Permission for oil production in the Lincolnshire Wolds has been quashed following the landmark climate judgement by the Supreme Court last month. Another key decision, to allow a new coal mine in Cumbria, now looks in doubt because of the same judgement.

Opponents of both schemes had brought legal challenges arguing that carbon emissions from the use of the oil and coal should have been taken into account when granting planning permissions.

This was at the heart of the Supreme Court judgement in the case brought by campaigner Sarah Finch against Surrey County Council.

It emerged today that the local government secretary had conceded the High Court challenge against Biscathorpe, along with the site operator, Heyco Energy.

Also today, the government admitted that permission granted for the new Cumbrian coal mine in December 2022 was unlawful. The secretary of state said there had been an error in law and asked the courts to quash that decision.

Ms Finch, who represented the Weald Action Group in her case at the Supreme Court, said this afternoon:

“I am overjoyed to see our win at Horse Hill bearing such amazing fruits.

“We started out fighting one development in Surrey but quickly realised the impacts would be wider than that.

“It is so gratifying that our five-year fight in the Weald has helped to defeat a climate-wrecking coal mine in Cumbria and an oil development in Lincolnshire. I hope more dominoes will quickly fall… including the giant Rosebank oil and gas field in the North Sea.

“This could be a tipping point on the road to a safer future.”

Biscathorpe

The Biscathorpe concession was made by the Sunak government before the election.

It comes after a 10-year campaign by local people against oil drilling and production in the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The proposal for long-term production and more drilling was refused by Lincolnshire County Council in 2021.

This was overturned by the government in November 2023, following an appeal by Egdon Resources. A planning inspector said the scheme was in the public interest, even though it would have adverse impacts on the landscape, contravened local planning policy and the oil resource was uncertain.

Mathilda Dennis, supported by SOS Biscathorpe, argued at the High Court last month that the negative impact of oil extraction on the landscape and on climate crisis outweighed any claims that the site’s uncertain and negligible oil output would contribute to national energy security.

 Today, the group said the concession by the government and Heyco showed the wider ramifications for fossil fuel planning decision from the Supreme Court judgement.

Mathilda Dennis said:

“We’re extremely pleased with this result, not just for the beautiful area of Biscathorpe, but we hope that it will also help and encourage other groups fighting similar battles;  on the back of the Finch ruling and now also SOS Biscathorpe, it is clear that the unequivocal link between fossil fuel extraction and climate crisis can no longer be ignored.”

Amanda Suddaby, of SOS Biscathorpe, said:

“We are delighted that 10 years of hard-work and campaigning has finally paid off, and it was also encouraging to see that these very senior judges recognise and value the importance of public participation in addressing the enormous issue of climate crisis.  Our hope now is that this paves the way to a full and proper understanding of the great harm that each and every new fossil fuel development represents.”

The campaign against Biscathorpe was supported by Dale Vince, of the renewable energy firm, Ecotricity. He said today:

“In its dying days, the fossil-fuel-obsessed Conservative government were forced to accept they were breaking the law by ignoring the impact of their planning decisions on the climate crisis.

“The Finch ruling has the potential to halt future drilling for fossil fuels because decision-makers are now required to include the impact of burning the fossil fuels themselves in Environmental Impact Assessments. Which ought to be simple common sense. It’s a legal ruling now instead and will have a big impact on Britain’s green transition.”

Cumbrian coal mine

Legal challenges against the coal mine by Friends of the Earth and South Lakes Action on Climate Change, are due to be heard next week (16-18 July) at the High Court.

The current local government secretary has announced that the government will not defend its permission for the mine.

But the court case will still go ahead unless the mine operator, West Cumbria Mining, also concedes.

If the court agrees to quash the permission, the planning application will go back to the secretary of state to make a fresh decision.

Friends of the Earth said this afternoon it was now clear that combustion emissions from burning the Cumbrian coal should have been included in the developer’s climate assessment.

Jamie Peters, climate co-ordinator of Friends of the Earth, said:

“We’re delighted the government agrees that planning permission for this destructive, polluting and unnecessary coal mine was unlawfully granted and that it should be quashed. We hope the court agrees, and that the mine is then rejected when the Secretary of State reconsiders the application. 

“The new government must now ensure that areas like West Cumbria get the jobs and investment they urgently need so that people living there can reap the benefits of building a clean, green and affordable future.”

Maggie Mason, from South Lakes Action on Climate Change, said:

“We argued throughout the Inquiry and this legal claim that the emissions from using the coal were not properly assessed and it is great to see this acknowledged.

“Our small charity has opposed the mine because of its harmful impacts on the local and global climate, and the appalling precedent created by West Cumbria Mining’s claim that a new coal mine doesn’t increase the global use of coal. 

“Building the mine on an old chemical site close to homes and the Irish Sea was also risky. West Cumbrians deserve jobs that don’t cost the earth.”

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.