Key responses have been published this week in response to proposals by Egdon Resources to explore for gas at Foxholes in North Yorkshire.  

The responses can be read in the “documents” section of the Foxholes application on the North Yorkshire Council planning website .

“Particularly sensitive groundwater”

The Environment Agency said groundwater below the proposed Foxholes gas exploration site was “particularly sensitive”.

The proposed site is on a chalk principal aquifer which supplies drinking water.

But the regulator did not object to the planning application.

It said it was confident that “it will be possible to suitable manage the risks posed to groundwater”.

But it said the proposed well site would be acceptable only with planning conditions to protect groundwater.

The EA said conditions should require approval and implementation of:

• Scheme for groundwater monitoring
• Drainage strategy
• Detailed construction method statement

“Conflict with net zero”

Yorkshire Wildlife Trust objected to Egdon’s application. It said:

“YWT fundamentally object to the expansion of fossil fuel production. This is due to our concerns surrounding the continued use of fossil fuels conflicting with commitments to reach net zero by 2050.

“It is the Trust’s view, that the UK government should commit to reducing energy demand, improving energy efficiency measures, and investing in renewable energy, as an alternative source of energy security.”

The organisation also called for a full ecological impact assessment should have been carried out on the potential impact on groundwater and watercourses.

Company replies to council questions

Egdon has responded to questions from Foxholes and Butterwick Parish Council.

Chemical inventory The council asked for a full list of chemicals that would be used in the proposed drilling and testing.

Egdon said: This was not required for a planning application. The company said its environmental permit application included a chemical inventory and data sheets.

Construction management plan The council asked for specific details about how the well would be constructed.

Egdon said: A construction management plan would usually be required as a condition of planning approval.

Technical summary The council asked for a summary of environmental risks and mitigation.

Egdon said: This was included in the planning statement submitted with its application.

Non-technical summary The council asked for a presentation of the environmental risks in plain language accessible to the public.

Egdon said: A non-technical summary was required only when a planning application includes an environmental statement. North Yorkshire Council ruled that the Foxholes proposal did not need an Environmental Impact Assessment or an environmental statement.

Well trajectory The council asked whether the proposed well would be deviated or horizontal and what would be the depth and trajectory.

Egdon said: The proposed well would be a deviated slant well, reaching a depth of about 1,125m below ground level. The first 270m would be vertical through chalk and underlying clay. The next 500m would deviated in a north westerly direction, up to an inclination of 40 degrees from vertical, the company said. The target reservoir, the Sherwood Sandstone, was at approximately 970m, it added.

Well stimulation The council asked how gas flow would be stimulated during testing.

Egdon said: The proposal does not include stimulation during drilling or testing. The permit application did not include a request to use acidisation, the company added.

Water contamination The council asked about contingencies if water was contaminated.

Egdon said: There would no impact on aquifers. There would also be no breaches of the bunded site area that would affect surface water. Water quality would be monitored in the chalk aquifer before, during and after drilling, the company added. Operations would stop if there were evidence of water contamination and any source would be isolated.

Impermeable membrane The council asked how people would know if the proposed membrane below the wellpad – designed to protect groundwater – had been compromised.

Egdon said: The membrane would be tested and water quality would be monitored.

Lorry route The council asked what would happen if the proposed transport route across Staxton Hill was inaccessible.

Egdon said: An alternative route would be discussed and agreed with North Yorkshire Council.

“MOD not consulted”

The Ministry of Defence said the proposal would have no detrimental effect on the Staxton Wold radar station and it had no objection. But it said:

“MOD do not appear to have been consulted …

“We were notified by a member of the public on the proposed development.

“We are a statutory consultee on any development within the locality as it falls within the safeguarding zone surrounding Staxton Wold.

“We would request that we are consulted on any further development within this area.”

Other responses

No objections from Natural England, North Yorkshire Police, North Yorkshire Council environmental health department, and the council’s archaeology department.

North Yorkshire Council’s highways department asked for more information before responding formally. It wanted more details on the design of access to the site from Butt Lane. It also asked for more information on site lighting, additional swept path drawings for access to the site, updated visibility splays, recent local accident data, updated analysis of cyclist safety and analysis of the impact of heavy goods vehicles on traffic on Butt Lane.

• DrillOrDrop will continue to report on responses to the planning application, including comments from the public.