Regulation

New Dorset oil production plans back under consideration

Plans to produce oil for 20 years near a historic country house in Dorset are still being considered, despite limited progress over the past 18 months.

Impression of production phase of South Western Energy’s Puddletown site in Dorset. Source: South Western Energy Limited planning application

South Western Energy Limited (SWEL) submitted a planning application in November 2019 for a drilling site on farmland about 1km from Athelhampton House and garden.

No decision on the proposal was made in either 2020 or 2021.

But last week, six new documents were posted on the application website.

They include reports, previously requested by planning officers, on the impact on heritage, ecology, hydrology, climate and restoration.

Opponents had argued that the proposal conflicted with Dorset’s declaration of a climate emergency.

The new 17-page climate change report concluded:

“The entire development, if successful, will mitigate the degree and impact of climate change by offsetting the carbon footprint of oil imports to the UK.”

In February 2020, the Environment Agency (EA) objected to the application because it did not include an assessment of the risk to drinking water and a nearby chalk stream, the Devil’s Brook. The EA said:

“without a risk assessment showing the contrary, the risks to controlled water from this development can be considered unacceptable.”

A new two-page report on a water features survey, submitted by SWEL, concluded:

“The proposed pilot production well will be cased throughout its depth so no drilling fluids will leave the well and no groundwater will be abstracted.”

Location of South Western Energy’s proposed oil site (circled). Source: Google Earth and South Western Energy

The site is 1.25km from the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and 5km from the nationally-important Dorset Heaths special area of conservation (SAC). Opponents argued oil production and drilling would threaten barn owls, dormice, bats and great crested newts.

Natural England and Dorset Wildlife Trust had criticised what they said were flawed ecological assessments that accompanied the original application.

Puddletown Parish Council said the proposal would have “an adverse effect on the natural environment, biodiversity and rich wildlife”.

SWEL had previously described the proposal as “a farm diversification scheme” that would generate employment and energy. Its new ecological update concluded:

“It is not thought that the works on Site will have any adverse ecological effect on the SAC or other protected areas.”

There are six scheduled ancient monuments and 58 listed buildings within 2km of the proposed site.

It is 145m from Water Barn, a 19th century water-driven corn mill. The update on heritage concluded the development would have no impact on Water Barn.

“The proposed development will have some visual impact on the general, widespread setting in which Water Barn is located, however, this can be mitigated where Dorset Council feel it is necessary or beneficial to do so.”

The document said the proposed site had a “high degree of reversibility” and if the well was uneconomical the site would be returned to its previous or better condition.

On restoration, SWEL said the site was likely to be returned to arable farming after oil had been extracted. The company said it could encourage the landowner to use the restored land to grow biomass crops or to provide opportunities to benefit biodiversity.

Fossil Fuel Free Dorset said today:

“Dorset Council has declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency. So, it comes as quite a surprise that a proposal from South Western Energy Ltd to drill a new oil well less than a kilometre to the north of historic Athelhampton House is still being considered. The original application was submitted pre-pandemic and there has been little activity over the past 18 months.”

On the conclusion in the climate change report, the group said:

“Words fail us.”

Dorset Council has asked for comments on the new documents by 9 February 2022.

Link to application

4 replies »

  1. I am not sure why the proximity to a historic house is an issue. The oil well may be within 400m of a 5 bar gate, 30m from a 4 leaf clover and half a mile from a flock of sheep (or maybe close to some lucky people to live in it).
    Silverhill colliery was within 2 miles of the extremely historic Hardwick Hall (1975 to 1992)
    The hall remains but the colliery has gone. Now you can listen to the roar of the M1 while enjoying it instead.
    Words fail me / its a surprise / shock horror- that historic buildings can be next to industrial sites – and some historic buildings are ex industrial sites.

  2. Most historic houses have a need for considerable quantities of oil and gas. They were not built to the most energy efficient standards.

    Perhaps that was the point about the proximity? So much better than there being thousands of miles between the demand and the supply, and all those emissions to bring them together.

    The newts will have a better chance than the lizards turfed out by Tesla in Germany, prior to authorisation being granted!

    Of course, this site would not be that far away from Europe’s largest on shore oil field surrounded by an area of sensitive habitat. Both are still there, after many years, both doing their own thing and co-existing.

  3. The issue is not the proximity to anything. The issue is that we should be doing everything in our power to stop extraction and use of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. It is wrong to do any new oil drilling anywhere on the planet.

Add a comment

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 )

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