High Court Rules Havering Council Acted Unlawfully Over Launders Lane Pollution.

Ruth Kettle-Frisby and a team of Havering mums have won a major legal victory after the High Court ruled that Havering Council acted unlawfully in its decision not to designate Launders Lane (Arnolds Field) as contaminated land.

The ruling follows a judicial review brought by environmental group Clear the Air in Havering and local resident Ruth Kettle-Frisby. The group argued that repeated fires at the former landfill site released toxic smoke that posed a serious threat to the health of nearby residents, a school, and a golf course.

In the judgment, Mrs Justice Lieven found that the Council’s July 2024 decision was legally flawed. The Council had relied on incomplete data, failed to consider critical monitoring periods — particularly during August, when most fires occurred — and misunderstood legal definitions around contamination. The court also noted that the Council appeared to dismiss the impact of toxic smoke despite acknowledging its harmful effects.

The decision has been quashed, and the Council must now reassess the site in accordance with environmental law.

“We are absolutely thrilled with this result,” said Ruth Kettle-Frisby, founder of Clear the Air in Havering. “It confirms what we’ve been saying for years — that this site poses a real danger. The Council can no longer ignore the evidence, and this ruling forces them to act.“

The Council issued an official response on 17 June, acknowledging the judgment and stating that work is already underway to review the site’s status under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act. They pledged to incorporate the court’s findings into their new determination.

“We are committed to doing everything in our power to stop the fires and prevent further environmental harm,” said Councillor Gillian Ford, Deputy Leader of Havering Council. “We are reviewing the judgment carefully and will continue working with partner agencies to ensure a lawful and evidence-led reassessment.”

While the land remains under private ownership, campaigners and residents say that both the Council and landowner must now be held to account. The site has long been plagued by underground fires and poor waste management, with over 60 fire incidents reported in a single year.

If the Council ultimately designates the land as contaminated, it could trigger formal enforcement proceedings and compel the landowner to undertake cleanup — or face legal action to recover costs.

Campaigners have welcomed the judgment as a step forward, but stress the urgency of real change.

View the full ruling here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1492.html

Here are the key findings from the High Court ruling: Clear the Air in Havering v London Borough of Havering [2025] EWHC 1492 (Admin)

Site Background

Location: Launders Lane (Arnolds Field), 15 hectares, Rainham.

History: Previously used for sand/gravel extraction, later a landfill. Subject to multiple planning permissions and enforcement notices since 1999.

Landowner: DMC Services (Essex) Ltd purchased the site in 2017.

Fire Incidents: 64 real fires (and 70 false alarms) were recorded by London Fire Brigade in 2022 alone.

Nearby receptors: Homes (~400m away), a school, and a golf course.

Key Failures by Havering Council.

Unlawful Decision: The Council’s refusal to designate the site as contaminated land (under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) was found unlawful.

Misunderstood the Law:

• Council wrongly believed toxic smoke from fires couldn’t be treated as “contamination”.
• Ignored combustion as a viable “pathway” under contaminant linkage rules.

Insufficient Evidence:

• Air quality monitoring by consultants (TRL) missed August 2023, when most fires occurred.
• Monitoring equipment wasn’t placed in the direction smoke was blowing (west-to-east).

Misused Guidance:

• Over-relied on the CLEA model, which does not apply to smoke or fireborne risks.
• Applied tests intended for soil contamination, not airborne hazards.

Findings from Judge Lieven

• The Council misdirected itself by treating statutory nuisance laws as the only valid way to deal with smoke.
• TRL’s own report recommended continued monitoring through summer 2024, acknowledging incomplete data.
• GESL’s site investigation found unsafe levels of heavy metals, PAHs, asbestos, VOCs — but focused on risks from physical contact, not smoke.
• Council concluded risk was low due to lack of public access — but failed to consider airborne exposure to off-site receptors (residents, schools).

Scientific Monitoring Lacked Coverage

Monitoring gaps:

• TRL’s key monitor (LAL2) wasn’t active during August 2023 (peak fire month).
• Wind direction data showed smoke was not captured by available sensors.
• Fires showed spikes in particulates (PM2.5) when measured — but evidence too patchy.

Legal Outcomes

Grounds Upheld:

• Ground 3(a): Legal misdirection about what counts as a contaminant linkage.
• Ground 3(b): Flawed evidence base (missed fires, misapplied criteria).
• Ground 5: Premature decision made without completing risk assessment.

Not Upheld:

• Ground 1: Lawfulness of land use was irrelevant to contamination risk.
• Ground 2 & 4: No breach in failing to assess less-serious health effects or property devaluation (evidence too weak).

Final Ruling

The Council’s decision was quashed.

The Court declined to declare the site “contaminated land” — this is for the Council to determine, based on proper reassessment.

The judge rejected the idea that the outcome would have been the same if the Council had acted lawfully.

Stay up to date with all of our latest updates and content by following us on our social media accounts!

We have created community pages where we will share our up-to-date stories happening in the area. Add the area closest to where you live.