Bishop Hill Balcombe parish chairman tells protestors to frack off
Aug 13, 2013 Energy: gas Greens This just in from the Balcombe Parish Council:
...At a public meeting held last Friday evening [No Dash for Gas] sought to justify such actions on the grounds that the company that is drilling is acting illegally and that in consequence illegal actions to stop it are justified. This is quite simply not the case. Like it or not, the drilling operation is entirely legal. All the necessary permissions and permits have been sought and are in place.
- Thirdly the group seeks to legitimize such actions by saying that whatever is done is in response to Balcombe residents’ call for help. This is just not true.
So here it is. Balcombe strongly opposes any actions which may be taken which involve civil trespass and/or illegal acts. And I further state this, if the No Dash for Gas group is coming here in the full knowledge that it intends to break the law then it should stay away. It is not wanted in Balcombe! It is duly uninvited.
Alison StevensonChairman
Balcombe Parish Council
Reader Comments (67)
It's obvious that like all of us BH regulars, Alison Stevenson and the whole of Balcombe Parich Council are funded by Big Oil.
They are conspiracy ideationists
The "silent majority" making itself heard for a change. Bravo!!
Let's now hope the Police will evict the "No Dash for Gas" terrorists, fellow travellers and useful idiots, sooner rather than later.
Very right and proper too. I would expect much the same from any parish council.
What's the odds this'll be reported on the BBC News tonight . . .?
Good on them.
I'm sure if the protesters insist on trespassing, someone in the vicinity will have a muckspreader handy....
I'm afraid that the chairman of Balcombe Parish Council does not understand the situation.
No Dash for Gas has been called in by the Balcombe residents. Not the humans, who are a slur on the planet, but the animals and plants which will be rendered homeless by the evil fracking company.
If he does not comply with our demands, he is obviously not representing the greater good of Mother Gaia.
If he is not representative of Mother Gaia, then he is an illegal dictator supporting the interests of Big Oil, and should be overthrown, by force if need be.
Aftre 11 posts by Louise Gray of The Daily Telegraph about the anti-fracking protesters in Balcombe, and her rallying calls for 1000s to join the protest, is it about time to invite her to start to present the actual views of the village and Parish Council?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/louise-gray/
The renewables mafia are scared stiff their subsidy goldmine will finish, so they are throwing everything they have into anti-fracking campaigning ..
- The BBC continues to report from its fantasy universe : BBC page Fracking should get public support, says David Cameron every pro fracking comment has been massively marked down. (and now comments are closed)
- The BBC highlights the story headlined "Balcombe parish decision to accept oil drilling 'wrong' BBC News-9 Aug 2013 "Alison Stevenson, Balcombe Parish Council chairwoman" ..strangely that's the woman who has just spoke against the activists.
- The Saturday story Villagers attend Balcombe meeting is strangely short on words as if they didn't get the ones they wanted , but the video does contain Alison Stevenson strongly condemning any possible law breaking (comments are OFF)
- I'd love to say "Balcombe has told Frack-Off to Frack Off", but I know the activists will try every devious tactic like "exposing" porn on a parish councillors computer or digging up a story from the 1970s of when he bought a 15 year old a drink.
- 2 days ago the local paper publish an Extremely stong letter against the protesters ...but they know stirring up controversy sells papers
"You 30% of antis have inconvenienced motorists going to work, split the village, in all probability put up the Council Tax to pay for the policing, and put a blot on the landscape in an AONB that you keep on about."
..yep the stirring counter argument letter has just come in
Let's Back The Frack .. I say (well if Balcombe was actually fracking rather than just drilling)
Democracy at work. Well done Ms Stevenson.
We, The People, have spoken!
Why do you guys care so much? Not going to both me, what ever happens in Balcombe.
Well, guess what!
The letter stewgreen refers to is from one Gillian Maher, who just happens to be a member of the Green Party — not that she has bothered to sign herself as such on her letter.
I wonder if anyone living in Mid-Sussex would care to point out this omission to the editor ...
Anon
You're being obtuse again. If the eco-fascists win this it will certainly have an adverse effect on the cost of your electricity in the long run no matter where you live.
A pleasing display of civic, civil, and heartwarming decency from the community council. Something to recall as the yahoos at the gates seek further publicity for their ill-informed, self-righteous displays of a different kind.
So the No Dash for Gas protestors are out to intimidate the law abiding residents of Balcombe.
I had a look at Flick.com recently for pictures of Balcombe. The most recent ones are of the protest and I was surprised at the lack of pictures of the drilling rig and other on site equipment. The site seems to be very well screened by trees. There is one image from ground level and the rig is half obscured by trees, and a couple of aerial shots. There are also pictures of Balcombe viaduct which is a massive brick structure stretching across the landscape.
The BBC managed to get a different viewpoint with a picture in this article: Is Balcombe fracking's first stumble in the South? It's not exactly overwhelming. At 78ft high it would probably fit under an arch of the viaduct which is 96ft high.
That would be the same compliant, complacent Balcombe Parish Council, would it, your Grace, which nodded through without discussion Simon Greenwood's planning application on behalf of Cuadrilla? Viz Lead story in the latest Private Eye:
"After two weeks of protests in the village of Balcombe, West Sussex, villagers keep asking themselves; who allowed Cuadrilla to drill on our doorstep?
Planning permission for the firm’s test on the Balcombe estate – owned by Simon Greenwood, a great grandson of the first Lord Cowdray – was granted by West Sussex county council (WSCC) in 2010 and expires at the end of September. If Caudrilla had waited any longer to start work it would have had to reapply, and this time round it could have expected strong opposition to a revised planning application.
So why was the original one waved through? Because almost nobody knew about it. The WSCC planning officer wrote to Balcombe parish council in January 2010 drawing attention to the application, saying that if no comments were received by 18th February “it will be assumed that the parish council has no objections”. In March, after a reminder, the parish clerk confirmed that “the matter was discussed at the last regular meeting” and there was “no Objection”.
Shome mistake? There is no record of any “discussion” in the minutes of the Balcombe parish council meeting in February 2010. The only fleeting reference comes after a debate on an application for a carport, in a brief sentence noting that Simon Greenwood, who is a parish councillor, “mentioned” a recent application at a site of London Road.
And, er, that’s it. No debate, no vote and no declaration of interest from Greenwood, who stands to earn tens of thousands from Caudrilla. WSCC then approved the application using delegated powers, precisely because of the lack of public objection. As the exploratory drilling begins, Greenwood and parish clerk, Richard Greig, have some explaining to do to irate villagers.
PS: Simon Greenwood’s mother, Anne, was given Balcombe by the Cowdray estate as a dowry. But his cousin Lord Cowdray is on the other side of the barricades; he supports protesters at another West Sussex site, Fernhurst, and recently revealed that he had refused to let Cowdray land in Fernhurst be used for drilling because of “the environmental impact on the area”.
At last, a robust and wholly proper response to the self-appointed, self-regarding, self-seeking opponents of fracking.
Who now should frack off?
I'm not worried about cost of electricty going up, and don't tell me you care about the poor people, hand wringing nonsense!
Would you be the same Alban Thurston who is a solar energy marketer, analyst and lobbyist?
Interesting
http://balcombeparishcouncil.com/2013/08/13/balcombe-unlikely-to-become-a-production-site/
I spoke with a resident of Balcombe a few days ago and she said very few locals were completely against fracking near the village. She said Balcombe was full of 'foreigners' which she didn't like.
"Private eye" - but then, isn't Hislop a swivel eyed supporter of the pro-green agenda idiocy?
Answer to TerryS: Yes. Well done on mastering Google. And your substantive answer to the Private Eye story about Balcombe Parish Council's failure to discuss the Greenwood application is.... what?
Sharing your interest in pseudonyms, why does Andrew "Bishop Hill" Montford feel qualified to pronounce on climate science when he has never published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal? A bean-counting qualification and a chemistry degree don't really cut it, surely. And who funded the GWPF's £3,000 for Mr Montford non-knock down of the CRU non-event?
The planning application was so secret that they published a notice about it in the Mid Sussex Times from 29th Jan 2010 to 11th Feb 2010.
Alban Thurston, a response to the the story about the failure to discuss the application is given in this "Statement from Balcombe Parish Council":
http://balcombeparishcouncil.com/2013/08/13/statement-from-balcombe-parish-council/
Your last paragraph shows very poor form.
ferdinand
"Foreigners" in that context being people from Kent, probably.
My grandmother's family came from that neck of the woods and we have friends who lived and farmed not very far away so I know the area moderately well. Balcombe is handy for the M23 so has been overrun by commuters like a lot of twee little villages, or to be more exact villages which have become twee since the townies moved in. They have one eye permanently attached to their smartphone and the other on house prices which for them is the closest they get to a religion.
