Last week we heard the government has decided to allow exploration for gas at a site in Dunsfold – a decision that was a bitter disappointment to me and many Dunsfold residents.

I should declare an interest in that I live about a mile away from the proposed site. But I would have taken an identical view even it had been somewhere completely different – and, indeed, my view is shared by both Waverley and Surrey County Councils. Why are we so concerned?

Firstly there are numerous concerns about the impact on the local environment. At a time when we are trying to extend the footprint of the local AONB in the very same area, this would mean large lorries accessing a site on very narrow roads significantly adding to congestion on the routes to and from the A3, the A281 and the A286.

More specifically there is an obligation to restore the land used to its prior condition but we are not convinced about the solidity of the guarantees that have been made to ensure that happens.

But at a time when we are moving to a net-zero economy, it seems inconsistent to be exploring for more fossil fuels. We have made very good progress in the UK and I am proud we have reduced emissions by more than any other large economy.

As foreign secretary, I secured COP26 as an international conference the UK would host and was delighted with the progress made, not least the agreement on deforestation. However I also believe we are not there yet – the promises made by the 90 per cent of countries that have now signed up to net zero have not yet translated into anything like the practical changes we need.

Following the decision on Dunsfold, I have arranged to meet Stephen Sanderson, the chief executive of UKOG. He argues natural gas is a key part of the government’s policy both to reduce energy dependence and to transition to net zero. He also says natural gas at Dunsfold could be a key source of blue hydrogen.

It is indeed true the situation in Ukraine reminds us of the dangers of energy dependency. But for that the answer is surely more nuclear power if renewables alone are not sufficient for all our energy needs. What is happening at Dunsfold can only ever be a short-term solution and as such I do not believe it justifies the disruption and potential degradation of our local environment it would involve.

The decision was not actually made by Michael Gove, who recused himself as a fellow Surrey MP. Instead it was taken by Stuart Andrew, whom I have now arranged to meet in Westminster. In the meantime he has been in touch with me to emphasise it is a decision to allow exploration, not actual drilling, which would require an entirely separate application. Nor does the decision to allow exploration in any way advantage a decision on extraction, which must be taken entirely separately. It is nonetheless a huge blow for the people of Dunsfold who have had to cope with more than their fair share of controversial planning developments and I will do all I can to support them.