Drilling for gas near the Surrey village of Dunsfold got the go ahead from a High Court judge this morning (Thursday 20 July 2023).
Photo: DrillOrDrop
Mrs Justice Steyn refused to allow legal challenges by Waverley Borough Council and the community group, Protect Dunsfold, backed by Good Law Project. (Full ruling at end of this article)
Protect Dunsfold said this morning it was considering an appeal.
The judge dismissed the claims that government approval of plans by UK Oil & Gas to explore for gas at its Loxley well site were unlawful.
The company’s planning application had twice been refused by Surrey County Council but this was overturned on appeal by the housing minister, Stuart Andrew.
At a court hearing in June, Protect Dunsfold argued that Mr Andrew’s decision was inconsistent with a similar one announced on the same day. It also failed to take proper account of the impact on the nearby Surrey Hills area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), the group said.
The minister had refused permission for well testing at Ellesmere Port in Cheshire because the unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions on climate change conflicted with national planning policy.
Estelle Dehon KC, for Protect Dunsfold, said the Dunsfold and Ellesmere Port decisions were made concurrently, the level of emissions were in a similar range and the climate impact was discussed in both cases.
Jenny Wigley KC, for Waverley Borough Council, said the housing minister had agreed the harm to the AONB from the drilling site represented a “significant adverse impact”. But in his decision the weight given to landscape harm was considered moderate. This was “in stark contrast”, she said, to the weight given in the decision to the benefits of gas exploration.
Ruling
Mrs Justice Steyn said she was “not persuaded” that the inspector had failed to reflect policy on protecting the AONB. He “expressly recorded” Surrey County Council’s submissions that great weight should be accorded to harm to the AONB, she said.
The judge rejected the argument by Protect Dunsfold and Waverley Borough Council that there was a contrast in the way the inspector and minister considered the benefits of the development versus the harm. She said:
“The fact that harm is to the AONB increases the weight to be attributed to it. But the harm to the AONB from a temporary development such as this clearly can, in principle attract moderate weight in the overall planning balance.”
On the inconsistency between the Dunsfold and Ellesmere Port decisions, the judge said there were similarities in the cases. But she said:
“In my judgment, the decisions are not sufficiently similar to trigger application of the consistency principle, and it is clear that in the circumstances the Ellesmere Port decision is not one which no reasonable decision-maker would have failed to take into account.”
The judge said the Ellesmere Port decision “concerned a local community in Cheshire that was
vulnerable in terms of health and deprivation”. She noted that the emissions from the proposed Ellesmere Port well test would represent a once-only use of 29-79% of aspirational carbon savings by Cheshire West and Chester Council within about 100 days.
In Surrey, the climate change strategy was “not predicated upon restricting hydrocarbon exploration”, Mrs Justice Steyn noted.
Reaction
Sarah Godwin, director of Protect Dunsfold, said:
“Protect Dunsfold Ltd is deeply disappointed that the Judicial Review judgement handed down today has gone against us.
“It seems incredible that within the current context of extreme weather conditions throughout the Northern Hemisphere, planning policy still supports such speculative and unnecessary onshore oil and gas exploration.
“The Court’s decision shows that the Government needs to radically overhaul national planning policy to redress the balance so that the planning authorities always have to take the full climate and environmental impact of such proposals fully into account.
“We will continue to work to change Government policies, and fight for recognition of the very real and imminent threat to our environment, businesses and everyday life related to the continued search for fossil fuels.”
Stephen Sanderson, chief executive of UK Oil & Gas plc said:
“We are pleased that Mrs Justice Steyn has dismissed the legal challenge to our Loxley project and has confirmed that its planning consent is entirely lawful, as the Company and its counsel has maintained.
“We believe that a successful project will be beneficial to local and national level energy and economic interests and is fully in keeping with the government’s Hydrogen and Energy Security strategies.”
Kathy Smyth, co-ordinator of Waverley Friends of the Earth and a director of Protect Dunsfold, said:
“This is a deeply frustrating and worrying result particularly in relation to the inconsistency and illogicality of the Government’s treatment of the emissions at Ellesmere Port and at Loxley in Surrey. The planet can’t distinguish between greenhouse gases emitted in Ellesmere Port and greenhouse gases emitted in Surrey. They are equally damaging.
