Legal

Good Law Project backs community challenge to government over gas drilling near Surrey village

The Good Law Project announced this morning it was supporting the community group, Protect Dunsfold, in its bid to challenge a government decision to allow exploratory drilling for gas on the edge of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

View from High Billinghurst Farm towards the planned gas exploration site. Photo: High Billinghurst Farm

Protect Dunsfold confirmed earlier this week it was seeking a statutory review of the grant of planning permission by the housing minister, Stuart Andrew, to UK Oil & Gas plc. Link to claim

Last month, Mr Andrew overrode two refusals of consent by Surrey County Council for the site at Loxley, near Dunsfold, south of Guildford.

The minister admitted the scheme would cause ‘a significant level of landscape and visual impact’, but still gave it the go-ahead.

Protect Dunsfold hopes to challenge the decision at the High Court on the grounds that:

● the Secretary of State did not give adequate weight to the greenhouse gas impacts of the project and its impact on climate change;

● the benefits versus the impacts of the analysis were not properly assessed.

● the Secretary of State did not give adequate weight to conserving and enhancing the scenic beauty of the proposed site, which borders on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The Good Law Project’s support comes in the week of record high temperatures across the UK and a High Court ruling that the government’s net zero strategy is unlawful.

Jo Maugham, director of Good Law Project, said:

“We have some questions. Why, in the aftermath of the hottest day ever, are we wanting to dig up more fossil fuels? Why are we doing it next to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty? And why is Government afraid to let the people of Surrey make their own decisions about what works for their community? We are proud to stand side by side with Protect Dunsfold.”

Sarah Godwin, of Protect Dunsfold Limited, said:

“Protect Dunsfold has fought consistently for the past three years to represent the concerns of those most impacted by UKOG’s application for exploratory drilling.

Neither local nor national interest is served by imposing a project harmful to one of the nation’s most sensitive landscapes by inflicting such industrial activity whilst brushing the environmental consequences of continued fossil fuel exploration under the rug. The muddled logic of the Secretary of State’s decision speaks volumes whilst riding roughshod over local democracy and policy. We are delighted to be challenging the decision with the full support of the GLP and our expert advocacy team.”

Ricardo Gama, at Leigh Day, the solicitors acting for Protect Dunsfold Limited, said:

“This important case will determine whether the government’s approach to assessing the greenhouse gas, landscape and other impacts of hydrocarbon development such as this was lawful, particularly given the sensitive location of the site in close proximity to the Surrey Hills AONB. Our clients hope to overturn the government decision as they believe it sets a damaging precedent for other similar developments.”

The government’s decision to grant planning permission for the Loxley site was strongly criticised locally.

The local MP, Jeremy Hunt, objected in a letter to the then communities secretary, Michael Gove:

“I cannot see how this site has any role to play in our future energy supply needs…In short it will create enormous disruption and environmental damage for little if any economic benefit.”

His arguments were countered by Stephen Sanderson, the chief executive of UKOG.

The Good Law Project aims to crowdfund £30,000 in 30 days to support funding in the case.

Waverley Borough Council has also applied to the court to challenge the government’s decision.

DrillOrDrop has invited UK Oil & Gas to comment on the challenges to its planning permission.

10 replies »

  1. Excellent. The increasing quantity of DorD posts of late seem to indicate that we who knew, but (culpably) did not act, are being inspired by events to do so. As Raymond Aron said (quoted in The Tablet of June 25) of the Holocaust “ I knew, but I didn’t believe it. And because I didn’t believe it, I didn’t know.”
    We are perhaps beginning to believe it – that the priority amongst priorities is mitigating, preventing the worst effects, of anthropogenic global heating which, thanks to our deniers, we can no longer stop.

    • Nope, 1720. Just more posts from the same antis, for a short period of time, then they evaporate.

      If that is the total of your “we’s” you need to rehydrate.

  2. There are serious financial insecurities with this project, doesn’t bode well for safety or sticking to control measures eg lighting, noise, traffic management etc. In addition to the most obvious environmental damage this will cause.

  3. Where are the financial insecurities? The farminee has yet to be announced. Could be anyone with any amount of security.

    If this is the standard for any challenge, it will not last long.

  4. In the words of one investor
    “ ‘When you have no confidence what is below the ground you get someone else to pay for it’

    AME’s farm out to UKOG illustrating exactly that. Let’s hope UKOG can find a similarly naive company to farm into Loxley. As for HH perhaps the biggest red flag was what appeared to be relatively small payments for HHDL equity in the Gatwick Gusher when pi were being fed plans for multiple wells on multiple sites worth 100’s of millions of pounds. These oint owners of HHDL had all the data not the bits UKOG wanted pi to see.

    Now that in Turkey UKOG won’t be paying 100% will AME be more circumspect about future work.”

  5. In the words of another, non investor, when you want to develop a number of projects you look for a farminee, or two, otherwise you just issue more shares.
    I think my version is more accurate, as if there was no confidence there would be no farminee.

    • I think my version is more accurate actually, if you have proof that there’s anything there pray do show us 😘

  6. Oh, I think there is proof something is there, Jono. Whether the something is commercially viable is what the exploration is about.

    But, if you were right then no farminee will be found, who will do their own due diligence during the process.

    If the challenge is as illogical as some of the statements put forward, it would appear a total waste of time and effort. But, that wouldn’t be a first.

  7. Interesting that government are more inclined to sign off a project in the south where presumably they expect tory voters still to be loyal. Up north though – maybe tories are beginning to worry that the red wall might soon get a new paint job. Dunsfold brings to mind Michael Fallon’s famous quoted comment.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s