Temporary gas appraisal wellsite at Coastal Road, Burniston, Scarborough

What was proposed

The application sought a temporary wellsite for gas appraisal, including drilling, proppant squeeze, flow testing, decommissioning and restoration.

“NY/2025/0030/ENV - Construction of a temporary wellsite for the appraisal of gas, including drilling operation, proppant squeeze and flow testing operation and site restoration, land east of the Mill Yard, Burniston Mill, Coastal Road, Burniston, Scarborough, YO13 0DB on behalf of Europa Oil and Gas Limited…”

“The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for the construction of a temporary wellsite for the appraisal of gas, including drilling operation, proppant squeeze and flow testing operation and site restoration, land east of the Mill Yard, Burniston Mill, Coastal Road, Burniston, Scarborough, YO13 0DB on behalf of Europa Oil and Gas Limited.”

Minutes

Officers advised approval

Officers recommended permission because potential environmental impacts could be controlled through conditions and the development was supported by planning policies.

“In assessing the development the planning authority had not relied on the ‘no harm’ conclusions of the National Park but had actively added conditions which furthered the Park’s purposes protecting the visual landscape, protecting dark skies with a sensitive lighting scheme and protection of the Cleveland Way and Cinder Track with minor/negligible impacts.”

“Following the update to the report, the planning officer explained the key planning considerations which had shaped the officer recommendation. These considerations covered the full range of environmental, technical, and amenity issues raised by consultees, statutory bodies, interest groups and the public as set out in the report. Finally, the planning officer moved to the report’s conclusions and recommendation.”

Minutes

Concerns about the proposal

Objectors raised concerns about seismicity, landscape, climate, health, groundwater, long-term industrialisation, restoration funding and limited local benefits.

“Significant concern about risk of induced earthquakes with no site-specific seismic survey or compelling evidence provided to show risks could be managed. Presence of known faults, recent cliff falls, and unstable coastal geology highlighted.”

“Risks raised regarding groundwater contamination, chemical proppants left underground, proximity to watercourses, and insufficient assessment of impacts on coastal ecosystems. • Repeated objections to the claim that the development was temporary, arguing it was the first stage of a long-term (20+ year) industrial operation, with equipment retained on site and likely future applications.”

Minutes

Supporters’ case

The agent and applicants said the appraisal would be short-term and reversible, with impacts assessed, regulated and manageable through conditions.

Members’ main concerns

Members questioned geology, emissions, amenity, restoration, groundwater, public health, economic benefits, landscape and the National Park setting.

“Noise, lighting and amenity - Members queried operational noise levels, 24-hour working during specific phases, light emissions from the rig and flare stack, and the impact on residential amenity and dark skies.”

“Public health and other consultees - Members raised concerns regarding public health input and the role of statutory consultees. Officers confirmed that reliance had been placed on responses from relevant expert bodies, particularly Environmental Health, and that health impacts had been considered through the submitted assessments.”

Minutes

Why members opposed it

Members considered the development harmful to the Heritage Coast, nearby residents, the National Park setting, tourism and climate objectives.

“Heritage Coast and landscape harm - Members expressed significant concern that the development constituted major development within the Heritage Coast. Reference was made to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, with particular emphasis on the requirement to protect the undeveloped and special character of the Heritage Coast. Members gave weight to…”

“Harm to the setting of the North York Moors National Park - Members highlighted the relationship of the site to the North York Moors National Park and the location of the development within the identified visual sensitivity zone. It was considered that the height and prominence of the rig, flare stack and associated lighting would adversely affect views and the wider setting of the National Park, including its dark skies designation.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee was minded to refuse permission because of five stated harms involving landscape, amenity, the National Park, tourism and climate objectives.

“Harm to the setting of the North York Moors National Park - The height, siting and lighting of the drilling and workover rigs would harm views from and the setting of the National Park and the 3.5km sensitivity zone. The proposal fails to conserve landscape and scenic beauty and has not been sensitively located or designed to minimise adverse impacts.”

“Conflict with council climate commitments / sustainability objectives - The proposal conflicts with the Council’s adopted climate objectives and fails to demonstrate that its short term benefits outweigh the longer term implications for climate mitigation. Contrary to national and local climate commitments. Unquantified risk of greenhouse gases methane and C02, NPPF 157 and 163 and Minerals and waste joint plan policy M17.”

Minutes