A corporate update published this week has reignited questions over the planning status of the controversial oil and gas site at Balcombe, after wording in the annual report of a parent company appears to conflict with information held by local planners and the operator.
Conflicting accounts over permission
The dispute centres on a passage in the A J Lucas annual report, published on 31 August 2026, in which Cuadrilla’s chief executive, Francis Egan, said planning permission remained in place for a well test at Balcombe. The report also contains a statement suggesting the operator could now progress.
“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.”
“[the Balcombe] Operator can therefore now progress.”
That phrasing is at odds with actions and statements elsewhere. Earlier in 2026 the mineral planning authority confirmed the permission had lapsed, and Angus Energy — which operates the Balcombe site on behalf of Cuadrilla and A J Lucas — told investors it intended to resubmit a planning application. Official planning records show no such resubmission has been lodged to date.
Long-running controversy with a complex history
Balcombe has been the focal point of local opposition for more than a decade. Public records cited in recent reporting list a number of planning entries for the site going back to 2010. Key dates in the recent history include:
- 2010 – first planning entry on the West Sussex portal;
- 2020 – application for an extended well test refused unanimously by the county planning committee;
- 13 February 2023 – planning inspector overturned the 2020 refusal;
- 2025 – a High Court challenge by local residents was rejected, confirming the company could proceed;
- 2026 – county authority said the permission had lapsed; Angus Energy indicated plans to resubmit.
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020 | Extended well test application refused by committee |
| 2023 | Planning inspector overturned the refusal |
| 2025 | High Court challenge by residents rejected |
| 2026 | Authority said permission had lapsed; operator signalled resubmission |
Questions for the companies and the council
DrillOrDrop, which first highlighted the apparent discrepancy, has asked A J Lucas and Cuadrilla to clarify whether the statement in the annual report accurately reflects the current planning position at Balcombe. The article said it would be updated with any response.
Under both Australian and UK law, companies must take care not to lodge or distribute false or misleading information in formal reports. The contrasting accounts — a public company report saying permission remains and local records and the operator indicating otherwise — raise practical and legal questions about what permissions actually exist and whether fresh applications are required to proceed with any testing.
The issue matters locally because any attempt to restart activity at the site would again draw attention from residents and campaign groups who have opposed development there for years. For now, the official planning portal provides the most reliable, up-to-date record of applications and decisions; residents and journalists are able to check the status directly through West Sussex County Council’s online planning pages.
