All coastal waters and estuaries have been included in the Government’s plan to reduce sewage dumping, following our legal action.

We supported Marine Conservation Society, Richard Haward’s Oysters and the surfer and activist Hugo Tagholm in a challenge to the Government’s Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, which attempts to tackle the industrial-scale sewage pollution impacting our rivers and coastlines.

Our legal action highlighted the fact that the Government’s plans missed out 600 storm overflows in coastal areas and estuaries. Faced with our legal challenge, the Government conceded in June that it would consult on expanding its plan to cover all coastal and estuarine waters, rather than try to defend this part of its plan in court – and agreed to pay our legal costs.

We were disappointed that the High Court ruled in the Government’s favour on the remainder of our challenge earlier this month.

But, in a major win for our seas, the Government has now announced that it will fill the crucial gaps identified in our challenge by including all coastal areas and estuaries in its plan to reduce sewage dumping.

According to Good Law Project’s Legal Director, Emma Dearnaley, this success shows how a legal campaign can make positive change.

“The Government has its back to the wall over its handling of the sewage crisis,” Dearnaley said. “The public cares deeply about the filthy state of our rivers and shores, and is – understandably – demanding urgent action so that sewage pollution stops. We are delighted that, as a result of our legal challenge, the Government has revised its plan to include all coastal waters and estuaries.”

The Government has announced an extra £4bn to tackle storm overflows, in addition to the £56bn promised in 2022, and says it will prioritise designated areas protecting marine ecosystems and shellfish.

But there is more work to be done.

“While we really welcome the expansion of the Government’s plan,” Dearnaley said, “it could – and should – still do more to protect marine waters. And we’re scoping other legal challenges so we can continue to hold the Government and water companies to account over what has become one of the biggest environmental scandals of our time.”

We are disappointed that the High Court has today ruled in the Government’s favour on the rump of our challenge to its Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, which allows water companies to continue to dump sewage until 2050 and beyond.

Before the hearing started, the Government conceded as a result of our legal action that it would consult on extending its Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan to tackle sewage dumping to cover coastal waters, not just rivers - and agreed to pay our legal costs. The hearing was in relation to the remainder of the challenge and, in particular, whether the plan adequately met the Government’s obligation under section 141A of the Water Industry Act 1991 to “reduce adverse impacts on the environment”.

The sewage scandal is destroying natural habitats in our rivers, making swimmers and surfers sick and hitting coastal communities hard - as more and more beaches are being closed off due to serious pollution incidents. This is the grim legacy of privatised water companies failing to invest in key infrastructure and instead lining the pockets of their shareholders.

Today’s ruling is particularly hard to stomach when, only earlier this week, the Office for Environmental Protection said it is looking into potential law-breaking by Ministers and water industry regulators over untreated sewage discharges.

It’s vital that this outrageous and dire situation we’re in is at the forefront of public debate. And this is why we have been supporting this legal challenge brought by the co-claimants Marine Conservation Society, Richard Haward’s Oysters and surfer and activist, Hugo Tagholm. 

This legal challenge has been about using the law - where Government policy is failing - to protect our rivers, seas and waterways for generations to come.

Given the nature of the Court’s findings we are unlikely to appeal the decision.

We are grateful for the support we have received in bringing this legal challenge and we will keep you updated on our next steps. 

Meanwhile we await a decision from the Supreme Court on the question of whether water companies have immunity from civil action for the consequences of sewage dumping. And we will continue to hold the Government and water companies to account to fix the mess they have created. 

Last week, the High Court heard our legal challenge to the Government’s inadequate plan for tackling industrial-scale sewage dumping by water companies. We’re unlikely to get the judgment for several months. 

We have already had significant success through bringing this case before reaching the courtroom. The Government is now consulting on expanding its plan to include coastal waters, and it has agreed to pay part of the legal costs.

Despite this early win, we decided to support the claimants – Marine Conservation Society, Richard Haward’s Oysters and surfer and activist, Hugo Tagholm – to take this legal action to court. We believe that other problems with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan make it unlawful. In its current form, the plan allows water companies to continue discharging sewage into our rivers and coastal waters until 2050 – and in some cases beyond.

The High Court hearing took place over three days from 4-6 July. 

A separate claim, brought by the conservation group, Wildfish, which also argues that the Government’s storm overflows plan is unlawful, was heard by the High Court at the same time as ours.

Marc Williers KC represented the claimants for our legal challenge. He opened by outlining the widespread public dismay and disgust at the scale of sewage discharges, the serious implications they have for human health and the environment, and the lack of action by the Government and water companies. 

