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

This public law challenge concerns the grant of planning permission for exploration and assessment of hydrocarbons at a site in Balcombe, West Sussex. The decision was made by a planning inspector on behalf of the Secretary of State. The claimant is a residents association opposed to the proposed development. In October 2023, the High Court gave judgment, dismissing the claim. There had been no breach of the EIA regulations. First, there had been no failure to consider the ‘project’ as a whole when screening the proposal out of the EIA regime. The scheme was a single, clearly defined project limited to exploration and associated monitoring. It did not include any subsequent commercial production. Second, whilst GHG emissions were not expressly considered in the screening opinion, that was not an error of law. Whilst there would be a flare, it would have been obvious that this flare would emit GHG emissions. Further, this was a small-scale development, and the evidence overwhelmingly indicated that that GHG emissions were not a significant likely effect. (Paragraphs 41 to 61.) The claimant also argued that the inspector should have considered the assessed and quantified level of GHG which would be emitted and he failed to do so. However there is no requirement, whether in statute or caselaw, that every planning decision has to expressly refer to or quantify the GHG emissions that will result. Climate change is likely to be a material consideration in every planning decision given the policy context as well as the much wider issues, but that does not mean that every decision has to have reference to specific figures or assessment. Each case will depend on its own factual and policy context. Here the reference the inspector made to climate change was adequate in the context of this case. (Paragraphs 62 to 65.) On October 31, 2023, the claimant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the High Court’s ruling. In April 2025, the Court of Appeals rejected the claimants appeals. First, the court decided that the inspector correctly limited the scope of the assessment to exploration and appraisal phases. Second, the court found that the inspector did sufficiently consider alternatives sites. Third, the court determined that the inspector's assessment of water pollution was not flawed.