Highways officials have withdrawn their objection to a plan to explore for oil on the Isle of Wight.
Island Roads, the organisation which manages local highways, had previously recommended that a planning application by UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) at Arreton be refused.
It said the site, on the A3506 between Newport and Sandown, may be a hazard to road users.
Officials had criticised the plans for unacceptable visibility splays and junction, as well as inadequate access, parking and turning area and insufficient information on issues such as drainage and access by large vehicles.
In October 2020, UKOG published revised plans which included a new access. UKOG said this “achieved the required visibility”.
A response from Island Roads was published online today.
It said the revised scheme was acceptable, providing UKOG met nine conditions including on traffic management, drainage, keeping the highway clean, signage, road conditions, protecting public rights of way and dealing with very large vehicles.
On the new junction, Alan White, highway development control manager, said:
“it is no longer anticipated that this application will result in an increase in the potential for traffic accidents on the A3056 about the point of the proposed site access”.
The new plans have removed gates and bollards from the immediate junction with the A3056. Vehicles were not now likely to block the public highway when they waited at the gates to enter the site, Mr White said.
“As a result, the proposed junction arrangement is now deemed to be acceptable from a gate setback and standing vehicles perspective.”
Mr White also said the revised plans now provided the required forward visibility and adequate space for access, leaving, turning and loading. But he said the visibility splays must not be blocked and the site could not be occupied until the required sight lines had been provided.
UKOG’s new plans allow for 20 parking spaces for staff cars. Mr White said:
“These will need to be made available for use throughout the build, operation and decommissioning stage should the application be approved.”
If the scheme were approved, UKOG should be required to avoid traffic movements at peak times from 7.30am-9am and 4pm-6pm, he said.
New consultation
The public will have a chance to comment on the revised plans in a new consultation which runs from early January until 12 February 2021.
Details of the application are on the Isle of Wight Council planning website.
Categories: Regulation
DRILL OR DROP? 
Always going to be the case.
Anyone familiar with the building industry knows that highway access is an initial issue, and then is sorted following discussion and tweeks.
Next.
The supplied (originally 1:500) Swept Path Analysis drawing mentioned is: 2G-UKOG-A3-PA-30 and is a .PDF scan of a folded (and therfore is not to scale) A2 drawing marked HGV SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS DURING PROPOSED DRILLING MODE LAYOUT PLAN.
The better copy of the supplied drawing can be downloaded as a .PDF and is the twentieth attachment down the list supplied.
The list as shown in Drill Or Drops subject text and is shown here:
https://publicaccess.iow.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=Q7DSVFIQ07V00
The Drill Or Drop copy is a .JPEG and is of a lower definition than the .PDF in order to save space.
What is shown on the .PDF drawing is just what is stated. A swept path analysis. Not a visibility splay drawing.
In fact the visibility splays are only vague digital lines and are not annotated or shown as the necessary visibiity splays for that model of, what is assumed to be an HGV on a track of that type or construction.(blurred on the .PDF copy of the drawing and not separately annotated).
In fact the swept path analysis is a digital (idealised) track of a vehicular swept path that only relates to that particular vehicle on a digital map. There is no indication of the original track dimensions or limits and how much land is therefore necessary to be obtained to ensure the track alaysis works in the real world, and how much construction to HGV or LHGV standards needs to be obtained and constructed.
Such a digital track analyses are not real world tracks and real world vehicles on the real track will rarely reflect what is shown on a digital representation. In fact the drawing shows no justified visibility splays except for vague lines and those are not detailed as owned or annotated at all.
The vehicular Swept Path Track Analysis itself is for a vehicle which is shown but the text is blurred and unreadable even on the .PDF. The extent of the Swept Path Analysis is not shown other than stuccato overhang indications and that is not separately annotated either. As to whether this is the correct vehicle is not justified, particularly as rig delivery will be on an LHGV which will exceed the dimensions and the loads from a standard HGV.
It is noted that the internal very sharp turning circle within the site itself clearly over tracks the raised catwalk construction and may well distort and undermine the structure.
The question arises, who produced the digital map, (not indicated) and how accurate was it, and where are the details of when and by whom the digital survey was carried out, what was the precise vehicle the swept path analysis was drawn for and what other vehicles could have been tracked, such as an LHGV for carrying a rig in and out of the site. Was this all an internal UKOG production, and how can that be justified in the real world on the actual site.
None of that is shown or annotated. nor is the entance/exit shown or annotated for the track junction where it eventually adjoins the public road and what swept path track analysis and visibility splays pertain there is not shown at all.
