Opponents of gas exploration near the Surrey village of Dunsfold have been refused permission for a further appeal.
Campaigners and the local council were seeking to overturn ministerial planning permission for drilling by UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) on the edge of their village at the proposed Loxley wellsite.
The local campaign group, Protect Dunsfold, and Waverley Borough Council failed at the High Court to reverse the decision and had applied for a further hearing at the Court of Appeal.
Today, an appeal court judge refused permission to take the case further. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith said an appeal had no prospect of success.
UKOG chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, said this afternoon:
“We are pleased that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has once again 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, Energy Security and Net Zero strategies.”
He said the Court of Appeal’s decision was final and could not be reviewed or appealed. The planning permission would now “remain in full force and effect for its full term”, he said.
Photo: DrillOrDrop
Cllr Paul Follows, leader of Waverley Borough Council (WBC), said:
“I am deeply distressed and angry to have to report to residents that the Court of Appeal has dismissed the final avenues of appeal in regard to the proposed local extraction of fossil fuels by UKOG.”
He said the council would write to Jeremy Hunt, the local MP and chancellor, asking for an explanation for the decision.
Mr Follows said:
“He [Jeremy Hunt] and his government have allowed this travesty
“We will of course also continue to pursue every legal avenue to resist this decision.”
Mr Hunt said on X (formerly Twitter):
“I am bitterly disappointed to learn that the Court of Appeal has today refused permission for any further appeal against the UKOG planning consent for the Loxley gas well outside Dunsfold.
“I stand ready to provide my assistance and support to local communities in any way possible going forwards.”
Sarah Godwin, director of Protect Dunsfold, said:
“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.”
Extinction Rebellion activist and local resident Kirsty Clough said:
“As widely reported this week, 2023 was the hottest year on record globally and the Met Office has said that there is a good chance that this year could be even hotter.
“We are of course extremely disappointed. This is not justice. Climate change is happening now and burning fossil fuels is by far the biggest contributor.
“When will our government and judicial system wake up to the fact that we are already in a climate emergency where every tonne of carbon put into the atmosphere counts.”
“Despite the government repeatedly saying the opposite it is widely acknowledged that more UK oil and gas won’t help energy security or bring down bills.
“Even Alok Sharma, former Conservative Business and Energy Security Secretary, said on Monday that the government doesn’t have any control over where fossil fuels extracted here go to because they are owned by private companies.”
The housing minister, Stuart Andrew, granted planning permission for the Dunsfold in June 2022, after a public inquiry. Surrey County Council had twice refused consent for the proposal.
This article will be updated with more reaction as we get it.
DrillOrDrop has closed the comments section on this and future articles. We are doing this because of the risk of liability for copyright infringement in comments. We still want to hear about your reaction to DrillOrDrop articles. You can contact us by clicking here.
DRILL OR DROP? 
Tut,tut.
The Courts are independent of the Government. For those unaware of that, they will indeed be deeply distressed.
But the courts can only interpret the planning laws/policy made by this climate harming, pro fossil fuel government. And can only grant review of the actual Minesterial/SoS decision if they consider they have acted unlawfully/ultra vires when making a decision.
It does not mean this decision to extract more oil or gas will not contribute to climate breakdown, will not contribute to ill health and premature death, like all fossil fuels that are burned. It does not mean it is the right thing to do. It simply reflects on the disregard for the impacts of climate change and wider air pollution in our current planning laws.
Oh I see, KatT. If there is gas extracted in UK (a country that imports a lot of gas and is forecast to continue to do so) more gas will be used! I really would leave that twaddle out, the rest of your post was quite reasonable.
Meanwhile, if you want any information on how it is DEMAND that drives production just watch what OPEC do on a regular basis to adjust production to meet demand and keep price where they like.
I am afraid it is yourself and a few others who are trying to make transition a complete nonsense. You may want to blame others for attempting to make it work, but between all of you there is no coherence and I am afraid what could have been a planned and orderly process will be trashed.
By the way, life expectancy has improved dramatically across the world since the widespread use of fossil fuel. Premature death? That was PRIOR. I can tell you what will lead to premature death. It is the inability to adequately feed 8B moving towards 10B, and there is NO plan to achieve that without the use of fossil fuel. “Sustainable farming”? Okay in some areas but in others intensive farming is required otherwise the arithmetic doesn’t add up. Careful grandchildren, that is the next control measure when this one doesn’t work. “10B is too many!”
Around me, KatT, the wider air pollution is largely from those who decided to install wood burners to cut down on their energy costs when the “cheap” renewables failed to deliver, and then found they could also consume much of their household waste in the beasts. Including nappies, from the smell! Give me gas, any day of the week.
I see Hunt is backing his constituents.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/hunt-bitterly-disappointed-after-gas-drilling-approved-in-his-constituency/ar-AA1mIliW?ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&cvid=185b66b5bdf14eabaf14dd619c243ad7&ei=12
I note UK’s largest hydrogen plant has just been approved by planners-at Ellesmere Port. Should produce enough energy to power a city the size of Liverpool.
All “we” need now is the gas to put into it to get that clean hydrogen out!
Hmm-wonder where that could come from in close proximity to Ellesmere Port??
Meanwhile, in Norway they have just approved vast areas of the Arctic for ocean mining, looking for rare minerals to mine for the new Utopia and build their EXPORT trade in the process. OMG this “green” revolution is not looking too savoury, is it? Could be worse, they could have thought of bringing kids from DRC to be divers.
Has anyone found the ruling on the Court of Appeal website? XR said the ruling was handed down on the 8th and Waverly BC on the 9th.