DRILL OR DROP?

Campaigners gathered outside the Horndean B oil site in Hampshire yesterday (6 September 2026) to launch a fundraiser for a legal challenge over methane pollution from onshore oil and gas sites in the UK.

Campaign launch outside the Horndean B oil site in Hampmshire. Photo: Weald Action Group

The Horndean site, operated by Star Energy, is at the centre of the latest legal campaign by the Weald Action Group (WAG), the network fighting expansion of oil and gas operations in southern England for more than a decade.

WAG is now focussing on how methane emissions from oil and gas sites are regulated.

It said it would use a combination of legal action, investigations, technical research and field data to expose regulatory gaps and systematic failures that allow unchecked methane emissions.

In 2024, WAG secured a landmark victory at the UK Supreme Court with the Finch Judgment, which changed the legal landscape for fossil fuel planning decisions by requiring the assessment of downstream emissions from the use of oil and gas.

Methane, regarded as a super climate pollutant, is more than 80 times more potent for global warming than carbon dioxide (CO2) over 20 years.

Unlike CO2, methane breaks down in the atmosphere within a decade. Urgent action has a real chance of slowing warming in our lifetimes.

WAG said the focus of its climate litigation was to help secure faster and more effective action on reducing methane emissions across the UK.

If successful, the group said cases could limit methane emissions in Environment Agency permits issued to oil and gas sites in the UK and to ensure that the UK onshore industry was held accountable.

WAG’s Lorraine Inglis:

“This summer we’ve experienced severe drought and wildfires in communities across the UK, a stark reminder that climate breakdown isn’t a distant threat, it’s happening here and now. Every site like Horndean that continues to emit methane makes the crisis worse, and fixing the leaks is one of the fastest, cheapest wins we have in this crisis.”

WAG organised ”Cake at the Gate” at the Horndean site to mark the launch of the fundraiser. This repeated a popular event at previous protest campaigns at Horse Hill in Surrey and Broadford Bridge in West Sussex.

WAG campaigner Emily Mott said:

“It was a joy to catch up with climate campaigners from across the South East, all working toward the same goal: averting the worst of global warming.

“Every tonne of methane kept out of the atmosphere makes a difference, and the onshore oil and gas industry has a real opportunity to act. Weald Action Group’s Clean Air Clear Future campaign is calling for an end to routine venting and flaring, and faster, more frequent leak detection and repair.

“We are also calling on the government to include emissions from the onshore sector in their Methane Action Plan. “

A fundraiser is live now. Link here

No decision is expected this month (September 2026) on controversial plans for expansion and long-term production at the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, the county council has confirmed.

Horse Hill drilling plans. Source: planning application

A council spokesperson told DrillOrDrop the planning committee meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 23 September 2026, would not consider the Horse Hill application.

The spokesperson also said the council was “not in a position to confirm a date yet as work on the application is still ongoing”.

The Horse Hill plans were at the centre of a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in 2024.

A successful legal challenge, by campaigner Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group, required decisionmakers to take into account the carbon emissions from the use of extracted oil.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Horse Hill planning permission, granted by Surrey County Council in 2019, was unlawful because it had not done this. The consent was quashed immediately.

Four months later, HHDL announced it was voluntarily stopping oil production, although oil continued to be extracted in the following month.

The company submitted a revised planning application in June 2026.

This revealed that the site was expected to produce more than 600,000 tonnes of oil over the next 20 years and release about two million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

The company concluded that emissions from use of the oil were “not significant” for climate change.

But campaigners have argued that the assessment was “flawed” and have questioned its competence.

HHDL is seeking permission for four new production wells, bringing the total at the site to six. The plans also include expanding the site from 2.08ha to 2.8ha, allowing 20 years of oil production, and adding a new oil processing area, tanker loading facilities and a water reinjection well.

HHDL’s parent company, formerly UK Oil & Gas, now renamed UK Energy Group plc, is seeking to sell Horse Hill to energy B.

New directors of Union Jack Oil will give their views next week on the proposed takeover by Reabold Resources, according to a statement to investors.

Craig Howie and John Americanos replaced the previous directors at a general meeting last month (24 August 2026).

They told shareholders on Friday (4 September 2026) the Union Jack board was “considering its position” on the Reabold Resources offer. The statement added:

[the board] “would set out its views, together with the independent financial advice it had received, in a circular to be published during the course of the week commencing [Monday] u7 September 2026.”

Two crucial dates in the offer process have been reset, Union Jack also said.

It said day 60 – the latest date by which the conditions of the offer must be satisfied or waived) – would be reset to the 21st day following publication of the Union Jack circular. Day 46, the latest date on which Reabold may publish a revised offer, would also be reset.

The Union Jack statement followed an announcement from Reabold Resources (also on 4 September 2026) on support for the takeover bid. Reabold said it had received acceptance from 5.70% of the Union Jack shareholding by day 35 of the offer.

