The BLOG is now closed!

It served a purpose when it consolidated our only means of communicating (the good old village e-mail list) but it has passed its sell by date.

Thank you for letting us know about this planning application.  We will pass the details onto our local representative: ERIC FOWLER who in due course will look into the matter and take any action which seems appropriate.

Campaigns Administrator
Walking Environments Team
www.ramblers.org.uk

I have been looking at the Minerals Planning Statement (part of the Department for Communities etc framework), which states clearly (page 7) "do not permit major mineral developments in National Parks, the Broads, Areas of outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage Sites except in exceptional circumstances. Because of the serious impact that major mineral developments may have on these areas of natural beauty, and taking account of the recreational opportunities that they provide, applications for these developments should be subject to the most rigorous examination."

I am not available this weekend and have not yet seen the full application, but it seems to me that there are two important elements here:
(a) - how to interpret "exceptional circumstances". Maybe there is planning case precedent here, but if not it would have to be considered in terms of the usual meaning of the words. I do not see what exceptional circumstances apply either at the present time or in relation to the geological structure it is proposed to explore. Europa may say "This prospect is highly regarded and is thought to be one of the best undrilled UK onshore structures" but I don't think this means the circumstances are exceptional but simply that they feel more positive about the prospects of finding htdrocarbons. But NB there is also a question of whether this is a "major mineral development".
(b) - what is required by way of "the most rigorous examination". This would require I am sure more than the usual consultation documents and opportunities. I would have thought it ought for example to require more examination of options that do not require development within the AONB, greater justification of the case for carrying out the development at all etc. (But I am not a planner, merely a pedant/statistician!)

The Minerals Planning Statement goes on with further criteria on major developments and then says: "Proposals in these areas which are not considered to be major mineral developments should be carefully assessed, with great weight being given in decisions to the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside, the conservation of wildlife and the cultural heritage and the need to avoid adverse impacts on recreational opportunities."

So if the proposal is not considered as major it sounds to me as if (even) greater weight is put on environmental, amenity etc factors.

There is more material in the "Minerals Practice Guide" about the processes that need to be gone through. Might it be worth checking that Europa followed the correct procedures in paragraph 119 for their seismic etc surveys?

Europa say that they carried out a "robust review of alternative locations" in 2005. Is this part of the application? Does it include proposals that would not require a wellhead inside the AONB? Why did they choose the current site against what alternatives?

On a more subjective note, I feel that one of the major parts of the whole beautiful approach to Coldharbour on Coldharbour Lane is its sunken character with beech trees either side. Will passage of low loaders with drilling equipment etc leave those trees unharmed? No amount of restoration of the site would help this.

The Surrey County Council Planning Officer's Report (recommending that members approve a planning application by Star Energy for a site in Albury) makes depressing reading. Residents had mounted a robust campaign which is summarised in the report - Green Belt, AONB, AGLV, Noise, Traffic, Need etc - and mobilised nearly 600 letters of objection, but to no avail.

The general theme of the planning application at Albury (and Coldharbour) appears to be the acknowledgement that development in Green Belt, AONB, AGLV is 'presumed against' unless there are 'special circumstances' and that exploration for oil and gas is such a 'special circumstance' - as set out in government policy (specifically Minerals Policy Statment 1). Europa has obviously done a professional job with their application and has retained a number of consultants to 'prove' that the various grounds for objection are not valid.

SCC states that approval of exploration does not imply approval of production (and that objection to a later stage will be ignored when considering a former stage). To my simple mind, that's just hogwash. Why explore if there's no intention to produce? The Albury experience is apparently that once a planning consent is gained it gets 'extended by stealth'.

Perhaps in our case to a gas fired power station connected to the National Grid?

This article is available here. Well done to whoever organised this.

Not a daft question at all.  This is why the planning application stresses the way in which the site will be restored.  We need to realise that the drilling tower is temporary and the extraction pump is small, out of sight and carefully camouflaged to blend in with the woodlands or so they will say.  None of this is compatible with the mission statement you are quoting.  Protect means protect.  It doesn't mean only let little things happen!
 
+++

In a message dated 25/02/2009 16:26:43 GMT Standard Time, Max Bower writes:

Is this a daft question – who owns the land where the platform is to be sited?  Is it Europa?  I thought it was all Forestry land there, whose mission statement is as follows:

Our mission is to protect and expand Britain's forests and woodlands and increase their value to society and the environment.

