A small group of campaigners is seeking to challenge the decision by a planning inspector to allow long-term oil production in one of the country’s most beautiful areas.
Paul Thompson ruled last month in favour of plans by Egdon Resources for 15 years of oil extraction and a new well at Biscathorpe in the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
He accepted that the proposal failed to comply with some planning policies and would have “an adverse effect” on the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB. And he acknowledged that the amount of oil that could be extracted was very small and could be exported.
But Mr Thompson said national need for oil was in the public interest and enough to justify the proposal in the protected area.
His ruling overturned a refusal by Lincolnshire County Council, made on the opening day of the COP26 international climate conference in Glasgow in 2021.
Two years later, on the opening day of COP28, SOS Biscathorpe announced it would challenge the inspector’s decision.
The group, which has campaigned since 2014 against oil drilling in the AONB, has brought together a legal team to apply for a statutory review at the High Court. Papers must be filed within two weeks.
SOS Biscathorpe has also launched an online fundraiser. It needs to raise an initial £20,000 towards the costs of a case.
It said:
“We think the planning inspector’s decision is wrong.
“Our only course of action now is to bring a legal challenge against the decision.
“If successful, this could be an important landmark case on the correct interpretation of planning law and policy relevant to all fossil fuel developments.”
The global energy authority, the International Energy Agency, concluded in September 2023 that no new fossil fuel developments were needed, if the world was to stay within safe temperature limits and meet the goal of net zero emissions by 2050.
SOS Biscathorpe said:
“Our case could set a much-needed precedent for similar small campaign groups fighting to protect our environment from unnecessary oil drilling in a climate crisis.”
Egdon’s Biscathorpe site is close to a chalk stream, a globally rare and threatened habitat that supports some of the UK’s most vulnerable plants and animals.
SOS Biscathorpe said:
“Together, we can help protect this beautiful countryside and our planet from the lethal effects of oil production.”
The case will be brought by Mathilda Dennis, on behalf of SOS Biscathorpe. She is represented by Estelle Dehon KC and Dr Lois Lane, of Cornerstone Barristers, and Ricardo Gama and Julia Eriksen, of Leigh Day Solicitors.
This is the second legal challenge to oil operations in a UK AONB. DrillOrDrop reported last month that villagers in Balcombe, in West Sussex, were seeking to overturn a judge’s ruling that gave the go-ahead to a well test in the High Weald AONB.
Egdon Resources was taken over earlier this year by the US-based Heyco Energy Group. Heyco is now the operator of Egdon’s licences covering Biscathorpe and North Kelsey in Lincolnshire and the Wressle oil site, the UK’s newest onshore oil producers, in North Lincolnshire.
Earlier this week, Egdon announced plans for two more production wells at Wressle.
Categories: Legal, Opposition, slider
DRILL OR DROP? 
“In the national interest” means “the money-maker’s always right” even when it’s only a small amount of money ! Go ahead and challenge this !
It could be quite a large pot of money for the American owners and UK directors …but it’s only a small amount of oil – this stuff is expensive as well as planet-wrecking! We need clean, cheap, green energy NOW and for the future.
It may or may not be in the national interest for you to use the products produced from oil, Carolyn. However, I note you desire to do so and therefore create a demand and allow someone to make some money from supplying that demand.
I have no guilt about using products derived from oil. When I consume my dinner tonight it will have been produced with much oil and maybe gas input, and I will have no guilt about that. Those who seek to change that and all the other benefits from fossil fuel, including extended life spans, Including adequate supply of modestly priced food, including much around modern medicine, need to come up with a coherent plan that continues to maintain the benefits and doesn’t cost every UK household £6k extra/year (Civitas) between now and 2050. (The someone else will pay twaddle is no plan.)
I am afraid your sort of hypocrisy does not replace a coherent plan, either.
(Yet to see an on line fund raiser to fund the energy costs of those unable to afford current energy costs in UK, as the meters twirl around in the current cold weather. Good job there is a Windfall Tax upon UK oil and gas to help meet that challenge. Without it? Oh yes, a step on the way to reducing the population. “Protect”?? Nope, and at £6k/year/household for the next 25 years + there will be little for the grandchildren to inherit to actually view the planet!)
