Frack Free Balcombe Residents’ Association v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWCA Civ 495
Frack Free Balcombe is an important Court of Appeal decision on the proper scope of a planning decision for hydrocarbon exploration and appraisal.
The proposal was for a time-limited exploration and testing operation in the High Weald AONB. The Court rejected arguments that the Inspector should have assessed the environmental harm of a hypothetical later commercial-production development.
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
- [2025] EWCA Civ 495
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 16th April 2025
- Judge
- Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals, Singh LJ and Holgate LJ
- Case number
- CA-2023-002107
Decide the development that is actually before you
The application concerned exploration and appraisal only. A later commercial-production scheme would require a separate planning application and would be assessed against the policy and evidence then in force.
The Court held that the Inspector was right not to import the speculative harms of that future development into the present appeal.
The benefit of exploration is not the same as assuming future production
It was lawful to give weight to the benefit of discovering whether a commercially viable hydrocarbon resource existed. That was a benefit of the exploration proposal itself. It did not mean the Inspector had assumed that later production would be permitted or had taken credit for the economic benefits of a future production scheme.
No “foot in the door” presumption
The Court rejected the idea that allowing exploration creates a precedent or presumption in favour of a later production phase. Each stage requires its own planning permission and must be considered on its own merits.
The non-fracking policy applied
The development did not involve hydraulic fracturing and the permission expressly excluded it. The Inspector was therefore correct to apply the local plan policy for hydrocarbon development not involving hydraulic fracturing rather than the separate fracking policy.
Alternatives in a protected landscape are context-sensitive
The Court upheld the Inspector’s approach to alternatives under the AONB major-development policy. For an exploration proposal directed at a particular geological resource, it was lawful to focus on realistic alternatives capable of exploring that resource rather than carrying out an abstract search for unrelated oil supplies elsewhere.
Separate pollution controls can be relied upon
The judgment also reaffirms the established planning principle that the planning system should not duplicate specialist pollution-control regimes. Decision-makers may ordinarily assume that those regimes will operate effectively, provided the planning authority is satisfied that the relevant issue can be adequately addressed.
Read the full Frack Free Balcombe judgment
Planning Geek holds the approved Court of Appeal judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open the PDF below.
Frack Free Balcombe Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026