Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors

Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors

The Inspector lawfully confined his assessment to the exploration and appraisal phase, correctly applied local planning policies, rationally considered alternatives, lawfully limited the EIA to the exploration project, adequately considered climate change, and was entitled to rely on regulatory regimes for water resources. None of the grounds of challenge disclosed legal error.

Parties
Claimant: Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Angus Energy Weald Basin No.3 Limited; Third Defendant: West Sussex County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Statutory Challenge Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Substantive Challenge
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Environmental Impact Assessment, Hydrocarbon Exploration, Protected Landscapes, Climate Change, Water Resources
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Hydrocarbon Exploration Protected Landscapes Climate Change +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Angus Energy Weald Basin No.3 Limited

Second Defendant

West Sussex County Council

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Challenge Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Substantive Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector unlawfully relied on the benefits of hydrocarbon production without considering harms
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector misapplied local planning policy M7a versus M7b
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to consider alternatives outside the AONB under policy M13

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully confined his assessment to the exploration and appraisal phase, correctly applied local planning policies, rationally considered alternatives, lawfully limited the EIA to the exploration project, adequately considered climate change, and was entitled to rely on regulatory regimes for water resources. None of the grounds of challenge disclosed legal error.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed