In the particular circumstances of this case, the majority of the Court of Appeal concluded that the Council’s decision to exclude downstream GHG emissions from the EIA was lawful.ĭissenting, Moylan LJ held that the Council’s decision was unlawful: in the circumstances, he said, the EIA should have included an assessment of downstream GHG emissions as the inevitable impact of a project that involved the extraction of petroleum for commercial purposes and the Council’s reasons for excluding them were legally flawed. Rather, the question of whether the scope 3 emissions of the oil extraction needed to be assessed was one of fact and evaluative judgment for the planning authority and the downstream emissions of hydrocarbon development might properly be regarded as indirect environmental effects, depending on the specifics of the project. They also disagreed with Holgate J’s view in the court below that the GHG emissions from future combustion of the refined oil products were, as a matter of law, incapable of falling within the scope of EIA. Rather, consideration needs to be given to the degree of connection between the development and its putative effects. The Court of Appeal held that the question of whether an environmental impact was an effect of the development for which planning permission was sought was not a “true legal test”. Since the development’s very purpose is the extraction of oil and since it is inevitable that, following refinement, distribution and sale, it will one day be used in a way that will generate GHG emissions, the claimant argued that the EIA had to include an assessment of those GHG emissions (known as “scope 3 emissions”). The main issue in the appeal concerned the adequacy of the environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) and focused on the requirement to include within the EIA an assessment of the significant indirect effects of the development on the climate. Marc represented the claimant (and led Estelle Dehon of Cornerstone Chambers) in this appeal against the decision of Holgate J to refuse her judicial review challenge of SCC’s decision to grant planning permission for oil production at the Horse Hill site for 25 years. The government conceded that the NZS was unlawful in circumstances where it had failed to comply with sections 13 and 14 of the Climate Change Act 2008.įinch v Surrey County Council and Horse Hill Developments Ltd (with Friends of the Earth Ltd intervening) (2022) EWCA Civ 187 Marc represented the claimants (leading Estelle Dehon of Cornerstone Chambers) in this successful judicial review challenge of the government’s Net Zero Strategy. Click here to see a list of recent notable cases.Īghaji and Garforth v Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy(CO/1097/2022) Marc has extensive experience and expertise in public and administrative law in planning and environmental law, human rights and discrimination as well as cases concerning the rights of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers.Įxamples of his casework in this field include his representation of two frontline NHS doctors in their judicial review challenge of the government’s guidance on the provision of PPE to healthcare workers the residents of the Fred Wigg Tower in Leytonstone when they challenged the government’s decision to place a high-velocity missile system on the roof of their tower block as part of the air defence plan for the 2012 Olympic Games the young offender claimants who challenged the government’s decision to close Ashfield Young Offenders Institute the Irish Traveller residents of Dale Farm in their widely publicised judicial review of Basildon Council’s decision to evict them from their site, and two claimants who successfully challenged the government's net zero strategy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |