving this is ambitious, particularly if time needs to be set aside for a public consultation.
Government standards suggest an 8 week timetable for deciding on an application after it has been validated, rising to 13 weeks for a major scheme (which normally covers onshore oil and gas) or 16 weeks if an Environmental Impact Assessment is required.
So Angus now admit to clerical errors ? From their updated FAQs “Angus Energy is pleased with the progress of the application. The company is working quickly and efficiently to provide the SCC with additional details and rectify any clerical errors.” Any errors are Angus’s and the reporting here is correct imo
The LPA requesting additional relevant supporting information is part of the standard process, as and when necessary.
So the story boils down to a couple of typos? I guess that’s enough for some folk to get excited.
What about some coverage of anti-oil protestors’ attempts to poison a guard dog at Kirby Misperton, as reported by BBC on 8th Jan, which seems to have been conveniently avoided by DoD?
Apologies for posting this comment again.
Latest on the incident involving a guard dog “being poisoned” at KM8 Kirby Misperton
DrillOrDrop reported the arrests in this incident here: https://drillordrop.com/2018/01/08/protest-update-8-14-january-2018/
and also in the January headlines for 9 January 2018 https://drillordrop.com/2018/01/02/drilling-headlines-january-2018/
(21/1/18) We understand that no-one has been charged over the dog falling ill. Third Energy’s operations director told local television that the dog suffered anaphylactic shock from eating aniseed balls. Should there be any charges arising from this incident, DrillOrDrop will report them, along with any court cases.
Thanks for providing the links. This website’s search function doesn’t return either result when searching for “dog”, probably due to it not being in the headline but buried within the article.
There are apparently screenshots from a ‘protectors’ Facebook page wherein there is talk of throwing stuff over the fence to “keep the dog quiet”. It just so happens the aniseed balls, which seemingly came from one of the protectors’ vehicles, made their way over the fence shortly after some verbal disagreement with a security guard.
Aniseed balls may sound insignificant to humans, but aniseed can indeed be poisonous when ingested by dogs, something that was undoubtedly known when the sweets were thrown over the fence.
The two men arrested remain on bail and are not alllowed anywhere near the site.
It’s pretty clear what has gone on here, whether charges arise from the matter or otherwise.
Anyway…back to the main story…those typos that Angus Energy are going to correct and resubmit along with the additional relevant supporting information that is par for the course with planning applications pre validation.
Hi R8 LMX
Sorry the site search is not as good as it might be. You can also search the site using Google by entering the search term in the usual way followed by site:drillordrop.com (so dog site:drillordrop.com in this case)
“There are apparently screenshots from a ‘protectors’ Facebook page wherein there is talk of throwing stuff over the fence to “keep the dog quiet”. It just so happens the aniseed balls, which seemingly came from one of the protectors’ vehicles, made their way over the fence shortly after some verbal disagreement with a security guard.”
That is a serious accusation pee…..mar…..R8 LMX, the words, “apparently” and “seemingly” are seemingly apparent of some degree of lack of sustantiation dont you think? Would you care to elighten us a substantiate slander that with screenshots and incontravertable evidence? I am sure the police would be ever so grateful? However, if that is just empty claims from…..whatever source…. then i believe there are legal ways to establish that once and for all?
Do tell?
The errors aren’t clear to me. There seems to be more heat than light being generated. For Ruth to quote the issue raised by the BBC report, in quotes i.e. the “invalid” bit, is perfectly reasonable journalism – it is being raised as a question, not as a matter of activism. But it’s also fair to question its use as headline grabber.
Could there have been an over-reaction to the ‘side-track’ proposal in the first place? It’s the kind of wording that rings alarm bells with those worried about fracking. But side-tracks, or deviated bore holes are used regularly for conventional well drilling and don’t imply hydraulic fracking. On the Angus site they have stated “There is no Fracking at Brockham Field. Nor will there ever be”.
What exactly is being objected to? I haven’t seen the latest proposals but could this be a storm in a tea cup?