Back to All Events

Objection Deadline

Click here to register your objection to the proposal for exploratory drilling near Fernhurst

Celtique have submitted additional information in response to questions from the South Downs National Park Authority.  We believe that these

Celtique Energie have submitted additional information in response to questions from the South Downs National Park Authority.  We believe that these responses are significantly deficient and do not adequately address the concerns.  The SDNPA should reject this application immediately..............

Click here to register your objection to the proposal for exploratory drilling near Fernhurst

You may wish to refer to some or all of the points below:

1. Alternative site assessment.  Celtique maintain that they have to drill at this site, within the NP, because it cannot be accessed from outside the par and it is a condition of their license that they must "drill or drop".  The fact is that Celtique have 128,000 acres they could drill in and much of it is outside the park.  Their own submission indicates that the geology at Fernhurst is exactly the same as other possible sites outside the park and so it doesn't need to be explored at Fernhurst.  The reason they want to do it here is because this is a site where they have landowner permission.

2. Celtique have not provided any information on drilling fluids to be used.  Celtique claim this is a matter for the Environment Agency not the SDNPA.

3. No additional information has been provided on the design of the well pad; specifically in relation to ensuring its stability.

4. No additional information has been provided in respect of pollution prevention; specifically wheel washing and surface water collection from the access roads, and the additional information provided in respect of ground water impact is inadequate.

5. No additional studies have been conducted on visual impact (despite the fact that the height of the security fencing has now been increased to 4m).

6. No additional noise background readings have been undertaken and night time noise levels will remain significantly above the statutory maximum permitted.

7. Celtique's access plan still require mature oak trees to be removed or crown lifted, which ignores the Tree Protection Ordering placed on them.

8. Traffic: Celtique's own plans show that lorries cannot access the site without crossing into the path of oncoming traffic.

9. Traffic: The access plan requires lorries to cross land that Celtique does not have ownership of, or control over.

10. Traffic: The assessment of the impact of additional HGV traffic is incorrect.  Celtique are still assessing any vehicle over 1.5 tons as an HGV, and they under estimated the amount of traffic associated with this activity (for example, lorries to deliver / remove waste water have not been included).

Click here to register your objection to the proposal for exploratory drilling near Fernhurst

responses are significantly deficient and do not adequately address the concerns.  The SDNPA should reject this application immediately..............

You may wish to refer to some or all of the points below:

1. Alternative site assessment.  Celtique maintain that they have to drill at this site, within the NP, because it cannot be accessed from outside the par and it is a condition of their license that they must "drill or drop".  The fact is that Celtique have 128,000 acres they could drill in and much of it is outside the park.  Their own submission indicates that the geology at Fernhurst is exactly the same as other possible sites outside the park and so it doesn't need to be explored at Fernhurst.  The reason they want to do it here is because this is a site where they have landowner permission.

2. Celtique have not provided any information on drilling fluids to be used.  Celtique claim this is a matter for the Environment Agency not the SDNPA.

3. No additional information has been provided on the design of the well pad; specifically in relation to ensuring its stability.

4. No additional information has been provided in respect of pollution prevention; specifically wheel washing and surface water collection from the access roads, and the additional information provided in respect of ground water impact is inadequate.

5. No additional studies have been conducted on visual impact (despite the fact that the height of the security fencing has now been increased to 4m).

6. No additional noise background readings have been undertaken and night time noise levels will remain significantly above the statutory maximum permitted.

7. Celtique's access plan still require mature oak trees to be removed or crown lifted, which ignores the Tree Protection Ordering placed on them.

8. Traffic: Celtique's own plans show that lorries cannot access the site without crossing into the path of oncoming traffic.

9. Traffic: The access plan requires lorries to cross land that Celtique does not have ownership of, or control over.

10. Traffic: The assessment of the impact of additional HGV traffic is incorrect.  Celtique are still assessing any vehicle over 1.5 tons as an HGV, and they under estimated the amount of traffic associated with this activity (for example, lorries to deliver / remove waste water have not been included).

Later Event: September 1
IGas Annual General Meeting