Ministers have refused a request to overturn planning permission for expansion and long-term production at a Rathlin Energy oil and gas site in East Yorkshire.
A local Conservative county councillor, Jacob Birch, asked the levelling up secretary to review the consent for four more wells and 20 years of extraction at the West Newton-A site in Holderness.
Today the housing minister, Lucy Frazer, turned down his bid on behalf of Michael Gove.
In a letter to Cllr Birch, she said
“The Secretary of state does not consider the original decision to grant planning permission was so grossly wrong that revocation is in the public interest. He considers that it is not expedient to revoke the planning permission in this case.”
March 2022.
Cllr Birch, who represents Mid Holderness, said this evening:
“The news that the Secretary of State has decided not to revoke planning permission for West Newton A is very disappointing for many of my residents and myself.
“I know that this decision will come as a shock for the community and many people will not be happy.
“I just hope that during the works taking place the applicant is considerate to the community and follows the rules and conditions as set out in the granted permission.
“I would urge any residents who see or know of any breeches of the planning permission to report this directly and promptly to East Riding of Yorkshire Council.”
The ruling closes the latest phase of local opposition to Rathlin Energy’s expansion plans for West Newton-A.
The company’s application had been approved by East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s planning committee in March 2022 by 10 votes to one.
But it had been opposed by eight parish councils and three environmental organisations. There were also more than 400 objections from members of the public.
The scheme is a scaled-back version of an application that had been refused in September 2021.
In his request for a review of the planning permission, Cllr Birch argued against site expansion and the extraction of fossil fuels at West Newton-A. He said:
- It would have significant effect beyond the local area
- It was of more than local importance
- The impacts had not been adequately assessed by East Riding of Yorkshire Council
- It was contrary to local and national planning policies
- It would negatively impact on the landscape and amenity
- It would have negative highway implications
- It would be a flood risk
- It had no clear provision for biodiversity net gain
- It was wholly inappropriate and contrary to the government’s aim of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
The secretary of state’s power to revoke planning consent is exercised rarely and is justified only in exceptional circumstances. It can be used only where the original decision is judged to be “grossly wrong” and damage is likely to be done to the wider public interest.
Today’s letter said the secretary of state was satisfied that the council had considered relevant local policies and material considerations. It said:
“He is not persuaded that there is a conflict with national planning policies that justify him revoking the permission in the wider public interest.
“On the basis of all the information before him, he further does not consider that there are any material considerations which support revocation.”
The letter also said the risk of having to pay compensation to Rathlin Energy was “a factor that weighs against revocation of the planning permission”, though it had been given limited weight.
The letter concluded that ministers were unable to “reach any conclusions on the legality of a decision to grant planning permission”:
“These are matters which fall under the jurisdiction of the courts and any person arguing that there has been an error in law should seek their own legal advice.”
Background
Minister still reviewing West Newton production plans (20 July 2022)
Councillor asks minister to review West Newton-A production plans (27 March 2022)
Breaking: 20 years of oil production approved at Rathlin Energy’s West Newton-A site ((17 March 2022)
Breaking: Councillors reject major expansion of West Newton oil site (30 September 2021)
DRILL OR DROP? 
So, the prospect of onshore gas production which may substitute in a tiny way for imports from countries such as Qatar. That’ll be greener and more morally acceptable to many people.
Apart from those fortunate enough not to require gas, or be gross hypocrites, or a combination of the two.
Whilst I am not surprised there are some like that, it does keep surprising me there are some who are so keen to demonstrate it.
My computer tells me it is minus 5 degrees centigrade outside currently. Just about to turn the thermostat UP on my gas boiler. Such is life here in the UK, today.
it would appear that the paid experts for the FF gang were hopelessly wrong again!!!!!
At least they will also be able to afford to turn their thermostats up now, Jackie!
Let me draw attention to The Oil Machine, screened this evening on BBC Scotland, and available on iPlayer.
One is left wondering and immensely angry at those, aware of the arguments the film portrays, who continue to think that we can continue to search for, develop and exploit fossil fuels for the next 20, 30, 40 years. The time is past when we can politely argue against such monumental stupidity on the part of those ready to sacrifice the young and future generations of human beings to their insane reluctance to imagine a future without fossil fuels.
If you fall into this category, watch the film, and for heaven’s sake, think, and then, take control over the machine controlling all of us.
