On June 20, 2024, the UK Supreme Court made a significant ruling in the case of R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) (Appellant) v Surrey County Council and others (Respondents) [2024] UKSC 20. The court declared that the decision to grant planning permission for an oil production site in Surrey was unlawful because it did not assess the downstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would result from the burning of the oil produced.
In the United Kingdom, before planning permission can be granted for a project that is likely to have a substantial impact on the environment, an environmental impact assessment (EIA) must be conducted. This assessment is required to identify, describe, and evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the project on the environment, including its impact on climate. While the law does not prohibit the approval of projects that may harm the environment, it does mandate that the planning authority thoroughly consider the environmental impact before granting permission.
The case in question involved a developer seeking permission from Surrey County Council to expand oil production at a site in Surrey. The project, which would span 20 years and involve extracting oil from six wells, triggered the need for an EIA. The developer argued that the assessment of climate impact should only focus on direct GHG emissions from the site, excluding downstream emissions caused by burning the oil elsewhere. The Council accepted this argument and granted permission without considering the downstream emissions.
A local resident, Sarah Finch, challenged the Council’s decision in court, arguing that the failure to assess downstream GHG emissions made the decision unlawful. After the High Court and Court of Appeal ruled against her, the Supreme Court, by a three-to-two majority, found in favor of Finch. The court emphasized that the EIA Directive requires an assessment of both direct and indirect effects of a development, including downstream impacts. In this case, the downstream GHG emissions resulting from the oil extraction process were a significant environmental concern that needed to be evaluated.
The judgment highlighted the importance of assessing the global warming effects of projects like the one in question to enable informed public debate. The court concluded that the Council’s decision to grant planning permission was unlawful due to the failure to evaluate the climate impact of the oil extraction project.
While the ruling may not affect projects already granted permission or under construction, it is expected to have implications for future fossil fuel developments in the UK. The decision underscores the significance of considering downstream GHG emissions in environmental impact assessments for major projects, setting a precedent for more comprehensive evaluations in the future.