DRILL OR DROP?

DrillOrDrop will be posting updates here as a record of the clean-up of Cuadrilla’s fracking site at Preston New Road in Lancashire.

We reported last week that work had begun to remove the green acoustic fencing around the well pad.

19 August 2026. Photo: Maple Indie Media

Lancashire County Council issued an enforcement notice for the site in June 2026 after the operator, Cuadrilla, failed to meet an approved timetable.

The company now has until 8 November 2026, 80 days away today, to remove remaining plant, buildings, fencing, membranes and aggregates forming the drilling compound.

Replacing subsoil must be completed by 8 December 2026 (110 days). The deadline for returning top soil and making the land suitable for agriculture is 8 January 2027, in 141 days.

Preston New Road was the only UK onshore site to frack horizontal wells. The fracking operations in 2018 and 2019 caused numerous small earthquakes. Fracturing was suspended almost exactly seven years ago after the UK’s largest fracking-induced seismic event.

Thanks to everyone who let us use their photos.

21 August 2026

Eye witnesses report all the acoustic fencing has now been removed

Photo: Used with owner’s consent

The Fox Group, which has been working on thge site, said the acoustic fencing would be “sold on and reused elsewhere, giving the materials a second life rather than going to waste”. The company posted this video on Facebook today:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2775307122839993

Wednesday 19 August 2026 Photo: Maple Indie Media Photo: Maple Indie Media Photo: Maple Indie Media Photo: Maple Indie Media Wednesday 12 August 2026

Work begins to remove the green acoustic fencing.

Photos taken 12 August 2026 and 13 August 2026: Chris Holliday and used with the owners’ consents.

The government has unveiled its revised planning blueprint for England, with key changes to shape onshore oil and gas decisions.

The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has:

• Removed a requirement to give “great weight” to the economic benefits of onshore oil and gas proposals
• Removed a previous requirement to “plan positively” for onshore oil and gas developments
• Introduced a new policy to refuse onshore oil and gas extraction proposals except in defined circumstances (see more below)

The previous policy on restoration and financial bonds for oil and gas sites is unchanged.

A year ago, nine environmental campaign organisations urged the government to end planning policies which they said favoured fossil fuels (details). They said the previous policies were “dangerous for the climate” and “unfair to communities”.

The government said the new NPPF policy on minerals sought to ensure a sufficient supply, “while restricting peat, coal and onshore oil and gas extraction for environmental reasons”.

The new NPPF replaces a version published in 2012 and revised between 2018 and 2024.

A public consultation on the new version ran from December 2025-March 2026.

National_Planning_Policy_Framework August 2026Download

“Great weight” gone

Previous versions of the NPPF required decisionmakers to give “great weight” to the benefits of mineral extraction to the economy.

This general policy, M3 (1), now reworded to “substantial weight”, remains. But the NPPF states specifically that it does not apply to onshore oil and gas projects. The new NPPF also no longer includes a requirement to “plan positively” for onshore oil and gas.

The government said this “represents a policy change for oil and gas”. It said:

“We are proposing this change in recognition of the need to transition away from using fossil fuels in order to reduce climate change impacts.”

In the public consultation, 45% agreed to the removal of oil and gas from policy M3, 14% disagreed and 42% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Restrictions on approval

A new policy, M5 (2), requires that proposals involving onshore oil and gas extraction or coal workings should be refused unless they are necessary.

One of the exceptions applies specifically to oil and gas:

“to facilitate the exploration, appraisal and production in an area where the North Sea Transition Authority [the industry regulator] has granted petroleum rights, including licensed areas”.

This formalises the current requirement that oil and gas development is allowed only in licensed areas.

But it does not mean that all proposals in licensed areas should necessarily be approved.

The government said:

“there was broad support for aligning national planning policy with wider government objectives on climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy”.

In a public consultation, 36% agreed with the M5 policy. 20% disagreed and 44% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Impacts of mineral development

A new policy, M4, brings together previous requirements on impacts.

This states proposals for mineral development should:

• Not have unacceptable adverse impact on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety
• Take into account the national decision-making policies in the NPPF
• Include the result of any cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality

Proposals should also ensure unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any vibrations from blasting will be controlled, mitigated or removed at source and that appropriate noise limits are established for extraction near noise-sensitive properties.

Restoration and bonds

Policy M4 also requires decisionmakers to continue to use planning conditions to ensure restoration and aftercare is carried out at the earliest opportunity and to high environmental standards.

