Planning authorities should have considered the impact of climate-warming emissions in approving an oil well near Gatwick Airport, the UK’s highest court has said, 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 as 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,” said 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. 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.