Consistent with an oil rig?

I'm not a trained geologist but I gather the drill site isn't close to the landslip and even if it was would be very unlikely to activate the slip. The drill hole is very small compared with the slip itself and so would not generate forces anything like big enough trigger any ground movement.
 
That said the road that crosses the slip does have a few semi circular cracks in it that suggest the thing hasn't finished moving altogether.

+++

Simon Note: Per Ron Billard post the target area is under the Landslip. Oil & Gas drilling technology allows for directional drilling.

The campaign against this is mobilising quickly. A public meeting has been arranged. This will be at 4.00pm on Sunday 1st March in the John Venus Hall in Coldbarbour. You or any of your colleagues would be most welcome. I would be very grateful if you would register at www.thevirtualvillage.com/oilwell.cfm and encourage your colleagues to do so as well. Your details will be held securely and not used for any purpose other than communicating with you. If you could e-mail your members with a link to the above page that would be truly excellent.

+++

Quoting Martin Wedgwood :

Dear Mr. Lea,
 
Thank you very much for your message.
 
Our own planning sub-committee, which meets every Wednesday at the Mole Valley Council offices in Dorking, were looking at the application this morning and we are working on our response.
 
Yours sincerely,

Martin Wedgwood
(Chairman of the Dorking & District Preservation Society)

Dear Campaigners,

Sorry If I gave the impression that I was apologising for Europa Oil and Gas. My E-mail was intended as a summary of the Planning Application.  To fight this thing we need to know what it is.
 
As to be expected, the Planning Application seeks to mitigate the effects of the exploration drilling and is written to minimise the impact of the negative issues. The application counters many of the arguments that will be put forward by objectors.
 
I have now spent another hour or so with the Planning Application and consulted with an ex member of the Oil industry.
 
It would appear that the company intends to use a directional drilling technique where the drill drives vertically for 200 metres or so before veering towards its target in a long curve.  The target seems to be about 1200 metres below The Landslip.  This geometry suits the drilling process. There are locations just off the A29 that are a similar distance from The Landslip, these would be more expensive to drill but the simplicity of the logistics would compensate. 
 
In terms of traffic volumes,  initial set up would be highly disruptive, large articulated vehicles would be needed to transport the machinery.  Similarly when the site is closed down.  Once the rig is in place, there will be a continual requirement for transport of consumables, particularly concrete. Perhaps three trucks a day.  Also material will be carted off site.  Should an extraction phase be reached - and the odds against this are between 5 and 10 to 1 -  hundred barrels a day requires about three average size petrol tankers a week to move.  Should the reserves be Gas then, most likely, the gas will fuel on-site generators to feed the National Grid.  This will still create waste - about a truckload every week.
 
Looking at noise levels of the machinery, there seems to be very little effect above the background noise, however we do need a second opinion on this.
 
Flaring off gasses is an essential safety feature for this type of operation.  Should there be a sudden outburst of gas, it has to be flared off.  A pilot flare is kept going to enable this to occur safely.
 
On the environmental side there are some issues which give cause for concern,  The overlying sandstone rock is porous and Europa's  charts also show some faulting of the underlying strata including that which potentially contains the reserves.  There is a risk that the drilling and perhaps any subsequent extraction will cause oil to leak into the surrounding rock, potentially emerging into Kit Brook, Tillingbourne and even as far as Pipp Brook.  Europa may claim that their rigs being multicored will not permit this to happen. 
 
I could not find much in the way of risk analysis still less on reaction analysis (what happens when things don't go according to plan). 
 
In conclusion, in addition to not wishing to see Leith Hill trashed,
 
- There is a transportation issue
- There is a case that there are alternative sites for basing the drill head.
- There is a contamination issue. 
- More exposure of Europa's risk planning and risk management is needed before Permission is given.
- On the other hand there is the ever present danger that the Government will overturn all objections and give a green light to the project.
 

Best Regards,

Ron Billard

Good stuff on Europa.  They are operators on behalf of the following consortium:

• Europa Oil & Gas Limited (operator) (registered number: 3093716) of 14 London Road, Newark, Nottinghamshire, NG24 1TW    -   40.00%
• Egdon Resources (UK) Limited (registered number: 03424561) of Suite 2, 90-96 High Street, Odiham, Hampshire, RG29 1LP    -   38.14%
• Warwick Energy Exploration and Production Limited (registered number: 4095285) of Wellesbourne House, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire, CV35 9JB, UK    -   20.00%
• Altwood Petroleum Limited (registered number: 2728156) of Chenies House, Altwood Close, Maidenhead, SL6 4PP, UK    -   1.86%

The first two are AIM listed, the second two private I think.