The money makers are the lawyers. They win when they lose, and it is not their money. The oil companies don’t win when they lose, and it is their money. They have acquired their money by supplying a demand, Carolyn. Well done, you for taking part in that fund raiser, but I find your public guilt trip a bit incoherent-unless you are part of the legal profession.
As a UK pensioner, I view this type of development as not only, “In the national interest”, but in my interest too.
The UK will continue to NEED fossil fuels for decades to come and the exchequer can do with the revenue.
It looks like we’re going to have a long cold winter, let’s not allow a few eco-zealot Nimby’s to make it any worse.
Or am I missing something significant here ? By preventing this development are they hoping to influence China and India into slowing down the installation of 100 coal fired power stations a year ? Or perhaps they just want to speed up the destruction of the UK economy ? Our electricity and gas prices are now 5 times those in the USA. Our industries can’t compete. I’d prefer to see some common sense prevail. ie Keep the lights on using all available resources while we rebuild our nuclear power industry. We built our first nuclear power station (Calder Hall) in 1956 in less than 4 years.
Yes, Graeme, you’re missing a great deal. It MIGHT produce a teensy drop of oil which, as acknowledged by the Inspector, could all be exported by the American owners. In any case, it will be sold at international prices on a global market and have no impact on UK prices. If you’re worried about your pocket, look at the effect of extreme weather events on food prices and insurance premiums. Nimby zealots don’t make the winters worse, but collapsing weather systems due to global warming do.
Alex-sorry you have not received your chunk of the Windfall tax reducing your energy costs-levied upon UK oil and gas production. (I received my £500 latest tranche within the last week. Thank you very much UK oil and gas producers and maybe with a few more I and others would HAVE OUR ENERGY BILLS REDUCED A BIT MORE.) Sorry you have not seen how exports actually increase the value of a currency, and how those who use that currency are benefitted when they want to purchase just about anything. Like the Americans. However, nice of you to contribute from over the horizon. Maybe a little more research into the UK reality may add something?
Also a bit more research into food prices (increase population by over 1m in a short period and propose “sustainable” farming) and insurance costs (household insurance in UK has stayed reasonably priced it is motor insurance that has rocketed!)
Make winters worse? Our current cold snap is nothing the UK is not used to experiencing. Hasn’t for a few years, but by laws of average it is due-and here it is. Time to change the phrase from global warming to climate change! Just a shame those who have messed up energy policy haven’t allowed for it. Am I expecting to go back to skating on the Thames? Nope. Maybe I will go back to enjoying good grape harvests from the north of England? Suspect not, but the good ones from the south of England I will quaff with gusto-if the land isn’t covered in solar farms rather than vineyards.
Then, you pontificate about others needing to read the science! Should I read the science that states another ice age will happen-it is there, published. Should I read the science that this world will be consumed by the sun warming it to a point all life will become extinct-it is there, published. Which bit of the science should I read about using cereals for fuel? That which states it is environmentally beneficially, that which states it is not. What I know for certain is someone is claiming green credentials for doing it and making money, I am paying more for my food due to a shortage of basic grains, and others in other parts of the world are dying for the same reason. What I also know is that around that, there are a lot of scientists who have made a lot of money and not worrying about the cost of their food.
I have yet to see a post from an anti on this site that accurately reflects reality. If that is the standard, then you will need a heck of a lot of luck in addition to money to support this legal challenge!
Thanks Ruth for exposing yet another scandal.
Presumably as this is a challenge to the PI’s decision, Egdon won’t be able to chicken out after seeing the strength of the argument as it did at North Kelsey last summer.
Presumably, Egdon may get a lot of costs awarded to them, as they did at Wressle-in response to a flawed challenge? I seem to remember the decision included a comment that the development of a UK site simply “transferred” production to a local source. I understand that may be viewed as another scandal-if someone is involved in the exportation and transporting of oil from the other side of the world, whilst depriving UK of tax revenue from business and adding it to tax revenue from private individuals. I have to admit I have no sympathy for those sort, especially with their childish nonsense that someone else will pay.
I note Graeme’s comment about nuclear power, and trust it will now FINALLY get the development that was always required, identified by the Chief Scientific Officer many years ago as being essential, but denied by politicians-who now want to be in control of UK energy policy! Same lot who advised a move to diesel cars that were then found to be killing people, providing revenue to Russia to kill more people, and are now plonking financial penalties on those who did what they were told. Yet, there they are again at COP28 expecting to be taken seriously.
Meanwhile, a real scandal that has yet to hit is the huge rise in cost of motor insurance, and one of the major reasons for that. Hmm, never saw any of these agencies enjoying their high salaries warning about that.
Er…no. The legal challenge is against the Planning Inspectorate as an agency of the Dept. of Levelling up. Egdon are merely an interested party. Strange though, how costs were awarded against the LPA for Wressle, yet the local volunteer activists who had spent thousands of hours, and raised and spent tens of thousands of pounds were left out of pocket over North Kelsey when Egdon threw its toys out of the cot on realising it would lose.
Er….and if delays are caused to Egdon that create a financial penalty, they can claim for costs if the challenge is unsuccessful. Yes, indeed they are an interested party-and that includes not being financially disadvantaged.
Not strange at all if something doesn’t go forward then re-imbursement for it not going forward is absent. Just strange that you think it should, Dennis. Don’t think there are too many people who feel they should get their household insurance refunded if they make no claim. Those who objected have their own “no claim bonus” to claim bragging rights upon their CVs.
As I have stated previously the lack of coherence amongst the approach of the antis is staggering. Someone could write a really interesting paper on whether this is required to argue the case, or whether the support for the anti cause just attracts those who are incoherent by nature.
Meanwhile, keep warm folks and don’t depress yourselves too much by watching the “Smart” meter identifying the myth of cheap renewable energy.
The legal challenge has been made within the allotted time allowance which applies equally to all parties, therefore there is no claimable ‘delay’ as due process has been followed.
Alex 9391 – “collapsing weather systems”. Where do you get this nonsense from? Which weather systems are collapsing exactly? Presumably you belong to the ‘because I believe therefore it must be true brigade’.
We are currently in another period of media hype – TV, online/offline newspapers/Twitter etc – about the present
but soon to be relaxing cold spell in the UK before the return of a more Atlantic weather type of wind and rain. There is nothing unusual about the current colder weather whatsoever.
I despair about the direction of current UK energy policy, which for me at any rate should be in the top 5 priorities for any UK government, which is driven by some collective madness to see oil and gas erased from energy production, nuclear still viewed with suspicion, and parasitical wind and solar power hailed as some sort of magical solution when its very existence is based on the fact that its unreliability allows it to live off reliable and consistent conventional energy production, namely oil/gas and nuclear.
I listened yesterday to the increasingly quoted ‘fact’ that 2023 will be the warmest year in 125,000 years – all said with a straight face. And even if we as a World can reach Net Zero or even Net Zero minus exactly how different will the weather be and will be cheering on the expanding glaciers and diminishing area of land for food production?
And I’m bemused when China is now seen as some kind of Climate champion because it is increasing wind and solar production at the same time as dramatically increasing its use of coal. Of course China has the ‘luxury’ of not allowing protests against Government policy and of understanding that if ever hunger stalked China as it did in the past it might precipitate widespread rebellion by the people against the dictatorship.
Incidentally I had my gas boiler serviced 3 weeks ago and the engineer said it was in pretty good shape. I asked him where I could install a heat pump and he said I wouldn’t be able to in my back to back terraced house at 950 feet above sea level.
And finally, the countryside around Biscathorpe looks nice but is no more so than my local area and yet we have a wind farm plus electricity pylons galore. To be honest there appears to be more than a touch of Nimbyism here.
Whose pocket are you in? As a pensioner , you should have acquired some common sense by now.
As another pensioner, I have just received my £500, Valwil. My common sense required me to question how and why it had arrived in my bank account. Whose pocket are you in that you wish to deny that to many via importing more than is necessary to meet the demand that exists-including that bit you have added? OPEC have spent $billions lobbying against USA producing more oil and gas and it would not surprise me if they spent more lobbying in other areas, but until the laws of arithmetic are turned on their head I will indeed feel it is only common sense that they are what they are.
Thank you UK oil and gas producers for providing me with an opportunity to keep warm this winter. I wonder why (my common sense) the charities are not inundated with donations from all those who have benefitted in such a way from the activities of UK oil and gas producers but don’t wish to be in anyone’s pocket?
Common sense is a rare commodity, it is just not that common. It should not be confused with Group Think. There is an obvious contradiction there-and that is just common sense. Who was it who said “don’t think, be angry”??? So hence Group Angry. With the advancement of experience one finds that makes no sense, common or otherwise and is just a self indulgence. I found the quick solution was to remove pocket money until some thinking took place.
