Environmental activists win landmark ruling over UK oil well plan
Campaigners win appeal over approval for oil wells
Impact of downstream emissions should have been considered
Activists say ruling will impact future fossil fuel projects
Adds reaction from company, council, campaigners, details
By Michael Holden
LONDON, June 20 (Reuters) -Planning authorities should have considered the impact of climate-warming emissions in approving an oil well near Gatwick Airport, the UK's highest court said on Thursday, a ruling activists say could profoundly impact new fossil fuel projects in Britain.
Environmental campaigners had argued that planning permission to retain and expand the oil well site near London's Gatwick was flawed because it had not considered the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from the use of the oil.
Supreme Court judges agreed by a narrow three to two majority, and quashed the planning approval which they said was unlawful.
While the court said councils could still approve schemes even if they were likely to cause significant harm to the environment, campaigners said the landmark judgment would make it much harder for new oil, gas and coal developments to get approval.
"This historic ruling is a watershed moment in the fight to stop further fossil fuel extraction projects in the UK and make the emissions cuts needed to meet crucial climate targets," Friends of the Earth lawyer Katie de Kauwe said.
"It is a huge boost to everyone involved in resisting fossil fuel projects."
The campaign groups said the ruling could hit proposals for other controversial schemes such a new coal mine in Cumbria, northern England, as well as North Sea oil and gas projects.
"Oil and gas companies will be working through the judgment to assess to what extent it affects future projects in the UK, and existing challenges before the courts, which had been stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision," Tom Cummins, partner at law firm Ashurst.
The government said it would carefully consider the impact of the ruling and any relevance for other ongoing legal proceedings.
NEW OIL WELLS
The case concerned a decision in 2019 by Surrey County Council to allow Horse Hill Developments, part-owned by British energy company UK Oil & Gas Plc (UKOG), to retain two oil wells and drill four more over a 20-year period near the town of Horley, close to Gatwick.
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project examined the effect of the construction, production and decommissioning of the site, but did not assess the impact from emissions that would result from the use of the refined oil.
The Weald Action Group (WAG), an umbrella organisation for local groups that campaign against the extraction of oil and gas in southeast England, estimated this would equate to more than 10 million tonnes of carbon emissions.
A campaigner acting for WAG launched a legal challenge against the planning approval on the basis the EIA was flawed, but this was rejected both by the High Court in London and then by the Court of Appeal.
However, the Supreme Court overruled, saying it was inevitable there would be combustion emissions from the refined oil.
"It is not disputed that these emissions, which can easily be quantified, will have a significant impact on climate," said George Leggatt, one of the three Supreme Court justices who agreed with the appeal.
"The only issue is whether the combustion emissions are effects of the project at all. It seems to me plain that they are."
UKOG's CEO Stephen Sanderson said the company's focus had shifted from oil and gas to underground hydrogen storage, but added it would work closely with the local authority to account for "this retrospective change to EIA requirements".
The council itself said planning permission for the oil well "remains to be determined in due course".
Reporting by Michael Holden; editing by William James, Peter Graff and Jan Harvey
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