“In rejecting our legal arguments on the similarity of the two cases the Judge makes the point that the calculated emissions were not evaluated in the context of Surrey Minerals Plan and the level of emissions in Surrey. I just want to make the point that at the start of this matter in 2019 many different people and organisations registered objections on the grounds of emissions and climate impact, including Waverley Friends of the Earth. However, in the Loxley case sustaining these objections was made virtually impossible because the relevant Surrey Mineral Plan policies relating to onshore oil and gas were adopted at least 13 years ago in 2010 when Surrey County Council barely acknowledged the climate debate. These policies prioritise oil and gas extraction and are an exemplar of institutional climate denial. Consequently our hands were tied as all objections relating to greenhouse gas emissions were comprehensively dismissed by Surrey planning officers in 2019 who repeatedly said the Loxley application was just about “land use”.
“Professor Sir Bob Watson has pointed out today in a BBC interview that the planet has already reached 1.2 degrees of warming, greenhouse gas emissions are still rising and that current global government pledges are so inadequate that we will miss the Paris target and that the planet is on track for 2.5 degrees or more.
“This judgment demonstrates yet again that the current planning, political and legal systems are incapable of addressing the climate crisis.”
Solicitor Ricard Gama, at Leigh Day, who represented Protect Dunsfold, said:
“Our clients are disappointed that the court has dismissed their claim for judicial review. They feel that there is an important legal principle at stake, which is whether local authorities and the Secretary of State can ignore greenhouse gas emissions when weighing up the public benefits of an exploratory drilling proposal such as this, in a context where greenhouse gas emissions were a reason for refusing a very similar development at Ellesmere Port. Our clients are considering an appeal.”
Kirsty Clough, local Extinction Rebellion campaigner, said:
“We are deeply disappointed and angered by this week’s High Court decision not to block gas drilling in Dunsfold.
“The climate is in crisis now but even as a deadly heatwave rips through Europe the UK refuses to do anything about it. What will it take for our planning, political and legal systems to get their heads out of the sand and put a stop to these climate killing projects, seriously invest in making our homes energy efficient and accelerate the rollout of sustainable renewable energy sources?
“We remain absolutely committed to stopping this project and will of course continue to support Protect Dunsfold and Waverley Borough Council should they decide to continue to challenge this decision through the courts.”
- This article will be updated with more reaction as we get it
DRILL OR DROP? 
Yes, 1720, accepted by those that use the products produced by such companies-like yourself. Not so righteous. The difference is 1720, I do not attempt to preach what I can’t practice.
You have a choice. You could refuse all the benefits of fossil fuels and then preach. There are ways to do that. However, I am afraid you would be unlikely to be around very long so your audience would be limited. Bit of a dilemma, isn’t it?
We’ve addressed this silly argument before -qv. (By the way, it’s ‘practise’ if a verb, also pointed out before.)
If “we” have addressed the “silly” argument before, why do you still persist with it, 1720? Bit of a dilemma isn’t it? Not new. There have been plenty of preachers preaching abstinence caught with their trousers down. Even plenty of politicians preaching Net Zero now suddenly reviewing a more “pragmatic” approach after Uxbridge. (Goodness, these voters are an unknown quantity, aren’t they!?)
[Edited by moderator]
It must be a difficult job being an activist. Most claiming that a dialogue is required and then trying to control it to a monologue. Multiplied when “having” to use the product that one is campaigning against and then cornered into trying to deny that demand drives production for (in this case) fossil fuel, even whilst the producers kindly publish what they will do to reflect that demand.
Never mind, 1720. There is always the option of waiting until the kindly experts are dead, and then claiming if they had lived they would have changed their minds!
Oh’, and ‘ it’s’ (previous post of yours) is an abbreviation for ‘it is’, not a possessive adjective. The adjective is ‘its’. Just in case it helps you when addressing the world.
Not really, 1720. I was happy to ignore but as you insist, my old English teacher would say-“we’ve is what you do with baskets”. Just in case that helps you. You may like to assist the your and you’re fellow travellers also. (Travelers for my American friends!)
However, maybe a bit more knowledge about the subject may help debate the subject and display your knowledge around the subject matter? I am sure there are other sites designed to assist with the English language and variations upon it. There are some pretty good ones also for those who have issues with arithmetic and modern history-just in case it helps you. Alternatively, you could just try and deflect.
I couldn’t hope to compete on the deflection front. When the task is to remove the anthropogenic from disastrous man-made global heating, and the suggested solutions limit themselves to the benefits of fossil fuels and a kickback against efforts to remove them, then accusations of deflection combined with the overall drift of other posts can be, and are, viewed with derision.