Another question that arises, is that, is the track, as shown on the plan, capable of taking the load from such a vehicle and what measures will be taken to pre-strengthen, or to subsequently reconstruct the track so that it may be capable of taking such a load. Particularly as the turning movements tend to rip and tear the surface, and the imposed vehicular load tends to distort and damage the underlying structure of the track. The structural capability of that track may be practically non existent other than for farm vehicles, as many farm tracks are merely top rolled in gravel and stone with no underlying structural capability. To what degree subsequent vehicular movements will exacerbate and further distort and damage whatever sub structure that does exist, if at any all.
A further question that arises, is that at the top right of the drawing, is shown a key, one of which indicates a blue line, which is an indication of land in which UKOG “has an interest in”. On looking at the swept path analysis, you will note that one of those blue lines runs across the proposed entrance/eggress track. So that a parcel of land is not even in UKOGs ownership or agreement, but is merely “land that UKOG has interest in”. in other words UKOG do not own, or have an agreement of land along the proposed access/egress track.
It is a matter of interest therefore, how a track swept path analysis can be approved along a track which the proposer does not own, or have any agreement upon, but merely, “has an interest on”.
Perhaps the Isle Of Wight Council should be asked to comment on these pertinent questions to the public of The Isle Of Wight and to answer any other questions that may arise regarding this “approval”.
Always a pleasure.
Have a good Christmas one and all. Bah Humbuggers not withstanding.
Enjoy
Enjoy
The answer to the questions, is that those who have examined all the proposals, and have the responsibility ie. the highways officials, state the revised scheme is acceptable with certain conditions attached.
Not liking that answer does not change the reality that the questions have been fully addressed by those with the responsibility and the answer has been given.
Meanwhile, those who came out with the same regarding HH, may wish to re-act the same scene. The result will be the same.
Christmas time is a time for repeats of fantasy. They still end the same way.
Have a happy one.
Speak of the devil…….
Who mentioned anything about “Not liking the answer?” by the way.
Not me. I merely raised some interesting questions about the “approval”. It is the habit it seems of those who dont like any such pertinent question to be asked at all, and hence try to divert away into some opinionated irrelevance such as we see regularly, which may suit to divert others, but will never, in fact ever, address the issues of the subject matter whatsoever.
Of course, we can assume that the odd imaginary reference to “not liking” must be one of those weird fantasies the petro-glyphbots are so fond of? There is of course there are those that always comment with the odd, the very oddest of fantasies on Drill or Drop isnt there.
Back to the subject in hand however, clearly the pertinent questions have not been addressed at all by the Isle Of Wight Council’s traffic representatives, let alone answered.
Apparently the Isle of Wight Council are completely responsible and answerable to their own constituents, to whom i addressed the questions so that they may ask their own Council in regard to the issues in hand.
But of course that is one of those almost extinct operations of democracy, something that we used to all take for granted, but is fast disappearing beneath the onslaught from the various corporate dictatorships, as is clearly displayed here.
This is fun!
Bah Humbug indeed!
You personally have not been handed a point by point reply therefore the points have never been considered? You are neither involved in the process nor important enough to be consulted. You are just a person who has read a couple of text books on HVG movements and have pulled out a few references to make it sound as if you are some expert identifying holes so huge that the entire scheme is compromised. In effect you are telling the professionals they simply haven’t got a clue and you are questioning their ethics with respect to their professional qualifications and chartered registration. THAT is why submissions like yours tend to be filed in the bin and ignored. Rather than raise issues you actually raise tempers. You serve the course of UKOG well, keep it up chum.
Another who had a bad Christmas! Got put on the “nasty” list no doubt? Looks like you were not alone either…..
The inconvenient truth from that miserable bitter bile soaked perspective old thing, and that of the other bitter pea in that uncomfortable support bubble. Is that I’m a fully qualified Civil Engineer with three other degrees in various subjects. I’ve said all that before on Driil or Drop btw.
GDYOR.
So. No. Completely wrong arent you. But dont dont aplogise, I would hate for you to burst into tears. It might fuse that tiny Christmas decoration on that corporate Sunday shift hot desk…..
My comments, unlike yours, are based upon actual real world knowledge old thing. What is squeezed out there above is…..a bit of a dribble to be honest. Hardly there at all. Nothing a dry clean wouldnt remedy anyway.
So yes, I can very well comment and already have to the Isle of Wight Council on behalf of the constituents. The constituents are free to copy and send my first post too.
For your information, not that you deserve it, you understand, is that I know more about swept path analyses and visibility splay analyses and so many more engineering concepts, and at a far higher standard than the miserable and miserly effort presented by UKOG will ever achieve.
Its a fun program. You ought to try it sometime. But there again, clealy it would require qualifications and training that the commenter’s “contribution” shows only too clearly, does not possess.
So, there you are old bean, those wasted efforts above are completely wrong i’m pleased to say.
