Finch, R. (on the application of) v Surrey County Council

Finch, R. (on the application of) v Surrey County Council

The court held that the EIA required under the 2017 Regulations does not extend to the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the eventual combustion of refined oil products derived from the development, as these are not environmental effects of the development itself but of subsequent, separate activities. The planning authority's decision to exclude such downstream emissions from the EIA was lawful and rational. There was no misinterpretation or unlawful application of national policy, nor was the policy itself unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: Sarah Finch; Defendant: Surrey County Council; 1st Interested Party: Horse Hill Developments Limited; 2nd Interested Party: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Intervenor: Friends of the Earth Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Planning Permission, Climate Change, Judicial Review, National Planning Policy Framework
Environmental Law Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Impact Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Planning Permission Climate Change Judicial Review +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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Finch

Claimant

Surrey County Council

Defendant

Horse Hill Developments Limited

1st Interested Party

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

2nd Interested Party

Friends of the Earth Limited

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for oil extraction development must include assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the eventual combustion of refined oil products as an indirect effect under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and Directive 2011/92/EU.
  2. 2 Whether Surrey County Council misinterpreted or unlawfully applied national planning policy and guidance in excluding downstream GHG emissions from EIA.
  3. 3 Whether national planning policy is unlawful for not requiring such assessment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the EIA required under the 2017 Regulations does not extend to the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the eventual combustion of refined oil products derived from the development, as these are not environmental effects of the development itself but of subsequent, separate activities. The planning authority's decision to exclude such downstream emissions from the EIA was lawful and rational. There was no misinterpretation or unlawful application of national policy, nor was the policy itself unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed