Campaigners have questioned council officials about whether a “viable” planning application is likely for the Horse Hill oil production site in Surrey.

The site, near Redhill, was stripped of its planning permission in June 2024 following a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court.

Since then, there have been multiple delays to clear the site and submit a new planning application.

Last month, Surrey County Council said it expected key application documents by mid-February.

But correspondence between council planners and the campaign network, the Weald Action Group, indicates the application submission has been delayed again.

The Weald Action Group said the focus of the Horse Hill parent company, UK Oil & Gas plc, had “moved away from onshore oil and gas altogether”:

“it is therefore increasingly difficult to understand why the Council continues to assume that a viable planning submission at Horse Hill is forthcoming.”

Sian Saadeh, Surrey County Council’s assistant director of planning, replied this week

“We are in regular contact with the applicant who has provided information setting out the proposed timeframe and details for the submission of the necessary information to allow the redetermination of the application.”

She added:

“It is reasonable for the Council to continue to act on the basis that a planning application is forthcoming. 

“I appreciate however that this submission has been delayed and therefore this position does remain under review, if it appears that the operator’s position has changed. 

“Recently we have had communication that a submission should be imminent in February once two final supporting documents have been completed. A full public consultation will be undertaken once the submission has been received.”

Enforcement concerns

Weald Action Group also raised concerns about the level of county council enforcement against oil companies in Surrey.

It said the Horse Hill operator had been allowed to cease oil production voluntarily, four months after planning permission had been quashed.

Another company, Angus Energy, drilled a sidetrack well at Brockham, even though Surrey County Council twice told the company it did not have planning permission for the work.

Weald Action Group said:

“it is difficult not to feel concerned that these operators view enforcement action as something that is negotiable and the consequences of acting unlawfully as minimal.”

The group asked:

“what reassurances can the Council provide that its planning system is being applied robustly? If a pattern of unlawful activity is seen to have no meaningful consequence, it is obvious that this sends a clear signal to UKOG (and other operators) that delay and non-compliance will be tolerated.” 

Ms Saadeh said it was “established good practice in planning enforcement” to seek a negotiated or voluntary remedy.

She said the purpose of planning enforcement was to remedy the planning harm from any breach of planning control and “not to only act punitively”:

“A negotiated remedy is always therefore sought as a first option and this will also usually result in a quicker remedy than the serving of a formal notice which may be followed by appeals or legal action during which time the planning harm may be continuing.

“It was therefore appropriate for us to follow this approach in respect of Horse Hill and this ultimately had the desired result of the cessation of the extraction.”

Ms Saadeh added:

“there has been continued negotiation and discussions regarding the removal of equipment from the site and its restoration. There was initial positive action by the operator with equipment removed from the site to ensure that the well was no longer functional alongside the removal of other ancillary equipment. 

“Discussions remain active with recent meetings having taken place.  From the Council’s perspective, engaging in these discussions does not prevent the Council from taking formal enforcement action if we deem it now necessary and expedient to do so. 

“Those options, including all possible formal enforcement action options, remain under active consideration by the team and work is on-going in this respect. 

“I have asked that the team update me in no more than a month’s time as to how this has progressed and I will ensure you are updated at that time as well.”

WAG also raised concerns about possible damage to the Horse Hill site liner on the perimeter bund.

Ms Saadeh said she had passed on the concerns to “relevant enforcement officers” and it was being investigated. She said she had also told the Environment Agency.

A year at Horse Hill

28 January 2026: Council still waiting for Horse Hill information

17 December 2025: Horse Hill – key details delayed

26 November 2025: Key information promised before Christmas

26 June 2025: No site clearance at Horse Hill one year on from Supreme Court ruling

26 March 2025: Horse Hill judgement – 9 months on and no date for final site clearance

26 February 2025: No date for site clearance and council seeks new details