UK fails to provide citizens with access to environmental rights

Voluntary organisations are calling for the rules on legal costs in environmental judicial review across the UK to be changed so that people are not prevented from challenging developments that are damaging to the environment.

Sounds dull? Well, maybe it does but that doesn’t mean it isn’t important. Take the case at Fineshade Wood, if the planning authority had made the wrong decision then the way to challenge it would have been through a Judicial Review and costs are capped at £5k – not a small amount of money but at least you know where you are as an individual – but that cap is now in jeopardy.

Also, under new legislation, the Secretary of State for Justice, currently one Michael Gove, has the power to define what are and aren’t environmental cases and limit the scope of the Aarhus Convention.

Still sounds dull doesn’t it? But maybe it sounds quite important too. UK governments, Westminster and Scotland, obviously think that it is important as they are sending six staff to a meeting in Geneva next week, and the NGO community has managed to find the money to send one on your, and my, and the environment’s behalf.  Whilst our representative will be a match for any number of government lawyers it just goes to show that money gets you a bigger say in the law than it should – and that’s what this matter is all about.  The UK is seen as one of the least progressive countries when it comes to access to environmental justice for its citizens.

Despite bespoke costs rules for environmental cases being introduced in April 2013, the potential costs of making a challenge via judicial review remain prohibitively expensive for many people. This means the UK does not comply with Article 9(4) of the UNECE Aarhus Convention, which requires legal review mechanisms for environmental cases to be “fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive”.

Joint Links – a coalition of charities (including the RSPB, Client Earth, WWF, the John Muir Trust, the Salmon and Trout Association and many others) – has presented a joint statement to the Aarhus Convention Task Force on Access to Justice, which is meeting at the UN in Geneva between 15-17 June. The statement calls on the devolved administrations to collate and publish information on the effectiveness of the new cost regimes and to make changes where they do not meet compliance with the Aarhus Convention.

Joint Links is also calling on the governments of the UK to establish a fair and consistent position on time limits in relation to applications for judicial review. The law was changed in 2013 to require challenges to planning matters to be brought within six weeks of the contested decision, but the reduced timescale is making it difficult for community groups and NGOs to challenge potentially unlawful decisions. Other changes introduced through the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 are exacerbating the problems of cost and timing.

Carol Day 180x180Carol Day (pictured right), who will be presenting the statement on Joint Links’ behalf on 16th June and is an expert on the Aarhus Convention (and has written two Guest Blogs on this site on the subject – see here and here) said:

“No doubt the Government will be looking to see whether it can renege on the new rules, but the simple fact is that, despite these changes, environmental litigation remains too expensive for many individuals, community groups and NGOs. We need a consistent UK platform for access to justice and a Government commitment that it will assess whether the new rules are making any difference – and strengthen it where necessary.”


Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Get email notifications of new blog posts

Registration confirmation will be emailed to you.

5 Replies to “UK fails to provide citizens with access to environmental rights”

  1. Sounds very dull, but important matters often are. Until now I'd never heard of the Aarhus Convention, nor realised the obstacles placed in front of objectors. Thank you for making me aware, and all power to Carol!

  2. Yes, here at Fineshade the financial implications of Judicial Review if the Planning Authority were to have made the wrong decision were very worrying indeed.
    I fully support the Joint Links Statement: "Access to Justice in the UK" and urge the government to make the changes necessary to bring the UK into compliance with the Aarhus Convention. (Another very strong reason for us to remain in the EU I guess?) Well done the NGOs who are part of Joint Links. Carol goes to Geneva next week with our very best wishes. Thanks for the update Mark.

  3. Many thanks for your kind comment Derik. Sadly, it says a lot about me that I find the subject fascinating - but I recognise the law can be a blunt instrument at the best of times. People often come to us when everything else has failed, so it's important we have a robust backstop. I'm grateful to Mark for publishing the piece - lots of people would have overlooked it.

  4. Count me in as one of the newly educated on the subject. The government want a democracy for those who can afford it. It's seems that the environment is under attack on all flanks. There is much to do and I fear it's going to be a long fight but which we must win.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.