Oil well in a field

Accounting for indirect emissions—Property Week

Alex Ground Tom Jenkins, an Associate in the Russell-Cooke, Real Estate, Planning and Construction team
Multiple Authors
2 min Read
Alex Ground, Tom Jenkins

In light of the landmark judgment by the Supreme Court on the Surrey oil well case, partner Alex Ground and associate Tom Jenkins are quoted in Property Week, examining the extent to which developers must consider indirect emissions when assessing the environmental impacts of planning.

Surrey oil well case

Horse Hill Developments obtained planning permission from Surrey County Council in 2019 to continue its ongoing operations and add four new oil wells for the extraction of crude oil for the following 20 years. A climate campaigner subsequently launched a judicial review to determine whether the council had considered only the direct carbon emissions from the wells and not the indirect emissions resulting from the oil's later use. Despite the claim being unsuccessful before the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the planning consent was deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court in 2023.  

Tom discusses the legal interpretations of the judgment, emphasising the court's view that the environmental impact of extracting oil should account for the emissions produced when the oil is eventually burned. Alex highlights the impact of the judgment on future planning consent, particularly in the Surrey oil well case and in light of policies that mandate minimising the environmental impacts of planning.

It was interesting that the court held that the refinement [of oil] does not alter its basic nature or intended use, and cannot reasonably be regarded as breaking the causal connection between the extraction of the oil and its subsequent combustion. This is an interesting point to watch going forward and could be key in terms of other carbon products.
Tom Jenkins, an Associate in the Russell-Cooke, Real Estate, Planning and Construction team
Tom Jenkins • Associate
|
The judgment will make it very difficult for the local planning authority to approve the [Horse Hill] project given the additional significant adverse effects in light of policies saying it has to minimise climate change impacts. Unless there was a national urgent imperative for the oil, any decision to grant would be highly likely to be challenged as being unreasonable.
Alex Ground
Alex Ground • Partner
|

The full article is available to read online from Property Week, available by subscription only.

Alex Ground and Tom Jenkins are in the real estate, planning and construction team. Alex is a partner, advising on all aspects of planning, highways and compulsory purchase including planning applications, appeals, negotiating s106 agreements, challenges and enforcement. Tom is an associate specialising in all areas of contentious and non-contentious planning, compulsory purchase and highways law and acts for a range of clients across the sector.

Get in touch

If you would like to speak with a member of the team you can contact our real estate planning and construction solicitors; Holborn office (Email Holborn)  +44 (0)20 3826 7523; Kingston office (Email Kingston) +44 (0)20 3826 7518; Putney office (Email Putney) +44 (0)20 3826 7518 or complete our form.

In the press Real Estate, planning and construction indirect emissions Supreme Court Supreme Court ruling Surrey oil case Property Week assessing environmental impacts Surrey County Council Horse Hill Developments crude oil