A West Sussex oil site that has been mothballed since 2018 has been refused more time.

The life of the Broadford Bridge site, near Billingshurst, had previously been extended four times, without any immediate prospect of oil production.

But this morning members of the county council’s planning committee said “enough is enough” and refused a fifth extension of permission. The well will now need to be plugged and abandoned and the site restored to farmland.

Opponents of oil drilling in southern England said they were delighted by the decision.   

The site, near Billingshurst, has never produced oil commercially.

It first received planning permission in 2013 and has been dormant since 2018. Permissions were previously extended in 2017, 2018, 2020 and 2022.

The site operator, a subsidiary of UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG), drilled a well in 2017. But the company later revealed cement bond problems and possible damage to the well and surrounding rock formation.

UKOG wanted to extend the life of Broadford Bridge until 2026 while it continued to review the prospects of two other sites, at Horse Hill (30 miles away near Gatwick Airport) and the yet-to-be built Loxley well pad, near Dunsfold in Surrey (13 miles away).

Local people had called on the council to follow planning policy which requires minerals projects to be restored at the first available opportunity.

Council planners had said “there is a need for flexibility to take account of changing circumstances” and recommended permission for Broadford Bridge was extended until March 2026.

But councillors voted by seven to four against extending the planning consent. They said it contravened local and national planning policy because:

• There was no demonstrable need for the site for the appraisal of hydrocarbons
• Significant period of time had elapsed since active exploration and testing on the site has taken place and the lack of justification for a further extension of time
• The retention of the site is not essential to its countryside location and the application does not enable to extraction of minerals.

Cllr Janet Duncton told the committee:

“I am not against looking for oil and gas in this country. But this site is becoming a bit of joke.

“I don’t want to put a stop on something that could be useful to the county.

“But if this company actually thought there was going to be a good supply of oil at this site they would have jolly well got on with it before now.

“It is unfair on the people who live in the area or a bit further afield. I have come to the conclusion that enough is enough.”

Cllr Ian Gibson said:

“This has been managed badly. To ask for a fifth extension is unreasonable.”

Cllr Jaine Wild said:

“I can’t think why we are sitting here again. It is laughable. I don’t want to be sitting here in two years’ time and discussing this again.

“There have been four extensions and I think the purpose is to save this company the money for restoration.

“I hope West Sussex County Council will not allow this extension again and will not have the wool pulled over their eyes.”

The council’s principal planner, James Neave, said the need for hydrocarbon appraisal supported the application. The extension complied with local planning policies and the advantages outweighed the disbenefits, he said.

UKOG’s planning consultant, Nigel Moore, said restoring the site could “sever the link to a valuable source of oil and gas that will be needed to secure our supplies”.

The company’s commercial director, Matt Cartwright, said of Broadford Bridge:

“The site has real energy potential. The UK will need oil and gas for decades to come”.

But an opponent of the extension, Ann Stewart, of Weald Action Group, said an increase in onshore oil would not improve UK energy security. UK oil did not necessarily stay in the country, she said, and supplies from the country’s biggest field was exported.

Philip Maber and Jill Sutcliffe, also opponents, urged the committee to consider the impact of onshore oil sites on climate change.

All but one of the public comments on the application were objections. The parish council at West Chiltington and the local county councillor, Charlotte Kenyon, opposed the extension.

Cllr Kenyon told the meeting:

“Continuing licensing of this site feels weak. It feels increasingly speculative and open-ended and at odds with the views of the local community.”

She asked:

“I would like to know when and under what circumstances the county council will decide the site should close.

“It feels like groundhog day. To grant permission we would at least need more information than is presented here today.”

In a committee discussion, Cllr Simon Oakley asked whether the continuation of the Broadford Bridge site could be considered essential, given the negligible contribution of individual onshore oil and gas sites to the UK total.

Cllr Jay Mercer said

“The site makes no contribution to UK energy independence. It might do, with further planning applications and with data from other sites elsewhere.

“But we should look at what is in front of us. And what is in front of us is repeated applications for extensions.”

Cllr Brian Quinn said:

“It’s about time to give this site back to the residents”.

Cllr Ashvin Patel asked:

“Previously the site has been dormant for six years. Two more years will make it eight. How long will lives be left in limbo? How long is a piece of string?”

The committee agreed the application was contrary to polices M23 and M24 of the joint minerals local plan, paragraph 217 of the NPPF and policy 26 of the Horsham District Framework.

DrillOrDrop reporting on reaction to the decision.

DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.