On restoration bonds, the existing policy also remains:

“Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be sought in exceptional circumstances”.

Fencing at Cuadrilla’s controversial former fracking site in Lancashire is being dismantled and removed.

Removal of site fencing, 13 August 2026. Photo: Chris Holliday

The work, which began yesterday (12 August 2026), appears to be the first stage of the long-awaited restoration of the well pad at Preston New Road, near Blackpool.

Local reports said fencing on two sides of the compound have gone. Contractors’ vehicles have been on the site for two days.

Work began on fence removal, 12 August 2026. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent Fence removal, 12 August 2026. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent Fence removal, 12 August 2026. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent Fence removal, 13 August 2026. Photo: Chris Holliday

The two Preston New Road shale gas wells were plugged and abandoned last year.

But in December 2025, Cuadrilla was refused more time to restore Preston New Road.

The site has been the subject of planning enforcement action for more than two months because of delays to restoration.

On 8 June 2026, Lancashire County Council announced it had served an enforcement notice requiring the removal of all plant, buildings, security, acoustic fencing, pollution control membranes, aggregates and concerete hardstanding.

The action followed Cuadrilla’s failure to meet an approved restoration timetable.

We understand the official restoration timetable began on 8 July 2026. Cuadrilla had four months, until 8 November 2026, to remove the surface infrastructure. The subsoil must be replaced by 8 December 2026 and the top soil by 8 January 2027.

Preston New Road has been mothballed since August 2019 when operations were suspended after fracking caused a record-breaking 2.9ML earthquake.

Residents in a Yorkshire Wolds village have asked the prime minister for help in their opposition to local gas drilling plans.

Foxholes parish council and the community campaign group have written to Andy Burnham outlining their fears about proposals by Egdon Resources to explore for gas on the edge of their village.

Photo: DrillOrDrop

The application seeks to drill through a principal chalk aquifer that supplies water to 900,000 people. The proposed site is in a productive farming area. It is also near the soon-to-be designated Yorkshire Wolds National Landscape, which will give the area the protection and status of a national park.

The letter said Egdon’s application, to be decided by North Yorkshire Council, has raised concerns about strategic water resources, food security, climate change, nature recovery and economic resilience.

It said these were national concerns:

“The Yorkshire Wolds are a remarkable natural asset. Protecting them should be a shared national responsibility.”

It added:

“While this is a local planning application, we believe it raises issues of wider national importance concerning water security, climate resilience, food production, nature recovery and the future direction of energy policy”.

The letter’s signatories, David Eddy, chair of Foxholes with Butterwick Parish Council, and Laura Bell, campaign lead of the Drawing a Line in the Chalk campaign, asked Mr Burnham to:

• Ensure nationally-important groundwater resources, chalk streams and agricultural landscapes received appropriate protection in planning and environmental decision-making
• Ensure that the most up to date scientific evidence was properly considered where development could affect strategic water resources
• Clarify how further fossil fuel exploration was being reconciled with commitments on climate change, nature recovery, food security and resilience
• Meet representatives of the parish council and Drawing a Line in the Chalk campaign

The letter, published online today, welcomed the principle, supported by government, of empowering communities and ensuring that local voices were heard in decision-making:

“We … respectfully ask that it is applied to communities such as ours, where residents are seeking reassurance that decisions affecting essential natural resources are being made using the best available evidence and with proper regard to long term consequences.”

The letter said the protection of water resources from the Yorkshire Wolds chalk aquifer “must be considered a matter of national resilience”.

It also said:

“The Yorkshire Wolds are also a highly productive agricultural landscape. The farms and food businesses that operate here contribute to the nation’s food supply at a time when the Climate Change Committee has highlighted the growing risks that climate change poses to food security and the need to strengthen resilience across our food system.

“Protecting the natural systems that underpin agriculture, particularly clean and reliable water supplies, healthy soils and functioning ecosystems is therefore not simply an environmental concern. It is an issue of economic resilience and national security.”

Mr Eddy and Ms Bell said:

“Residents are not opposed to a secure energy future, although renewables are clearly the way forward here. They are asking that decisions made today do not compromise the water, landscapes, food producing capacity, ecosystems and tourist activity upon which tomorrow’s generations will rely.”

They added that Egdon’s estimates suggested the expected gas resource at Foxholes was the equivalent of six days UK gas use in winter:

“Hardly energy security, particularly given it will be sold on the international markets.”

