Agenda item

Application:

20/00513/FUL

Details:

The construction, operation and decommissioning of a well site for the exploration and appraisal of hydrocarbon minerals from one exploratory borehole (Arreton-3) and one side-track borehole (Arreton-3z) for a temporary period of three years involving the siting of plant and equipment, the construction of a new access track, a new junction with the Newport to Sandown highway (A3056), the erection of boundary fencing, entrance gates and other ancillary development with restoration to agriculture - revised plans and information relating to means of access and rights of way mitigation measures, site layout, sections and restoration; clarification relating to ecology and environmental health issues; revised location plan/ red line boundary (readvertised application).

Land To The North East Of New Barn Business Park, Sandown Road, Arreton.

Site Visits:

The site was carried out on Friday, 15 October 2021

Public Participants:

Mr J Idle (Objector)

Mrs S May (Objector)

Mr S Davis (Objector)

Cllr M Kimber (Arreton Parish Council)

Mr M Cartwright (Applicant)

Mr N Moore (Agent)

Additional representations:

Six additional representations had been received by the Local Planning Authority since the report had been published raising concerns regarding the application. A petition of 4,410 signatures had also been submitted.

Comment:

Councillor Peter Spink spoke on behalf of Councillor Suzie Ellis as Local Member on this item.

The Chairman explained that he believed it was relevant to allow the Cabinet Member for Environment, Heritage and Waste Management to speak to the Committee regarding this application, Councillor Bacon was unable to attend, and his statement was read out by Mr Boulter Strategic Manager for Planning and Infrastructure Delivery.

The committee questioned the economic benefit to the Island if the development was approved, Planning Officers advised that the economic benefit would be at a national level and there would be only minimal local benefit to the Island.

Concern was raised regarding the impact the development would have on local tourism locations around the site and the committee asked what weight had been given to tourism when reaching the recommendation. Officers acknowledged that the proposed development would be visible and look out of place, however the structure was temporary, and the land would be restored.

It was noted that the Local Planning Authority approval would be one of a number of approvals required for this development, other agencies such as the Environment Agency and Public Health England would be responsible for elements of the proposal.

Questions were raised regarding the number of vehicle movements on and off the site, and the impact this would have on an already busy route to the ferries, they were advised by the Island Roads representative that the number of vehicles would not significantly impact on the road network.

The Committee raised concerns regarding the impact of the development on the Island’s biosphere status.

A proposal to refuse the application due to the impact on the character of the area, tourism due to the nearby cycle network, the road network, water quality, the environment (including climate change) and the lack of economic benefit to the island which was duly seconded.

Prior to the three-hour point in the meeting, a proposal to extend the meeting by 30 minutes under Part 4B paragraph 6 (Duration of meetings) and paragraph 10 (voting) of the council’s Constitution was put to the meeting.

RESOLVED:

THAT the meeting be extended by up to 30 minutes.

Planning Officers advised that the Local Plan does not provide guidance regarding local benefits of the application, however the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that great weight should be attached to minerals developments, including hydrocarbons. It was also highlighted that Island Roads had not objected to the application, and the road network was sufficient to take the additional movements on the local road network.

Officers also referred to the comments provided by statutory consultees in respect of impacts to ground water and ecology. Officers also highlighted a recent high court judgement relating to planning decisions and downstream environmental impacts relating to hydrocarbons.

The Chairman took an adjournment to allow officers to consider the concerns and formulate a sustainable reason for refusal of the application based on these.

Following the adjournment officers read out the proposed reason for refusal and in accordance with the Councils Constitution a named vote was taken the result follows:

For (11)

Councillors, David Adams, Michael Beston, Geoff Brodie, Vanessa Churchman, Claire Critchison, Warren Drew, Chris Jarman, Michael Lilley, Martin Oliver, Matthew Price, Chris Quirk

Against (0)

RESOLVED:

THAT the application be refused.

Reason:

The proposed development would cause significant harm to the landscape and visual qualities of the surrounding rural area and thereby compromise the Island’s tourism industry. The economic benefits of the proposed development would not outweigh the harm to the integrity of the Island’s landscape and Biosphere status. SP4. SP5, DM2, DM12.