+++

Simon Note: It's common in the Oil & Gas industry to share risk. Exploration prospects have an 'Operator' (in our case Europa Oil & Gas). Most explorations are done as a 'Joint Venture'. Joint Venuture partners are required to bankroll the exploration and stand to gain (or lose) large amounts. Alan has done well to identify the JV partners.

A planning application has been lodged with SCC for Oil & Gas exploration in Coldharbour. More details about this are published in the 'Campaign Against' website at www.thevirtualvillage.com/oilwell.cfm. You will surely wish to mobilise your members to object to this application. I would be grateful if you would encourage them to register at the 'Campaign Against' website so that we can keep them informed.

I note that Hazel Watson believes the "application has real credibility" which appears to be at odds with what she has written.  I believe that our Grounds for Objection should include the lack of credibility of the proposing company.  The following note is based on information from Europa's own website and Bloomberg.

Does the proposal by Europa Oil and Gas have sufficient credibility to be given permission to cause so much disruption to Coldharbour and Dorking?

Europa Oil and Gas (holdings) PLC was incorporated in 1995 and was admitted to the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in 2004.  Shares were issued at 25p and £5 million was raised.

Despite 14 years of trading experience,  Europa have had precious little success which is reflected in the current share price of 61/4p.  The total market capitalisation of the company is under £4 million!!  The directors (3 executive and 3 non-executive who have a solitary PhD in Geology to share between them) own 63% of the company with two nominee companies owning  a further 15%.
 
Europa’s 2008 AGM presentation highlights operations in the UK, Romania, France and North Africa.  However, the only operation which has actually come to production is in the East Midlands and by their own admission they did not discover this oil.  The presentation also notes that the total UK average daily production for 2008 was a paltry 243 barrels/day!  This equates to annual revenue of £2.4 million given current oil prices, hardly sufficient recompense for desecrating the North Downs.

The directors of Europa know that the probability of finding sufficient oil or gas to justify production in the Surrey Hills AONB is zero.  However while they can continue to present the possibility of a find, they may be able to cause a temporary blip up in the share price to allow them to offload some of their shares.  The chart below would suggest they are fighting a losing battle.

The only high probability event attached to Europa  is that naive penny share investors will be able to follow its share price down to zero over the next few years.  Surrey County Council must be made aware of the track record of the company and that by giving assent to the proposal they are consciously puffing air back into a rapidly deflating scheme.

Europa Gas and Oil PLC share price (pence/share): heading for zero?

Dear All

I have today contacted the Planning officers of Surrey County Council. I have been informed by the County Council that the land is owned by the Forestry Commission. The planning application will definitely go to the Planning and Regulatory Committee at County Hall for decision as to whether or not to grant planning permission for oil and gas drilling. However, no date has been set for the Committee decision to be made but the Committee could NOT make a decision about the planning application on 18 March and that the earliest date it could be is in May although it may well be later.

The statutory consultees including the Environment Agency, Natural England, Mole Valley District Council and other specified organisations have 28 days to respond from 6 February. However, the statutory consultees are invariably late in responding and do not comply with the deadline. Also if statutory consultees request further information, this would delay the process to allow responses to be provided.    

Although the public are supposed to respond to the consultation by 11 March, the County Council will take representations after that date up until the planning application goes to the Planning and Regulatory Committee at County Hall in Kingston.

I understand that individual letters from residents carry more weight with the Committee than petitions, however  local residents may wish to consider both forms of representation.

I attach a leaflet about the procedures for speaking to the Planning and Regulatory Committee for your information and a briefing note about the planning application prepared by the County Council.  

Please let me know if there is any further information you would find helpful.

Regards.

Hazel Watson
County Councillor
Dorking Hills Division

Dear Malcolm,

You wrote:

+++

Dear Mr Lea,

Thank you for your email.
 
I have spoken with Alan Hustings today and I hope that he has disseminated the latest information from Mole Valley District Council.

