For the third time, the UK government has been slammed by the courts for failing

to produce an adequate plan to tackle the growing problem of air pollution, in a

landmark judgment that will force ministers back to the drawing board in their
efforts to clean up dirty urban air.

The high court ruled that the government’s current policy on air pollution was
“unlawful”, and ordered changes. Air pollution has become a leading test case for
environmental legal activism in the UK, as scientists have found as many as
40,000 people a year are dying from dirty air across the country.

As a result of Wednesday’s judgment, clean air in the UK will be overseen by the

courts, rather than ministers, in a “wholly exceptional” ruling in which the
government was roundly defeated.

Advertisement

Anna Heslop, lawyer with ClientEarth, the activist organisation that brought the
case and which has pursued the government on the issue for several years, said:
“The judge has effectively allowed us to bring this matter straight back to court
without delay if the government continues to fall short of its duties. We are
extremely grateful for this because it means we will be able to monitor the
government’s actions even more effectively and hold them to account.”

Mr Justice Garnham, who heard the case, said: “The history of this litigation
shows that good faith, hard work and sincere promises are not enough and it
seems court must keep the pressure on to ensure compliance is actually
achieved.” He noted a “real risk” from air pollution, said the government’s plans
were “seriously flawed” and commended ClientEarth as a “valuable monitor of
the government’s efforts”.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the

debate - sent direct to you
 
Read more

He said the approach to tackling pollution in 45 local authority areas was “not
sufficient”. The court previously heard that, eight years after the UK was found to
be in breach of legal limits on the pollutant, levels were still too high in 37 out of
43 zones across the country.

A spokesperson for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,

said: “The judge found that our modelling [of air pollution] is compliant [with
regulations] and that our approach to areas with major air quality problems is
‘sensible, rational and lawful’. The court has also asked us to go further in areas
with less severe air quality problems. We had previously considered that it was
sufficient to take a pragmatic, less formal approach to such areas. However, in
view of the court’s judgment, we are happy to take a more formal line with them.
We have already delivered significant improvements in air quality since 2010 and
we will continue to implement our £3.5bn air quality plan.”

This is the third time that activist lawyers have won a legal judgment against the
government on the issue, and it will force urgent changes to policy on air quality.
As a result of the ruling, if ministers fail to remedy the situation, lawyers have
“exceptional” leave to bring a judicial review without seeking further permission.

Effectively, this means the courts will have the powers to pass judgment on
whether the government’s actions meet its obligations on air pollution under UK
and EU law.

Air quality has been an increasing problem in the UK, with EU-set limits on key
pollutants breached frequently over the last decade. But ministers have been slow
to get to grips with the problem, which has been caused in part by the rise in the
number of diesel vehicles on the roads, and increasing urbanisation.

Measures such as “clean air zones” have been promised in some cities, and
welcomed by campaigners, but they are not being implemented widely or swiftly
enough to prevent the government’s own commitments on clean air from being
breached. Air pollution is thought to cause and contribute to as many as 40,000
deaths a year in the UK already, especially among vulnerable people such as those
with existing respiratory problems, but perhaps even worse are the unknown
effects on young children, whose lung capacity can be permanently stunted, and
their health permanently damaged, by exposure to the pollutants at a young age.

Pollutants include tiny particles, for instance those called PM10 and PM2.5,
which can come from diesel exhausts and from the interaction of airborne
pollutants, as well as irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide,
ozone and ammonia. Wednesday’s court case centred on nitrogen dioxide.

Mary Creagh, the Labour MP who chairs the influential environmental audit
committee in the House of Commons, said: “Millions of people in the UK live
with illegally high levels of air pollution. Ministers’ shambolic attempts to tackle
this means this is the third time the courts have ordered the government to come
up with a new plan. The government must now use every tool in the box to clean
up our choking cities.”
“Inaction from governments and local authorities simply cannot continue,” said
Tompion Platt, head of policy and communications at the pressure group Living
Streets. “Making it possible for people to switch to more efficient, healthy and
clean forms of transportation is the best way to make the UK’s air breathable for
us all.”

ClientEarth won two previous rulings against ministers over the levels, forcing
the government to draw up new plans last year for reducing nitrogen dioxide,
much of which comes from vehicles, to within legal limits.

Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet’s most important stories: environment
news, debate and analysis, delivered direct to your inbox each week

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. More people, like you, are reading and
supporting the Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever
before. And unlike many news organisations, we made the choice to keep our
reporting open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to
pay.

The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the
escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big
tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe
that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with
integrity at its heart.

Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own
opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not
influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice
to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge
those in power.

We hope you will consider supporting us today. We need your support to keep
delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. Every reader
contribution, however big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian
from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you