Campaigners have said they are “extremely disappointed” with a decision to dismiss their High Court legal challenge against the Government over its plan to adapt to the risks posed by climate change.
Activist Kevin Jordan and disability campaigner Doug Paulley, along with environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth (FoE), challenged the former Tory government’s July 2023 National Adaptation Programme (NAP) at a hearing earlier this year.
Lawyers for FoE; Mr Jordan, who lost his home due to coastal erosion; and Mr Paulley, whose health problems are exacerbated by severe heat; told the court in July that the plan was “deficient” as it fails to properly respond to 61 climate change risks and should be quashed.
But on Friday, Mr Justice Chamberlain dismissed the claim, stating there was no “error of law”.
This is extremely disappointing. Yet again the Government has got away with selling disabled people down the river
Following the ruling, Mr Paulley, who lives in a care home and has health conditions that are being exacerbated by increasingly hot summer temperatures, said: “This is extremely disappointing. Yet again the Government has got away with selling disabled people down the river.
“Climate breakdown threatens us all, but disabled people are disproportionately affected and are always amongst those who bear the brunt when disaster strikes.
“The lack of adequate protection in the Government’s climate adaptation plan means more disabled people will suffer and die as the impacts of climate change accelerate.
“Despite this disappointing outcome, I am delighted to have been part of this amazing collaboration between environmentalists, disabled people and excellent lawyers in the continuing fight for a safer future.”
Mr Jordan was made homeless shortly before Christmas 2023, after his house in Hemsby, Norfolk, was demolished when coastal erosion put it in severe danger of falling into the sea.
I don't want anyone else to endure what we've been through. But many undoubtedly will, unless the Government strengthens its adaptation plans
Following Friday’s judgment, he called on the Government to “strengthen its adaptation plans”.
He said: “This is an extremely disappointing judgment.
“Without a tougher set of Government policies to protect us, more people will face the horror of seeing their homes, lives and livelihoods threatened by the growing impacts of our rapidly changing climate.
“It’s bad enough that communities like mine have already lost so much through the lack of foresight and planning for the foreseeable effects of climate breakdown.
“I don’t want anyone else to endure what we’ve been through. But many undoubtedly will, unless the Government strengthens its adaptation plans.”
A hearing in London was told that the NAP is required every five years under the 2008 Climate Change Act.
David Wolfe KC, for the campaigners, told the court in written submissions that the plan “perpetuated” ministers’ “history of failure in climate adaptation” and failed to respond to risks posed by high temperatures, coastal flooding, erosion and extreme weather events, and other challenges caused by changing climate conditions.
He also claimed the Government failed to consider the risks to the delivery of the policies and proposals in the NAP, resulting in the plan leaving British people, especially the vulnerable, “subject to specific threats or adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life”.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) opposed the challenge, with Mark Westmoreland Smith KC, for the department, stating in written arguments that the campaigners’ case was based on “fundamental factual errors” and was an “unfair characterisation” of the approach taken by ministers.
A robust and comprehensive adaptation plan is urgently needed to help protect us from increasingly severe storms, floods and heatwaves.
He said the Environment Secretary – a role currently held by Labour’s Steve Reed – had “broad discretion” over the NAP’s objectives and was “politically accountable to Parliament for them”.
Mr Westmoreland Smith said consideration of the “uncertainties” for addressing risks was “hard-wired” into NAP and “clearly taken into account” and that “factors related to delivery such as current policy status, funding, timeframes and constraints, and achievability of actions were considered throughout”.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Chamberlain said that the Government did consider the “equality impacts” of the plan and the risks to implementing it.
He said: “The evidence establishes that delivery risk, in the sense of uncertainty in relation to whether particular proposals and policies would achieve what they set out to achieve, was considered at various stages.”
Will Rundle, head of legal at FoE, said that it would “study the detail” of the judgment before deciding whether to bid to appeal, describing the NAP as “hopelessly inadequate”.
He said: “A robust and comprehensive adaptation plan is urgently needed to help protect us from increasingly severe storms, floods and heatwaves – particularly marginalised groups, such as older and disabled people, and those living in areas most at risk from climate change.
“Labour must deliver on its pre-election pledge to improve resilience and preparation by urgently drawing up and implementing a much tougher climate adaptation programme to prepare the UK for the enormous challenges a dangerously warming planet will bring – with those most affected involved in its planning.”
Defra has been approached for comment.