I spoke with an officer at Mole Valley, Clive Smith today, and it appears that Mole Valley’s Development Control Committee will meet to discuss this application either in April or May 2009. The committee generally meets on the first Wednesday of each month. There was a concern that the oil company’s application would be determined at some point in March 2009, before Mole Valley’s committee could meet. Mr Smith informs me that, having spoken with a Ms. Sparrow of Surrey County Council, that is not the case.

The officer dealing with the case is Mr Chris Robertson (who was not in today). He is one of Mole Valley’s senior planning officers and I hope to speak further with him tomorrow.

I should re-iterate something that I think your readers know. The application itself is submitted to Surrey County Council. Mole Valley District Council however is consulted, and can make representations. By way of example, very recently a number of representations were made in relation to a planning application that related to the quarry at Betchworth.

Residents do have the right to speak at Development Control meetings. I have given Mr Hustings some advice as to the criteria.

Rule 35 of Mole Valley’s Constitution allows a representative of the Parish Council (in this case Capel Parish Council), one objector and the Applicant to speak for up to three minutes. However there must be 20 or more objection letters from separate households or a petition containing at least 50 signatures (from 50 separate households) objecting to the proposal. The request should be submitted to Mole Valley by no later than 4.00 p.m on the Monday preceding the meeting.

There is a time limit for submission of comments to Surrey County Council, which expires on the 11th March. For the moment this time limit would appear to stand, although Mr Hustings told me that approaches had been made to Surrey County Council to extend the time limit.

If residents are to make written representations, they should do so to Surrey County Council but copy those letters to Mole Valley District Council.

I will be attending the meeting this Sunday, at the John Venus Hall, and I look forward to meeting you and other residents then. I think it would helpful if a chairman was appointed, and an agenda set. I am not a planning expert, but I think it would be helpful for residents to hear from any resident who does have such expertise. I understand that Hazel Watson, our local county councillor will be attending and I think that she will be able to give a great deal of help. I have been in contact with Sir Paul Beresford, our local MP about this matter and he may be able to offer advice. Finally I have contacted the two Betchworth district councillors, Councillor Maurice Homewood and Councillor Kate Horden. Councillor Homewood is (like me) a member of the planning committee, but he has a huge amount of experience of this type of application and I think he can give some advice.

I would also suggest that residents consider a meeting with the applicant. It does happen at Mole Valley that meetings take place between officers, councillors and applicants, and sometimes this can be very helpful particularly where clarification is required. I am more than happy to discuss such a meeting  with the officers at Mole Valley, if residents wish.

As you know, I am the chairman of the planning committee and I have to maintain a neutral position throughout this process. However I read the comments on your website with great interest and I look forward to hearing more.

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Malcolm Johnson

+++

Thanks for this note. It is very clear and precise. I will publish it in the website blog, but let me know if you wish me to delete it. As the website publisher, I will be careful to only publish facts - even though I am less than neutral! Thanks for your support so far.

Dear All,

It’s good to see such an outpouring of rage at the planning application. I channelled mine into building a campaign website at:

www.thevirtualvillage.com/oilwell.cfm

This includes an organised blog of e-mails “cc Village” (as these are already in the public domain). I will delete posts on request, but there’s actually some really good stuff in there. I have not and will not publish any e-mail addresses or phone numbers without consent. I have also included links to a map of the site, SCC, Europa Oil & Gas etc.

The consultation period is outrageously short. We will meet on Sunday 1st March at 4.00pm in the John Venus Hall – and that leaves a bare 10 days to mobilise objection. There are surely several hundreds of people who would willingly object to the proposed exploration – if only they knew about it; we must start to mobilise objection now. My suggestion is that all recipients of this e-mail register at the campaign website (dead easy) and also e-mail their mates (dead easy) and ask them to register – and e-mail their mates, so on ad-infinitum. I’d also suggest that we find some way to publicise this planning application to ‘walkers’ on Saturday 28th February & Sunday 1st March. I would be happy to arrange this. Note that it is possible to object on-line at the SCC website (see details in the campaign website). Help me get me 500 (voluntarily registered) e-mail addresses and I will send out 500 ‘reminders to object’ in good time.

Regards,

Simon

Peter,
 
Thanks for your rapid and well argued response.  My purpose was to summarise the planning proposal not to defend it. 
 
