Oil wellsite extension at Waddock Cross Wellsite Waddock Cross, Affpuddle, Dorchester

Earlier permissions and use

Oil production began in 2013, but the site was shut in during 2014 after declining oil output, and approved additional wells were not drilled.

“Production began in 2013. Fluid recovery rates demonstrated a high water cut. As the oil production declined over time, the site became unviable and was shut in 2014. The applicant has undertaken evaluation work in recent years that has shown that with further development of the site, commercial production could be re- established. It is anticipated that this would involve the drilling of two additional wells.”

“Background and relevant planning history Number Decision Date Description 6/1981/0642 Grant 10/09/1981 Form exploratory drilling site for oil/natural gas 6/1983/0567_1 Grant 06/09/1983 Retention of exploration well for oil/gas for a further two years 6/2003/0545_1 Grant 09/09/2003 Exploration wellsite (land off c80) 6/2004/0147_1 Grant 20/04/2004 Variation of condition no.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the extension was acceptable in principle and its climate, biodiversity, landscape and highway effects were considered acceptable.

“Key planning issues As set out in sections 16 and 17 of this report, in summary: Issue Conclusion Principle of development Extending the duration of the development until 2033 would be within the transition period towards net zero in 2050 and would be acceptable in principle.”

“Issue Conclusion Climate Change Whilst there is an acknowledged contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, both directly and indirectly, the effects of the proposal on climate change in this case are not significant on a county or UK level. Biodiversity The proposal, along with biodiversity mitigation and enhancement secured by condition, would not adversely affect biodiversity on and around the site.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Several technical consultees raised no objection, while Natural England and the ecology team sought monitoring, lighting and management measures.

“Natural Environment Team Comments (10/07/2023) • The originally submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) did not consider its findings against the proposal. It did not provide any conclusions concerning the impacts upon ecology and biodiversity, in particular in relation to baseline information submitted in the 2013 application. • Further surveys for lichens were suggested, along with consideration of the delay in restoration by 10 years.”

“All mitigation and enhancement measures set out in the report are recommended to be secured through the submission of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) to cover the operational and restoration period would also need to be submitted. Both documents should include a lighting strategy and could be secured through condition.”

Officer report

What residents and groups said

Objectors challenged the climate effects, restoration delay, environmental impacts, oil production need, traffic, biodiversity and the site’s future use.

“Highways No objection (16/06/2023) 9.7 Flood Risk Management No objection (01/06/2023) • Drainage/flood risk related conditions are not required 9.8 Environmental Protection No comment (07/04/2025) 9.9 Affpuddle & Turnerspuddle Parish Council Comment (20/06/2023) • Understand that the current application is a holding position pending a more substantial application in the future.”

“Concerns raised by 17 other representations are summarised below: • The application is contrary to Dorset Council declaring a Climate and Ecological Emergency in 2019. • Oil consumption should be reduced not increased. • Concerns relating to oil spills, referencing the one in Poole Harbour in 2023. • Low oil yield site with few jobs is no benefit to Dorset. • Any significant increase in traffic would not be suitable for the highway access.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Three speakers opposed the application, while the applicant spoke in support and referred to ecological surveys, engagement and policy compliance.

What members discussed

Members questioned the end date, environmental significance, carbon budgets, data accuracy, decommissioning, oil use, water, transport and local emissions.

“Members questions and comments • A query was raised regarding the duration of the commission, with clarification sought on whether the condition imposed a fixed end date. • Members sought clarity on who held responsibility for determining the significance of environmental impacts. • One member questioned why significance was assessed in terms of global or national metrics rather than local targets.”

“Sought guidance on how the scale of significance (local, national, global) could or should be determined in such assessments…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee deferred the application to seek further detail on the scale of significance and assessment against global, national and local carbon impacts.

“Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to DEFER was proposed by Cllr David Taylor, and seconded by Cllr Belinda Bawden.”

“Decision: To defer the item to a later date to seek further detail on the scale of significance and whether it was possible to assess the proposal in relation to global carbon budgets, as well as national and local impacts.”

Minutes