Stephenson v. Secretary of State for Housing and Communities and Local Government

In Stephenson v Secretary of State for Housing and Communities and Local Govermnent, Claire Stephenson and advocacy group Talk Fracking brought a case against the UK Government for knowingly breaching their obligations in protecting the environment by promoting fracking in the National Planning Policy Framework without considering their commitments to the Paris Agreement and existing information on the damaging environmental effects of fracking.

This case established a negative precedent against fracking in the UK, particularly in the planning frameworks, and reaffirmed the responsibilities of the UK government in environmental protection, with the specific section of the National Planning Policy Framework being quashed.

=Background= Claire Stephenson, on behalf of advocacy group Talk Fracking brought a judicial review case against the UK government, acting on the UK’s National Planning Policy Framework, specifically relevant sections dealing with fracking and the promotion of such as an acceptable technique for extracting hydrocarbons. Stephenson alleged that the National Planning Policy Framework did not take into account the harm caused to the environment by fracking – and by extension contributing to climate change. Fracking has been demonstrated to introduce a variety of environmental concerns, including groundwater contamination, and the release of methane into the atmosphere among other toxic chemicals, as well as concern over the disposal of waste and excessive use of water. Without appropriate assessment such as through a Strategic Environmental Assessment process, or consideration of the UK’s international environmental commitments including the reduction of greenhouse gases, it was alleged that the UK government had not appropriately considered their responsibilities. This case was hoped to set a precedent on holding the UK government accountable regarding their commitments to protecting the environment and fighting climate change.

=Relevant law and principles=
 * Judicial Review
 * Negligence
 * Duty of Care

=Ruling= The claim was accepted on the first ground argued – that the National Planning Policy Framework did not consider the environmental impact of fracking. The relevant sections of the Framework were removed, removing the need for assessment or further consideration of commitments as there was to be no implementation of that part of the framework. Claims that a Strategic Environmental Assessment process, or consideration of the UK’s international environmental commitments was necessary were not recognized.

=Takeaways= The case establishes a precedent for holding the UK government to account, protecting the natural environment and committing to their target goals on reducing greenhouse gases and other similar climate protection measures. UK and English law also has impacts beyond just its own national legal system due to past transposing of English common law into other legal structures through historical colonialism and similar, meaning that this ruling can be considered as important and relevant across borders and legal systems to provide further environmental protections.

=Links=
 * HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT DECISION
 * Case page (Sabin Center Database)
 * Case page (Grantham Research Institute)

=References=