The downstream impact of Finch v Surrey County Council, one year on

Last week marked one year since the landmark decision in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council, a challenge to Surrey’s decision to allow the expansion of an onshore oil well site. In its June 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court held that, in its decision, the Council should have weighed “downstream” greenhouse gas emissions. These would include the inevitable emissions generated by the ultimate use of the extracted oil, not just the emissions caused by the extraction process.

Though the Supreme Court framed the Finch ruling as a relatively narrow one, relating only to “likely” indirect effects which are “capable of meaningful assessment”, its aftershocks have been felt widely and continue to reverberate.

R (Caffyn) v Shropshire Council

The anniversary was fittingly marked in the Planning Court through the handing down of a judgment in favour of Alison Caffyn, the claimant in a challenge (supported by River Action) to Shropshire Council’s grant of planning permission to an Intensive Poultry Unit (IPU).

In Caffyn, the “likely indirect effect” arose from the planned use of chicken manure from the IPU as digestate fertiliser on third party farmland – a use which is proven to have a significant polluting effect on nearby waterbodies. The Court held that those effects were not, as the Council argued, “elusive, contingent and speculative”. Rather, they were “capable of meaningful assessment” in the way required by Finch. No such assessment had taken place, so the grant of permission was quashed and the matter returned to the Council to reconsider.

Other post-Finch cases

Caffyn is the latest in a number of cases to rely on the Finch precedent over the past year.

Its effects were felt most immediately in the oil and gas context. Friends of the Earth successfully argued in September 2024 that inevitable downstream emissions should have been weighed in the decision to grant a mining licence at Whitehaven Coal Mine. And in January 2025, Greenpeace successfully argued in the Scottish Court of Session that the precedent also applied to offshore oil and gas developments, such that licenses for the Jackdaw and Rosebank North Sea projects should be quashed.

Last week, the government marked Finch’s anniversary by publishing guidance codifying its impact, confirming that the “full effects of fossil fuel extraction on the environment must be recognised in consenting decisions” for oil and gas schemes.

Finch in the airport context

In February 2025, the Examining Authority (ExA) considering Gatwick Airport’s application for a second runway took the view that Finch applies in the airport context too, notwithstanding the complexities involved in calculating the relevant downstream emissions.

Aviation emissions are allocated to the country of departure for the purposes of carbon budgeting, and had previously been ignored in airport planning decisions for the same reason. The ExA concluded, however, that, post-Finch, “the landscape in respect of greenhouse gas emissions had changed”. It considered that the emissions of planes landing at Gatwick had to be taken into account, as well as the emissions from outbound flights, because an increase in both would be attributable to the expansion.

The ExA recommended that the Secretary of State for Transport refuse the Development Consent Order as sought, partly because – calculated in line with Finch – the project would cause an increase in emissions that would have a material impact on achieving national carbon targets. Instead, it recommended a revised version of the Order. The Secretary of State has pushed a final decision back to October 2025, though she is “minded to approve” it.

Resurrected plans for a third runway at Heathrow, meanwhile, are at the pre-application stage, and are likely to face similar challenges.

Since the third runway proposal was last on the table, the UK government has made ambitious climate commitments. These include, most importantly, its binding agreement to reach net zero by 2050. That incorporates the “Jet Zero” strategy outlining the UK aviation industry’s role (which was held to be lawful in April 2025 following a challenge).

The government may, relying on Jet Zero – which cites nascent technologies such as sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) – argue that Heathrow expansion is compatible with its climate commitments even if indirect emissions are taken into account. But the technologies it relies on are speculative. Recent reports have found, for example, that producing enough SAFs to sustain the current demand for aviation would require more than half of the UK’s available agricultural land.

It remains to be seen if such technologies can credibly be expected to reduce the “assessable” emissions that Heathrow expansion would generate. If not, the third runway could become another high-profile scheme felled by Finch.

The material in this article is provided for guidance and general information only and is not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice upon which you should rely. In particular, the information should not be used as a substitute for a full and proper consultation with a suitably qualified professional. Please do contact the Bates Wells team if you require further information.