Residents from the West Sussex village of Balcombe are at the Court of Appeal in the morning (Tuesday 28 January 2025) in their latest challenge against oil development.

Frack Free Balcombe Residents’ Association (FFBRA) is opposing planning permission for a well test at the Lower Stumble oil site on the edge of the village.

The site made national headlines more than a decade ago when drilling by Cuadrilla attracted near-daily anti-fracking protests.

Tomorrow’s court appearance is the third by the group in its campaign against the site.

Villagers first went to court in 2014 to challenge proposals for an earlier well test. That test was not fully carried out and there was not sufficient evidence on the commercial viability of the Balcombe well.

The current well test was unanimously refused planning permission by West Sussex County Council in 2021. Councillors said the one-year test was not in the public interest and would have minimal benefit to the local economy.

But the developer, Angus Energy, successfully appealed and the council’s refusal was overturned by a planning inspector in February 2023.

FFBRA went back to the High Court in July 2023 but failed to reverse the decision. It was, however, allowed to appeal against the judge’s ruling.

The group has argued that the well test, which would require a burning flare, should not be allowed in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), which covers Balcombe and the oil site.

It has also said the High Court judge incorrectly interpreted local and national policy on hydrocarbons and overlooked both the risk to local water supplies and the harm of toxic emissions from the development to homes 350m away.

Sue Taylor, one of the founder members and current chair of FFBRA, said:

“The prospect of an oil well has been hanging over this village since 2010. This is our third court hearing and the fourth planning application. We very much hope it will be the last one.

“Oil development should not take place close to human habitation. If the country needs hydrocarbon products, then we should extract them carefully and use them wisely.

“Flaring and venting toxic gas into human habitation is an unnecessary health hazard. It is unwise to risk pollution of the limited South East water sources for the relatively small amounts of oil and gas that can be extracted from a shale well site.”

Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith, who represents FFBRA, said: 

“We look forward to our clients making their case in the Court of Appeal, which will highlight a number of important issues that they believe were missed in the initial judgment, including harm to local water resources and the negative impact of future oil production.

“It is important to ensure that the harms of hydrocarbon extraction are properly considered, particularly when the development is proposed for an area of countryside designated for protection and conservation.”

Grounds for appeal

FFBRA’s barristers, David Wolfe KC and Ruchi Parekh, will argue four grounds for appeal:

• The judge was wrong to hold that the planning inspector did not take into account the benefits of the future extraction of hydrocarbons, which FFBRA argues it did, whilst excluding the harms of it. 
• The judge and planning inspector failed to correctly interpret policies from the West Sussex Joint Local Minerals Plan 2018, by ignoring that the future production phase may include hydraulic fracturing. 
• The judge and planning inspector did not correctly consider the exceptional circumstances relating to the development being in an AONB, by misinterpreting the legal test and failing to properly consider the scope of alternatives to the development outside of the AONB. 
• The judge wrongly dismissed the complaint that the planning inspector had failed to take into account the development’s impact on Ardingly Reservoir. 

The case will be heard by  the Senior President of Tribunals, Sir Keith Lindblom, sitting with Lord Justice Singh and Lord Justice Holgate. The hearing is at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand in London. It can also be watched online via a live-stream video.

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.