They think they are living in a piece of genuine English countryside but in fact it is as real as the backscene on a model railway!
The genuine locals will almost certainly not object to Cuadrilla's plans which could represent the best chance the area has had for a bit of employment and some cash going into the local businesses. The incomers will do what incomers do everywhere — spend their money in the city (or perhaps in Crawley), quibble over every penny they have to fork out if they're obliged to employ someone local to change a washer on the bath tap and generally tell all their London friends what a delightful life they lead (always provided they don't have to put up with "industry" on their doorstep).
Seen it all.
TerryS
Have a look at this. Learn a bit more about Mr Thurston. Hardly an objective observer!!
Here is the councils response to the application.
It sounds like they did a little more than simply rubber stamp it.
A clearly highly numerate man with scientific training (our esteemed Bishop) has every right to comment on climate science, particularly when most 'climate experts' have nowhere near the education needed to follow the data.
It seems our new friend Mr Thurston feels his career as a lobbyist and purveyor of sustainability is threatened, and may not in fact be sustainable!
"Balcombe Parish Council's failure to discuss the Greenwood application is..." very similar to a lot of parish council's beahviour when it comes to discussing renewable energy schemes such as wind turbines or solar farms. They don't understand what they are letting the parishioners in for and they don't like to upset the local landowners who stand to make a lot of money from the misery they cause to other parishioners. The corruption inherent in renewable energy applications is incredible. It seems that Alban Thurston is one of the many renewable energy troughers.
Despite being a (very) longstanding reader, I'm compelled to point out that Private Eye's scientific acumen can be dealt with rather briefly. Three letters, in fact. MMR.
Welcome to Alban Thurston , I feel he may have given rise to a new acronym DNFT TROUGHER !
Seems to be a lot of new posters on this particular thread. Troughers mobilizing, perhaps?
Well said Balcombe PC.
What's the odds this'll be reported on the BBC News tonight . . .?
Aug 13, 2013 at 3:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterCapell
Zero. And it wasn't.
Perhaps Mr Thurston could come back on and promise that he has never been associated with any development that has received planning permission in spite of local objections.
Phillip Bratby
I can also verify that, certainly where wind farms are concerned, community/parish councils come under considerable pressure from the developer much of it along the lines of a famous Goon Show line, "he forced his way past by shoving money in my hand".
To be fair to our local laird he knew and understood why we were opposed but he stood to make a lot of money for the restoration of the old house and the community was reputed to be in line for £1m over 25 years. Unfortunately what E-ON had not understood was that the chances of the community actually seeing any of that money, since it would legally have been paid to the LA, was relatively slim.
That was more than seven years ago. Last I heard they still hadn't got consent.
Can I also draw everyone's attention to the statement linked to by Sara Chan.
Please read it.
In their position our community council would have done exactly the same thing. The application was in essence for the re-opening of an already drilled well and, as the statement says, there was every reason to assume that Cuadrilla were simply checking on Conoco's findings 20 years on.
Is there any evidence to date that that is not what they are doing?
There was no mention of fracking — because they are not fracking.
There was no mention of shale gas — because what they are looking for is oil.
It is quite clear that the current consent requires them to submit a further application if they wish to develop the well for production.
On that basis, we would likewise not have bothered to comment. Why would we?
As usual, the eco-fascists and their assorted useful idiots are not so much making a mountain out of a molehill as creating mountains where there is only a peaceful English valley — or was till they turned up and chose to do more to disrupt the lives of local people than a dozen oil wells.
But then the Trots have never let facts get in the way of some good mayhem. Ask Lenin.
I suppose anyone with a business model based on sponging off the taxpayer will get twitchy when a rival that can actually stand on its own two feet comes along.
The fact that this blog has attracted the attention of Alban Thurston is a very good sign.
Mike is right about the 'bungs' from the renewable industry. Recent announcements that Kielder Water is being lined up for a huge wind development were generously laced with mentions of an 'estimated' £0.5m p.a. for the 'local community'. A quick bit of back of the envelope calcuations shows that at the projected prices for wind generation the landowner and operator will be seeing a minimum of £20m a year.
looks like Alban Thurston has fled the scene. He can't stand the heat, and the facts.