Not only that from the “contribution” above clearly know nothing of the subject. And that alone disqualifies any such rabid comments from that direction as being merely baseless uninformed barking. I have grandchildren who speak and write with a more adult attitude and grown up content than that.
There, all better informed now?
You better answer that bell, Jacob doesnt like to be kept waiting you know…..
Someone who now does not understand the planning process!
Hardly surprising, but at last an admission.
A repetition of the same put forward regarding HH. Ignored there, as highways officials are asked such questions very routinely, and, sometimes, do object until such questions are answered-and then drop their objections. Shocking.
[Edited by moderator]
Of course, the constituents could ask the question as to whether they prefer an uncontrolled cargo of oil from Nigeria off their shoreline and a real risk of their shoreline being covered in oil, or whether, given the chance to mitigate against that possibility, want to accept that responsibility, and try to increase the proportion of oil not prone to such issues and produced with far greater environment controls. I suspect that issue may be raised during the process.
But welcome back, PhilC,, [edited by moderator]
No, wrong again.
In fact I asked for no such admission from anyone at all. But if that is what is wished to be freely to admitted to under your own appropriate recognisance, then hey, its a free country, at least it was before this year….
If the planning regulations are so opaque as to requiring of more understanding, then perhaps it would be advantageous for the commenter to iniate some research to remedy the situation. I am sure some of your knowledgeable esteemed colleagues will be only too happy to oblige and assist with that.
Maybe a Christmas present of the appropriate information is called for?
However aside from such diversions. There I have no problem with the planning regulations as they stand at present at all. i merely point out the inconsistencies which apparently have escaped the traffic department of the Isle of Wight Council planning department. a perfectly reasonable, and highly appropriate observation to make. Public questioning is perfectly relevant to justify Council decisions of such impact upon the community and the Isle of Wight in general.
Indeed, such questions are only too relevant for everyone concerned. I am sure that the Isle of Wight council will be only too happy to answer and and all such questions in order to keep the public informed and up to speed at a time when communication is at a premium due to the present situation.
I am also sure that no one of any standing, position, public, private or otherwise whatsoever or whosoever would stand in the way of the smooth running of the democratic process, crippled and restricted by recent events as it is, in such difficult times and that no one would dare to stand in the way of any such communication being sought or returned.
Though I understand that Boris Johnson is at present proposing to de-regulate the planning conditions and regulations out of the perview of the public being consultated or involved and turned over wholly into the hands of the corporate dictatorships and their captive or heavily influenced government officials.
Hold up your hand if anyone voted for a totalitarian dictatorship? Didnt we all vote for a democracy? This oddly obfuscated diversion strewn conversation illustrates the effect of such a choice quite concisely I see. No, I’ll vote for a democracy every time, as i am sure all sane people would. Well, there are always exceptions of course.
All of these latest attempts to obfuscate the factual issues of the “approval” of the traffic proposals do not in the slightest way address the actual issues, even though if you will forgive me, i will return the compliment to source of those who clearly “do not like” the issues that the inevitable questions raise.
Once again there is that reluctance to address anything technical or knowledgeable of the subject in reply to my perfectly reasonable questions, I repeat freely, since the issue is raised in these odd accusatory terms, rather than any factual discussion, that It is clearly the habit of those who “dont like” any such pertinent question to be asked or raised at all to divert into fantasy. Presumably since it calls into doubt the detail and the grounds of the “approval”.
No change there.
I repeat all this for the sake of clarity, because such diversions and obfuscations may suit to divert others, but will never, in fact ever, address the issues of the subject matter in any way whatsoever.
And, out comes the democracy joker! Appropriate.
As usual, applied to what is a privileged few rather than the many, but put forward as the opposite.
However, there will now be more attempts to gather more of the privileged few with objections, and the many can be forgotten. But, they are not forgotten within the planning process for mineral extraction, and certainly not for oil/gas. A fairly important issue, that is often overlooked, or suffers diversions or obfuscation.
This farce was last performed at HH. Slammed by the critics and rejected by the good people of Surrey. Now, re-heated and re-served to the good people of IOW, with the hope that they may be more easily excited, by “apparently”-ie. speculation. A few may be.
Indeed, ask questions. But, may do better to ask questions that have yet to be answered.
Like, the good folk of IOW answered a question about Boris around a year ago, so the democracy of the many, shown, but there is still that minority to excite and convince they were wise and others were foolish.
My Christmas quiz only works as questions have already been answered, and excludes speculation, conspiracy theories, inaccurate laws of physics or maths. But, charades may be preferred by others. Each to their own. There is always the (organic, free range) mistletoe to bring us together later!
Enjoy a peaceful, and cosy Christmas- especially for the many who will be relying upon oil and gas to keep them cosy and cook their Christmas dinner.