They said:

“Communities are entitled to ask whether new fossil fuel exploration in environmentally sensitive locations is consistent with wider commitments on climate change, biodiversity recovery, water resilience and long-term energy strategy.”

They said local concerns about the proposal included:

• Has the latest geological and groundwater evidence been fully incorporated into decision-making?
• Have the risks to the principal chalk aquifer, including contamination pathways, been adequately assessed?
• Are the full climate implications of fossil fuel extraction being properly considered?
• Do existing planning and permitting regulations protect sufficiently nationally-important water resources, landscape and ecosystems?

The letter stated:

“The issue is not simply whether one exploratory well proceeds. It is whether our planning and regulatory systems are sufficiently robust to protect the natural assets upon which communities, businesses, agriculture and future generations depend.

“In order to enable communities to engage fully with such planning applications, we need to ensure that within the planning process the most up-to-date scientific data is also made available to those affected by the planning applications to create a level playing field.

“And that equality of representation is further supplemented by increased time at the public planning committee meetings where applications are to be heard.”

Restoration of the Broadford Bridge oil site in West Sussex is due to begin this summer, officials have confirmed.

The Broadford Bridge oil site during operation. Photo: Weald Action Group

The site, near Billingshurst, is subject to two council planning enforcement notices after the operator, a subsidiary of UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG), failed to return the well pad to farmland.

Broadford Bridge has had no planning permission since March 2024 when West Sussex County Council refused an application for a fifth extension of consent. Before that, the site had been mothballed since 2018.

An operation to plug and abandon two Broadford Bridge wells ended in February 2026.

But the well pad, fencing, gates and soil bunds remain, despite a planning condition requiring the operator to return the site to farmland. West Sussex County Council took enforcement action in January 2025 and February 2026.

A council spokesperson said today:

“Two Breach of Condition Notices (BCNs) were served on 13 February 2026. These remain live and require the operator to remove all associated infrastructure (including buildings, plant, machinery, fencing, gates and other structures) and restore the site in accordance with the approved restoration scheme by 31 December 2026.

“The operator has advised that the intention is for restoration works to commence this summer with a view to achieving restoration by the required date.”

Restoration includes work to clean and remove surface stone layers, take-up impermeable membranes, in-fill drainage ditches and regrade the soil from surrounding earth bunds to return the site to its original appearance and use.

Access application Access track application plan. Source: WSCC/036/26

The restoration timeframe emerged in a new planning application for Broadford Bridge (WSCC/036/26).

The application, to keep the site access track, was submitted on behalf of Sheila Francis by the Zetland planning consultancy which has previously worked for UKOG companies.

It revealed: “the well site is to be restored (Summer-Autumn 2026)”.

The application seeks to retain the 450m track to the well site for “agricultural purposes” and the junction of the track with the B2133 Adversane Lane. The application does not seek to retain the former well pad area and fencing around it.

Comments on the access track application can be made online. The deadline for comments is 20 August 2026. A decision is expected by 21 September 2026.

The assessment of the climate impact of expansion at the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey contains “multiple errors and misleading and irrelevant information”, campaigners said today.

The Weald Action Group, which won a landmark Supreme Court ruling on greenhouse gas emissions, said the assessment, submitted by the developer, made “spurious claims” and failed to comply with the latest guidance.

The flaws led to the “false conclusion” that the climate impact was “not significant”, the group said. It added:

“This is incorrect and must be disregarded”.

Horse Hill oil site near Redhill, Surrey. Photo: Weald Action Group

Weald Action Group (WAG) has called for evidence that the assessment was written by an appropriately qualified practitioner”.

The assessment estimated that four new production wells and extraction of more than 600,000 tonnes of oil over 20 years, would result in more than two million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. But it stated that the emissions would not be “significant for the climate”.

Kirsty Clough, of WAG, said:

“The oil company’s assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts is fundamentally flawed. Had they done the job properly, they could not have avoided concluding that the effects on the climate would be highly significant. The Council cannot grant permission on the basis of such a deficient assessment.”

In its response to Surrey County Council, submitted today, WAG said:

“The technical competency of the consultant who prepared the assessment of climate significance is in question.”

The document was apparently prepared by an air quality consultant.

WAG said the job requires “a broad knowledge of UK climate mitigation policy, in the context of international obligations, to be able form a judgement of significance”.

It said:

“We question whether an air quality consultant would have the relevant technical skills and expertise … to undertake a robust GHG [greenhouse gas] and climate impact assessment.”

It added:

“A lack of competency is observative in the numerous shortcomings and inaccuracies.

“In particular, the author has failed to draw on relevant available guidance, policy and scientific evidence”.

WAG said:

“We urge Surrey County Council to raise the issue of technical competency with the applicant. Specifically they should be required to provide evidence that the assessment was written by an ‘appropriately qualified practitioner’.

“Multiple flaws”

The climate assessment focussed on the emissions resulting from burning Horse Hill oil, known as downstream or scope 3 emissions. The Supreme Court ruling now requires these emissions to be taken into account when deciding fossil fuel proposals.

WAG said its analysis found the Horse Hill assessment was “flawed in multiple ways”.

The group said the assessment failed to comply with:

• new government guidance on assessing the effects of downstream scope 3 emissions
• Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017
• Institute of Sustainability & Environmental Professionals’ Guide to assessing greenhouse gas emissions

WAG said the assessment failed to regard the government guidance as a material planning consideration, even though a developer and climate expert agreed in a separate project that it should be.

The Horse Hill assessment also failed to describe the state of the climate, WAG said.

Scientists have forecast that the maximum amount of carbon we can emit and stay within the legal limit of 1.5C temperature rise is 130-170 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2). This volume of CO2 will be breached in a few years, the group said.

It added:

[This] “conceals the true state of the climate and how little time, if any, we have left to prevent global average temperature rise exceeding the 1.5C limit.”

WAG said the assessment further failed to assess the actual impact of 2 million tonnes of greenhouse gases on, for example, human health, biodiversity, land, soil water, air and climate. This is required by the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, it said.

There were also “multiple errors and misleading and irrelevant information” about projected UK oil production and demand and global energy and climate scenarios, WAG said.

It said the assessment implied that new domestic oil production was needed to meet a shortfall in demand up to 2050 and to bolster energy security.

WAG said this “presents a false picture of future oil demand and its relationship to domestic production and shows a lack of understanding of energy markets”.

There was also a “spurious” claim, WAG said, that oil from Horse Hill would substitute for imported oil, which may have a higher carbon intensity.

WAG said no evidence had been provided and the claim should be disregarded:

It said the assessment made unfounded claims that oil from Horse Hill would remain in the UK, even though more than 80% of domestically produced oil and gas is exported. The group said:

“There is no guarantee that oil from Horse Hill will remain and be used within the UK.”

The assessment failed to place Horse Hill greenhouse gas emissions in a global cumulative context of all current and approved fossil fuel projects, WAG said. An estimate in 2022 forecast the emissions from these projects amounted to 936 gigatonnes of CO2.

The group said:

“The significance of the scope 3 emissions arising from the Horse Hill development should … have been assessed relative to the available space in the remaining 1.5C aligned global carbon budget, once the emissions from existing and committed fossil fuel projects (the cumulative effect) have been accounted for. The developer has failed to do this.”

WAG added:

“There is no space in the rapidly dwindling 1.5C global carbon budget for any new fossil fuel developments, and a massive excess of emissions from existing oil, gas and coal infrastructure which will now need to close before the end of its economic life.

“Any emissions from the Horse Hill oilfield development will be additional, cumulative and hence contribute to the further exceedance of the 1.5C global carbon budget.

“On this basis, the scope 3 emissions arising from the Horse Hill development must be deemed significant in terms of their climate impact.”

• Weald Action Group said it would be submitting further objections, including on seismicity and earthquake risk.

A public consultation opened today on the Environment Agency’s (EA) draft decision to grant consent for gas drilling and lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire.

The consultation runs for six weeks until Wednesday 23 September 2026. It gives people a chance to have their say before the final decision is made.

Equipment proposed during lower-volume fracking stage at Burniston. Source: planning application

This is the second EA consultation on the proposals by Europa Oil & Gas in the village on the edge of the North York Moors National Park.

The first consultation, on the initial environmental permit application, was held a year ago. The deadline for comments in that consultation was extended after complaints by the local campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities, that key information was missing.

Today’s new consultation seeks views on a draft environmental permit.

This is separate from the decision by North Yorkshire Council on 24 April 2026 to refuse planning permission, later confirmed in May.

The Burniston development can go ahead only with both planning permission and the environmental permit.

