“Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out.” “Development consent” is defined in article 1 as “the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project.”
“Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in article 4.”
“Extraction of petroleum and natural gas for commercial purposes where the amount extracted exceeds 500 tonnes/day in the case of petroleum and 500 000 cubic metres/day in the case of gas.”
“… (f) the impact of the project on climate (for example the nature and magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions) …”
“The description of the likely significant effects on the factors specified in article 3(1) should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, transboundary, short-term, medium-term and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project.”
“Among the objectives of the Aarhus Convention is the desire to guarantee rights of public participation in decision-making in environmental matters in order to contribute to the protection of the right to live in an environment which is adequate for personal health and wellbeing.”
“Effective public participation in the taking of decisions enables the public to express, and the decision-maker to take account of, opinions and concerns which may be relevant to those decisions, thereby increasing the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process and contributing to public awareness of environmental issues and support for the decisions taken.”
“Over the last decade, environmental issues, such as … climate change … have become more important in policy making. They should therefore also constitute important elements in assessment and decision-making processes.”
“Climate change will continue to cause damage to the environment and compromise economic development. In this regard, it is appropriate to assess the impact of projects on climate (for example greenhouse gas emissions) and their vulnerability to climate change.”
“The relevant planning authority, the Secretary of State or an inspector must not grant planning permission or subsequent consent for EIA development, unless an EIA has been carried out in respect of that development.”
“Given the nature of the proposed development, which is concerned with the production of fossil fuels, the use of which will result in the introduction of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it is recommended that the submitted EIA include an assessment of the effect of the scheme on the climate. That assessment should consider, in particular, the global warming potential of the oil and gas that would be produced by the proposed well site.”
“The scope of the assessment is confined to the direct releases of greenhouse gases from within the well site boundary resulting from the site’s construction, production, decommissioning and subsequent restoration over the lifetime of the proposed development.”
“121. … The essential character of the proposed development is the extraction and production of hydrocarbons and does not extend to their subsequent use by facilities and process beyond the planning application boundary and outwith the control of the site operators. 122. The assessment methodology pays regard to national planning policy and guidance that establishes that decision- makers should ‘focus on whether the development is an acceptable use of land, rather than on control of processes or emissions where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes’. These non-planning regimes regulate hydrocarbon development and other downstream industrial processes and decision-makers can assume that these regimes will operate effectively to avoid or mitigate the scope for material environmental harm.”
“the proposed development would not give rise to significant impacts on the climate as a consequence of the emissions of greenhouse gases directly attributable to the implementation and operation of the scheme.”
“… it is inevitable that oil produced from the site will be refined and, as an end product, will eventually undergo combustion, and that that combustion will produce GHG emissions.”
“EIA is not a procedure for preventing actions with significant environmental impacts from being implemented, although in certain circumstances this could be the appropriate outcome of the process. Rather the intention is that actions are authorised in the full knowledge of their environmental consequences.”
“The directly enforceable right of the citizen which is accorded by the [EIA] Directive is not merely a right to a fully informed decision on the substantive issue. It must have been adopted on an appropriate basis and that requires the inclusive and democratic procedure prescribed by the Directive in which the public, however misguided or wrongheaded its views may be, is given an opportunity to express its opinion on the environmental issues.”
“[a] reasoned conclusion by the competent authority on the significant effects of the project on the environment, taking into account the results of [its] examination;”
“Impacts on the environment, which are not a direct result of the project, often produced away from or as a result of a complex pathway. Sometimes referred to as second or third level impacts, or secondary impacts.”
“Environmental effects directly caused by the preparation, construction or operation of a project in a particular location.”
“Effects/impacts that occur away from the immediate location or timing of the proposed action, eg quarrying of aggregates elsewhere in the country as a result of a new road proposal, or as a consequence of the operation of the project (see also secondary effects).”
“Effects that occur as a consequence of a primary effect or as a result of a complex pathway.”
