Supreme Court mandates that oil well plans must evaluate climate impact
Judgment will have far-reaching implications for new fossil fuel projects, including new North Sea oil and gas fields, according to activists.
The Supreme Court has decided that emissions from burning fossil fuels must be taken into account when granting planning permission for new drilling sites.
The oil well site, operated by Horse Hill Developments, was set to extract fossil fuel over a span of 20 years, generating approximately 3.3 million tonnes of oil.
Sarah Finch, representing Weald Action Group, contested Surrey County Council’s approval of the expansion of the oil well site in 2019.
Weald Action Group
Climate activists Friends of The Earth, who supported Ms. Finch in the case, stated that the ruling “could significantly impact all new UK fossil fuel developments, including plans for a controversial new coal mine in Cumbria and North Sea oil and gas projects.”
They also mentioned that “today’s groundbreaking ruling is a significant setback for the fossil fuel industry.”
‘Effect Should Have Been Properly Assessed’
In the ruling, Justice of the Supreme Court Lord Leggatt stated, “It seems clear to me” that emissions resulting from burning oil extracted at the site “are effects of the project,” leading to the conclusion that “the council’s decision was illegal.”
Related Stories
Supported by Lord Kitchin and Lady Rose, he stated, “The reasons given by the council for excluding combustion emissions from consideration and focusing solely on direct greenhouse gas emissions from within the well site boundary are clearly flawed.”
He further stated, “In my view, the council had no basis to reasonably conclude that evaluating combustion emissions was unnecessary.”
‘End Our Ability to Build Anything’
Critics of the ruling expressed concerns about the broader implications of prioritizing reductions in carbon dioxide emissions above all other factors.
Conservative councillor Tom Jones told The Epoch Times that including downstream emissions sets a “dangerous precedent.”
He added, “If this approach is applied universally in the planning system, it will essentially eliminate our ability to construct anything. It won’t just prohibit fossil fuels but any emission-producing sites, such as homes or businesses.”
Harry Wilkinson, head of policy at the think tank Net Zero Watch, conveyed in an email to The Epoch Times that this ruling “casts a shadow over the future of the oil and gas industry in the UK.”
He noted, “However, it’s the logical outcome of the Climate Change Act, which prioritizes reducing carbon dioxide emissions above all else. Judges are merely following the legislative logic passed by our Parliament.”
A spokesperson for Shell told The Epoch Times via email, “We are currently examining the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling.”
A Surrey County Council spokeswoman told The Epoch Times via email: “At the time of the planning application assessment, council officers believed they were acting in accordance with the law. The ruling clarifies that local planning authorities must consider downstream emissions. The council failed to defend its decision.
She added, “The planning permission will be reconsidered in due course.”
The Epoch Times reached out to Horse Hill Developments for comment.
PA Media contributed to this report.
