Regulation

Councillors hear key arguments over West Newton expansion

Opponents and supporters of plans for a major expansion of an oil site in East Yorkshire put their cases to councillors this afternoon.

Planning committee of East Riding of Yorkshire Council, 27 September 2021

If approved, the scheme, proposed by Rathlin Energy for its West Newton-A site, would see six more wells and oil production for 20 years.

There have been more than a thousand objections to the planning application, which will be decided by East Riding of Yorkshire Council later this week.

At a pre-meeting, before the council’s planning committee, opponents described the scheme as “fundamentally flawed”, lacking in key information and likely to turn beautiful countryside into an industrial “sacrifice zone”.

Rathlin Energy said West Newton-A could contribute to UK energy security and help in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

“Act now in line with the climate emergency”

Charlotte Foster, opponent

Charlotte Foster, a 14-year-old from Long Riston, said:

“I am here today to ask the Planning Committee Members, to consider my future and that of my generation, when they make their decision on this planning application.”

She said the 25-year period of the proposal, though classed as temporary, was a long time in anyone’s lifetime.

“Climate Change is the thing that most threatens the security of future generations, developments such as those proposed at West Newton, contribute to the causes of Climate Change in their construction, production operations and in what they produce.”

During site construction, there would be 60 heavy goods vehicles per day, she said. This would be more than 3,600 HGV journeys during the 12 weeks of work.

Drilling, testing and well cleaning would result in 35,000 HGV journeys. In the 20 years of oil production, there would be another 146,000 HGV journeys, “all passing through small rural communities”. Each journey would emit diesel fumes, brake dust and tyre rubber, all harmful to people and the environment, she said.

Rathlin Energy’s West Newton-A wellsite, 25 September 2021. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

Rathlin plans to flare waste gas from the site during drilling and well testing. It may, if technically feasible and safe, be used to generate electricity during the production phase.

Charlotte Foster said flaring would emit 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, adding to the poor record of East Yorkshire and Humberside, already the worst counties for CO2 emissions. Electricity on the wellsite during drilling and testing would be produced by diesel generators.

She also criticised Rathlin’s assessment of the carbon footprint of West Newton-A oil. It did not take account of road transport of oil when stating that it would have half the emissions of imported oil.

“If this development is allowed to proceed, it flies in the face of the advice received from a steadily increasing number of sources [on climate change] whose views we hear from news and other broadcasts every day.”

She also quoted the climate warning by Boris Johnson to the United Nations general assembly last week:

“you must act now in line with the climate emergency you have already declared and recognised, say no to this development and save my generation and its successors, from the fate described by our Prime Minister.”

Caroline Foster, Rathlin’s operations engineer

Caroline Foster, Rathlin’s operations engineer, told the hearing that oil and gas would continue to be needed in a low carbon future. They would be needed to make products such as wind turbine blades and medical equipment.

In a video shown to councillors, she said:

“Net zero does not mean a future without hydrocarbons but we will have to use them more responsibly and we have to find other sources where possible.”

She said emissions from the proposed expanded West Newton-A site represented 0.02-1.34% of the fuel supply industry’s carbon budget.

“The multitude of carbon reducing initiatives, harnessing and storing energy from renewable resources and reduction in the use of hydrocarbons will form part of a complex and diverse set of solutions for a net zero future. A future that Rathlin supports and can be part of. “

Lorry route is “not safe or suitable”

Gerald Kells

Gerald Kells, a transport advisor to opponents of the scheme, said there were “inherent deficiencies” in the proposed lorry route to the site.

“These are rural roads not designed for large articulated lorries.”

Their use by large farm vehicles did not justify additional HGV traffic, he said.

“I am simply not convinced that these narrow winding rural roads shared with cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders are safe and suitable.”

The impacts might be intermittent, he said, but they would continue for around 20 years with peaks of HGV use.

National planning policy did not require roads to be safe and suitable some of the time but all of the time, he said.

Many of the HGVs would be the largest OGV2 articulated lorries which created particular risks for vulnerable users, Mr Kells added.

Rathlin Energy has proposed two lorry routes to West Newton-A.

Mr Kells said the blue route, via Ellerby, failed because of the width, visibility and the bends. Unclassified sections of the other orange route, which passed the front of Burton Constable Hall, failed more seriously, he said, because of long sections of straight road that were likely to encourage speeding.

He said there were sections of the lorry route where HGVs would have to cross into the opposite carriageway.

Rathlin did not appear to have considered the impact on roads of convoying equipment to the site or the effect on Burton Constable Hall, Mr Kells said. There had been no assessment on sections where pedestrians would come into contact with HGVs, such as the Hornsea Rail Trail.

There were also no proposed holding areas for HGVs entering the orange route, he said. It appeared that lorries could visit at any time of day or night and there would be no cap on the number of visits during a single day.

Each route had to be capable of accommodating all the lorries. There were no proposals to close roads to the site so there would be oncoming traffic, in some cases travelling up to 60 miles per hour, he said.

