Oil well ruling ‘could have significant repercussions’, Supreme Court told

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

An environmental campaign group says a Supreme Court ruling on a fight over an oil well could have “significant repercussions” for new fossil fuel projects.

Friends of the Earth says campaigner Sarah Finch’s battle with Surrey County Council is “critically important”.

Ms Finch, 59, objects to the extension of oil drilling near Gatwick and has raised concerns about the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.

She has challenged Surrey 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.

Friends of the Earth is backing Ms Finch, who brought the challenge on behalf of the Weald Action Group.

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 and justices are expected to publish a ruling later in the year.

Ms Finch 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.

Ms Finch, who now lives in Exeter, Devon, says council bosses had 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”.

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.

They were told that the issue was whether “downstream greenhouse gas emissions” were “indirect effects”.

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 only lawfully be granted in respect of developments which encompassed “certain extractive industry” developments, if an environment impact assessment had been carried out.

“The appellant’s case is simple,” they said.

“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’.”

A barrister representing Surrey council said the case was “essentially an issue of law”.

“This is not a climate change case,” Harriet Townsend said.

“It turns on the interpretation of what are ordinary words in their particular legislative context.”

She said justices should dismiss the appeal.

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

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.

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,” Friends of the Earth lawyer Katie de Kauwe said.

“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.”