Is the UK government guilty of a systemic failure to implement the statutory nuisance regime?

This article was originally published on wiglaw.co.uk

Next week’s virtual meeting of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee will include the admissibility hearing of such a communication.

The meeting comes after a strained Session of the 8th Meeting of the Parties in November 2025.

How do matters stand between the UK government and the Committee prior to the virtual meeting?

First, there are on-going issues relating to costs. Whilst there are a number of outstanding areas where the UK has not complied with the Committee’s findings relating to costs, so far as nuisance actions are concerned, these go back to communications 2013/85-86. The 6th (2017) and 7th (2021) Sessions recorded that costs allocations are not “fair, equitable … and not prohibitively expensive” (Art.9.4).

Secondly, there has been the adoption of the recent findings of the Committee in response to a communication from Friends of the Earth (2017/150) that (i) the European Union Withdrawal Bill was not preceded by a formal consultation process (Art.8 – public participation) and (ii) the UK Government does not have a framework achieving compliance with Art.8 (Art.3). See this list of communications and related documents here.

The Committee did not accept the UK government’s submission that Aarhus does not extend to Acts of Parliament. The Committee decided that prior to the introduction of the Withdrawal Bill (as indeed with any Bill which may affect the environment), rules should exist allowing the public to consult, and further, the government must show how participation is taken into consideration. This opens up the possibility of complaints to the UK Courts.

DEFRA submitted a very strongly worded response (30 October 2025) refusing to agree to any recommendations which would “seek to override the UK’s established constitutional principle that the Courts do not interfere with anything that is done towards the process of a Bill being laid before parliament”.

The UN Special Rapporteur also has trenchant views about the treatment of the M25 and other protestors, to be discussed here tomorrow, prior to the communication alleging systemic failure as to the statutory nuisance regime.