Rathlin Energy has reduced the maximum number of daily tanker visits during production from an estimated 25 to 10.

Mr Kells said the committee would hear that the overall number of lorries would be small. But he said it was actually similar to that proposed at the Roseacre Wood and Woodsetts shale gas sites, on which he gave evidence, and which were refused permission by planning committees on traffic grounds.

He said one section of the orange route narrowed to 4.8m near Pipers Lane. There was no pavement he said, and bollards to prevent encroachment onto the grass verge. This part of the route was likely to be used pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

Mr Kells said a standard HGV was 2.55m wide and a car 2m wide.

“That section of road is hardly wide enough for a lorry to meet a car, let alone a van, let alone for two HGVs to pass each other.

“What exactly are pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders expected to do if there is a car behind them and an articulated lorry in front?

“It is hard to conceive of a location less suited to articulated OGV2 lorries.”

He urged councillors to refuse permission.

Samantha Hallett

Local resident, Samantha Hallett, said her family used the proposed lorry routes every day. There were no passing places, she said, and the roads were not treated in winter. 

“Before anyone makes a decision, councillors should go and drive these country roads and see for your own eyes that these roads are not wide enough for HGVs.”

“Sacrifice zone”

Mrs Hallett lives a mile from both the West Newton-A and B sites and can see them from her bedroom window. The impact of the West Newton-A expansion would be enormous, she told the committee.

“It seems we have turned into a sacrifice zone, where East Riding of Yorkshire Council says yes to everything that is going”

She said Rathlin was turning “beautiful countryside into a no-go area”.

“The cumulative impact was getting out of hand.

“The beautiful East Yorkshire countryside is turning into industrial blight that is more in common with heavy industry, stripping the landscape of its beauty, peace and quiet.”

Tourists would no longer want to visit “an industrial zone”, she said.

Cllr Jacob Birch

The county council ward member, Jacob Birch, said the lack of a cumulative impact assessment for West Newton-A was a “fundamental flaw” in the planning application.

National and council policies required this assessment but there was no evidence that this has been done, he said. Rathlin should have considered local windfarms and a biomass plant, along with proposals to expand the company’s nearby West Newton-B site.

“By allowing this application to be approved, based on the information provided, and also the total lack of information, you could be endangering surrounding countryside, turning what was a pleasant place into a sacrifice zone.

“The risks outweigh the benefits”.

“Missing information”

Cllr Birch said a hydrogeological report commissioned by Fossil Free East Yorkshire identified missing details about the construction of the current site.

There was no information on whether the existing containment liner beneath the wellpad was in a suitable condition for the proposed extended timeframe and future possible use.

“With this fundamental key piece of information missing how can you councillors decide on this application?

If it were unsuitable, Cllr Birch said, pollutants could seep through the liner into the aquifer.

Cllr Birch said the assessment of flood risk in the application was based on anecdotal information, rather than evidence of the suitability of the existing containment system.

He said the application contained assumptions and conclusions about the underlying geology that were not supported by detailed information. Surface water flooding also did not appear to have been assessed properly, he said.

Proposed expansion of West Newton-A. Source: Rathlin Energy

Elizabeth Walker, the company’s planning consultant, said the development would have no unacceptable impacts and it complied with national and local planning policy.

But Tony Page, another opponent, who had worked as a safety officer, described the impact of the West Newton-A expansion on public health as “a catastrophe waiting to happen”.

People would be subjected to round—the-clock flaring, he said, and pollution from the site would “ruin the area”. Local people could suffer lung damage and breathing problems as a result, he said.

Jonathan Foster, Rathlin’s health, safety and environmental manager, said the membrane underlying the site would be assessed and the directional drilling plans would be reviewed by the Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive.

He said the site would be lit at night only when it was staffed and operating. Up lighting would be minimal or zero, he said. The 55m drilling rig would not be on site permanently, he said, because information from the first well drilled would inform the next one. 

The meeting also heard that indigenous trees, including holly and Scots Pine, would be planted on the bunds to help screen the site.

“Source of energy and feedstocks”

Rathlin’s country manager, Tom Selkirk

Tom Selkirk, Rathlin’s country manager, told the hearing the sites were based in East Yorkshire because this was where the Permian basin, a prolific producing region, came ashore from the North Sea.

The company believed the West Newton-A proposal would provide oil for industrial feedstocks and gas for hydrogen.

Mrs Walker, for Rathlin, said other benefits of the scheme included:

  • Help to meet UK energy needs
  • Reducing dependence on imports
  • Helping the transition to a low carbon economy
  • Provision of employment and support for local supply chains
  • Temporary and reversible

She said the Environment Agency had not objected to the proposals, though the meeting heard that Rathlin Energy had not yet applied for changes needed to its environmental permit.

Planning officers were satisfied that issues put before the committee have or would be adequately addressed by the relevant regulator, Mrs Walker said.

“Based on the information submitted and your officers’ recommendation we hope that the committee will be able to support this application.”