In the UK, Union Jack has interests in the Wressle oil site in North Lincolnshire and the West Newton oil and gas field in East Yorkshire.

UK Oil & Gas, the company behind controversial expansion plans at the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, has changed its name.

A listing on the Companies House website reveals that the company name, usually abbreviated to UKOG, is now UK Energy Group plc.

Companies House said the certificate for change of name was issued on Friday 4 September 2026. It has not yet been published online.

UKOG still has an account on X and the company’s UKOGplc.com website is still working.

The company announced in June 2026 that it was seeking to sell Horse Hill to energy B. The deal must be approved by the industry regulator and energy B’s shareholders.

Horse Hill was the company’s sole remaining oil and gas site.

This is the fifth name change for the company, according to Companies House.  

For two months, from 2004-20005, it was called Pinco 2231 plc. It became Sarantel Group plc in 2005. In 2013, the company was renamed UK Oil & Gas Investments plc. The name changed to UK Oil & Gas plc in July 2008.

The directors remain the same, according to Companies House. They are: Stephen Sanderson (the longest-standing director from 2015), Nicholas Mardon Taylor, Allen Howard II, Guzyal Mukhametzhanova (secretary) and Kristopher Bone.

A statement by Cuadrilla about the controversial Balcombe oil site in West Sussex apparently conflicts with information from officials and the company’s own partner.

Cuadrilla’s chief executive, Francis Egan, said planning permission remained in place for a well test at Balcombe, the focus of opposition for more than a decade.

But earlier this year (2026), the mineral planning authority confirmed that the permission had lapsed.

Days later, Angus Energy, which operates Balcombe on behalf of Cuadrilla and its parent company, A J Lucas, told investors it would be resubmitting a planning application.

Official records confirm this has not yet happened.

Photo: Helen Savage

Cuadrilla’s statement was part of the A J Lucas annual report, published in Australia earlier today (31 August 2026).

Mr Egan said in his report on UK operations (p10):

“On the Balcombe licence in southern England, operated by Angus Energy and in which Lucas holds at 75% carried interest, planning permission remains in place to undertake a flow test of the existing well. We continue to monitor developments and assess opportunities to unlock value from this conventional gas discovery.”

A separate section of the annual report (p16) said:

“[the Balcombe] Operator can therefore now progress”.

DrillOrDrop put the apparent conflict to A J Lucas and Cuadrilla and asked them to confirm whether no current planning permission existed for the Balcombe well test. We will update this article with any response.

Under Australian and UK law, lodging or distributing an annual report that contains false or misleading information is a serious offence.

West Sussex County Council lists eight planning applications for the Balcombe site on its online planning portal, dating from the first in 2010.

The most recent application, for an extended well test, was submitted in 2020 and refused unanimously by the West Sussex planning committee.

Angus Energy appealed and a planning inspector overturned the refusal on 13 February 2023. A High Court challenge by a local residents’ group was rejected in 2025 and a judge confirmed the company could go ahead with testing the well.

But Angus failed to complete the work by the planning deadline.

Condition 1 of the appeal decision stated:

“The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.”

Angus Energy did not carry out the well test by 13 February 2026.

At the time, DrillOrDrop asked West Sussex County Council whether planning permission had lapsed. The council replied:

“Yes, permission has now lapsed”.

A council spokesperson said the council was not aware of any work at the site in the previous week. The spokesperson added:

“We have not received any notification about the well test or the Lower Stumble site from Angus Energy or its agents in the past week.”

On 19 February 2026, Angus Energy said in a statement to investors:

“Following extended delays associated with the planning process at Balcombe, the Company intends to resubmit its planning application in due course and will provide further updates as appropriate.”

In Angus Energy’s most recent annual report, published on 9 April 2026, the company stated the well test would not be carried out before planning permission lapsed:

“due to the prolonged uncertainty created by the legal challenge, the Company was unable to complete the detailed engineering, procurement and contracting work required to commence the well test and the existing planning consent will expire before it can be activated.

“Accordingly, the Group intends to submit a revised planning application following completion of a technical review of the site and updated development plan. Management considers this to represent a timing and procedural matter rather than a loss of technical or commercial viability of the underlying asset.”

The company also said:

“the requirement to submit a revised application reflects timing and process constraints rather than any loss of technical or commercial potential. The company will continue to engage constructively with the local authority and local community as it progresses the revised development plan.”

Since then, Angus Energy has issued 13 statements to investors, none of which mentions the resubmission of a planning application for the Balcombe well test.

• References to Balcombe in the A J Lucas annual report describe it as a “gas discovery”. Cuadrilla’s website refers to Balcombe as an “exploration oil well”. Angus Energy’s website refers to Balcombe as an oil field.

Preston New Road

The A J Lucas annual report said of Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road former shale gas site, : “our focus shifted to site restoration and aftercare”.

