Member Info for Tony13579

Why if she were to win, should this be restricted to oil?
If you build a shopping Center with a carpark , what about the goods and their shipping, delivery? Should you be allowed to build a private or public swimming pool? Can athletes travel to away games. Should Olympic sailors have to plant equivalent quantities of trees to offset their boat construction and the 1000’s of miles travel to training sessions? Horse owners, need to account for the deliveries of hay and feed, The number of horse box movements. And the many miles on the daily stabling routine. Parents would need to offset their school choices beyond the walking distance. University students would need to offset thier 3 years study and it’s fuel uses.. Now, not in 2050…

If Finch wins , the UK is doomed. We will have unsustainable handcuffs on all business , life , everything

Finch’s QC grossly inflated the “project” “development”
And continuously repeated “fossil fuel , to be burnt”
SCC case
The project is to install equipment to extract crude oil to be sold and restore the site.
The emission of the site and local transport need to be considered.

Finch’s case is that all downstream emissions should be concidered.
3million tons of oil , all burnt in the worst possible case over 20 years.

However the crude oil, has to be refined, the refinery has its own emissions assessed, the car has its own emissions assessed, and some might become tarmac, plastic , superglue etc

They relied on two cases , an airport extending the runway , but that case did not extent to downstreaming every flight end to end, just the noise of aircraft in the surrounding area.

The chicken shed created waste chicken poo spread on nearby fields creating smell and dust.
Finch’s case is wanting to consider world wide emissions

If she were right , a farmer growing wheat which most would be cooked would need to consider the emissions of 12m ovens being turned on ?

Is it lawful to charge an electric car using a generator on red diesel? Cos the pump prices at the services are very steep ;-)

The services on M27 only have 2 chargers and there are reports of queues.
These are planning applications for 30 bays .. I’m not sure where the grid connection is coming from? It’s going to need a fat cable or a diesel Genny?

The crux of the argument
Finch . The project is the well site , and burning of 3 million tons of oil
SCC , The project is a well site that will be restored after 25 years , and the sail of oil
And tankers from HH to the wider road network

SCC : No idea how the hydrocarbons will be used , vs FINCH , all the FOSSIL FUEL WILL BE BURNT

I am watching but behind real time ..
…
Article 1.2 defines project
In two ways

1 would be construction
2 would be production the oil

The project is the intervention , in the natural environment, site, the mineral extraction the activity on site.

The purpose is the sale of oil
The direct effect is the oil is no longer in the ground
The hgv traffic ,

Once the HGV is part of the wider traffic then it is outside the scope

Project
In Abraham it is the airport
In HH it is the restored site….
In Abraham ( EU case) the noise around the site is considered , the longer runway
Not the retail product ( more flying )

The finch QC keeps undermining his own case.
So if a refinery has to account for its own emissions but not the downstream , why would an oil well ?

When you build a Mark’s & Spencer store, do you consider the downstream effects of the goods sold ?
Or a hot tub sales unit ?

SCC & others includes HM Secretary for state ;-)

sorry fat finger
Compensation for 20 years production..

The government back SCC because…
1 the decision was sound within existing planning policy
2. To revoke the planning decision will require SCC to compensate UKOG FIR 29 years production and the ph would go to government with a begging bowl.

It is incredibly rare to revoke a planning consent.

“32. ...the indirect emissions associated with the end use of the oil or gas to be produced are not considered when making an assessment of significant effects at an individual project level... The assessment of non-direct effects is limited to those effects which relate to the construction and operational activities of the project”.
The reasons for this were said to be that the management of greenhouse gas emissions was considered elsewhere under wider Government policy. Neither OPRED nor the applicant could assess, with any degree of certainty, the impact of th e end use of the oil and gas produced. Indirect impacts could not be attributed to a particular project. The EIA process was not concerned with end use effects. Greenhouse gas emissions from the future combustion of oil and gas did not, in the Secretary of State’s view, fall within the issues to be addressed in the EIA required by the Regulations.

Comment
You cannot count the same barrel of oil as emissions 4 times.
At the well
At the refinery
At the petrol pump
And in the car

Especially as the oil may make a wind turbine blade or bit of hospital tubing
Or be exported

[40] TheproductionofoilfromtheVorlichfielddidnotincreasetheuseofoil. The appellants’ position, that as a matter of principle there should be no new oil, conflated and confused different questions.
(Ditto)

BP and Ithaca
[43] There had been no contravention of the Regulations. BP had written to the OGA on 3 April 2018 stating their intention to apply for consent. Their letter had described the projectandstatedthatanESwouldbesubmitted. TheletterandtheESwereputonBP’s website. BP had complied with OPRED’s requirements. The press notices had referred to BP’s website. The specific notice had not been put on the website, but a template had been and this had contained the relevant information.

[44] The appellants were not a “person aggrieved” in terms of regulation 16; having not participated or made representations in the process provided for by the Regulations. They had had sufficient opportunity to do so. They had secured a remedy in the English proceedings,whichhadbeenimplemented. Theywerenolongeraggrievedbyanylive issue.

(Finch made two representations to SCC Planning and the points were duly concidered)

transposition.
[64] The question is whether the consumption of oil and gas by the end user, once the oil and gas have been extracted from the wells, transported, refined and sold to consumers, and then used by them are “direct or indirect significant effects of the relevant project”. The answeristhatitisnot. Theexercisewhichtheapplicanthadtocarryout,andtheSecretary of State had to assess, was a determination of the significant effects of drilling the two wells and removing the oil and gas. That involved considering the effects of depositing and operatinganexplorationrigorrigsonsite. Theultimateuseofafinishedproductisnota directorindirectsignificanteffectoftheproject. Itisthateffectalonewhich,intermsofthe Regulations, must be assessed.

65] The court agrees with the reasoning in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council [2021] PTSR 1160 in which Holgate J reached the same conclusion in relation to what is a direct or indirect effect of a “development”; in that case the drilling of new oil and gas wells on land. As Holgate J stated (at para 101):
“The extraction of a mineral from a site may have environmental consequences remote from that development but which are nevertheless inevitable. ...[T]he true legal test is whether an effect on the environment is an effect of the development for which planning permission is sought. An inevitable consequence may occur after a raw material extracted on the relevant site has passed through one or more developments elsewhere which are not the subject of the application... and which do not form part of the same ‘project’.”
However broad and purposive an interpretation of the Regulations or the Directive might be attempted, the clearly expressed wording of the legislation cannot be disregarded (ibid at paras 103-104). It is the effect of the project, and its operation, that is to be considered and not that of the consumption of any retailed product ultimately emerging as a result of a refinement of the raw material.

If you read the ( failed) greenpeace ruling , many of the points apply to Finch

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csih53.pdf?sfvrsn=9a6926a1_1

Only the emissions of HH site operations are considered
The onward use of the oil are considered at the point of use
That the appellant ( finch) has had and used the planning process to make her representations and the council has considered them properly
That the emissions are already counted in the overall TRANSITION to 2050.
( and the permission doesn’t even run to 2050)
In reality the appeal is a total waste of court time

You have to let the COP26 hypocrites to land back at home in their private jets first..
Maybe wait till Jeff is flying round in outer space and the HorseHill protestors have had a trip to the High Court in the 20 year old 3.5k diesel merc with 200,000 miles on the engine wearing thier plastic raincoats.

I think it will be a polite 2 weeks time.
Fire up the coal generator , it’s going to be a cold winter

Are there votes in Boris big green plan?
He isn’t getting the vote of the under 25’s 20% approval rating
Even the over 65’ ratings have dived to 50/50 approval/ disapproval
Rishi is a smidge higher,
Kier has fallen off the polls
Andy Burnham has high ratings but he is a Metropolatinst, and a North candidate.
He has at least got a brain.. but he ain’t going to do any thing for me living out side a city in the south. ( put a tram down my lane?)

I think there is a high chance of an alternative party, Uk Trump or extremist , Nigel garage comeback ;-)

None of the parties represent many of the over 45’s