Mishcon de Reya page structure
Site header
Main menu
Main content section

Community group launches legal action against Havering Council over toxic illegal landfill site at Launders Lane, Rainham

Posted on 18 September 2024

Clear The Air In Havering, a local environmental group founded by three local mums, is challenging Havering Council’s lack of action over an illegal landfill site at Launders Lane in Rainham, which is affecting air quality and local residents’ lives.

Constantly smouldering underground fires coming from the illegal landfill at Launders Lane in Rainham cause air pollution all year round. During the summer, the site regularly catches fire presenting significant unquantified, unprotected health and safety risks both to firefighters who are unable to access the fires and to local residents, workers and visitors. Residents say that local GPs attribute the high levels of respiratory and lung diseases in the area to the landfill site. There are also concerns about the surface water runoff from it.

There are two schools close to the site, both of which have been affected by smoke coming from it, and residents often have to stay indoors with the windows closed to try and protect themselves. The site is also classified as one of the highest-emitting methane sites in the UK. Methane can result in poor air quality by contributing to the formation of ground level ozone and particulate pollution. Exposure to ozone and particulate pollution damages airways, aggravates lung diseases, causes asthma attacks, increases rates of preterm birth, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and heightens stroke risk.

Ruth Kettle-Frisby, one of the founders of Clear The Air In Havering, said:

“Rainham is one of the most deprived areas of London and nothing has been done to stop the fires and to protect desperate Rainham residents from harm. Rainham residents describe themselves as ‘the forgotten people of Havering’; their lives wilfully put at risk, paying for negligence with their lives.

“They have reported not wanting to go outside at all, struggling to breathe getting to the park - and having to come back again, that all windows have to be closed, children waking up in the night feeling that their throat is on fire, mothers waking up in terror thinking that their house is burning down, patients recovering from cancer struggling to breathe, and parents of children with asthma constantly being on high alert. This is just not acceptable on any level.”


Havering Council decided in July 2024 not to designate the landfill as contaminated land. When councils make these decisions, they are obliged by law to take certain things into account, including whether the site causes or is likely to cause significant harm to health.

Emily Nicholson, partner at law firm Mishcon de Reya which is working with Clear The Air In Havering in their legal action, said:

“There are strong grounds to argue that this decision was made without taking into account the relevant factors: the council have failed to apply the Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance properly, have not adopted a structured approach to risk assessment, relied on flawed air pollution data and inconclusive evidence in relation to groundwater contamination, and have failed to adequately consider the impact the site has on the physical and mental health of local residents, which an expert report commissioned by the council suggested were 'significant'.”

The group has started a Crowdjustice campaign to help fund an application for a judicial review of the council's recent decision. If the landfill is legally designated to be contaminated land, then the council and the Environment Agency will have specific legal duties to ensure the site is cleaned up. They will be required to serve a notice on the person responsible requiring them to remediate the land. Most importantly, if the relevant person can't or won't clean up the land, the council can step in and clean up the land themselves, and recoup as much of its costs as it can afterwards. It can also prosecute or commence civil proceedings against the person responsible – including holding company directors personally liable.

Ruth Kettle-Frisby added:

“The residents have tried tirelessly to resolve this issue with the council and landowner to no avail. It is a last resort to seek action through the courts, but something has to be done to stop the fires. If the Site remains not designated as contaminated land, the council and the landowner can continue to blame each other and take no responsibility or action. The council has been trying to get the landowner to clear it up for the last 20 years – this is not working.

“Our claim, if successful, will mean the council has to remake their decision, this time with the right information and with a proper and full assessment of the health and safety of the residents at the centre of their thinking. The residents of Rainham are owed a proper decision-making process from the council, which takes into account the impact this site has on local health.”

Notes to Editors

  1. Mishcon de Reya has written a pre-action letter to the council to explain the potential claim and to give them the opportunity to correct their decision-making. This letter is available here, and further information about Clear The Air In Havering, the site, and the reasons the group want to bring this claim are available here.
  2. The campaign’s Crowdjustice campaign seeks to raise an initial £16,500 to cover potential adverse costs* and court fees, and then additional funds, to be raised in stages, initially £50,000 but ideally up to £150,000 to contribute to legal fees for Mishcon de Reya LLP and David Wolfe KC of Matrix Chambers. Both Mishcon de Reya and David Wolfe KC are acting on a significantly reduced fee basis to advise Clear The Air In Havering in the claim.

    *In litigation in the UK, the rule is that the loser pays the winner's costs. In claims such as these, such a rule is considered prohibitive to the bringing of claims at all because often those affected by environmental injustice are unable to fund legal action. Accordingly, the legal team in this claim intend to apply to the court for capped adverse costs under a regime called the Aarhus Convention. The maximum amount of costs which could then be ordered against the campaign if they lose would be £10,000 for Clear The Air In Havering and £5,000 for Ruth Kettle-Frisby as an individual.
How can we help you?
Help

How can we help you?

Subscribe: I'd like to keep in touch

If your enquiry is urgent please call +44 20 3321 7000

I'm a client

I'm looking for advice

Something else