I recently provided a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Finch case for Planning Resource.
A majority decision by the Supreme Court overturned decisions by the High Court and Court of Appeal, and found in favour of a local resident objecting to expansion of oil production at a site in Surrey.
Here are the key takeaways:
- EIA Scope and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- The environmental impact assessment (EIA) should consider the indirect effects of the emissions from burning the oil produced, and not just the project to extract it.
- The argument that these emissions were beyond the scope of the development were rejected.
- Direct vs. Indirect Effects
- The case really centred on the issue of causation.
- Dissenting judgments highlighted the difficulty for local authorities in assessing all such indirect effects - these are “big picture” issues that really should be grappled by central Government.
- Climate Change Litigation
- Decision likely emboldens climate change litigation.
- Assessing all potential indirect affects from greenhouse gas emissions from a project would represent a huge burden on any developer and any decision-making authority - care will be needed to correctly scope such effects.
In summary, the case highlights the importance of assessing greenhouse gas emissions comprehensively while acknowledging the practical difficulties faced by decision-makers. Climate change litigation will undoubtedly be influenced by this landmark ruling.
My full analysis can be read here.
The court ruled that the emissions that will occur when the oil produced is burnt as fuel, do fall within the scope of the environmental impact assessment (EIA).
unknownx500