The EA said it was minded to issue a permit for the proposed wellsite, known by Europa as Cloughton-2, as well as drilling and testing a borehole and the lower-volume fracking process called proppant squeeze.

Proppant squeeze is one of several lower-volume fracking operations that remain legal in the UK, despite the moratorium on high-volume fracking. The process aims to improve the flow of gas and involves injecting fluid into the well under pressure to open fractures in the surrounding rocks.

The EA said it was legally required to issue a permit where an application met requirements under environmental legislation. It can refuse an application only where one or more of these requirements are not met, including where the proposed activity would pose an unacceptable risk to people or the environment.

Ian Foster, EA area manager for Yorkshire, said today:

“We recognise there is significant public interest in this application, particularly following the local planning authority’s decision to refuse planning permission.

“The Environment Agency has a different legal role. Our responsibility is to independently assess whether the application meets the requirements of environmental legislation and whether the proposed activities can be carried out without unacceptable risks to people or the environment.

“Our assessment is evidence-based and we have published the reasons for our draft decision. We encourage anyone with an interest in the application to read the consultation documents and provide their views before we make our final decision.”

The local MP, Alison Hume, who opposed the Burniston proposal, said today:

“I will be submitting my comments on the EA’s draft permit decision and highlighting my concerns about Europa’s plans to carry out small-scale fracking … on the edge of the North York Moors.

“Given the level of concern that many local residents have expressed about this proposal, I have also written to the relevant minister to make them aware of these developments and the strength of feeling among constituents. I will continue to monitor the situation closely and keep in contact with the relevant authorities as the process moves forward.”

The consultation comprises 31 documents, including the EA’s draft decision.

All the documents can be viewed online. Comments can also be made online or by phoning the EA on 03708 506 506.

The EA can take into account:

• Relevant environmental regulations and technical standards
• Information on the local population and sensitive sites
• Whether the right process or technology is proposed by the developer
• The impact of the proposal on the use of land around the site, whether the impact is acceptable and what pollution control may be required
• The impact of noise and smell from traffic on site
• Correcting incorrect information in the application
• Information the EA has not been made aware of in the application

The EA cannot take into account

• Issues outside the remit of the environmental permitting regulations
• Whether a site should have a formal ecological designation
• Whether the activity should or should not be allowed
• Land use issues
• Impact of noise and smell from traffic travelling to and from the site
• The process followed by the EA to determine a permit

The deadline for comments has been extended because the consultation is during the summer holiday.

DrillOrDrop will report on comments submitted to the consultation.

Gas drilling in a small village in the Yorkshire Wolds would cause “unacceptable harm”, a leading campaign organisation has said.

Entrance to the proposed gas site. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has strongly objected to the plan at Foxholes, about nine miles from Scarborough, in North Yorkshire.

CPRE said a planning application by Egdon Resources should be refused.

A detailed response by the organisation’s North and East Yorkshire branch said:

“The proposal is inappropriate in this rural location, would cause unacceptable harm to countryside character and amenity, raises unresolved environmental and water protection concerns, would generate significant traffic and operational disturbance, and is inconsistent with the direction of travel required by climate change policy and responsible rural planning.”

It added:

“The proposal would introduce an intrusive industrial hydrocarbon exploration operation into a rural landscape, with associated drilling, testing, heavy goods vehicle movements, lighting, noise, emissions, water protection risks and long-term landscape and climate implications.

It said the operation, if approved, would “erode the local character and tranquillity of the area and would be at odds with the public interest in protecting the countryside for its landscape, amenity, ecological and cultural value”.

The organisation also said the application was “contrary to both national and local planning policies, inconsistent with the protection of rural character and amenity, and fails to demonstrate that the development can be made acceptable in this sensitive location.”

The earmarked site is on the edge of the proposed Yorkshire Wolds National Landscape, a designation that would bring the same level of protection given to national parks.

Egdon proposes to drill an exploration well through the chalk drinking water aquifer and next to the Gypsey Race, a rare chalk stream. Both the aquifer and the stream are considered internationally significant.

6CPRE formal response to Foxholes gas drilling planningk application Download Key issues

CPRE said the proposal would generate some short-term construction work, possibly increase exploratory knowledge and may contribute to future gas production.