“direct GHG emissions”; “indirect GHG emissions due to increased demand for energy”; and “indirect GHG emissions caused by any supporting activities or infrastructure that is directly linked to the implementation of the proposed project (eg transport …).”
“These emissions are not effects of our activity because they are occurring far away among people of whom we know nothing.”
“The focus of planning policies and decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes or emissions (where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes). Planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. …”
“In my judgment the scope of that obligation [ie the obligation to assess the environmental effects of the project] does not include the environmental effects of consumers using (in locations which are unknown and unrelated to the development site) an end product which will be made in a separate facility from materials to be supplied from the development being assessed. I therefore conclude that, in the circumstances of this case, the assessment of GHG emissions from the future combustion of refined oil products said to emanate from the development site was, as a matter of law, incapable of falling within the scope of the EIA required by the 2017 Regulations …”
“the environmental effects of [the combustion] emissions could reasonably be seen as far removed from the proposed development itself, and not causally linked to it, because of the series of intervening stages between the extraction of the crude oil and the ultimate generation of those emissions …”
“That is not part of the argument advanced … What is submitted, in effect, is that the county council could only reasonably conclude that environmental impacts several steps further away than refinement ought to have been assessed. That proposition is, in my view, untenable.”
“It would be simplistic and contrary to [the approach required by the Directive] to take account, when assessing the environmental impact of a project or of its modification, only of the direct effects of the works envisaged themselves, and not of the environmental impact liable to result from the use and exploitation of the end product of those works.”
“In that case the manure was a product of the development itself in its operation as a poultry enterprise: a waste product with a commercial value. The connection between the development and the impacts in question was clear as a matter of fact, and not dependent on a series of intermediate processes.”
“Beyond this, however, proof of causality such [as] would satisfy the requirements of the EIA in respect of ‘direct and or indirect significant environmental effects’ remains entirely elusive, contingent and speculative. Its very elusiveness means that it is incapable of measurement or assessment and, hence, cannot be the sort of significant indirect environment effect which article 3(1) of the EIA Directive must be taken necessarily to contemplate.”
“combustion emissions from petroleum extraction are such a significant and particularly characteristic consequence of these kinds of projects that they must clearly be considered indirect climate effects within the meaning of the EIA Directive. The whole purpose of petroleum extraction is to make geologically stored carbon available in the form of oil or gas. Greenhouse gas emissions from the carbon are thus both an inevitable and intentional effect from the project. … If combustion emissions are not included, this will mean that the provisions of the EIA Directive on the assessment of indirect climate impacts from petroleum operations will in practice have no real content.”
“[The Council] is of the opinion that the primary focus for the EIA should be the potential effects of the scheme on population and human health (regulation 4(2)(a) [of the EIA Regulations]), on the water environment (regulation 4(2)(c) [of the EIA Regulations]) and on the global climate (regulation 4(2)(c) [of the EIA Regulations]).”
“(14) Extraction of petroleum and natural gas for commercial purposes where the amount extracted exceeds 500 tonnes/day in the case of petroleum and 500,000 cubic metres/day in the case of gas.”
“Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. That assessment should be conducted on the basis of the appropriate information supplied by the developer, which may be supplemented by the authorities and by the public likely to be concerned by the project in question.”
“(22) However, this Directive should not be applied to projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation, since the objectives of this Directive, including that of supplying information, are achieved through the legislative process. … (24) Since the objectives of this Directive cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.”
“a process consisting of: (i) the preparation of an environmental impact assessment report by the developer, as referred to in article 5(1) and (2); (ii) the carrying out of consultations as referred to in article 6 and, where relevant, article 7; (iii) the examination by the competent authority of the information presented in the environmental impact assessment report and any supplementary information provided, where necessary, by the developer in accordance with article 5(3), and any relevant information received through the consultations under articles 6 and 7; (iv) the reasoned conclusion by the competent authority on the significant effects of the project on the environment, taking into account the results of the examination referred to in point (iii) and, where appropriate, its own supplementary examination; and (v) the integration of the competent authority’s reasoned conclusion into any of the decisions referred to in article 8a.”