Looking at the post that created this reaction, the substance was accurate, correct and would be difficult to refute. Sorry, but if you have to be in someone’s pocket to comment in such a way, I will join Graeme in that any day of the week. (Although I would caution on nuclear that it is not usual for any nuclear power station to be built on time and on budget whilst hoping for a change in that going forward. My common sense would also tell me that horse should have been provided long before the carts were built and ended up useless for periods. The cart is the nice to have add on but pretty useless without the horse. My common sense would suggest the cost of such horse(s) would have been known but needed to be kept out of public sight until now so the cost became submerged within the £Trillions being spent. After all it is pretty common for most to know the wind doesn’t always blow. As a pensioner I have experience, like most, of the siren voices advocating the cheap motor, but then finding my common sense directed me towards the horrendous insurance costs to get it working! My common sense would also direct me to many horse owners who have no idea, until they have invested, in what a horse produces and the costs of getting rid of it. I suspect that is another one awaiting the full and detailed cost analyses. So far, the full cost analyses done by Civitas indicates my household is required to plonk out £6k every year until 2050, so if I can get a donation of £500-thank you very much. For others there is crowd funding but being in those pockets doesn’t appeal.)
P’raps if you read some serious science publications you’d know about collapsing weather systems. Try googling AMOC.
I googled it and wasn’t impressed. From NATURE Journal.
“CLIMATE MODELS SUGGEST that the AMOC will weaken over the 21st Century as greenhouse gases increase.”
Seriously ? You’d believe that a climate “MODEL” which “SUGGESTS” that something might happen is proof enough for you to eliminate the fuels which have supported our lifestyle for decades and send civilisation back to the caves ? All this from a Journal which has been shown to prevent proper scientific discussion unless it conforms to the chosen narrative. http://websites.milonic.com/notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
I am afraid Graeme that is par for this course. Now, I am not one who feels that going towards 10B population will not have some impact, and where methane is allowed to leak it should be dealt with. ( I am not sure that escalating the price of oil and gas so the leaks are more valuable are the best way to go about it, though.) However, as that world population does move towards the 10B and a big chunk of them want to eat rice, what do they do? (Try Googling methane emissions from rice production, Alex.) I also happen to like rice and as the zealots have made wheat so expensive, feel my curries and my Chinese require a bit of rice to go with them. (I will enjoy my chicken curry tonight without guilt, and trust it will help to keep me warm.) I have also sat down with three generations in Asia next to a rice field and discussed the different aspirations for those three generations, and the different life expectancy for the current generation.
I also happen to be an omnivore, so I have canines and I eat meat and quite like those animals that produce methane-without which the UK countryside would need an awful lot of agriculture just to keep it looking as it does without any end point but looking as it does.
Nothing needs to add up for the zealots, but in the real world it does. There is still no plan as to how to replace between £20B and £30B PER YEAR of fuel duty. That is a tax directed to the user of fuel, so general tax will not be acceptable so a new system will have to apply to direct it at EVs, which are already horrendously expensive without it. “They will get cheaper” is the cry-well, oh no they will not. “Someone else will pay”-well, oh no they will not.
£4.5T cost by 2050 for the UK for Net Zero. Whilst the politicians try and outdo each other as to how much to spend of our money they also laughingly talk about reforming Inheritance Tax. Ermm, spend £4.5T extra after a financial crisis, a pandemic and a war in Europe that UK is helping to fund and reaping the costs, there is very little to worry about in terms of anyone inheriting very much at all! Good luck, grandchildren. Your “productivity” is what is going to make things add up. (I already help two families with cost of living, largely energy, with both adults working.)
Well, it doesn’t and it won’t and most of the inheritance will have gone. I can only hope you will have learned a lesson about things that don’t add up and the consequences of that. Alternatively, do some research into reality and some may be spared the consequences of the siren voices, glued to their rocks, or wherever.
However, there is an election year coming in the UK and there should be a humorous interlude of the Greens attempting to show how their economic “plans” would work! The ones that didn’t require work to produce an economy. I recall the last attempt which was like some sketch out of Monty Python and it was indeed amusing but failed to show how it could even be explained to themselves. I have observed a few salespeople struggling to sell a flawed product suffering the same issue, but not to such a degree.