UK Supreme Court Hands Climate Activists Landmark Win in Oil Drilling Case
By Tsvetana Paraskova - Jun 20, 2024
The UK Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local council unlawfully granted approval to an onshore oil drilling project as planners must have considered the emissions from the oil’s future use as fuels, in a landmark case that could upset new UK oil and gas project plans.
By a three-to-two majority, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal from Sarah Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group? and other environmental organizations against Surrey County Council, which had granted planning permission to expand oil production from a well site at Horse Hill near Horley in Surrey, close to the Gatwick airport.
The judges wrote in the judgment that “It is an agreed fact that, if the project goes ahead, it is not merely likely but inevitable that the oil produced from the well site will be refined and, as an end product, will eventually undergo combustion, and that that combustion will produce greenhouse gas emissions.”
“It is not disputed that these emissions will have a significant impact on climate,” the judgment goes on to say.
Planning law has always assumed that the so-called Scope 3 emissions from the burning of the oil shouldn’t be considered. The Surrey County Council said it believed it was following the law at the time of granting approval for the Horse Hill development six years ago.
While the Supreme Court didn’t order the Surrey council to reject the planning approval, the precedent set with today’s ruling could make new project authorizations and planning more complex for companies in the UK.
UK Oil & Gas PLC, which holds the majority of the Horse Hill project, said in response that the Supreme Court’s ruling now retrospectively requires that the end-use combustion emissions must be included in the development's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and assessed as part of the grant of planning consent for the development.
The company now plans to work closely with Surrey County Council “to promptly rectify the situation, either via an amendment to the original 2018 planning application's EIA or via a new retrospective planning submission, for which there is recent planning precedent within Surrey.”
By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com
The UK Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local council unlawfully granted approval to an onshore oil drilling project as planners must have considered the emissions from the oil’s future use as fuels, in a landmark case that could upset new UK oil and gas project plans.
By a three-to-two majority, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal from Sarah Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group? and other environmental organizations against Surrey County Council, which had granted planning permission to expand oil production from a well site at Horse Hill near Horley in Surrey, close to the Gatwick airport.
The judges wrote in the judgment that “It is an agreed fact that, if the project goes ahead, it is not merely likely but inevitable that the oil produced from the well site will be refined and, as an end product, will eventually undergo combustion, and that that combustion will produce greenhouse gas emissions.”
“It is not disputed that these emissions will have a significant impact on climate,” the judgment goes on to say.
Planning law has always assumed that the so-called Scope 3 emissions from the burning of the oil shouldn’t be considered. The Surrey County Council said it believed it was following the law at the time of granting approval for the Horse Hill development six years ago.
While the Supreme Court didn’t order the Surrey council to reject the planning approval, the precedent set with today’s ruling could make new project authorizations and planning more complex for companies in the UK.
UK Oil & Gas PLC, which holds the majority of the Horse Hill project, said in response that the Supreme Court’s ruling now retrospectively requires that the end-use combustion emissions must be included in the development's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and assessed as part of the grant of planning consent for the development.
The company now plans to work closely with Surrey County Council “to promptly rectify the situation, either via an amendment to the original 2018 planning application's EIA or via a new retrospective planning submission, for which there is recent planning precedent within Surrey.”
By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com
By RORY TINGLE, HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 20 June 2024 |
The future of all major UK fossil fuel schemes is in doubt after the Supreme Court today ruled in favour of residents opposed to the 'Gatwick Gusher' oil well.
Sarah Finch challenged Surrey County Council's decision to allow the expansion of an oil well site at Horse Hill, near Horley in Surrey, in 2019.
Ms Finch, acting on behalf of Weald Action Group, argued that the environmental impact assessment carried out before planning permission was granted - which only took into account the impact of extracting the oil - should have taken into account the 'downstream' emissions produced when the oil was burned.
The video player is currently playing an ad.
She challenged an earlier Court of Appeal ruling dismissing her case, having also lost a legal battle in the High Court.
And in a ruling today, Supreme Court justices ruled three to two in favour of allowing her appeal and quashed the decision to grant planning permission for the site.