But the organisation said there were many disadvantages, including:

• climate conflict and lack of need for new gas
• harm to the Yorkshire Wolds and proposed National Landscape sensitivity zone
• unacceptable noise risk in a quiet rural area
• unresolved highway safety, congestion and emergency-routing issues
• risk to the Gypsey Race and chalk aquifer
• disturbance to residents, vulnerable road users, agriculture and tourism
• uncertainty over restoration and future production pressure

“Undermine protection of the Yorkshire Wolds”

CPRE said the site is in the setting of the proposed Yorkshire Wolds National Landscape, a distinctive region of open, rolling farmland, dry valleys, historic villages and relative tranquillity. The site is also within the 3.5km sensitivity zone of what would be a protected area.

The organisation said:

“approving hydrocarbon exploration in this landscape would set an undesirable precedent for further industrialisation of the Wolds and their rural setting”.

It said North Yorkshire Council, which will decide the planning application, should “attach ‘substantial weight’ to landscape protection, rural amenity and the conservation of countryside character”.

CPRE added:

“The council should not ignore the national significance of the landscape evidence or permit development within its immediate sensitivity zone that would prejudice, undermine or conflict with the purposes of designation”.

“Traffic risks on rural roads”

CPRE said the scheme should be refused because of the impact on local roads from a “significant number of heavy goods vehicle [HGV] and operational vehicle movements”.

It said:

“Rural roads in and around Foxholes are not designed to accommodate sustained industrial traffic without harm to local amenity, road safety, verges, agricultural access and quiet enjoyment of the countryside.

Increased HGV traffic would add noise, vibration, emissions, perceived danger for residents, walkers, cyclists, horse riders and other road users, the organisation said.

It added:

“the rural road network should [not] be used to support fossil fuel exploration where the claimed public benefit is speculative and limited.”

CPRE also raised concerns that the proposed lorry route to the Foxhole site crossed Staxton Hill, 515ft high with a 1:4 gradient.

It said Egdon Resources had not provided sufficient detail of any alternative or emergency route if Staxton Hill were closed or unavailable.

“Without a fully assessed and consulted-upon emergency routing plan, the council cannot lawfully or rationally conclude that safe and suitable access has been demonstrated for all phases of the development”.

The organisation said the impacts of the scheme on local roads “should therefore be treated as severe, or at the very least inadequately assessed, and permission should be refused until the applicant has demonstrated safe and suitable access for all users and the absence of unacceptable or severe cumulative transport effects”.

“Unresolved risks to water resources”

CPRE said the application had not “demonstrated that standard mitigation, monitoring and regulatory controls are sufficient to overcome the planning objection in this sensitive rural and hydrogeological context”.

It said the Yorkshire Wolds chalk aquifer was particularly vulnerable because groundwater can move through fractures and fissures and contaminants may travel unpredictably and rapidly.

It urged the council to apply a precautionary approach and “require clear, independent evidence that serious or irreversible harm can be ruled out”.

CPRE said North Yorkshire Council should not defer “fundamental questions of water protection to later permitting regimes where those matters are also relevant to land use planning.

The organisation added it would be “perverse” for the planning system to support a project to restore the Gypsey Race, “while simultaneously permitting a new fossil fuel drilling operation” nearby “without a compelling need and without eliminating the risk of harm to the chalk aquifer and chalk stream system”.

“Disturbance to residents”

CPRE said of the drilling proposal:

“it would introduce noise, lighting, dust, odour and industrial activity harmful to residential and rural amenity”.

It said planning conditions would not “adequately protect residents and the rural environment”.

CPRE said the current night-time noise levels were very low. It specifically opposed Egdon’s suggested night-time noise limits.

It said:

“the Council should require Egdon to show why materially lower night-time limits cannot be achieved and why the operation cannot be designed to avoid night-time drilling noise impacts altogether.”

“Climate change and fossil fuel dependence”

CPRE said it objected in principle to new hydrocarbon exploration because this would prolong dependence on fossil fuels when national policy, scientific evidence and public interest required accelerated transition to renewable and low carbon energy.

It said the planning case for the Foxholes proposal was “weak”. The development was not needed to meet a compelling local or national requirement for new gas extraction, the organisation said.

“The claimed economic benefits here are limited and temporary, while the proposal would enable a form of energy development that is inconsistent with the direction of national climate policy and the urgent need to decarbonise. On that basis, the development is not sustainable development and should be refused.”

Link to planning application

Union Jack, which has interests at Wressle and West Newton, has recommended shareholders vote against a proposal to remove the board.