Cumbrian Lad
That'll be the Kielder Water that was absolutely essential for the future of the Teesside steelworks finished just in time for them closing down!
Then there was the bright idea (fortunately someone woke up in time) to pipe water from there through the Cheviots and then to the Meggat for the Scots Central Belt.
Those of us who know both sides of that border well haven't stopped laughing yet!
Looking at the pictures of the protesters and the hypocrites are smoking and near children
Well, the flock. I have decided that we shouldn't support frackin for Gas.
Consider a successful, UK wide, dash for Gas. Using the wealth from this new found source we can steer away (as a country) from the precipice. We might, with Tcf under these Islands, at some point stop borrowing 11 Billion/month to keep the farce above water.
Unfortunately, every parasite in the country can then claim victory for their FCUK'd up scheme as they now float around in a new giant (Gas induced) swimming pool of £sterling.
How about we support the soap dodgers of Balcombe!
No Gas!
(The Plan) No Gas would mean no Benefits. Face it ... the more gas we frack the more benefits they can claim and the bigger the protest. If you want no protest then let them win now. In a few years time there will be no parasitic income source for them to latch on to and all protest will come to an end. We could extract Oil from otter smiles on an industrial scale and no one will turn up to protest because they need to go to work that day.
The desperate gits will be supplying the Marmite for the frakkin 'war head' themselves once they figure out that without Gas the country can no longer afford to pay them for a life of protest.
Aug 13, 2013 at 7:02 PM | Alban Thurston
You sound genuinely concerned from the tone of that post as cumbrian lad points out. Andrew is highly qualified to post on climate, sayed by someone who could almost be classed as a climate scientist. Are you not excited by a new potential valuable resource for the UK??
Remember these protesters aren't all dole-grabbing scroungers. Many are grant-grabbing scroungers.
There is a whole priesthood of environmental science students and now graduates, who have to network and boos their CVs in the green movement.
They need to be seen at Balcombe.
9:59 PM | bh3x2
Given the actual arithmetic of government spending - it seems unlikely that gas would change the overall picture dramatically - but having our own may well mitigate some of the effects of not having enough foreign exchange to pay for Russian gas and being held to ransom like Ukraine etc. in a nice globally warmed winter?
I suspect that there's some actual unpleasantness to come since AIUI this "government" has been borrowing more (a lot more) than the previous one - which I think we are all aware overdid it?
There is, and never has been, any justification at all for this contrived fraccing protest in West Sussex. It seems to have come about purely because the operator is called Cuadrilla, because they hold exploration permits in Lancashire with potential for shale gas. This appraisal of a small find by Conoco in the 80s is mainly oil not gas (although any oil well almost invariably includes some gas in solution), reservoired in limestone not shale, and permitting for this appraisal well does not include permission for fracture stimulation. The whole thing is a nonsense.
This from the Environment Agency May 2013
'There are already a number of conventional oil exploration and extraction sites in Sussex, including: Singleton and Storrington and exploratory drilling sites at Markswell Wood and Broadford Bridge.
Cuadrilla has planning permission to drill a vertical and horizontal well for exploratory oil and gas activities at Balcombe. However, Cuadrilla has assured us it does not intend to hydraulically fracture this well using this permission. In order to carry out hydraulic fracturing Cuadrilla would need a number of additional permissions from DECC, further planning permission, and regulatory permits from the Environment Agency. Cuadrilla has not produced or applied for any of these.'
http://balcombeparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/130522-statement-by-environment-agency.pdf
Even if they did want to fracture stimulate the well to obtain a viable flow rate, it would require a new round of permissions and even then would only be what has become routine engineering practice in numerous UK wells previously, unnoticed and unremarked, without any of the scaremongering frenzy whipped up by zealots and fanned by the media in this absurd protest.
I'm only half joking above.
Seriously, if any one here believes that sucking half our Gas needs from Lancashire rather than Russia will reduce our fuel bills then you probably need to take a good look from your POV and check for bowel cancer while your head is up there.
There will be no reduction in the typical family bill for Gas. Not now, not ever. The 'profits' will be used to expand 'Government' and pay off all those 'unfunded liabilities' that previous administrations had committed the country to. Another few decades of 'party time' and baby kissing politicians.
Aug 13, 2013 at 10:18 PM | tomo
hasn't the amount borrowed by the government each year been pretty constant for quite a few years now? I don't think it changed at the last election.