R (Finch) v Surrey County Council and others [2024] UKSC 20
Finch is the leading Supreme Court authority on whether an environmental impact assessment for fossil-fuel extraction must assess greenhouse-gas emissions caused by the later use of the extracted product.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2024] UKSC 20; [2024] PTSR 988
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
- Judgment date
- 20th June 2024
- Judge
- Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lady Rose and Lord Richards
- Case number
- UKSC 2022/0064
The case concerned oil extraction at Horse Hill
Surrey County Council granted planning permission for commercial oil production at Horse Hill. The environmental statement assessed greenhouse-gas emissions arising at the well site but did not assess the emissions that would arise when the extracted oil was refined and ultimately burnt.
The downstream emissions were effects of the project
By a majority of three to two, the Supreme Court held that the omission was unlawful. It was agreed that the oil would inevitably be refined and burnt and that the resulting emissions could readily be quantified. The majority held that those combustion emissions were indirect effects of the extraction project which the EIA legislation required to be assessed.
EIA informs the decision rather than dictating it
The judgment does not mean that a project causing significant greenhouse-gas emissions must automatically be refused. The purpose of EIA is to ensure that the likely significant environmental effects are identified, exposed to public participation and taken into account before development consent is given.
Why Finch matters
Finch is particularly important for proposals involving the extraction of fossil fuels, but its reasoning on indirect environmental effects and the purpose of EIA has wider significance. The causal relationship between a project and an alleged downstream effect remains crucial.
Read the judgment
The official Supreme Court page contains the full judgment and press summary: R (Finch) v Surrey County Council and others.
Planning Geek also holds the full judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open it below.
Finch Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026