A POWER struggle between Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Communities Secretary Michael Gove is believed to be behind a High Court oil drilling battle in the Surrey Hills, the Morning Star can reveal.

The court heard last week that the government was inconsistent in allowing gas drilling near Dunsfold village on the same day it barred a similar project in Cheshire.

Mr Gove’s decision was branded untenable as his department had dismissed a directly comparable drilling case near Ellesmere Port due to its impact on climate change.

Mr Hunt, the area’s MP, has said Mr Gove’s overriding of Surrey County Council’s refusal of exploratory drilling by for UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) near Dunsfold village last June was “bitterly disappointing and wrong both economically and environmentally.”

Protect Dunsfold and Waverley Borough Council (WBC) mounted a legal challenge against the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), which was aired in court last week.

A well-placed source close to the campaign group has said Mr Gove approved the oil drilling application to “put one in the eye” of his neighbouring MP and Tory rival, Mr Hunt.

He noted that politicians were “Tory big beasts in contention for party leadership” at the time and said: “Absolutely, that’s what the word on the ground is saying; that effectively Michael Gove wanted one in the eye to Jeremy Hunt at that particular point.

“It could well be that Mr Hunt thought to lobby Mr Gove in respect of that particular application and maybe there’s some form of rivalry between those two government ministers.”

Estelle Dehon KC, for the campaign group, said in written submissions that the government department’s two decisions “were made concurrently and indeed published on the same day,” meaning Mr Gove’s position was “entirely inconsistent” and “untenable.”

The proposed site is in the Surrey Hills, designated an area of great landscape value, which sits on the border of an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB).

The government department and UKOG are contesting the case. James Strachan KC, for the department, said it was a “flawed notion” that the rationale behind two planning cases were “somehow transferable.”

He told Mrs Justice Steyn that WBC’s argument that the minister and inspector did not consider government policy related to protecting AONBs “simply fails to get off the ground.”

A DLUHC spokesman said: “The then-minister of state for housing decided to grant the appeal, in line with the recommendation of the independent planning inspector, on June 7 last year. The reasons for that decision are set out in full in a detailed decision letter published on our website.

“It would not be appropriate to comment on any live litigation proceedings.”

The Cabinet Office was contacted for comment.