The company has called a requistioned general meeting for next month (August).

This follows a resolution by two investors holding more than 14% of voting rights to remove the three current directors: David Bramhill, Joseph O’Farrell and Zac Phillips.

The investors, described by Union Jack as requisitioners, are former board members, Craig Howie and John Americanos. They have also tabled a resolution for their reappointment as directors.

In a statement today, Union Jack said:

“The Company will today post a circular to shareholders convening the Requistioned GM [general meeting] and outlining the unanimous recommendation by the Company’s board to directors to vote against all the resolutions to be proposed at the Requisitioned GM.

The statement added:

“The Board believes that the Requisition is misguided, ill-timed and destined to lead to a destruction in value for the Company’s shareholders.”

The requisition notice was dated 7 July 2026, less than a week after a takeover offer by Reabold Resources.

Union Jack’s statement continued:

“by proposing the Resolutions just six days after the announcement of the all share offer by Reabold Resources plc, the Requisitioners are simply being opportunistic by seeking to replace the Board during the Offer process without providing the Company’s shareholders with the opportunity to realise a control premium.”

Union Jack also announced it had reconvened the previously postponed annual general meeting. This was adjourned on the day it was planned, 26 June 2026, because of the Reabold takeover offer. The AGM will now be held after the requistioned meeting.

The requisitioned meeting will be at 11am on 24 August 2026 at the offices of Keystone Law, 48 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JF.

The reconvened AGM will be held on the same date and place, at 12 noon, or as soon as the requisitioned meeting has ended.

People have three weeks to comment on the controversial Rosebank development, Britan’s biggest undeveloped oil and gas field.

A public consultation by the government runs until 17 August 2026.

The Rosebank field, 80 miles north west of Shetland, was granted a licence by the Conservatives. But this was ruled unlawful by Scottish courts in January 2025.

That decision followed the landmark Finch Ruling at the Supreme Court, which established that environmental impact assessment for fossil fuel projects must account for the emissions produced when extracted fuel was burned.

These emissions, known as scope 3 or downstream, were included in a resubmitted document for Rosebank in 2025.

The new energy secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, is expected to decide whether to grant consent for the field after the consultation. Her decision will be based on the revised environmental impact assessment.

Rosebank is estimated to hold more than 480 million barrels of oil. Some estimates suggest it would release emissions totalling 254 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent over its lifetime. This is said to be equivalent to nearly 70% of the UK’s entire annual emissions in 2024. This would make it incompatible with the UK’s legally-binding climate commitments, campaigners have said.

Opponents have argued that the field would not lower UK energy bills or improve energy security because 90% of reserves are oil destined for international markets. They have stated that the field’s small gas reserves could reduce UK gas import dependency by just 1%, if none were exported.

At the weekend, the Guardian reported that production at Rosebank, if approved, could be delayed after equipment from a rig was accidentally dropped into the North Sea in April 2026.

The field operator, Adura, now expects production would be delayed from the end of this year to sometime in 2027, the Guardian reported.

The Rosebank development is in two phases.

• Phase 1 involves drilling four production and three water injection wells.
• Phase 2, dependent on results of phase 1, involves drilling a further 3 production and 2 water injection wells.

Wells would be connected by new flowlines to a redeployed Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessel (FPSO). Gas would be exported from the FPSO to a new gas export pipeline connecting to the existing West of Shetland Pipeline Systems. Oil will be offloaded using tankers.

Consultation details

Official notices of the consultation were published in Shetland Times, Aberdeen Press & Journal and the Daily Telegraph earlier this month.

All representations should quote reference number ES/2022/001 and be made to:

• OPRED@Energysecurity.gov.uk
• Business Support Team Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment & Decommissioning Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, AB1 Building, Crimon Place, Aberdeen AB10 1BJ

The energy secretary’s decision will be published here (see link).

Rosebank is currently owned by Adura (a joint enterprise of Shell and Equinor 80%) and Ithaca Energy (20%). Energy Voice reported last week that Adura has called for voluntary redundancies among staff at its Aberdeen headquarters. It is not known how many job cuts are planned.

Links to government notices and official documents on Rosebank

Guide to Rosebank by the campaign organisation, Uplift

• A public consultation on the Jackdaw gas field, also owned by Adura, is due to finish on 10 August 2026. The Guardian reported earlier this month that, if approved, Jackdaw would create just 27 direct full-time jobs.