June 20 2024: The UK Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local authority must consider the long-term climate impact of onshore oil wells when granting planning permission. This decision, resulting from environmental activists’ efforts, could significantly influence future fossil fuel developments.
The case centered on planning permission granted for the retention and expansion of an oil well site in southern England. Environmental campaigners argued that the permission was flawed as it only considered the direct effects of the development, not the greenhouse gas emissions from the use of the extracted oil.
In a narrow three-to-two majority, the judges agreed, declaring the planning approval unlawful because the emissions from later use should have been included in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
“It is not disputed that these emissions, which can easily be quantified, will have a significant impact on climate,” stated George Leggatt, one of the Supreme Court justices supporting the appeal. “The only issue is whether the combustion emissions are effects of the project at all. It seems to me plain that they are.”
Campaigners anticipated that winning this case would make it considerably harder for new oil, gas, and coal projects to gain approval and impact other controversial schemes.
“This case could mark the beginning of the end for new fossil fuel extraction in the UK,” said Sam Fowles, a planning and environment law specialist at Cornerstone Barristers.
In 2019, Surrey County Council had approved Horse Hill Developments, part-owned by UK Oil & Gas Plc, to retain two oil wells and drill four more over more than 20 years near Horley, close to London’s Gatwick Airport. The EIA for the project assessed the construction, production, and decommissioning of the site but did not account for the downstream emissions from the refined and used oil.
The Weald Action Group (WAG), an organization campaigning against oil and gas extraction in southeast England, estimated these emissions would exceed 10 million tonnes of carbon.
A WAG campaigner challenged the planning approval legally, but both the High Court in London and the Court of Appeal rejected the challenge, stating that the council had not acted unlawfully and that policy-making was the government’s responsibility.
“In my view, there was no basis on which the council could reasonably decide it was unnecessary to assess the combustion emissions,” Leggatt stated in his Supreme Court judgment.
