A Surrey community group is refusing to give up its legal challenge over government backing for gas drilling near the village of Dunsfold.
Protect Dunsfold went to the High Court in June to argue that the government acted unlawfully in granting planning permission for the scheme to UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG).
A judge ruled against the group in a decision issued last month.
But today Protect Dunsfold confirmed it was applying to the Court of Appeal to overturn the judge’s ruling. The group’s legal challenge continues to be supported by the Good Law Project.
The appeal, if approved, would centre on whether the then housing minister, Stuart Andrew, acted consistently last year when he approved the Dunsfold scheme (also known as Loxley).
On the same day, he refused a similar project in Ellesmere Port in Cheshire because of its greenhouse gas emissions.
Protect Dunsfold said today it would argue that Mr Andrew’s decision on Dunsfold disagreed with a critical aspect of the one on Ellesmere Port.
The group said it would also argue that the High Court ruling gave too much weight to the fact that emissions were not considered in Surrey County Council’s original planning decision.
Sarah Godwin, director of Protect Dunsfold, said:
“There is a glaring inconsistency in the minister’s decision that greenhouse gas emissions at Ellesmere Port are a material consideration resulting in a decision by him to refuse planning consent whereas the same minister on the same date ignored virtually the same amount of emissions at Loxley.
“The planet can’t distinguish between greenhouse gases emitted in Cheshire and those emitted in Surrey. As the Climate Change Committee said in a quote referred to by the minister in the Ellesmere Port case, ‘every tonne of carbon contributes towards climate change’.
“Existing government policies which prioritise oil and gas exploration are an exemplar of institutional climate denial. The recent announcement from the Prime Minister that his government will ‘max out’ UK’s oil and gas reserves is putting the UK in direct conflict with international experts; low-cost, low-carbon technologies already exist that can supplant fossil fuels. These should always be the core of any national strategy to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
“Protect Dunsfold believes that any fossil fuel exploration project, even on a small scale, is one too many and we will continue to fight to stop UKOG 234 Ltd from putting a spade in the ground at Loxley.”
The Good Law Project said today the Dunsfold project would do “irreversible damage” to local wildlife and businesses just outside the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Its legal manager, Jennine Walker, said:
“UKOG’s plans to drill the Dunsfold site will see irreparable harm to the natural habitats and landscape on the edge of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, as well as producing significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.
“Success in this appeal will have impacts far beyond the village of Dunsfold and could make it much harder for fossil fuel schemes to go ahead”.
Protect Dunsfold is represented by the law firm, Leigh Day. Solicitor Ricardo Gama said:
“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.”
Waverley Borough Council was also part of the court challenge against the government’s Dunsfold decision. It has said it is considering an appeal against the High Court ruling.
The High Court judge who rejected Protect Dunsfold’s challenge also refused permission for an appeal. But the community group has the right to seek consent directly from the Court of Appeal.
DRILL OR DROP? 
Let them waste their money …..
“ low-cost, low-carbon technologies already exist that can supplant fossil fuels.”. As I write at10.12pm on 4th August, solar and wind power together are providing about 3% of our electricity, but. gas and coal are providing 55%. Of course, at times, wind and solar produce much more but that is the point, wind and solar are intermittent. So until the issue of economically viable energy storage is solved, or more atomic plants are built, there is no way low carbon technologies can supplant fossil fuels.
Petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas make the manufacturing of over 6,000 everyday products, the just stop oil activists are to blinkered to see this, you could stand them up against a wall and every last one of them would have something derived from oil on their person, and indeed will use, benefit and own, something derived from oil and gas, oil and gas derivatives are everywhere and simply cannot be stopped over night? If ever, wind, solar, and batteries all produce one thing energy, oil and gas produce a multitude of every day necessities.
They can, Shalewatcher. Last time they did, it was before humanity found out how to make fire!
The good old days????? When no one became old!
Sorry, I like to eat as it keeps me alive. I know that with so many on this planet agriculture has to achieve high yields and requires fossil fuel to make fertilizer. I know it is possible to farm more extensively, I have done it, but even with existing population numbers the output would not be sufficient, so the supplanting is just a recipe for starvation.
When/if I become ill I expect a health service that uses all the output from fossil fuel to help me recover. Leeches may be preferred by some, but I prefer PPE, artificial rubber and plastic syringes.
Some technology exists to supplant some, which is possible to use, if it supplants in a way that is economic and acceptable. It still leaves a lot of areas where that is not the case, and whilst such discussions go on other activity goes on that means there will be more people to supply where that is not the case.
Is that it? Four protestors including the photographer with the sad looking cardboard sign?
Dave Percy
Best to look at the day in question and wonder how many more were in the Court.
Mike
I wonder, not about how many were in the court, but why Ruth chose such a downbeat picture of downbeats as the hero image……
Dave
Well, Mike, I trust they have a better idea of climate change than they do regarding who resides in No.10!!!
Except they seem a bit confused about climate change as well. The especially sharks may have a problem as ocean mining trashes the oceans to get at those rare minerals.
Looking at the actual 4, one also seemed to be confused regarding fracking. All in all, Dave was being quite gentle and considerate.
martin. Considering there were only 3 protestors and the photo was from DrillOrDrop I think Dave is the one that was confused.
Mike, as he stated four including the photographer, I think Dave was spot on!
I still have some confusion as to why you posted a pretty old photo of a larger group. Blackpool could post an old picture of a massive footie crowd but it would not represent today.
Martin. I’ll have to drink what you are on. All I see is 3 and a scarecrow. As for the old photo it was taken on the same day. Just by a different source. Time to get some rose tinted specs.
On the same day? With Boris in No 10??? On June 8th 2023????
If that is the case, Mike, then someone needs to live in the real world. The problem with publicity stunts Mike, is that they can very easily not supply the sort of publicity that those organizing think they will. If you are correct, your lot didn’t even know who the PM was at the time, so why should anyone believe they know anything about anything else?
(Of course you see 3, as the three didn’t “include” the photographer!)
Rose tinted, or otherwise, there certainly is a need for a visit to an optician.
PS. Mike:
If you look at Ruth’s article dated July 7th you may observe “your” photo, actually claimed by FOE, which apparently was about something else altogether!
Those tangled webs can actually be removed by a Shark!