Oil well just outside London ‘should never have been given permission to expand’

Oil drilling in the UK faces an uncertain future after a new Supreme Court ruling saying permissions have to consider the impact of burning fossil fuels.

It comes after a row over the expansion of an oil field in Horse Hill near Horley, Surrey.

Surrey Council’s decision to allow the controversial expansion was challenged by Sarah Finch, a campaigner acting on behalf of Weald Action Group.

She argued that the environmental impact assessment should have factored in the ‘downstream’ emissions from burning the oil, not just the impact of extracting oil.

Now the Supreme Court has ruled that emissions created by burning fossil fuels should be considered when new drilling sites are given planning permission.

It could threaten future fossil fuel projects in the country.

The six wells at Horse Hill are set to produce around 3.3 million tonnes of crude oil in the next 20 years.

Burning of the oil would produce more than 10 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, the BBC reports citing Friends of the Earth campaigners’ estimates.

What the ruling says about oil well fossil fuels

The landmark decision comes after a legal battle through the courts, which saw Ms Finch lose an earlier High Court before challenging it in the Court of Appeal.

The council challenged the earlier appeal, saying that the law did not require it to consider ‘downstream’ emissions as part of the assessment.

But the Supreme Court justices thought otherwise.

They ruled on Thursday three to two in favour of allowing Ms Finch’s appeal and quashed the decision to grant planning permission for the site.

Lord Leggatt said in his judgment that ‘it seems to me plain’ that emissions created by burning oil extracted at the site ‘are effects of the project.’

As a result, ‘it follows that the council’s decision was unlawful,’ he continued.

He said assessing only the direct greenhouse gas emissions from within the well site boundary ‘are therefore demonstrably flawed.’

Lord Leggatt said he could see ‘no reason’ why combustion emissions occurring elsewhere as a consequence of the operation to extract should be considered differently from emissions generated by extracting the material.

He also said that while the law did not prevent planning authorities from approving projects that may harm the environment, the council needed to reach a ‘reasoned conclusion’ on the impact.

But he said it was ‘not a valid ground’ to argue that the oil being refined elsewhere before being burned meant it did not need to be considered by the council as part of the environmental assessment.

Ms Finch argued last year that council bosses failed to assess the ‘indirect greenhouse gas impacts,’ which the council’s lawyers said was ‘misguided.’

But Lord Leggatt said the impact assessment showed ‘inadequacy’ and didn’t allow for public debate on the impact of the plans.

He said: ‘It is foreseeable in today’s world that, when development consent is sought for a project to produce oil, members of the public concerned will express comments and opinions about the impact of the project on climate change and the potential contribution to global warming of the oil produced.’

He continued: ‘It is not good enough that the potential global warming effect of the proposed development was not ‘completely ignored’.

‘The effect should have been properly assessed so that public debate could take place on an informed basis. That is a key democratic function of the environmental impact assessment process. It was not fulfilled here.’

This is a developing news story, more to follow soon… Check back shortly for further updates.

Got a story? Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk. Or you can submit your videos and pictures here.

For more stories like this, check our news page.

Follow Metro.co.uk on Twitter and Facebook for the latest news updates. You can now also get Metro.co.uk articles sent straight to your device. Sign up for our daily push alerts here.