Action to combat UK illegally high air pollution delayed again – judge will decide on timetable for action

On 2nd November, ClientEarth won its High Court case against the Government’s slowness in tackling illegal levels of UK air pollution. Mr Justice Garnham ruled that the government’s 2015 Air Quality Plan was not adequate, and said it was “remarkable” that ministers knew they were using over-optimistic pollution modelling, based on flawed lab tests of diesel vehicles rather than actual emissions on the road, but proceeded anyway.  It was agreed that both parties would return to court in a week to agree on the next steps. Now Ministers have rejected the court proposal to deliver an effective plan within 8 months, as ClientEarth suggested.  The case will now return to court at an unknown future date, when the judge will determine what happens next.  An earlier government plan to tackle air pollution was declared illegal in April 2015 and ministers were ordered then to produce a new strategy, which it did in December. But that new plan is the one that was found to be illegal on 2nd November.  ClientEarth lawyer Alan Andrews said: “We are disappointed that we have been unable so far to agree on the timetable for the new plan, or on the future role for the court in overseeing compliance with the order.  We have made our written submissions and await the court’s decision.” Defra said it would be setting out further measures next year. 
.

 

Action to combat UK air pollution crisis delayed again

Ministers reject court proposal to deliver an effective plan within eight months following their legal defeat against NGO ClientEarth last week

10.11.2016

Environmental lawyers ClientEarth inflicted a humiliating legal defeat on ministers last week – its second in 18 months – when the high court ruled that ministers’ plans to tackle illegal levels of air pollution in many UK cities and towns were unlawfully poor.

The court gave the parties seven days to agree on the next steps, but the government rejected the proposal from ClientEarth. The case will now return to court at a future date when the judge will determine what happens next.

“We are disappointed that we have been unable so far to agree on the timetable for the new plan, or on the future role for the court in overseeing compliance with the order,” said ClientEarth lawyer Alan Andrews. “We have made our written submissions and await the court’s decision.”

Aaron Kiely, at Friends of the Earth, said: “How many times must the government fail? And how many deadlines do they need? There is a simple and deadly fact underscoring this case – 40,000 people are dying early from the harmful effects of our illegally dirty air. If this isn’t enough to get the government to do whatever it takes, including really drastic measures to reduce traffic, what is?”

After the most recent court defeat, prime minister Theresa May said: “There is more to do and we will do it.”

A spokeswoman for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said on Wednesday: “Our plans have always followed the best available evidence. We have always been clear that we are ready to update them if necessary and we will set out further measures next year. We cannot comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”

In last week’s judgment against the government, Mr Justice Garnham said it was “remarkable” that ministers knew they were using over-optimistic pollution modelling, based on flawed lab tests of diesel vehicles rather than actual emissions on the road, but proceeded anyway.

The existing government plan is for clean air zones – in which polluting diesel vehicles are charged to enter city centres – in just six UK cities. A new plan that meets the legal requirement to cut illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution in the “shortest possible time” is very likely to involve clean air zones in many cities and towns across the country. NO2 has been at illegal levels in 90% of the country’s air quality zones since 2010 and stems largely from diesel vehicles.

ClientEarth also argued in court that an effective plan would require other measures including a scrappage scheme for older diesel vehicles, retrofits of HGVs and more funding for public transport and cycling and walking schemes.

Documents revealed during last week’s high court case showed the Treasury had blocked initial government plans to charge polluting diesel vehicles for entering 16 towns and cities blighted by air pollution, due to concern about the political impact of angering motorists.

Both the environment and transport departments also recommended changes to vehicle excise duty rates to encourage the purchase of low-pollution vehicles. But the Treasury also rejected that idea, along with a scrappage scheme for older diesels.

clientearth-billboard

ClientEarth is running a billboard campaign across London from Thursday, carrying the message: “Welcome to London – the UK’s most polluted city”. A similar campaign is taking place in Glasgow.

ClientEarth chief executive James Thornton said: “We need urgent action from governments and politicians across the UK who have failed morally and legally in their duty to protect people’s health.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/10/action-to-combat-uk-air-pollution-crisis-delayed-again?CMP=share_btn_tw

.


.

See earlier:

ClientEarth wins air pollution case in High Court, that government action has been too slow

ClientEarth has won its High Court case against the Government over its failure to tackle illegal air pollution across the UK. In a damning indictment of ministers’ inaction on killer air pollution, Mr Justice Garnham agreed with ClientEarth that the Environment Secretary had failed to take measures that would bring the UK into compliance with the law “as soon as possible” and said that ministers knew that over optimistic pollution modelling was being used. In his ruling, the judge questioned Defra’s 5 year modelling, saying it was “inconsistent” with taking measures to improve pollution “as soon as possible.” Defra’s planned 2020 compliance for some cities, and 2025 for London, had been chosen because that was the date when ministers thought they’d face European Commission fines, not which they considered “as soon as possible.” The case is the second the government has lost on its failure to clean up air pollution in two years. In the judgment he handed down Mr Justice Garnham ruled that the government’s 2015 Air Quality Plan failed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling or relevant EU Directives and said that the government had erred in law by fixing compliance dates based on over optimistic modelling of pollution levels. Future projections of compliance need to be based on real emissions, not discredited lab tests.

Click here to view full story…

High Court win by ClientEarth on air pollution casts more doubt on the possibility of adding a Heathrow runway

The environmental law group, ClientEarth, has won its High Court case against the Government over its failure to tackle illegal air pollution across the UK. The judge agreed that the UK government had failed to take measures that would bring the UK into compliance with the law “as soon as possible” and ministers knew over optimistic pollution modelling was being used. AEF (the Aviation Environment Federation) says this failure by the government to get NO2 levels down discredits the air quality plan that formed the basis for the Government’s argument that a new runway at Heathrow would neither cause not exacerbate legal breaches in NO2 levels. Required to publish an updated plan for UK air quality, Defra produced one in December 2015. This brought forward the anticipated date of compliance to 2025 for London – just in time for the opening of a new runway according to the Airports Commission’s anticipated timeline. But the plans appeared to rely on new, more optimistic forecasts of emissions from diesel vehicles without presenting substantive policy proposals to actually deliver improvements. A new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick would lead to higher levels of air pollution, and the new court ruling confirms that compliance should not be based on over optimistic modelling – and government needs instead to take action to cut pollution levels.

Click here to view full story…