A council which declared a climate state of emergency was paid by an oil company in its latest bid for long-term production.

Surrey County Council, which aims to decarbonise in under five years, wrote a 10-page report for Egdon Resources on emissions from burning oil produced in the Lincolnshire Wolds.

The document was submitted as part of the company’s case in its appeal over the Biscathorpe site near Louth. More about the background to the appeal

Surrey has said there was no conflict of interest in its consultancy work for Egdon, the first time the authority has produced evidence for an oil company elsewhere in the UK.

But a county councillor has described the contract as “unacceptable” because of the council’s climate commitments and its role in a long-running legal challenge.

Surrey was at the centre of a landmark judgement on climate emissions in June 2024.

The Supreme Court ruled that the county council had acted unlawfully in September 2019 when it failed to take account of combustion emissions from the Horse Hill oil site near Horley.

Independent review

Surrey’s report was an independent review of Egdon’s own assessment of expected combustion (also called downstream or scope 3) emissions at Biscathorpe.

The document, by Surrey’s principal environmental assessment officer, Jessica Salder, took one day to write, the council told us.

Dr Salder supported Egdon’s conclusion that the emissions from burning 15-years of oil production from Biscathorpe would not be significant for the climate.

She wrote:

“The climate impact of the downstream emissions arising from the crude oil that would be extracted as a result of the development [at Biscathorpe] can be classed as non-significant.

“I hope you find the review set out in this letter helpful”.

Egdon had estimated that total carbon emissions at Biscathorpe would be between 1.442 million tonnes and 3.385 million tonnes. This assumed total production of between 2.77 million barrels and 6.5 million barrels of oil.

The conclusions on climate impact by both Egdon and Dr Salder were based on comparing the total carbon emissions with UK carbon budgets.

“Unacceptable”

Surrey declared a climate state of emergency in June 2019.

It set a net zero target of 2030 for the council as an organisation and 2050 for the county.

The council’s climate change strategy, published in 2020, and updated last year, said:

“To achieve our goal of net zero carbon by 2050, we must act today”

Green Party county councillor, Jonathan Essex, told us the consultancy work for Egdon did not fit with the council’s climate commitments.

“It is inappropriate to declare a climate emergency on the one hand, to decarbonise Surrey, while taking a consultancy contract with an oil company which would increase oil production and carbon emissions elsewhere in the UK. That is unacceptable.

“The irony is that Surrey County Council lost a legal challenge [at the Supreme Court] and part of the judgement found that it does not matter where carbon emissions occur.

“If Surrey County Council is to play its part in response to the climate emergency, it’s not just about what it does in Surrey, it must affect what happens elsewhere.”

“No conflict”

DrillOrDrop asked Surrey County Council whether producing evidence for an oil company could jeopardise the council’s impartial approach to dealing with planning applications from the onshore oil industry. The council’s spokesperson said:

“No. Professional officers are impartial in their consideration of planning applications and will consider each on its merits. The provision of evidence in relation to planning applications elsewhere, whether on behalf of developers, opponents of schemes, or other planning authorities will help stimulate debate on this important topic.” 

The spokesperson confirmed that this was the first time a Surrey County Council officer had submitted evidence on behalf of an oil company in an appeal hearing in another part of the UK:

“The officer undertook this work on a consultancy basis. The council more usually sells specialist expertise to Borough and District councils however, on occasion, provides consultancy advice to the private sector. Care is taken to ensure that there is no conflict of interest between the County’s statutory planning function and the work undertaken. In this case, as the site is in Lincolnshire, there is considered to be no conflict.”

The spokesperson confirmed Egdon Resources paid for the work.

“The money was paid to Surrey County Council to cover the time that Dr Salder spent on the work.”

We asked whether Surrey County Council had ever submitted evidence on behalf of opponents of an onshore oil or gas development. The spokesperson said:

“No.  However, such a service could be provided if so requested, subject to there being no conflict of interest with the County Council’s role as Planning Authority and it presenting an opportunity to generate income to support the work of the County Council. This has certainly been done by other councils elsewhere.”

We asked how the work would benefit Surrey residents. The spokesperson said:

“The income helps to support the work of the County Council in delivering services for Surrey residents. The work also presented an opportunity to develop and test a framework for evaluating greenhouse gas assessments submitted in support of planning applications – we will now be able to review and further develop our approach for scrutinising such work.”

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.