Friends of the Earth Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council & Anor

For environmental impact assessment purposes, the local planning authority must identify and consider the environmental information reasonably required to assess the development’s effects. The required assessment is not automatically confined to direct effects, but indirect, secondary or cumulative effects will not generally constitute the “main effects” requiring mandatory data under Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the EIA Regulations 2011. The adequacy of an environmental statement is principally a matter for the authority, subject to public law review. A planning committee’s report must be read fairly and as a whole. It need not answer every objection expressly if the committee was sufficiently informed of the material issues and could evaluate them. A financial guarantee for mineral-site restoration and aftercare is ordinarily justified only in exceptional cases. Properly framed restoration and aftercare conditions may provide lawful protection instead.

The claimants sought judicial review of North Yorkshire County Council’s decision to grant Third Energy UK Gas Limited planning permission for hydraulic fracturing and gas production at the KMA well site in North Yorkshire.

They alleged that the Council failed to assess the indirect or cumulative climate effects of burning the gas at the existing Knapton generating station and wrongly considered that it could not require a financial bond for long-term environmental liabilities. The Council maintained that Knapton was outside the development, was subject to separate regulatory controls, and that restoration and aftercare could be secured by planning conditions.

1. Ground 1—environmental impact assessment. The claimants’ challenge failed. Under reg. 3(4) and reg. 2(1) of the EIA Regulations 2011, the Council had to take the environmental information into account. The Part 2 requirements in Schedule 4 are a mandatory minimum, while Part 1 requires information reasonably required to assess the environmental effects. The court held that the Part 2 concept of “main effects” is not necessarily confined to direct effects, although indirect, secondary and cumulative effects will generally not amount to main effects.
2. The Council was entitled to conclude that an assessment of emissions from burning the gas at Knapton was not required. The planning application involved no development or increase in capacity at Knapton. Knapton was already subject to planning permission and Environment Agency permits, and the gas from this well would be indistinguishable from gas from other wells. The Council could rely on the planning and pollution-control regimes operating effectively, consistently with para. 122 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3. The Council had nevertheless been made aware of the climate-change objections. Its detailed reports and the material before the Committee enabled members to understand the proposal, the Knapton connection, greenhouse-gas emissions and the competing policy considerations. The report did not materially mislead the Committee or fail to guide it on an essential matter. Planning judgment on the weight of those considerations belonged to the Committee.
4. Ground 2—financial bond. The Council lawfully decided not to require a financial guarantee. The Planning Practice Guidance indicates that restoration and aftercare should principally be secured by appropriately worded conditions, with a guarantee normally justified only in exceptional cases. This was not such a case. Conditions 35 to 38 required financial commitment, restoration, submission and implementation of an aftercare scheme, and five years’ aftercare.
5. Permission to apply was granted because the grounds were arguable, but the substantive claim for judicial review was dismissed.