In a ruling that could prevent other new UK fossil fuel developments from going ahead, the Supreme Court has ruled that a local council wrongly ignored the impact of future emissions.
Emissions created by burning fossil fuels should be considered when granting planning permission for new drilling sites, Lord Justice George Leggatt ruled, though the court's decision was by a three to two majority.
He judged that Surrey Country Council’s decision to grant permission for an expansion of oil drilling at Horse Hill was "unlawful and must be quashed".
The council should have considered the climate impacts from the burning of oil as fuel, not just from extracting it, the judge said.
The ruling now retrospectively requires that the end-use combustion emissions must be included in the development's environmental impact assessment (EIA) and assessed as part of the grant of planning consent for the development.
The Weald Action Group (pictured) challenged the county council’s 2019 decision to allow the expansion, arguing that the environmental impact assessment carried out before planning permission was granted should have taken into account the “downstream” carbon combustion emissions produced when the oil was burned not just the impact of extracting the oil.
In a statement following today's ruling UK Oil & Gas PLC (AIM:UKOG) said it now plans to "work closely" with the council to "promptly rectify the situation", either via an amendment to the original 2018 planning application's EIA or via a new retrospective planning submission, for which it noted there is recent planning precedent within Surrey.
In the case of a retrospective planning solution, the oil field's future expected production volumes would fall below the 3,700 barrels a day production threshold for which an EIA is mandatory for petroleum extraction developments, UKOG added, noting that it has "at all times operated the field in full regulatory and legal compliance".
UKOG holds an effective 85.635% interest in Horse Hill and the surrounding PEDL137 licence.
CEO Stephen Sanderson said it was a "rather perplexing retrospective ruling, which is counter to all prior judgements".
He pointed out that the company's focus over the past few years has shifted towards underground hydrogen storage, and that "although Horse Hill is a small part of our portfolio, it still has a role to play in both the Company's and UK's future transitional energy mix and thus we look forward to working closely with the local planning authority to rectify this retrospective change to EIA requirements".