Europa Oil And Gas Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 825 (19 June 2014)

Europa Oil And Gas Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 825 (19 June 2014)

'Mineral extraction' in paragraph 90 of the NPPF includes exploration as well as production; the inspector erred in law by excluding exploration from this definition, and it cannot be said that the outcome would inevitably have been the same without this error.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 825
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Europa Oil and Gas Limited; First Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant/respondent: Surrey County Council; Third Defendant/appellant: Leith Hill Action Group
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (planning Law) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Green Belt Policy, Mineral Extraction Definition, Planning Permission for Exploratory Drilling, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Europa Oil and Gas Limited

Claimant/respondent

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant/respondent

Surrey County Council

Second Defendant/respondent

Leith Hill Action Group

Third Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (planning Law) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

  1. 1 Whether 'mineral extraction' in paragraph 90 of the NPPF includes exploration as well as production
  2. 2 Whether the inspector's error of law affected the outcome of the planning decision

Ratio Decidendi

'Mineral extraction' in paragraph 90 of the NPPF includes exploration as well as production; the inspector erred in law by excluding exploration from this definition, and it cannot be said that the outcome would inevitably have been the same without this error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The High Court's decision to quash the inspector's refusal of planning permission is upheld.