He stated that the Government’s current plan fails to reduce the adverse impacts of sewage discharges on the environment, highlighting that the Secretary of State is required by law to adopt targets which align with the species abundance target in the Environment Act 2021. 

Williers said that none of the targets in the Plan require action to be taken to halt the decline of biodiversity before 2030 and that just 14% of storm overflows would be improved by this time.
He added that, by the end of the decade, almost two-thirds (62%) of storm overflows will not even have been assessed at the sites that are most important in terms of biodiversity.

In response, the Secretary of State’s barrister, Sir James Eadie KC, argued that the Plan did not necessarily need to satisfy the species abundance target, as it could be achieved through other means.

The High Court also heard how the rights of Richard Haward’s Oysters and Hugo Tagholm were being breached under the European Convention on Human Rights. The risk of contamination from routine discharges of sewage force Richard Haward’s Oysters to carry out costly monitoring and cleaning of their catch. Hugo Tagholm is placing his health at risk every time he enters the water to surf because of pollution levels.

The Defendant said that the Court should not conclude that there had been an unlawful interference with any of the claimant’s human rights because Richard Haward’s Oysters and Hugo Tagholm had not established that they had experienced any harm or that the state was responsible for it. Eadie added that, in any event, the Government is granted significant leeway in how it implements public policy – which balances resource costs and impacts on rights.

For the claimants, Williers went on to argue that the Public Trust Doctrine – an ancient English legal principle which says that the state has a duty to protect vital natural resources for the benefit of both current and future generations – should apply here.

But Eadie argued that the Public Trust Doctrine is about guaranteeing access to the sea or the seashore and that it does not oblige the Government to keep waters in fit ecological condition.

We now await the outcome of the hearing and we will provide an update as soon as the judgment is handed down. 

Swimmers are getting sick, natural habitats are under attack and coastal communities are sinking under a tidal wave of sewage. Water companies discharged raw sewage into our rivers and coastal waters through 14,500 storm overflows more than 300,000 times last year.

Good Law Project will be in the High Court on 5 and 6 July to support the Marine Conservation Society, Richard Haward’s Oysters and the surfer and activist Hugo Tagholm as they challenge the Government’s flimsy strategy to tackle the issue of raw sewage being discharged through storm overflows.

Last August, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published the Storm Overflows Reduction Plan, but it doesn’t go close to far enough and gives polluting water companies until 2050 to put an end to their industrial-scale sewage dumping.

We think that allowing this environmental vandalism to continue for decades to come is not just unconscionable but unlawful.

Next week, the claimants will argue in the High Court that the Government must introduce tougher targets and bring forward the deadlines for water companies to clean up their act. One of the grounds attempts to revive the Public Trust Doctrine. This ancient English legal principle says that the state has a duty to safeguard vital natural resources and hold them in trust for the benefit of both current and future generations.

Winning this case could set a landmark precedent, which would allow others to use the Public Trust Doctrine more widely – not just for storm overflows but far beyond – to compel those in power to take positive steps to protect the natural environment.

The pressure of this challenge has already brought significant success before we have even reached the courtroom. Earlier this month, DEFRA launched a consultation on expanding the plan for storm overflows to include coastal overflows in response to one of the arguments in our case.

Thank you for your support.

Faced with this legal challenge, the Government has announced a consultation on expanding its plan for water companies to cut sewage dumping.

This is an early and significant win in our campaign to protect our rivers and beaches for future generations – even before we’ve reached the courtroom.

Last year, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published a plan to tackle the issue of 14,500 storm overflows currently spewing a deluge of sewage into rivers and seas. 

This plan is completely inadequate, as it excludes coastal areas and gives water companies until 2050 to put a stop to sewage dumping. It also excludes 600 overflows, which could allow sewage dumping on to our beaches and into coastal waters on an industrial scale – even after 2050.

We are supporting Marine Conservation Society, Richard Haward’s Oysters and Hugo Tagholm to challenge this plan in court next month. But we are delighted that DEFRA has responded directly to some of the concerns raised in this case and will now consult on expanding its plan to cover all coastal and estuarine waters.

It will also consider whether to develop a new test to properly measure the ecological impact of storm overflows in coastal and estuarine waters – both of which were highlighted by the Claimants as being major issues with the plan.

As a result of DEFRA’s consultation, the legal challenge will now focus on three legal grounds aimed at forcing the Government to take tougher action against water companies over sewage dumping.

One of these grounds argues for the revival of the Public Trust Doctrine. This legal principle from English common law places a duty on the state to safeguard vital natural resources and hold them in trust for the benefit of both current and future generations.