Sarah Finch (seen celebrating the verdict today) challenged Surrey County Council's decision to allow the expansion of an oil well site at Horse Hill, near Horley in Surrey, in 2019
UK Oil & Gas Investments said they discovered 100billion barrels worth of oil reserves in the Weald Basin, near Gatwick airport (pictured, the well head at Horse Hill)
Speaking outside the UK's highest court in Westminster after the judgment, Ms Finch described the ruling as 'a massive vindication of what we've been saying'.
She told reporters: 'This means that in future, every fossil fuel development project that's of the size to meet environmental impact assessment requirements, they will have to assess the downstream emissions from the fuel when it's burned.
Read More
Gatwick Gusher is more Dorking than Dallas: Surrey becomes battleground for fight that could determine future of British energy exploration
'That is going to make it a lot harder for anyone to open a new oil or coal field and it has implications for some that have already been agreed but are subject to legal challenges.'
Later describing the decision as a 'huge win', Ms Finch continued: 'In climate science we hear a lot about tipping points, Amazon deforestation, melting permafrost, things that accelerate global warming in an unpredictable and frightening way.
'I think today we've seen a tipping point in the other direction. No longer will any planning authority be allowed to wave through fossil fuel production without fully considering the climate impact.'
'Together we have just made the future safer,' she added.
Friends of the Earth, which supported the legal challenge, said that the landscape surrounding planning permission for fossil fuel extraction has been 'fundamentally changed' by the ruling.
Katie de Kauwe, a lawyer for the campaigning group, said: 'This historic ruling is a watershed moment in the fight to stop further fossil fuel extraction projects in the UK and make the emissions cuts needed to meet crucial climate targets. It is a huge boost to everyone involved in resisting fossil fuel projects.'
Ms Finch had challenged an earlier Court of Appeal ruling dismissing her case, having also lost a legal battle in the High Court
She continued: 'This judgment will make it harder for new fossil fuel projects to go ahead. They can no longer claim that downstream emissions are someone else's problem. Now, when fossil fuel companies apply for planning permission, it follows from the Supreme Court's judgment, that the end-use emissions must be considered by the planning authority.
'This is a stunning victory for Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group, after nearly five years of grit and determination, in going to court year after year against adversaries with far greater financial resources than they have.'
In the judgment, Lord Leggatt said 'it seems to me plain' that emissions created by burning oil extracted at the site 'are effects of the project', and as a result 'it follows that the council's decision was unlawful'.
In the ruling backed by Lord Kitchin and Lady Rose, he continued: 'The reasons accepted by the council for excluding the combustion emissions from consideration and assessing only direct greenhouse gas emissions from within the well site boundary are therefore demonstrably flawed'
He added: 'In my view, there was no basis on which the council could reasonably decide that it was unnecessary to assess the combustion emissions.'
A map showing the location of Horse Hill, just north of Gatwick Airport
Lord Leggatt also said that he could see 'no reason why combustion emissions that will occur elsewhere as a consequence of the operation of a project to extract oil should be regarded differently' from emissions generated by extracting the material.
The justice later added that while the law did not prevent planning authorities from approving projects which may harm the environment, the authority needed to reach a 'reasoned conclusion' on the impact.
But he said it was 'not a valid ground' to argue that the oil being refined elsewhere before being burned meant it did not need to be considered by the council as part of the environmental assessment.
Under the plans, the oil well site, run by Horse Hill Developments, would have seen the fossil fuel extracted over 20 years, producing around 3.3 million tonnes of oil.
County Council's decision to allow oil production ruled unlawful
By Michelle Monaghan | Journalist |
Thursday 20th June 2024
Sarah Finch (centre) with supporters (Extinction Rebellion)
Sarah said: “I am absolutely over the moon to have won this important case. The Weald Action Group has always believed it was wrong to allow oil production without assessing its full climate impacts, and the Supreme Court has shown we were right. “This is a welcome step towards a safer, fairer future. The oil and gas companies may act like business-as-usual is still an option. But it will be very hard for planning authorities to permit new fossil fuel developments. In the Weald, the North Sea or anywhere else – when their true climate impact is clear for all to see.”
XR campaigner and Weald Action Group member, James Knapp, from Dorking, added: “Today is a huge result for all Horse Hill campaigners from Weald Action Group, Extinction Rebellion and others.
“A journey of five years of fundraising to get us through the courts to achieve this key result, along with direct action against UKOG, including well site invasions, protest camps, gate lock-ons, slow walks, a rig climb and actions against the refinery.
