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? 
Thanks goodness! I belong to “Drill or Drop.” We need oil for other things besides running cars. We need oil to lubricate small and large engines, from shears to aeroplanes. We must also make sure that we don’t depend on despots such as Putin for our oil.
The Woke funded by stop oil, says they are against oil still depend on it!
Crazy, when 98% of UK oil comes from offshore and 80% of that is EXPORTED.
How come we need yet more oil from onshore when the UK exports 80% of what it currently produces offshore.
And what highlights this absurdity even more is that the 2nd largest destination for UK oil exports is CHINA, on the other side of the planet.
The UK exports around 4 times as much oil to China as is produced by all the UK onshore sites combined. The onshore 2% of UK oil primarily comes from Wytch Farm (1.6%), with the rest (0.4%) coming from all the other sites (over 20) combined.
Uncomfortable truths!
So lets trash England’s environment whilst exporting oil to unfriendly states.
Malcolm, if you complete some research on the capabilities of the UK’s oil refineries. Like what their overall capacity is, what types of oil/oil blend they can refine and what final products they can produce. The answers to your questions on why we export so much North Sea oil and why more onshore oil will not be a problem, will become clear.
I’m well aware of the refinery situation, but it still doesn’t address the export to China. It’s all down to different grades of oil. We import grades we don’t produce and export grades we produce more than we can use. So increasing onshore production isn’t going to change the import situation, rather it’s more likely to increase the amount we export, given the grade of oil from Wytch Farm, the largest onshore producer by far, is the same as that from the North Sea and carries a higher price than other grades of oil.
China is the UK’s third largest trading partner and sixth largest export market. We import and export a variety of different products due to our trading agreements with China, are your concerns just limited to the oil and oil products?
Ahh, if UK doesn’t export oil to China, it will reduce the consumption of oil by China!? No, it will not. Someone else will turn up a valve or drill another well, or more.
Strangely (lol) the import of rare earth minerals from China to fuel the brave new world is okay.
There is so much absolute nonsense put forward regarding moving to Net Zero one might wonder if the whole thing adds up without it.
Besides which, Dunsfold is exploration for GAS. That stuff UK is currently signing contracts to import from USA (Centrica £6.8B with Delfin Midstream-1m tonnes/year for 15 years starting 2027.)
It is sad to see this ruling, when we are literally burning down the house we live in by use of fossil fuels, with heat records broken daily all over planet earth. Extreme weather conditions globally are documented daily by scientists, yet planning policy allows unnecessary onshore oil and gas exploration. That has to stop. Thank you Ruth for your excellent reporting on the issues.
Deeply disappointed. The fact that flaring and venting has still not been banned as demanded by C.C.C. and Commons Environmental Audit Committee gives the lie to claims of “Energy Security”. Is it legal or moral to release such toxic and lethal gases to increase global warming at this time? If venting was illegal these small wells would be uneconomic. So poisoning the planet is acceptable in order to increase oil companies’ profits. Meanwhile we waste enough gas by venting to heat 740,000 homes, handy in an energy crisis?? Norway banned flaring and venting 52 years ago by the way which is why we import their gas. So much for Energy Security!
This is a gas well? What will they flare and vent? Lots of gas wells in Norway.
All this argument is futile because burning fossil fuels must stop to reduce carbon. How societies survive is another question. Stop while we still can. 98% of climate scientists, the I.P.C.C., I.E.A., C.C.C., U.N. and others cannot all be wrong in demanding desperately NO NEW OIL. Our standard of living has to change to meet the challenge. Sorry !
Well, J. Shippam, you change your standard of living. But, you don’t. You still decide to use the products from fossil fuel. So, why should anyone listen to a preacher who can not, or will not practice?
However, you are one of the first on this site to admit the standard of living will change, whilst the rest talk about free donations of £200B from the French. Not sure that will allow you to be considered a true member of the deniers, but it is a fact, so probably not.
Also, sorry but if you look at other scientists the burning of fossil fuel does not have to stop to reduce carbon. UK imports gas from Norway and USA because UK does not produce sufficient gas to meet it’s needs. Nothing to do with flaring.
Keep the discussion real.
WELL MARTIN ,
At least I talk about and show provable , credible evidence , unlike yourself.
For the mild amusement of the readers and to prove that what you say is only your own , OPINION based Collywaffle.
For the 100th + time I will ask , you prove to the readers that the £200bn for new nuclear power stations will come from the pockets of British Taxpayers and not from private investment , EDF to name but one
ALSO what about Fracking and THE DIRTY DOZEN toxic and financial dangers….. Can we please talk about number ONE on the list …… I’m a resident who stands to have their life blighted and put at danger if Fracking was to ever rear its ugly head in the UK …..
You relentlessly push for Fracking, why won’t you then debate it ??????
WELL JACK:
This site is not connected in any way to fracking-apart from the US gas that may be imported, produced with such technology if this site does not produce local gas-without fracking.
So, Jack, that must mean you would prefer this site to go ahead!