“The [EIA] shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors: … (c) land, soil, water, air and climate …”
“(a) a description of the project comprising information on the site, design, size and other relevant features of the project; (b) a description of the likely significant effects of the project on the environment; (c) a description of the features of the project and/or measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset likely significant adverse effects on the environment; (d) a description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the developer, which are relevant to the project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for the option chosen, taking into account the effects of the project on the environment; (e) a non-technical summary of the information referred to in points (a) to (d); and (f) any additional information specified in Annex IV relevant to the specific characteristics of a particular project or type of project and to the environmental features likely to be affected. Where an opinion is issued pursuant to paragraph 2, the [EIA] report shall be based on that opinion, and include the information that may reasonably be required for reaching a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the project on the environment …”
“As part of the climate assessment, depending on the character of the project, in some cases not only direct greenhouse gas emissions (eg from on-site combustion of fossil fuels) would have to be assessed, but also indirect impacts of the projects on climate change. For example, for transport infrastructure this could include increased or avoided carbon emissions associated with energy use for the operation of the project …; for a commercial development this could include carbon emissions due consumer trips. Member States have legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets and many Member States have also defined greenhouse gas reduction targets at the local level (main cities, regions etc), so the EIA could assess to what extent projects contribute to the achievement of these targets and could identify relevant mitigation and/or offsetting measures that would need to be implemented”
“Climate change will continue to cause damage to the environment and compromise economic development. In this regard, it is appropriate to assess the impact of projects on climate (for example greenhouse gas emissions) and their vulnerability to climate change”
“The Carbon Plan: Delivering our low carbon future”
“The inclusion of Scope 3 emissions was mentioned throughout the consultation questionnaire by stakeholders. Many stakeholders opposed the measurement of international Scope 3 emissions as part of the checkpoint, given the difficulties and complexities associated with accurate measurement, existing consideration in the Carbon Budgets and Nationally Determined Contributions of consumers of UK-produced fuels, and the coverage of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emission reductions in other tests, which many responses suggested may be more relevant and controllable. … The government acknowledges that there are a range of methods for estimating scope 3 emissions and has reviewed the methods proposed. It is acknowledged that it would be possible to calculate an estimate, or range of estimates for UK scope 3 emissions. One approach would be to pick a calculation methodology that is already employed by the industry, another approach would be to produce a range of scope 3 estimates based on using a number of different approaches. However, given this information, it is not clear what action Ministers would take, as there is no agreed target for the reduction of scope 3 emissions. … … the government’s view is that scope 3 emissions are not directly relevant to the decision on whether to endorse further licensing round[s]. Including any estimate of scope 3 emissions in the checkpoint would add little value, and it is not clear how Ministers would take such a number into account.”
“The focus of planning policies and decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes or emissions (where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes). Planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities.”
“… the focus of the planning system should be on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses, rather than any control processes, health and safety issues or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under regimes. Mineral planning authorities should assume that these non-planning regimes will operate effectively.”
“Some issues may be covered by other regulatory regimes but may be relevant to mineral planning authorities in specific circumstances. For example, the Environment Agency has responsibility for ensuring that risk to groundwater is appropriately identified and mitigated. Where an Environmental Statement is required, mineral planning authorities can and do play a role in preventing pollution of the water environment from hydrocarbon extraction, principally through controlling the methods of site construction and operation, robustness of storage facilities, and in tackling surface water drainage issues. There exist a number of issues which are covered by other regulatory regimes and mineral planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Whilst these issues may be put before mineral planning authorities, they should not need to carry out their own assessment as they can rely on the assessment of other regulatory bodies. However, before granting planning permission they will need to be satisfied that these issues can or will be adequately addressed by taking the advice from the relevant regulatory body…”
“The principle of proportionality is one of the general principles of Community law”
“The Convention is concerned with rights and freedoms which are of real importance in a modern democracy governed by the rule of law. It does not, as is sometimes mistakenly thought, offer relief from ‘The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to.’”