Andy Burnham is preparing to decide whether to approve North Sea oil drilling amid growing pressure from environmental campaigners to resist calls to develop the Rosebank site.

A consultation on the project, which lies about 80 miles north-west of the Shetland Islands, closed on Monday.

Environmentalists have raised fears about the impact of extracting fossil fuels from the UK’s largest remaining untapped oil field on climate change, while others have argued it won’t lower energy bills or provide energy security, as most of the oil is likely to be exported.

Production at both fields had been approved by the previous Conservative government, but those decisions were quashed after a legal challenge by Greenpeace.

This has left the decision on whether Rosebank and another planned North Sea development, the Jackdaw gas field off the coast of Aberdeen, can go ahead in the hands of the prime minister.

What has Andy Burnham said about North Sea oil and gas drilling?

Mr Burnham has said he will be “pragmatic” about North Sea oil.

In a phone call with Donald Trump at the end of July he suggested future drilling in the area is possible.

Mr Burnham said following the call: “I indicated in the phone call that we had a week last Monday that I would take a pragmatic approach when it comes to the North Sea, and that is my intention as we go forward from here.

“There is a resource there. When people are struggling, we can’t ignore that. Hence, me indicating that to the president,” he added.

Why are environmental activists and politicians against the plan?

Stop Climate Chaos Scotland (SCCS) – a campaign group made up of more than 70 different organisations with around one million supporters – insisted Mr Burnham must block the proposed new developments in the North Sea.

It said the lifetime carbon emissions from the two proposed developments could result in up to 65,495 excess heat deaths by the end of this century – adding this would be equivalent to the entire population of the city of Inverness.

Lang Banks, director of WWF Scotland, said there was “a clear choice to be made by our politicians: further fuel climate chaos, or support a fair transition to a safer future”.

Pointing to “a summer of extreme heat and devastating wildfires”, including near Aberdeen, Mr Banks said it would be “irresponsible to approve new oil and gas developments that would accelerate climate change and do nothing to lower the energy bills of UK households”.

Ami McCarthy, head of politics at Greenpeace UK, said: “Trying to squeeze the last few drops of expensive oil and gas out of the North Sea while the world is reeling from climate impacts is beyond ridiculous.

“The government should hold fast on their no new oil and gas commitment. We need true investment in the clean energy industries of the future, which are our only dependable path to good jobs, lower bills, and long-term prosperity.”

Green leader Zack Polanski also said approving Jackdaw and Rosebank would be “a dereliction of duty”, adding that only 27 direct full time jobs would be created if Jackdaw was given the go ahead.

“This has nothing to do with boosting the economy for the people of this country and far more to do with boosting obscene profits for fossil fuel companies and their shareholders,” Mr Polanski added.

Who is in favour of allowing Rosebank?

Opposition politicians, the oil and gas industry and US President Donald Trump have called for Mr Burnham to grant permission, arguing this would protect jobs and cut household bills.

Scottish MP Graeme Downie has argued without proceeding with Jackdaw and Rosebank, investment will leave the UK and jobs will disappear.

He said the UK should “manage the decline of the North Sea in a way that protects workers, supports communities and builds the industries that will power Britain’s future”.

“We also risk shattering the foundations of our industry and destroying the very skills we need to deliver a low-carbon future for the UK and lead the world on new technology and expertise,” he added.