Why remove fossil fuels, 1720? Fossil fuels are not a problem. The waste products from the combustion of fossil fuel are the problem. So, when you learn something about the subject then your posts about derision may be taken seriously.
Previously, all that has come from you is “something must be done”. Now you go a bit further and start down the baby out with the bathwater effort, posting at 11pm on plastic! Well, 1720, there are two somethings that could have been done to reduce demand for fossil fuel but were ignored-by yourself. Maybe some more deflection to avoid derision?
You like the word anthropogenic. Okay, so what about all those methane emissions from the billions growing rice, 1720? Is the rice production to be stopped also?
I have no problem with removing or reducing use of fossil fuels IF practical and economic alternatives are offered and all consequential impacts are considered and acceptable. What I have issue with is nonsense arithmetic used to try and justify what is not possible to justify, and then little items like £200B surfacing from behind the sofa that was known about all the time-and then “justified” by nonsense economics. Then, a heat pump for £6k, but when you check with a heating engineer it is £20k+ for your property and will struggle to keep the temperature where you want it. Goodness, there are even Chief Scientists who are not derided, but offered a post death sudden change of mind to maintain nonsense arithmetic!
I suppose if I did not recognize that a fact is something that is true, I may think differently. Do I have derision for those that think differently from that confusion? No. If that is their stance then good luck to them, but it is not a Group that my Think will join in with, and I will offer my reasons why not. If “they” want to deride me, 1720, I would be quite happy for “them” to do so, but perhaps “they” would be better off thinking?
Just a piece of advice. You will sleep better and wake refreshed if you remove negative thoughts like derision before you plonk your head on your pillow. You could think happy thoughts, like the French are going to donate nuclear power stations to the UK and forget about the real arithmetic!
And one well plus one well equals how many wells?
What are fossil fuels for?
As for the rest……..
One can also replace one, 1720, especially when the last one is known to have a finite lifespan! Apparently, that is why $8B was knocked off Siemens value recently when they admitted the finite, very limited lifespan was somewhat of a surprise to them! Within the oil and gas industry they do seem to understand that a bit better.
Fossil fuels are for? Production of fertilizer to help feed the 7B going to 10B and production of artificial rubber, used extensively in the NHS, and other health services. Maybe for rescuing and rebuilding when natural disasters have knocked out the electricity distribution? Amongst many other things, including my new bath panel that I have been informed, by plastic, will arrive by diesel courier this afternoon. The diesel courier bit should be okay, as the politicians told “us” a few years ago to go diesel. (Now retired, rebranding as saver of the environment!) Diesels came from Germany mainly, and delivered some consequential issues and much of the diesel from Russia, delivering some more consequential issues.
[Edited by moderator]
You missed the bit about babies and bathwater and consequential impacts? A good nights sleep would have helped.
There was no rest, but what there was would require a very select Group to so Think. Putting on my old marketing hat, 1720, you may need to think a bit more about your target audience. I may not agree with some on DoD but I would respect that they should know something about what they are concerned about. Otherwise, putting on my old agricultural hat, it looks very much like the parasite finding a host.
I have not bothered to check spelling and/or punctuation as I need to prepare for my DIY, but you have a nice out to avoid and deflect.
The issue for Siemens appears to be quality control, with an increase in failure rates of some components. Siemens service their turbines, often on 10 year fixed-price contracts, so the fact that components are failing faster than expected could add to costs for years to come.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/23/siemens-energy-scraps-profit-outlook-as-wind-turbine-troubles-deepen.html#:~:text=Siemens%20Energy%20shares%20plunged%20over,unit%20could%20last%20for%20years.
Yes, Paul, and then there is the issue of removing them to take to shore and conduct repairs, where that is necessary. That is limited to certain times of the year. Ironic really that when the wind is really blowing, they have to sit there doing nothing. One hopes that EDF may have a better handle on QC.
Yet, if Quality Control was an issue on one well site, then how many articles on DoD? Energy provision is a mix, and focusing on one element can make other elements look exciting. Then, the other elements need similar scrutiny. When that is done, there are a high number of situations where there are, and have been serious issues.
No problem with an alternative plan-but one that works may get better support.
However, I am pleased my old plastic bath panel came off in one piece so I have a blueprint to now trim my new one from. I await to see if my recycling centre (center!) are still up to speed with separation of such plastic for recycling. If not, it goes for combustion to produce electricity, but I would prefer the former. Could end up as a rain collection barrel! Now, there is a plan that works, if followed.