You quite rightfully worry about what will happen next.  I'm not sure how valid an argument fear of any future planning application is; I am sure that Malcolm Johnson will be able to provide some good advice on this. My personal view is that consideration of the next step is relevant.  Coldharbour Lane may have to be considerably widened or a pipeline may be required in the event of exploitation, how do we know that Knoll Road is up to it? Surrey Highways may provide some views (Just a suggestion!!).  As you imply, there is little point doing exploration if exploitation is out of the question, but the planning rules may not see it that way. 
 
A danger, which I hinted at but only in passing, is that the Government is backing this sort of activity and may determine that the Leith Hill resources exploitation is a strategic issue and change the rules.
 
As you point out, potential damage to Coldharbour lane and its verges at the exploration stage needs to be addressed and I do not recall any mention of this in the planning application. Restoring the site is clearly addressed but not restoring the road. 
 
A more robust nature survey is proposed,  the application refers to nightjars, to reptiles and some invasive species of Japanese weed. There may be some arguments here, but the area is well used for forestry commission activities so it's not likely to be a very strong argument.
 
Leaving Methane in the ground and not driving trucks around clearly avoids contributions to global warming.  Again Malcolm Johnson may be able to advise on the power of such arguments.
 
I did not mention noise at night.  The test rig will need to operate continuously for several days at a time.  You will need some estimates of the noise levels likely to be encountered by the nearest residents in order to object on these grounds, I suspect it will be pretty low but am happy to be proved wrong.  Noisy night time operations also affect wildlife.
 
I am trying to find out the success rates of exploration rigs.  In Alberta where there is lots of oil, the figure 1 in 10 was quoted a few years ago, but methods have moved on.
 
For the present, it seems advisable to review the fears and the arguments in a rational manner. The arguments may then be put, with conviction and with some impact.  This will require a campiagn team who feel strongly enough to commit themselves to some hard work. 
 
I hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Ron Billard

Peter, I’ll vote for you!

P.S. I think that I saw a colony of rare bats there too.

Pam,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.  It is always a worry when people are suddenly faced with a great unknown such as an oil rig next door.  I visited Pippbrook to inspect the planning application.  Clearly much thought has gone into its preparation and there seems to be around 1,000 pages of supporting documentation.  I have also visited to Europa Oil and Gas website.  Here is a short summary of what appears to be the situation.
 
Firstly, the site is just to the south of Milton Gore adjacent to an existing Forestry Commission access way, and just north of Waterdon Wood. Confusion has arisen because early documents referred to Bury Hill woodlands a general description of the area, this has been corrupted to Bury Hill Wood which appears to be a more specific location, albeit non-existent.  Surrey County Council should be asked to correct this.

Secondly, the purpose is to drill for exploratory purposes only.  Exploitation would, if pursued, be subject to a further, totally new planning application.

Thirdly, the duration is planned to be around 4 months, the actual duration may be shorter depending on the results of the tests.  As there are many uncertainties, including environmental issues such as nesting seasons to be avoided, the planning application provides for a 3 year period.  Local residents may well wish to question this as it appears to provide a rather large window of opportunity for other things to happen.

Fourthly, traffic disruption is inevitable as the existing road network will not support the operation without temporary controls being operated during the exploration. This will be required when the material is delivered to the site for the drilling tower and ancilliary buildings.  Similarly when the whole thing is dismantled and removed from site.  The route for transportation of material is by way of the North Holmwood Roundabout, Horsham Road, Knoll Road and Coldharbour Lane.  Vehicle movement will be restricted to between 9:30 and 15:00 and local residents need to be reassured of this.  Surrey Police may well be able to provide reassurance.  Residents may wish to carry out their own monitoring should the project go ahead.

Fifthly, the environmental impact will be minimised.  The site will be restored, however local residents should seek assurance from the Forestry commission as to regrowth rates and the effect on natural flora and fauna.  There will be light pollution as gasses are flared off, during the exploration.  This is probably preferable to release of methane which is about 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas as the carbon dioxide emitted from the flare.

Lastly, the economic imperative is supported by the government, the UK will never achieve self sufficiency. However domestic resources are reassuring.  As oil prices are, at present, relatively low the justification and economic balance is debatable. However, should oil prices rise again the pressure will be on for more development. The affected residents are unlikely to benefit economically, local traders may see a small increase in activity.  The area is very accustomed to casual visitors, so any increase is unlikely to be noticed but may temporarily offset any potential decline caused by the current downturn.

It is worth noting that Europa Oil and Gas were floated on the AIM about three years ago at about 30 pence and are now worth about 5 pence a share.