“But today’s judgement leaves UKOG without planning permission to continue extraction at Horse Hill, and we are celebrating a great win, which will affect a huge number of other campaigns too.”
The ruling has huge implications for all future UK fossil fuel projects (Extinction Rebellion )
The ruling makes clear that downstream emissions must be taken into consideration in the environmental assessments of fossil fuel projects, dismissing court rulings which left the issue to planning authorities.
It also emphasised the importance of public participation as a way of increasing the democratic legitimacy of environmental decisions, and serving an educational function. As Lord Leggatt summarised: “You can only care about what you know about.”.
The majority ruling also rejected the argument that resulting GHG emissions are “outwith the control of the site operators with the Court stating that it found that such emissions “are entirely within their control”.
By Michelle Monaghan | Journalist |
Thursday 20th June 2024
michelle.monaghan@farnhamherald.com
The Supreme Court has ruled that it was unlawful for Surrey County Council to grant planning permission for oil production to UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) at its Horse Hill site, near Reigate, as it failed to assess the impact of downstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
It rules out UKOG’s plans to drill for up to 3.3 million tonnes of crude oil for 20 years at the site, but also has huge implications for all future UK fossil fuel projects.
The judgement follows a legal challenge brought by Extinction Rebellion climate campaigner and former Surrey resident Sarah Finch, on behalf of the Weald Action Group.
Sarah’s legal fight was part of a wider campaign of opposition by Weald Action Group and supported by local Extinction Rebellion activists. She launched her case in 2019 and argued that, under the correct interpretation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2017. Environmental impact assessments must take into account downstream emissions caused by burning extracted oil.
The ruling marks the end of the legal campaign which she took to the Supreme Court after three Appeal Court judges were split over the lawfulness of Surrey County Council’s decision.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it was unlawful for Surrey County Council to grant planning permission for oil production to UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) at its Horse Hill site, near Reigate, as it failed to assess the impact of downstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
It rules out UKOG’s plans to drill for up to 3.3 million tonnes of crude oil for 20 years at the site, but also has huge implications for all future UK fossil fuel projects.
The judgement follows a legal challenge brought by Extinction Rebellion climate campaigner and former Surrey resident Sarah Finch, on behalf of the Weald Action Group.
Sarah’s legal fight was part of a wider campaign of opposition by Weald Action Group and supported by local Extinction Rebellion activists. She launched her case in 2019 and argued that, under the correct interpretation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2017. Environmental impact assessments must take into account downstream emissions caused by burning extracted oil.
The ruling marks the end of the legal campaign which she took to the Supreme Court after three Appeal Court judges were split over the lawfulness of Surrey County Council’s decision.
Sarah Finch (centre) with supporters (Extinction Rebellion)
Sarah said: “I am absolutely over the moon to have won this important case. The Weald Action Group has always believed it was wrong to allow oil production without assessing its full climate impacts, and the Supreme Court has shown we were right. “This is a welcome step towards a safer, fairer future. The oil and gas companies may act like business-as-usual is still an option. But it will be very hard for planning authorities to permit new fossil fuel developments. In the Weald, the North Sea or anywhere else – when their true climate impact is clear for all to see.”
XR campaigner and Weald Action Group member, James Knapp, from Dorking, added: “Today is a huge result for all Horse Hill campaigners from Weald Action Group, Extinction Rebellion and others.
“A journey of five years of fundraising to get us through the courts to achieve this key result, along with direct action against UKOG, including well site invasions, protest camps, gate lock-ons, slow walks, a rig climb and actions against the refinery.
“But today’s judgement leaves UKOG without planning permission to continue extraction at Horse Hill, and we are celebrating a great win, which will affect a huge number of other campaigns too.”
The ruling has huge implications for all future UK fossil fuel projects (Extinction Rebellion )
The ruling makes clear that downstream emissions must be taken into consideration in the environmental assessments of fossil fuel projects, dismissing court rulings which left the issue to planning authorities.
It also emphasised the importance of public participation as a way of increasing the democratic legitimacy of environmental decisions, and serving an educational function. As Lord Leggatt summarised: “You can only care about what you know about.”.
The majority ruling also rejected the argument that resulting GHG emissions are “outwith the control of the site operators with the Court stating that it found that such emissions “are entirely within their control”.
No comments:
Post a Comment