In 2018 there was an unprecedented swarm of earthquakes in the Surrey Hills. Near the epicentre is Horse Hill. In 2014, Horse Hill Developments Ltd (HHDL) drilled into the Portland sandstone. They went deeper into the Kimmeridge clay and discovered oil in the Kimmeridge section. In 2019, a horizontal well was drilled into the Kimmeridge section with plans approved for further wells to be drilled.
Earthquakes and drilling
In October 2018, the Oil and Gas Authority convened a workshop to ascertain whether the earthquakes were caused by drilling. No causal link was found. However, this was found to be based on false premises. An independent assessment by geologists from Edinburgh University came to the opposite conclusion. Their study concluded that “oil exploration and production close to critically stressed faults in the Weald is likely to result in similar earthquake events”.
Local activism
Meanwhile, the Weald Action Group of campaigners were working to stop the drilling. With local residents, they leafleted the area, organised public meetings and held demonstrations at the site. For many years, a protection camp monitored activity at the site and raised awareness of the activities there.
The Norwood Hill Residents’ Association represents households living immediately around the drill site. They opposed the planning applications and engaged with the oil companies and the Environment Agency over their concerns.
Sarah Finch, a member of the Weald Action Group and a Redhill resident, applied for a judicial review of Surrey County Council’s decision to allow the expansion. After a nearly five-year legal fight, the action finally arrived in the supreme court in June this year.
The argument at the supreme court
Local activists and residents, environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth, and the oil and gas industry waited for a decision that could possibly bring the beginning of the end of new fossil fuel extraction in the UK. The case hinged on whether Surrey County Council had behaved unlawfully in granting planning permission for oil production in Horse Hill without taking into account the environmental impact of the inevitable burning of the fuel.
When the drilling was approved, the council’s environmental impact assessment (EIA) didn’t take into account ‘downstream emissions’ from the burning of the oil. They only assessed the impact of the operational emissions at the site, which they considered to be low. If downstream emissions also had to be considered in planning applications, the consequences for the oil and gas industry could be enormous. It could have an impact on all future proposed fossil fuel developments in the UK.
On 20 June 2024, the supreme court found by a majority of three to two that Surrey County Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the oil wells and 20 years oil production at Horse Hill was unlawful.
Comments by campaigners
Lead Campaigner Sarah Finch:
“The oil and gas companies may act like business-as-usual is still an option, but it will be very hard for planning authorities to permit new fossil fuel developments – in the Weald, the North Sea or anywhere else – when their true climate impact is clear for all to see.”
Katie de Kauwe, a Friends of the Earth lawyer:
“It can’t be right that the biggest impacts of fossil fuel projects on people and our planet can effectively be left out when planning decisions are made. This is a hugely consequential legal challenge that could have clear ramifications for other fossil fuel developments, including the new coal mine planned in West Cumbria and the legality of the Secretary of State’s decision to approve it.”
Strengthening the law
The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), in their written submission, asked for the court to provide clear guidance as a matter of law on establishing indirect effects in Environmental Impact Assessments. They are concerned that the court would be dependent on the strengths and weaknesses of the written reasons of the planning authority. This could lead to different planning authorities coming to different decisions on potentially the same facts. They do not want “this law left in an unpredictable state with potentially capricious results”.
The OEP cites the US Environmental Protection Agency, which asserts that “greenhouse gas emissions can be meaningfully evaluated even when there is considerable uncertainty about the exact timing and location of the activities giving rise to the emissions”.
Including downstream emissions in an environmental impact assessment would not automatically rule out planning permission for fossil fuel extraction. Other factors would also be considered, such as economic and energy security. However, it does mean that the environmental effects are given a much greater weight.
Conclusion
This landmark supreme court decision resulted from nearly five years of local activism and numerous court cases with appeals. Local people uniting in a common cause, if sustained and inclusive, can have important and far-reaching effects.