Local residents may wish to consult with their counterparts in the Brockham area where Europa Oil and Gas operate a well.  I would be happy to help set this up.

Ron Billard

Conservative Candidate for Dorking Hills

If you Google "Oil Drilling Coldharbour" the top item for me at the moment is the planning application from the County Council website.

The applicant is Europa Oil and Gas Limited.

Europa Oil and Gas Limited would appear to have been incorporated in 1995. Its holding company is publicly quoted (listed November 2004) on the AIM market with stock symbol EOG. The latest large shareholder disclosure (19 Feb 2009) shows that Erika Syba and Paul Barrett (declared as a single holding as husband and wife) own 26.61% of the company. Both are directors of the company (Operations Director and Managing Director respectively). The annual report also shows a C W Ahlefeldt-Laurvig (a petroleum engineer and consultant to the company) as a 37.17% shareholder.

The highlights to the July 2008 financial statements published in December 2008 show that the Company has completed the Crosby Warren well which is mow in full time production, has 3 new licences to drill in the UK East Midlands, a second licence in the French Aquitaine basin, and has drilling interests in Romania. Its Revenues for the year were £4.4 million, Profit before tax £2.1 million. Profit after tax was just £149,000. The Group's Net Assets at 31 July 2008 were £6.171 million (but of which £7,241 million were intangible assets).

The Chairman's statement says that the Company is focused on obtaining planning permission for all its drillable prospects - with planning permission obtained at Hykeham 1 and West Fursby 9 (Lincolnshire) and it is submitting planning applications for Holmwood 1 and West Whisby 1.

The Chairman also states that, with the recent fall in the oil price there is a degree of uncertainty as to the Group's ability to fund its 2009 drilling programme. This has resulted in the auditors giving a going concern emphasis of matter in their opinion but without qualifying the accounts.

The Managing Director in his Operational Review refers to our site as follows: "We progress towards obtaining planning permission for the Holmwood 1 well, a robust prospect situated in the northern part of the Weald basin, close to the Albury and Brockham fields.Good progress has been made with the local authorities in respect for the planning application for this well and it is expected that the submission will be finalised in the near future".

From the above, it appears that the application has real credibility. However, whether they will be able tro fund the drilling will remain to be seen.

Regards.

Hazel

Dear All

Thank you for your e-mails which I have just received on my return from a week's holiday in France last night.

I shall be pleased to help Coldharbour in any way possible to oppose this planning application which is totally inappropriate for the village. I am available to attend a meeting at any time on Sunday 1 March to work with the village to develop an effective plan of action.

I have some experience of another planning application for oil drilling in Brockham a number of years ago when I represented that village. I have today spoken with District Councillor Maurice Homewood to seek his advice as he took the lead in opposing the oil drilling planning applications in Brockham and is extremely knowledgeable about planning issues as a former Chair of the Mole Valley Planning Committee and as a former Chairman of Mole Valley District Council. In view of this, I suggest inviting Maurice to the meeting for his advice - let me know if you would like me to ask him.

I will also contact the County Council to obtain as much information as possible about the planning application and how best to make representations to the County Council to inform the meeting next weekend.

Yours sincerely

Hazel Watson
County Councillor
Dorking Hills Division

In a message dated 21/02/2009 14:29:43 GMT Standard Time, Malcolm Johnson writes:

My position has to be a neutral one, because I am the chairman of Mole Valley’s planning committee. However that doesn’t stop me giving advice, or listening to what residents are saying.

Does that mean that your ward is rendered voiceless in the District Council?
 
If that is the case, I have to say, your first duty should be to vacate the chair for the item and speak on behalf of the people in your ward.
 
Martin Richards

Rob,

This is important. I would be grateful if you would bring it to the attention of the Surrey Hills Board and its planning consultant,  Were you notified of this application? I will let CPRE know. Unfortunately I am away until Tue. 2nd. March but  I will contact you on my return.

Best wishes

Neil

Neil Maltby
Chairman
Surrey Hills Society

Dear Graham and Alan,

Thank you for your emails.

I think a meeting is required, and I can certainly do that next weekend.

Ideally we need Paul Garber to come along and speak to us, given his experience of fighting SCC on planning issues.

My position has to be a neutral one, because I am the chairman of Mole Valley’s planning committee. However that doesn’t stop me giving advice, or listening to what residents are saying.

Kind regards,

Councillor Malcolm Johnson