Welcome to the light Jack. Next, you may even come to grips with such basics as France supplying £200B to UK as kindly neighbours! Why on earth would I debate anything with someone who is off in such fantasy land? If you wish to debate something Jack, how about the Dozen Plus of issues with electricity distribution in USA? I have offered you Paradise as a starter.
The staggering self righteousness displayed by a certain proportion of DoD contributors is only matched by their inability to actually get an alternative proposed that adds up.
Looks as if Ulez is as welcome as a visit from Stop Oil! How many more silly projects that cost the public and are not supported, before the whole edifice crumbles? Here’s a thought: how about being honest with the true costs of Net Zero, and only roll out projects that have been thought through and where the public have been fully consulted? The something must be done zealots will cause more damage than any greenwashers, as their occasional somethings are seen to fall to pieces-or the insurance against that costs the British public £200B, plus £52B to kindly host GDFs, and hopefully, does not fall to pieces.
MARTIN ,
Being such an ” important ” topic , the toxic and financial dangers of Fracking .
Sadly , in my ongoing quest to obtain credible answers from a fanatical pro-fracker like yourself , will unfortunately , continue to spill over on to other unconnected forum discussion pages until such time as answers are gained ……
MARTIN , I am a concerned resident, why won’t you discuss Fracking and THE DIRTY DOZEN with JACK ??????
MARTIN ,
You keep tossing about this £200 bn figure , but supply no evidence to support your claim ..
Yet JACK on the other hand , has shown you one company EDF , who are investing £30+ bn in UK Nuclear Energy.
You must do better old chap/old lady or whoever/ whatever in this WOKE society you wish to be known as …… dog , cat, chair, doormat, mouse, cheese burger , etc ,etc
MARTIN ,
Whatever peoples opinions are on the ULEZ ,……. With 1 in 2 people , yes I did say 1 in 2 people now expected to get CANCER in their lifetimes …… I think you’ll find ALL but online computer BOTS pudhing for an increased use in fossil fuels , will want cleaner air …..
Without doing anything to change the toxic air quality, we need to then factor in the financial COST to the NHS treating this explosion in Cancer cases .
Do you have any idea , to the nearest £ BILLION what that cost will be ???????
Also MARTIN , to the nearest £ TRILLION can you estimate what the cost of climate change will be to the world by the end of THIS CENTURY ??????
Hmm.
Strange that, Jack, as when my late wife was diagnosed with cancer the oncologists had no idea why she was so unfortunate. Then Jack turns up to show them the error of their ways. LOL. A Jack of so many trades, but a master of absolutely none.
By the way, Jack-unlike you- the oncologists also made it very clear to my wife that she needed to be fully vaccinated against Covid, even whilst there were some “persons” suggesting they knew better, Jack. Sorry Jack, you have already lost all credibility to waffle about health in UK, or anywhere else. 1 in 2 without fracking!? So, Jack, what is your point?
Clean air would be great Jack. However, for those unfortunate enough to suffer the thousands of forest fires caused by electricity distribution in USA Jack, not an option. Was the air down wind of Chernobyl “clean”??
I am looking out of my window in UK Jack, and guess what I see? A power cable on top of old wooden poles, with a warning on those poles warning about what? DEATH Jack! I am sure you could giggle away from even your location and find some links about that, Jack. I have received the grand sum of £100 for hosting “my” pole Jack. Doesn’t seem a lot, if as seen elsewhere, cancer risk is exacerbated and DEATH, LOSS OF PROPERTY, ANIMAL DEATHS, PROPERTY VALUES LOST etc. etc. could follow from forest fires, or DEATH from accidental contact is also possible. Trees along the route need to be trimmed regularly, yet they are not Jack. Jack, with all those possibilities my pole has stood there, and will continue to stand there until a new one replaces it. Why? Because people want energy and they accept that there is no energy that does not have downsides. Share holders in Chesapeake Energy are quite glad about that also Jack, as they know some markets will pay $47 even whilst their local one might moan about $7!
However, they might be terrified about local production replacing their export market! Even a little bit of it.
By the way, Jack, your comment regarding 19th century electricity distribution in USA!!!! Well, see the end of my first paragraph. American history is another area you could DYOR on. You really want to discuss these subjects and can’t even coherently reference the correct century?? (Mind you, I do recall a John Wayne cowboy film where a giant metal communication mast can be seen in the background!)
Jack-you are aware the Internet can also be used to help with education?
MARTIN ,
I in 2 people expected to get CANCER
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out that breathing highly toxic exhaust fumes from vehicles , does not contribute to an increased risk of getting Cancer.
Or are you trying to tell the readers that breathing these highly toxic , poisonous exhaust fumes is as good for your body as breathing mountain fresh air ??????
MARTIN ,
For the 100th + time the only reason Chesapeake Energy shareholders are happy , is because whilst the BLOOBATH in Ukraine continues , this huge white elephant can keep its head above the water …
As soon as it’s over and Russia is not sanctioned on its energy exports , it will be back filing for Bankruptcy protection like it did in late 2020 , saddled with another 9 BILLION of unsupportable debt .
