Environmental campaigner in Supreme Court fight over oil drilling

Sarah Finch was challenging Surrey County Council over its decision to allow a well near Gatwick to be retained and expanded.

Environmental campaigner Sarah Finch has already lost legal fights in lower courts (Brian Farmer/PA) (PA Wire)

An environmental campaigner is staging a Supreme Court fight after objecting to the extension of oil drilling near Gatwick and raising concerns about the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.

Sarah Finch, 59, has challenged Surrey County Council’s decision to allow a well about six miles from where she used to live in Redhill, Surrey, to be retained and expanded by Horse Hill Developments.

She has already lost fights in lower courts – a High Court judge ruled against her, and three Court of Appeal judges dismissed an appeal by a two-to-one majority.

Friends of the Earth has backed Ms Finch, who brought the challenge on behalf of the Weald Action Group and says the case could have widespread implications.

Five Supreme Court justices, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lady Rose, and Lord Richards, began considering arguments at a Supreme Court hearing in London on Wednesday.

The hearing is due to end on Thursday.

Ms Finch, who now lives in Exeter, Devon, says council bosses failed to assess “the indirect greenhouse gas impacts” and did not take into account environmental protection objectives.

Council bosses, who gave Horse Hill Developments permission to extend drilling at Horse Hill, dispute Ms Finch’s claim.

Lawyers representing the council say Ms Finch’s approach to the interpretation of environmental impact requirements is “misguided”.

The amount of oil to be produced over the lifetime of the development is not known, but it was agreed by the parties that: the development could in theory produce up to about 3.3 million tonnes of crude oil over the 20-year production period ...

Marc Willers KC and Estelle Dehon KC

Justices were told that an “environmental impact assessment” had considered the “impacts” of “direct” releases of greenhouse gases but did not assess the impacts of “downstream” emissions.

Barristers representing Ms Finch told justices that her case was “simple”.

Marc Willers KC and Estelle Dehon KC said the appeal concerned the “climate impact of fossil fuel development” and turned on the “correct interpretation” of the 2017 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

They said planning permission could lawfully be granted in respect of developments which encompassed “certain extractive industry” developments, “unless an environment impact assessment” had been carried out in respect of that development.

“In this case, Horse Hill Developments Ltd sought planning permission from the council for the large-scale production of fossil fuel (predominantly oil for sale and use as fuel in transportation), on land at Horse Hill, Surrey, for a period of 20 years and certainly beyond the year 2040,” they said, in a written case outline.

“The amount of oil to be produced over the lifetime of the development is not known, but it was agreed by the parties that: the development could in theory produce up to about 3.3 million tonnes of crude oil over the 20-year production period … ”

They added: “The appellant’s case is simple: on the plain language of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, the likely significant effects on climate of the ‘combustion of material obtained from a development whose sole purpose is to obtain that material for combustion’ are, as a matter of law, ‘indirect effects’ …

“Accordingly, where, as in this case, planning permission is sought for the extraction of oil for commercial production, such that greenhouse gas emissions will unavoidably result from the inevitable use of the refined oil via combustion, a plain language interpretation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations means it is unlawful for a relevant planning authority to grant planning permission without the benefit of an assessment of the nature and magnitude of the greenhouse gas emissions which would be caused by the combustion of the oil.”

It is common ground that the question is one of statutory construction. The court is not required to make any findings about the science of climate change

Richard Moules, representing Secretary of State Michael Gove

They said the Court of Appeal was “wrong to find otherwise”.

Ms Finch has also taken legal action against Horse Hill Developments and Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

Barrister Richard Moules, representing Mr Gove, told justices they were not being asked to make “findings about the science of climate change”.

He said the issue was whether the downstream greenhouse gas emissions, resulting from the eventual combustion of the refined end products produced from the oil originating from the development, were “indirect effects of the development” which had to be assessed.

“It is common ground that the question is one of statutory construction,” he said in a written case outline.

“The court is not required to make any findings about the science of climate change.”

He said the “urgent imperative to address climate change” was the “basis for legislation”.

Ms Finch had said outside court: “The biggest climate impact from this project will occur when the oil is eventually burned.

“If councils can ignore these ‘downstream’ impacts when making planning decisions, then we have no hope of staying within safe climate limits.

“The present lack of clarity over environmental impact assessments is dangerous.

“I hope that the Supreme Court will confirm that no fossil fuel development – coal, oil or gas – should be allowed without consideration of its full climate impact.”

Solicitor Rowan Smith had said: “It’s difficult to overstate the importance of this case.

“The Supreme Court will rule conclusively on whether or not the climate change impact of fossil fuel development in the UK must be taken into account before planning permissions are granted.

“There is a huge amount at stake for the future of the planet and the UK’s ability to meet its carbon reduction targets.”

Friends of the Earth said the case might have implications for a planned coal mine on the outskirts of Whitehaven, Cumbria.

“This is a critically important legal challenge that could have significant repercussions for new fossil fuel projects, including the proposed new coal mine in Cumbria,” said Friends of the Earth lawyer Katie de Kauwe.

“Sarah Finch’s legal challenge could ensure that the full climate impacts of new fossil fuel developments have to be taken into account in the environmental impact assessment when planning applications are considered.

“We’re in a climate crisis and it’s absurd that this is not happening already.”

Local campaign groups echoed Friends of the Earth’s sentiments.

A spokeswoman for the Horse Hill Protection Group said: “Horse Hill matters, not just for the local community but for people and ecosystems everywhere affected by extraction and by climate breakdown.”