THE day before proposed drilling for oil at Arreton goes before planners, the Isle of Wight Council's cabinet member for environment and heritage has spoken out against it again.

As previously reported, despite councillors including Arreton member Cllr Suzie Ellis and Cllr Jonathan Bacon, who represents the environment, being against it, Isle of Wight Council planning officers are recommending it is approved.

There has also been a petition handed in on behalf of 4,400 Island residents against the plans.

However the council's environmental health team, ecology officer and AONB Partnership, raised no objections. National bodies like Natural England, the Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive did not object either.

On Tuesday, members of the planning committee will consider an application by UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) that could see two deep holes drilled on privately-owned greenfield farmland at Arreton, over three years.

The aim is to see if there is enough oil underneath for a financially viable extraction.

UKOG insists the site will not be polluting and will be restored to nature when work is complete.

Campaigners last week descended on County Hall, armed with their petition, calling for the application to be rejected. They plan to protest outside tomorrow too.

Cllr Bacon has issued a press release entitled We Must and Can Oppose Drilling for Oil on the Island.

It states: “The strength of public feeling against the proposal is clear, both in the number of objections received and the recently delivered petition signed by 4,410 residents.

“It is plain to anyone who recognises what is most important about our Island and who appreciates its natural beauty and fragile geology, that drilling for outdated fossil fuel sources is wrong. However, as with all planning applications, the decision needs to be based on policy.

“As such the application exposes once again that we currently have an inadequate local policy base. The new Island Plan will eventually plug the gaps but in the meantime we are thrown back to relying on the government’s National Planning Policy Framework.

“Despite this situation, things may not be so bleak here if one looks at the overall policy base. Government Policy has moved on since the NPPF was written and there is a clear direction of travel in respect of supporting green energy and climate change.

"In addition, while we still do not have a local Island Plan, we have a clear Climate Change Policy and we are now a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.

"These are things that will obviously be reflected in the new Island Plan so it is inappropriate to rely on the fact that the new Plan itself is not in being yet when constituent parts of it clearly are.

“The fact that planning staff have referred to government statements that assert that fossil fuels will remain important as we transition to greener energy cannot be criticised.

"However I strongly feel they have not interpreted the government’s stance correctly. While it may be obvious that such fuel sources will be relevant and important for some years to come, this is in no way a justification for new drilling operations.

“This is particularly so if one has regard to the overarching requirement that development should be sustainable. Fossil fuels simply do not satisfy this test.

“The assertions that there are economic benefits to be realised from the proposed drilling must be queried. The report makes it clear that the local benefits are minimal and gives no detail or justification about the alleged wider benefits.

"When one combines this with the knowledge that the proposal would at most produce a supply of oil lasting for just 12 days the economic benefit argument falls flat.”

“Overall therefore, in addition to stating the proposal is plainly inappropriate for the Island, the Planning Committee can refer to a clear policy base upon which it can support and justify a decision to refuse the application.”