Earlier this month, DrillOrDrop reported that acoustic fencing had been removed from the site near Blackpool.

Cuadrilla has until 8 January 2027 to complete restoration at Preston New Road to bring the site to a standard fit for agricultural use.

Mr Egan said today the restoration work “does not affect either the underlying petroleum licence interests of the extensive shale gas resource identified through the exploration programme”.

Other Cuadrilla sites

Elswick: Cuadrilla said it was generating electricity from gas extracted at the Elswick site near Preston New Road. It said Elswick “remains an important source of self-generated cash flow and demonstrates our ability to derive value from conventional gas opportunities”.

According to official data, Elswick produced a monthly average of just over 13ksm3 of gas in the first four months of 2026 for which data is available.

Yorkshire: Cuadrilla said it continued to hold 25% in licences operated by Egdon Resources containing “a significant discovered conventional gas accumulation”.

Lucas key financial figures

(Year ending 30 June 2026)

Net profit after tax: $28.5m (2025: net loss of $15m)

Group EBITDA*: $40.7m (2025: $14.5m)

Group revenue: $119.6m (2025: 145.6m)

UK settlement of legal dispute: $25.9m (see details here)

*Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amorization

Rathlin Energy, the company planning lower-volume fracking in East Yorkshire, has appointed a new board member from its majority owner.

Christopher Connolly, the chief financial officer of Reabold Resources, became Rathlin’s secretary earlier this month. The appointment was confirmed by Companies House yesterday (26 August 2026).

Mr Connolly has been Reabold’s secretary since May 2022.

Reabold Resources has a near 80% stake in Rathlin Energy, which has two oil and gas sites at West Newton in Holderness, East Yorkshire.

A local campaigner is seeking to quash consent by the Environment Agency for lower-volume fracking at the West Newton-A site.

Reabold is also seeking to takeover Union Jack Oil, another investor in the West Newton plans. Shareholders ousted the Union Jack board this week.

Other recent board changes at Rathlin include the appointment in July 2026 of Philip Birch, a former director of Africa Energy UK Limited, Impact Oil & Gas Limited and IOG Energies Limited.

DrillOrDrop reported in April 2026 that Rathlin’s founder, John Hodgins (73), a Canadian petroleum geologist, had resigned from the board. He was chief executive of Connaught Oil & Gas Ltd, Rathlin’s former parent company.

The co-chief executive of Reabold Resources, Stephen Williams, has been a Rathlin director since 2019.

All three Union Jack Oil directors, David Bramhill, Joseph O’Farrell and Zac Phillips, have been removed immediately from the board, the company announced today (24 August 2026).

They have been replaced by Craig Howie and John Americanos, again with immediate effect.

The announcement follows general meetings in London earlier today.

Last month, Mr Howie and Mr Americanos, both former Union Jack directors, called for the removal of the entire Union Jack board and their appointment in its place.

The former directors described the call as “opportunistic” and urged investors to vote against.

But Mr Howie was appointed today with 90.85% of the votes cast in favour and Mr Americanos with 90.82%.

A statement to investors reported that 90.89% of the votes cast were in favour of the removal of David Bramhill (the former executive chairman), 90.55% for the removal of Mr O’Farrell and 90.89% for the removal of Zac Phillips.

Union Jack, which has interests in the Wressle oil field in North Lincolnshire and the West Newton oil and gas sites in East Yorkshire, is the subject of a takeover bid by Reabold Resources.

Earlier this month (5 August 2026), Union Jack, urged investors to support the takeover. It said the company would, “in the short term, be unable to meet its licence commitments”.

The company said the former board had “considered the likelihood of accelerated cash calls for the West Newton project (where Reabold has an economic interest of 69.9%) and payments for loss of office following the recent shareholder requisition received by Union Jack to remove all of its current directors.”

The former directors added:

“Consequently, in accordance with the licence terms, this may result in the forfeiture of key assets within the Union Jack portfolio.”

Today’s statement said Mr Howie would become executive chairman and Mr Americanos the executive director. Independent non-executive directors would be appointed, the statement said.

Mr Howie said:

“Following the Board changes announced today, Union Jack’s immediate priority must be an urgent right-sizing of its central cost base, particularly with regard to directors’ remuneration.

“This should be accompanied by significantly improved investor communication and corporate governance.

“Supported by a fresh commercial and technical approach, the incoming Board also needs to make considerably more effective capital allocation decisions at the asset and corporate levels, to preserve and grow value going forward.

“We look forward to updating shareholders once the most urgent steps have been taken, including the selection and appointment of independent non-executive directors to ensure the highest standards of boardroom oversight.”

Last week, Reabold Resources announced that it had received support for the takeover from holders of 2.35% of Union Jack’s share capital, 21 days after the takeover offer. The offer remains open until 25 September 2026.

Reabold Resources has not issued a formal statement to investors in response to today’s news.

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.