Balcombe residents have failed in their legal challenge against testing at the oil site in their village.
In a ruling issued today, a judge at the High Court dismissed a judicial review brought by Frack Free Balcombe Residents’ Association (FFBRA).
FFBRA said in a statement this afternoon:
“We are extremely disheartened and disappointed that our challenge to the decision to allow oil exploration in Balcombe, a village in the Sussex Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was not successful and that it has been rejected.”
Residents have opposed oil operations at the site at Lower Stumble for more than a decade. Drilling by Cuadrilla in summer 2013 led to near-daily protests and multiple arrests.
In the latest development, permission was granted for a flow test after a planning appeal by the current operator, Angus Energy. This was despite a unanimous decision to refuse by West Sussex County Council.
FFBRA said today:
“The decision goes against local democracy where the planning inspector overturned the refusal by West Sussex County Council and opposition by Balcombe Parish Council and hundreds of local people.”
The group said it was considering an appeal.
DrillOrDrop invited Angus Energy to comment on the decision. The company made a statement to investors on 17 October 2023. The chief executive, Richard Herbert, said:
“The Kimmeridge reservoir at Balcombe is presently an unknown quantity, and now we are able to conduct the necessary flow testing to determine the potential to flow at commercial rates. We remain most mindful of the concerns of local residents in our common pursuit, in a safe and responsible manner, of a diverse source of domestically-sourced energy as against higher carbon footprint imports.”
FFBRA had argued in court in July 2023 that the decision to allow planning permission was unlawful. It criticised the planning inspector on six grounds, saying he:
- Unlawfully relied on the benefits of hydrocarbon extraction, without considering the harms
- Made a flawed interpretation of a local policy on fracking and onshore oil and gas (M7) in local planning policy
- Unlawfully failed to consider alternative sites outside the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
- Failed to comply with regulations on environmental impact assessments
- Failed to consider the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the site on climate change
- Unlawfully failed to assess the impact on water resources at Ardingly Reservoir
The ruling by Mrs Justice Lieven dismissed all six grounds.
She concluded that on ground 1, the harm of hydrocarbon extraction was not relevant because the application was for exploration.
On ground 2, FFBRA’s lawyer, Dr David Wolfe KC, had suggested that future production may involve hydraulic fracturing and that Angus Energy was “getting a foot in the door” by establishing a case for production through the test application. The judge said there was “no evidence” to support this.
She described the inspector’s approach to alternative sites outside the AONB (ground 3) as “rational”. She also dismissed ground 4, saying “I do not consider that there was an error of law”.
On climate change (ground 5), she said:
“There is no requirement, whether in statute or caselaw, that every planning decision has to expressly refer to or quantify the GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions that will result. Climate change is likely to be a material consideration in every planning decision given the policy context as well as the much wider issues, but that does not mean that every decision has to have reference to specific figures or assessment.”
The inspector had stated there was no hydrological link between the site and the drinking water reservoir at Ardingly.
FFBRA argued (ground 6) that there was a link because nearby streams flow into the River Ouse, from which water may be pumped into the reservoir.
Mrs Justice Lieven said any mistake of fact on this issue was “not material to the decision”. The risk “appears to have been very slight” and would be “subject to further regulatory control”, she said.
Updated 17/10/23 with statement from Angus Energy
DRILL OR DROP? 
glad that these eco fascists have been well and truely put in their place…lets get the oil and gas rolling now!
Just numb. An appeal?
How do the people who rule on these things get chosen for specific cases? This is a serious question. I would like to know.
The universal reaction to losing ” blame the ref”
I believe Kathryn they are chosen on the basis they can weigh up evidence, and if there is insufficient on ALL 6 grounds they state that is the case.
Meanwhile FFBRA have difficulty assessing one piece of evidence and still create a title that is meaningless in respect of this particular site, or the whole country at this moment in time.
On that basis, it would appear that those chosen to decide have a pretty large lead over those that they deal with.
What I would like to know, is Dr. David Wolfe KC ever successful?
I believe the person making the ruling has to make a judgement call, taking into account potential hazards versus expected benefits. Any final ruling to also include monitoring to ensure any hazards are mitigated. Hopefully this would prevent beneficial work being stopped by intransigent NIMBYs or indeed potentially hazardous work being forced through by greedy zealots. Personally I’d be inclined to watch carefully, identify how successful the flow test is and whether there were any negatives.
You both twist the point, as usual. You know no more than I do about the mechanism for choosing those who rule.
Those who rule? Well, Kathryn I know those who rule in this situation have to be fully qualified to do so. They rule based upon the facts and the regulations for such matters. One of the areas that is often proposed as important, which is a version of UDI for a local community, is actually not one area that is that successful so I would not expect that to feature too much.
Just as in many other situations. I know when someone is part of a 6-0 loss they may blame the ref. and insist the selection may have made a difference, but even in that case the ref is selected from a small selection of those qualified to rule, whilst there are millions unqualified who think they have been robbed and they could have done a better job.
There is no twisting of the point here. I am just stating the obvious which you appear to need to contort. Perhaps if there was less contortion attempted, like Frack Free, then the reality would even be clear to those who have difficulty with reality.
You have every right to dislike the decision. That point is not the issue. I am just settling back to watch the rugby. There will be millions there who don’t like the result, and I expect a proportion who dislike some of the decisions. There will even be some who claim a conspiracy, but such is life.
The reality is the climate emergency.
One reality may be, Kathryn, but whether or not Balcombe is developed will not have any impact upon that.
It is demand you need to address. How many Chelsea Tractors in and around Balcombe? How many people in and around Balcombe trot off routinely to Gatwick and vanish off over the horizon, on a regular basis? How many people in and around Balcombe have to use plastic to moan about products that produce plastic?
How many people in and around Balcombe actually rely upon oil and gas and just get on with their lives and ignore those who moan about that reality? Looking at the picture above, the vast majority it would appear.
Your strawman arguments will just mean more 6-0’s.
If you think there’s a climate emergency then perhaps you need to focus on the main perpetrators ie China etc. Frankly my research suggests it’s not quite clear-cut. I’m therefore really looking forward to some global warming in the UK. I can’t wait for our temperatures to increase to meditteranean levels so I don’t need to take flights there to get some sunshine.
It would really be very odd if 7B world population moving towards 10B had no impact upon climate. However, 10B require to live, and more and more of them want to live as they have seen others live. Consumption by 10B creates certain issues. Careful grandchildren, just wait for what you are signed up to when that is suddenly accepted!
Meanwhile, here “we” are at 15th October and I am enjoying my first frost of the year. I don’t keep such records, but my memory over about 7 decades would suggest the first frost of the year in my locality would be around the middle of October! Shame really, but just plonked the gas heating system on and fortunately it is working. Unfortunately, due to various vested interests dictating energy policy it is working at high cost. I can but HOPE the wind may start to blow later! Unfortunately, my memory also tells me that in winter in UK when there is a cold spell it is usually accompanied by HIGH pressure, which means the wind doesn’t blow.
Talking of HOPE, I note Sir Jim has just reminded the other Sir, that those employed at Grangemouth, on pretty good money, may only have HOPE left in terms of finding a new job if the raw materials for the two Grangemouth plants are denied. Just more of that nasty old reality stuff, and I do envy those who can ignore it but do not admire their lack of empathy.
“O wise young judge, how do I honour thee”
We can be thankful Parish Council funds were not squandered on this vexatious action
Shame on them! Using children to try and push their hideous agenda!
Switch the lights off and turn off the heating of these dirty swampy’s!
Fantastic news for the sensible Balcombe residents !! Whoop Whoop !!