All of my IOW friends and IOW family included within that category. Shock/horror. More of the foolish many who didn’t ask the right questions. Alternatively, they did, and came up with a different answer.
Ha! Ha! Its off on one again! And on Christmas Eve too. Nothing better to do i suppose. I’ve had a great day meeting friends while walking in this chilly Christmas Eve morning. So, now i get a chance to sit down and read all the e-cards, then this latest “contribution” i see waiting in the inbox.
And now after all that admitting of knowing nothing of the planning pocess, the contributor is now admitting to be a democracy joker?
……What ever that is?….Nothing real of course. Nothing in the dictionary certainly. aparently just an imaginary fantasy term designed to put something, anything down in some vague hope it will be thought to mean something. It doesnt though does it.
Perhaps there is something about that term that actully means something relevant to the subject of the post, though it lies concealed deep under a smothering miasma of illogic and diversions into fantasy.
The statement of democracy as being a derogatory concept as stated above, leads to something else that is far more telling.
The clear indication as stated above, that democracy is some sort of derogatory joke illustrates that these corporate parasites like to use democracy to achieve their aims through endless appeals and spending vast amounts of money to get their own way. But then laugh at the concept of democracy if it represents the public who will be most affected by the operation as we see here. In other words they only see democracy as a tool to achieve the desired result but show, as illustrated here above,that they have nothing but utter contempt for it and attempt to deny the public doing exactly the same thing.
Interesting isnt it. These people betray their contempt for democracy as illustrated here, but only use it to derive their own aims, while hating the concept at all other times.
There is a word for that.
Hypocrisy.
What i said in my first post was therfore perfectly correct, which is probably why it seems to have attracted that typical fragmented fractured flak from the usual suspect. The public must challenge Council decisions if they are seen to be not up to standard to protect the very public constituents that they are meant to do. Just as the corporate parasites challenge Council decisions, so should the public do so.
So you can see why we get all that illogical nonsence in response. they cant say the real reason for all that nonsence, its just meant to divert and displace any rational discussion.
So we will never see anything rational or knowledgeable from those sources, since any rational argument and discussion is the last thing they want. Just fake accusations based upon nothing real.
There you are, we got there in the end, and hey! Its almost Christmas.
So. In the absence of any real genuine Christmas Eve wishes from that usual direction, I wish you all the Very Best and Finest of Christmas Cheer and a Very Happy and Peaceful New Year.
Bah Humbuggers not withstanding of course.
Well Phil C, you work those keys hard trying to sound articulate and knowledgeable. But you over do it and then drag in in Boris J. Why? You clearly have a platform with rehearsed arguments, and from the other comments these seem to be well worn and used many times before. Is it any wonder that people have become fed up with the likes of you and these off-the-shelf arguments being deployed in their back yard when it is for the local community to deliberate and not have you and your circus clowns turn up uninvited, yet again. I suggest you visit the IOW and actually talk to people there. There is a big difference between the views taken at random as opposed to selected views for the purposes of narratives in the news and campaign literature. I will not be surprised when the activists are escorted off the island. They are very unwelcome where ever they turn up. And that includes online, spouting notions of democracy but taking no notice of what the local people are actually saying. Phil C, you embody the hypocrisy of narrative democracy perfectly but do not have the linguistic skills make a case. But you serve the cause of UKOG very well so please do not let me stop you with letter writing campaigns and keyboard warrior attacks. Good show.
Whoops! Dear me! What a display? Looks like someone didnt have a very nice Christmas doesnt it? On the “nasty list” again I suppose? Another year of misery….and look what the result was…….
Nothing worth even looking at that there above is there. No technical content whatsoever. Mere unqualified unsubstantiated unhappy opinion. Nothing of any real world value.
[Edited by moderator]
Perhaps something from William Shakespeare will fit the description of the ranti ranti “contributors”?
“but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
I did enjoy that!
I am back, from a lovely Christmas. No conspiracy theories, no one trying to create excitement, and everyone quite happy with my Christmas quiz! Technical content? Pretty good, actually, but no one volunteering their technical prowess after being exposed as being rather technically deficient. Even with an on line quiz, reality wins.
I did slip in a little question regarding energy supplies on the IOW. Very few realized that the energy was currently imported-including light fuel oil for the Cowes Power Station. The democratic opinion was that if IOW had the opportunity to contribute a little itself, then why should it not? Hardly likely to be in the Wytch Farm category, but locals around that one strangely seem to have had no issues with their neighbours, which is also the case with all other on shore UK oil sites. (Ask the question! Open, rather than closed or leading. Certainly not BBC-“Would you agree with the following?” “Ermm, yes, because that is what you briefed me on, and I would not be interviewed if I was not that gullible!”)
Sound familiar?