But from Dusk till Dawn, You consume FF ever minute of everyday, Travelling, Shopping, Heating and Cooking!! Oh the Irony 1720!!
I take it you have either not watched or not understood the film. Try again.
Good point, E-G. I understood it quite well, thank you. It is the way of the world, the preachers preaching, but not adhering. It is nothing new, religion has been doing so for centuries.
It’s rather tedious having to repeat oneself to those who cannot be bothered to read or understand.
Take the accusation of hypocrisy. I would be hypocritical were I to proclaim the need to abandon FFs whilst feigning having abandoned them myself. I have not so feigned to have abandoned them, I have advocated abandoning them. On the contrary, I have argued that there being no alternative to, for example, the plastic keyboard, I am obliged to use it whilst pressing and arguing for alternatives.
One really should ascertain the meaning of words before one starts hurling them around as insults. The same goes of course for the illiterate use, prevalent in some quarters on DorD, of the term ‘irony’. Look this up yourself if guilty.
Quite different terms are applicable to the behaviour of those who nitpick minor points in the arguments of others with a view to demolishing these arguments or discrediting them in the eyes of the gullible.
What to make, for example, of those who lose no opportunity to assert, often irrelevantly, their mathematical and/or scientific credentials whilst refusing to accept the scientific consensus that climate change is to a very great extent anthropogenic? As others have pointed out, no scientific or mathematical evidence is adduced in support of this position. Given the weight of evidence to the contrary, the onus is surely on them so to do.
What to make of those who devalue and denigrate renewables, either their efficacy in combating or mitigating global warming, or their cost effectiveness, or the occasional corruption or self-serving behaviour which accompanies most human endeavour where the yardstick is profit? The effect of such arguments is to deprive humanity of adequate resourcing for one of the most positive and hopeful weapons in our armoury in the war against extinction.
What to make of those who argue or imply that to continue to import gas or oil while actively seeking to dispense totally and as quickly as possible with their use is to increase their comparative toxic emissions over the putative emissions from home-grown FFs. This argument is disingenuous, I would suggest deliberately so, sourced as it is in the argumentation of the FF industry, an industry on the back foot. It overlooks the impossibility of accurately gauging emissions from wells which do not exist; it overlooks the very real probability that such revived domestic exploitation of FFs would set an example to others. Who can doubt that were we to frack or exploit a new oil field,others would follow? It ignores the scientific advice against new exploitation of FFs. The argument accordingly undermines planetary efforts to adapt to and mitigate climate change; it is seditious, homicidal and ecocidal. And of course it would be a very real example of hypocrisy. It is the argument of the disillusioned, the coward, the pessimist, of the denier, or, at worst, of the cynical if stupid exploiter. Who but the ignorant or the venal denier would adopt this position?
I gave up at the “I am obliged”.
No, you are not, 1720. Not true, incorrect, not fact, fake news etc. etc.
Imported gas and oil does create more emissions than local gas and oil. Those emissions are also outside the control of the importing country but not outside the control of a producing country-those are facts, 1720. So is price and security of supply. You may claim they are disingenuous, but they are not. They are accurate. You have problems with facts, when they are not to your liking. You don’t know the correct definition and have added to that by claiming an expert on his subject would have changed the facts he declared before he died if he had lived longer. You still try to undermine any mention of those facts about arithmetic and physics, even now when they are being clearly demonstrated in the energy situation observed by all in the UK. You are not obliged to do that either. You simply find those facts inconvenient.
Now, that is being disingenuous, or putting it another way, an activist who is not very good at what they attempt. However, you are still not obliged, and as your efforts are so poorly contrived it may be better for the environment that you obliged by practicing what you preach, rather than preach without practicing.
The rest of it I scanned over quickly, noting most was factually incorrect and/or nonsense speculation. Therefore, no obligation and then the end result was of low quality. As I stated, preachers have followed that path for centuries. Occasionally, one emerges that is worth considering, but sorry to inform you 1720, you do not justify that and attempts to diminish those that disagree with you is not likely to elevate you above that category.
You are just attempting to set the bar lower, to your level. You are not obliged to do that, either.
“Practising”, not “practicing”.
Happy Christmas, Martin, and to all DorD posters.
Wishes also to Ruth, Paul and team.