MARTIN ,
Let JACK help you understand
Here’s a little info on 19th Century electricity distribution….
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_electric_power_transmission
This will help ” YOU ” brush up on your history
MARTIN ,
What happened at Chernobyl , was a direct result of incompetence and a flawed reactor design…… Coupled with poor safety
That was in 1986
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx
Here in the UK , we do things differently.
Yes, Jack.
How is the new EDF reactor doing????????
So, do “we”? Maybe. Hope so. Fingers crossed, but first attempt not too convincing.
Reference your previous nonsense:
Hardly any electricity distribution in USA until into the 20th century. Fact. A little generation and local distribution right at the end of the 19th century. No network. Fact.
Which country has the best survival rates regarding cancer? Oh dear. The land of the free and the frackers! Bit inconvenient, but facts have never put you off Jack! Hmmm, it really is interesting what money can be spent on when a country has control of it’s energy costs.
You may hope sanctions against Russian oil and gas are removed when “we are all friends” again Jack, but that will not happen. One can only wonder how someone can be so deluded and whether they would like to repeat such nonsense face to face with the many thousands and thousands of Ukrainian refugees being hosted by the UK and elsewhere.
Is there any item you could post Jack that would be factually correct, or is none of it?
INVESTING-Jack. The investment is paid back-by whom???
Sorry Jack, you have shot yourself in your own feet gain. Jack-you show you can’t even debate coherently with yourself, why should anyone else bother?
MARTIN ,
YOU ASK, quote , ” paid back by whom ? ”
Let JACK make this very simple for you to understand ….. The way things work here on planet EARTH, is Companies/Businesses invest money in to projects .
These Companies/ Businesses invest either their money , shareholders money , or tax payers money expecting to gain a favorable, future financial return from the sale of goods/ services to consumers.
If there anything complicated in my above explanation that you don’t understand, please say ……. JACK will be delighted to help .
Ahh, so the power stations will cost, at least £30B each and will gain a financial return. Yep. Paid by whom, Jack?
You have explained nothing. These are not going to be new versions of the Statue of Liberty donated by the French State as a gift, but in your own words for a favorable financial return.
EDF is owned by the French State. Hinkley Point being built currently. The generation costs ie. how much the UK energy user will pay are readily available to all-except Jack! So, the £200B, and it will be more, will be paid back SEVERAL times over! Well done, Jack-and you have been.
MARTIN ,
The question is ,
YOU , make a comment implying that the UK Taxpayer will be picking up the cost for this so called £200 bn ,
As far as were concerned , you’ve just plucked this number out of thin air ….
I have shown you credible, provable evidence that shows that companies like EDF are investing in NEW nuclear power stations fir the UK .
Now you MARTIN , prove me wrong and you MARTIN supply credible evidence that the British Taxpayer is without a shadow of doubt , going to be the ones picking up the financial tab .
Failure to supply this evidence will render your comments as merely ” OPINION ” based Collywaffle.
Jack,
The answer regarding the nuclear power stations has been provided. It is pretty straight forward. The data is available.
You claim you do still not understand.
Sorry, but that is your issue and may explain a lot.
7X30 is not too complicated. Only becomes complicated when you start to look at whether the 30 ever stays 30, and how many times the 30 has to be repaid to make it a sound investment. Shouldn’t encourage me to go there, Jack, as the £200B would escalate into much, much more!
However, you do help in your attempt to deny to give some explanation as to why these costings have been hidden down the back of the sofa even whilst it has been clearly stated they would be required some years ago. The “cheap” motor with the go faster stripe is only cheap if the insurance cost is denied may be familiar to too many families in the UK. I shall be kind and not add the repair costs either Jack, as even Siemens don’t seem to have a clue what they will end up!
OK MARTIN ( ex street lamp lighter )
We are all aware of your bitterness towards the electricity distribution network and that a return to the good old days of gas street lamps is your ultimate goal……… So as electricity distribution is of great concern yo you , your old buddy JACK will be hapoy to discuss the USA and its old , tired , 19th century distribution network with you . A place where old power cables are still suspended on top of wooden poles …… Whilst we’re at it , we can also discuss what part the rise in global temperatures and the tinder dry woodlands are playing on these heated old cables.
The level of incomprehension of the gravity of the climate situation on the part of a proportion of DorD contributors is staggering. Irrelevancies are exchanged whilst the planet burns, whilst climate refugees outstrip the capacity of neighbouring areas to absorb them, whilst the profiteers greenwash their way to increased profits, whilst the law continues to mistake the trees for the wood, whilst government not only persists in failing to take decisive remedial action, but actually exacerbates the problem. James Hansen’s « we are damned fools » is surely apt.
‘’…….people want energy and they accept that there is no energy that does not have downsides. Share holders in Chesapeake Energy are quite glad about that also ….as they know some markets will pay $47 even whilst their local one might moan about $7!’’
Interesting, the mind and understanding which can characterise apocalyptic global warming as a ‘’downside’’ accepted by the people as long as the share price remains high, even if this benefits others.