We will be in the High Court on 5 and 6 July. 

Success in this case could set a landmark precedent, which would allow campaigners to use the Public Trust Doctrine in this case and many others to compel those in power to protect the natural environment we all share.

We will be challenging the Government over its inadequate plan to tackle the huge amounts of raw sewage being poured into England’s rivers and seas at a hearing from 4 to 6 July 2023.

We’ve brought this case with the Marine Conservation Society, Richard Haward’s Oysters and surfer and activist, Hugo Tagholm, to compel this Government to rewrite its Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan and make it fit for purpose.

A deluge of sewage is being discharged by water companies into our rivers and shores through a network of 14,500 storm overflows dotted across the country. But the Government’s current plan gives water companies up until 2050 to improve their storm overflows and put a stop to industrial-scale sewage dumping.

We’re also concerned that the plan excludes a significant number of coastal waters from protection and fails to include around 600 storm overflows. This means that this shocking practice could still continue beyond 2050 under the Government’s current plan.

We believe that giving the green light to this environmental vandalism for decades to come is not just unconscionable – it’s also unlawful on a number of grounds. 

There is clearly no more time to waste. The latest data from the Environment Agency has revealed that, last year alone, water companies in England discharged untreated sewage through storm overflows over 300,000 times for a total of 1.7 million hours.

We can’t allow our rivers, waterways and seas and the diverse ecosystems that they support to continue to be poisoned by pollution. And we can’t stand by as swimmers get sick, our coastal communities suffer and our natural environment is irreparably damaged for us and for future generations.

Our success in this case could help to turn the tide on the sewage scandal. We are also looking to revive an ancient English legal principle – the Public Trust Doctrine – to create new pathways for campaigners to hold the Government to account when it comes to environmental protection.

The hearing in July is our chance to protect and safeguard our rivers and coastal waters for us all and for the generations to come. 

We’re pleased to announce that we’ve been given a hearing in the High Court in our legal challenge to force the Government to take much tougher action to stop water companies from dumping raw sewage into our coastal waters.

We believe this could be one of the UK’s most significant environmental law cases in recent history. Our legal challenge revives an old common law legal doctrine – the Public Trust Doctrine – to force Government to take the protection of our rivers and seas seriously.

We’ve brought this case with Marine Conservation Society, Richard Haward’s Oysters and surfer and activist, Hugo Tagholm to compel the Government to rewrite its Storm Overflows Discharges Reduction Plan and make it fit for purpose.

A deluge of sewage is being discharged by water companies into our rivers and shores through a network of 14,500 storm overflows dotted across the country. But the Government’s current plan gives water companies until 2050 to improve their storm overflows and put a stop to industrial-scale sewage dumping. And the plan all but excludes coastal waters from protection.

We believe that giving the green light to this environmental vandalism for decades to come is not just unconscionable – it’s also unlawful.

The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) has been recognised by the English Courts since at least 1299. It says that the state has a duty to safeguard vital natural resources and hold them in trust for the benefit of both current and future generations. It enshrines the right for people to fish, gather food and navigate our shared tidal waters.

Our challenge makes the case that the Public Trust Doctrine requires the Government to take positive steps to safeguard our coastal waters. Winning this case could set a landmark precedent which would enable campaigners to use this doctrine for legal challenges to compel the Government to protect our shared natural environment.

You can read the permission decision here. We are waiting for the High Court to confirm a hearing date.

Thank you for your support – we couldn’t do this without you.

We are delighted that the Marine Conservation Society has now joined as a co-claimant on our legal case to protect our coastal waters from sewage dumping. 

Marine Conservation Society is at the forefront of tackling the ocean emergency and standing up for coastal communities impacted by climate change and pollution. 

Sewage spills from storm overflows are threatening human health, biodiverse marine life and the fishing industry. We believe that taking legal action now is vital to ensuring English seas are safeguarded for generations to come. 

This is why Good Law Project is supporting Marine Conservation Society and co-claimants, Richard Haward's Oysters and surfer and activist, Hugo Tagholm, as they take this case forward to compel the Government to rewrite its Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan. 

In its current form, the Government’s plan gives water companies until 2050 to take action on sewage discharges from storm overflows. But we believe that allowing this environmental vandalism to continue for decades to come is dangerous and unlawful. 

The scope of the plan also fails to include the hundreds of coastal and estuarine storm overflows responsible for polluting our seas and shorelines.  

The claim has now been filed and the next step is to take this issue to the courts to compel the Government to impose much tougher deadlines on water companies and expand its plan to specifically address sewage spillages into coastal waters. 

You can read our Statement of Facts and Grounds in full here.