Oil and gas bods nervously await a High Court ruling on an obscure legal battle that could have ramifications for oil & gas drilling in the UK, including Dunsfold.
A ruling was expected in the Autumn of 2023… now campaigners believe a decision is imminent.
The Supreme Court is reviewing an appeal by Surrey resident Sarah Finch against Surrey County Council, which she argued failed to consider pollution generated by oil and gas extraction from a site at Horse Hill.
The landmark legal case over oil production at Horse Hill in Surrey has postponed the court challenge to a new coal mine in Cumbria.
‘Your Waverley’ believes that the government consents to allow gas and oil exploration on the Loxley Well site near Dunsfold will open the floodgates for wells every two or three miles across the Weald Basin. The area between the North and South Downs, including large parts of Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and Kent.
However, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith refused Dunsfold campaigners, saying an appeal there had no prospect of success. The Court of Appeal’s decision was final and could not be reviewed or appealed. He said:
“ The planning permission will now remain in full force and effect for its full term”,
Drilling for fossil fuels in Dunsfold given the go-ahead
The first decision Waverley’s new council will make?
If successful, the Horse Hill challenge could shape the way fossil fuel developments, including the coal mine in Whitehaven, is approved.
The case opposing the go-ahead of the mine, given by the levelling-up secretary, Michael Gove, had been scheduled to go to the High Court in October.
But a judge, Sir David Holgate, delayed the hearing on Cumbria until after the Supreme Court handed out its judgement in the Horse Hill case.
The Horse Hill case was brought by campaigner Sarah Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group. The Supreme Court heard it in June 2023.
Ms Finch’s case centred on whether Surrey County Council acted unlawfully in failing to take account of carbon emissions from the use of oil extracted from Horse Hill.
Her lawyers argued that these emissions, known as downstream or scope 3, should have been assessed in the environmental impact assessment for Horse Hill oil production.
The county council argued that it needed to consider only the emissions from the oil production process.
The intervention of four companies and organisations in the Horse Hill case illustrates its potential significance.
The interveners, who were able to make statements and legal arguments to the court, included the company behind the Cumbrian mine, West Cumbria Mining Limited, and the Office of Environmental Protection, which was established to hold government and public bodies accountable for the environment.
Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace also intervened.
If Ms Finch’s challenge succeeds, the Supreme Court could rule that decision-makers must consider downstream emissions before approving planning applications.
This could have major implications for the Cumbrian coal mine. It could provide new legal arguments to Friends of the Earth and South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC), seeking to overturn the mine’s approval in court. They could argue that the government acted unlawfully by not considering the downstream emissions from the coal mine.
When the Supreme Court gives its judgement in the Horse Hill case, the High Court will set a date for the hearing on the Cumbria coal mine. Lawyers for Friends of the Earth and SLACC believe this is increasingly likely to be in 2024.
Sarah Finch said :
“The High Court was right to see that the Horse Hill judgment could have big implications for Cumbria.
“The present lack of clarity over whether planners have to factor in ‘downstream’ impacts of fossil fuel developments is dangerous.
“I hope that the Supreme Court will confirm that no fossil fuel production – coal, oil or gas – should be allowed without consideration of its full climate impact.”
Friends of the Earth lawyer, Niall Toru, said:
“We’re pleased the court has decided to delay the Whitehaven hearing. The Horse Hill case could set a critical legal precedent. Companies looking to extract fossil fuels shouldn’t be allowed to disregard the full impacts of their actions. It’s like a tobacco company saying it can ignore the health impacts of smoking.
“The government’s decision to approve the mine, like much of its recent rhetoric, is completely at odds with our climate commitments, and has left the UK’s reputation on climate in tatters. We will be following the outcome of the Horse Hill challenge very closely, and look forward to the day our case can go to trial.”
UKOG are in the death throes. They have no funds, no record of success, now no viable prospects, and liabilities to clean up their failed drilling sites. Ominously they applied to extend their planning permission at defunct Broadford Bridge well for a 5th time – delaying their obligation to restore the site hoping they’ll never need to because they’ll be bankrupt by then.
Ominously the same can be said for their only unexplored prospect at Dunsfold. They don’t have funds to restore, nor a bond to cover such costs (Surrey CC ignored the need). If they farm out drilling to a 3rd party and go bankrupt then the restoration will be Surrey CCs / rate payer’s responsibility.
dare we suggest the cost of reparations should fall on the landowner? Ashley Ward.
This decision should also give clarity to the obligation to consider the global warming carbon impact within local plans. As above oil and gas exploration should only take place where a suitable and sufficient environmental bond is secured in advance of operations to protect taxpayers from any environmental harm of damage.
The Cumbria coal mine was argued for on the basis of the need for coal in the steel industry. But the last UK blast furnaces are about to be closed down. So any coal will be burnt abroad. But it still adds to global CO2 emissions. The UK is merely adding the emissions to other countries quotas!