Questions and decision meeting

After the presentations, councillors asked questions on issues including air pollution, road widening, landscaping, the climate emergency declared by East Riding of Yorkshire Council, viability of a pipeline, the site liner, and what represented an unacceptable level of disturbance or impact on local roads.

These questions are expected to be answered at the decision meeting on Thursday 30 September. This meeting, at County Hall, in Beverley, begins at 10am. It can be viewed on the council’s YouTube channel. DrillOrDrop will be reporting on this meeting.

9 replies »

  1. THe Key arguments have already been decided by the Planning Dept. What you are talking about is personal opinions. Planning laws have been followed. I have no doubt that the council will reject the planning departments advice, looking to safeguard their jobs, Rathlin will appeal and cost the council thousands. THe objectors were really poor and needed more time to learn their script.

    • The planning dept don’t make the decision; the planning committee do, based on a report from officers. Personal opinions carry no weight in the decision unless they are valid planning criteria. Neither does the number of objections. Most opinions reported here are valid objections based on planning criteria and are therefore relevant. Their weight will be assessed by officers and decided on balance by the committee. Very little of this revolves around ‘planning law’. It’s all about compliance with Local development policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.

  2. A very one-sided report here. Why have the opponents got far more space than the applicants. Is this website impartial, as I thought it claimed to be?

  3. As the BBC found out a while ago, whenever someone reports on the evidence to support anthropogenic global warming, it doesn’t make for balanced reporting to always have a climate change denier at the same time on a 1:1 basis, given that the quoted figures are that 97% of scientists and academics firmly believe AGW to be the reality. In my experience, Ruth merely reports with unerring accuracy on what is said and done. That’s nothing to do with being partial or impartial, it’s all about accurate reporting. [Edited by moderator]

  4. Sorry, Mike, DoD make no apology for not being impartial. Independent is not the same as impartial.

    And, no your assertion regarding unerring accuracy is not the case, with this project a good example, where the operators (and who would know better?) reported quite clearly what they had done and found, but a third party report had to be used instead. “Insufficient reservoir development” was not as exciting as “missed”, it seems. Multiple attempts by myself and others, were made to correct the record but no correction.

    I happen to live on a country road, which is widely used for the school run. To be impartial, I would quite like that school run to move to hydrogen as quickly as possible. It would save me a fortune in having curtains dry cleaned. (And, if the local stables stopped burning their horse’s waste, then I could avoid having to shampoo carpets so frequently.)

    And, Mike, nothing to do with climate change deniers-another example of attempting to create a false narrative. This application is simply about transferring production to somewhere closer to consumption, thus reducing transport emissions. So, who are the deniers? Those who, by their actions would maintain transport emissions that could be reduced? If you want to quote the media, why not Channel 4 who waxed lyrical about the benefits of Cornish lithium compared to lithium produced overseas and transported to UK, because of reduction in transport emissions?
    Being able to balance an equation doesn’t make a climate change denier, just someone who can do maths. and thus find a solution-albeit a small one.

  5. I’m clearly not as intelligent and perceptive as you Martin, as although I vaguely followed the gist of what you say, I was unable to follow the detail. Or are you just still the master of obfuscation? As someone who doesn’t trust or believe what Ruth writes, you appear to have been hanging on every word in every post that she’s ever put out. Quite remarkable dedication.
    Back to the actual subject in question, what benefit will there be to ALL the emissions by converting fossil fuel to Hydrogen (taking account of the inherent losses from the process and the storage of course)? I’ve always thought that reduction in car use was the real key.

  6. Ahh, the reduction in car usage!

    I am in favour of that Mike, and do that myself. However, it is a problem with those who want to get to school, NHS, etc. Watching the news this am, it would appear there are a lot in that camp-cake and eat it again?

    I am also supportive of HS2 because that should help to achieve what you suggest, but this site features those against that as well. More protest focused than progress focused, but try to present a different picture. I believe that people will travel as the human race are not hermits, and that travelling within UK can be vastly improved. I see no reason to encourage cargoes travelling from thousands of miles away whilst that is sorted.

    If you were able to follow the detail, there would have been no need for the speculation, Mike. Not sure that needs a lot of intelligence or perception.

    If you are really interested, just follow the Cadeby, Kirkham Abbey saga, and compare the information published by the operator and that by DoD. I happened to notice the difference because I looked at more than one source. Who should I believe? Until shown different, I will believe the operator who is obliged to publish factual information in a RNS, that only the operator has, rather than a third party modification without any support for that modification. I am not sure if that is unusual, with most school children being taught and expected to do the same, from an early age, and those who attend a football match then not being shocked that the media reports were so different to their own experience! (Perhaps not missed the goal, didn’t, but someone was offside?)

  7. Interesting that China having electricity problems – this time due to lack of coal apparently:

    Power outages in northeastern China have plunged millions of homes into darkness, triggered factory shutdowns and threatened to disrupt the water supply in at least one province.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/28/chinas-northeast-suffers-power-crunch

    Russia control China’s coal and mainland Europe’s natural gas.

    Apple and Tesla impacted.

Leave a Reply to Mike Potter Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s