Oil Well Plans Must Consider Climate Impact, Supreme Court Rules

Environmental campaigner Sarah Finch (centre) outside the Supreme Court in London, June 20, 2024, Callum Parke/PA Wire

The Supreme Court has ruled that emissions from burning fossil fuels must be considered when granting planning permission for new drilling sites.

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.

Sarah Finch, acting on behalf of Weald Action Group, challenged Surrey County Council’s decision to allow the expansion of the oil well site in 2019.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled the grant of planning permission for oil production was unlawful for failing to assess the “downstream” greenhouse gas emissions.

Weald Action Group

Climate activists Friends of The Earth, who supported Ms. Finch during the case, said that the ruling “could have enormous impacts on all new UK fossil fuel developments, including proposals for a controversial new coal mine in Cumbria and North Sea oil and gas projects.”

It added that “today’s groundbreaking ruling is a heavy blow for the fossil fuel industry.”

Cornerstone Barristers, who specialise in climate change litigation, commented that the ruling “will no doubt have significant consequences for future planning decisions concerning fossil fuel projects as well as other high carbon-emitting proposals.”

‘Effect Should Have Been Properly Assessed’

In the judgment Justice of the Supreme Court 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 said, “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.”

‘End Our Ability to Build Anything’

Critics of the judgment expressed concerns about the broader implications of prioritising carbon dioxide emission reductions over all other considerations.

Conservative councillor Tom Jones told The Epoch Times that a precedent of including downstream emissions is “insanely dangerous.”

“If applied across the planning system this will effectively end our ability to build anything. It won’t just ban fossil fuels but any emission-producing sites, like houses, or businesses,” he said.

Harry Wilkinson, head of policy at the think tank Net Zero Watch told The Epoch Times by email that this ruling “casts a dark shadow over the future of the oil and gas industry in the UK.”

“But it’s the inevitable consequence of the Climate Change Act which puts the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions above all other considerations. Judges are only following the logic of the legislation that our Parliament has passed,” he said.

A Shell Spokesperson told The Epoch Times by email, “We are reviewing the Supreme Court’s ruling and its implications.”

A Surrey County Council spokeswoman told the Epoch Times by email: “Council officers at the time of the planning application assessment believed that they acted in compliance with the law. The judgement makes it clear that local planning authorities must have regard to downstream emissions. The council was unsuccessful in defending its decision.

“The planning permission remains to be determined in due course,” she added.

The Epoch Times contacted Horse Hill Developments for comment.

PA Media contributed to this report.