Council decision that sewage discharge was not statutory nuisance could face judicial review

Local residents Eleanor Warren, a rower with a local rowing club, and Suzanne Cave, a resident of Taggs Island and a member of Taggs Island River Watch, made the complaint in December last year over concerns about contaminated water in the river.

It highlighted the potential impact on public health and the use and enjoyment of the river, and alleged that the pollution constituted a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Responding to the complaint, the council said the statutory nuisance regime was “not generally the appropriate legal mechanism for addressing pollution of a river”.

The claimants subsequently supplied further evidence and legal representations in February, April and July 2026, seeking to address the council’s concerns.

In late August 2026, the council responded that it did not accept that the information provided was sufficient to establish that a statutory nuisance existed, or to require the extensive investigation required.

A pre-action protocol letter has now been issued on the claimants' behalf, which argues Richmond failed to investigate the complaint properly and did not adequately consider the further evidence supplied.

It advances five grounds of challenge, arguing that the council:

1. failed to investigate the complaint, or if it did;
2. it failed to take sufficient steps to do so;
3. that it failed to take account of the further evidence provided;
4. that its rejection of that evidence was irrational; and
5. that its approach to the statutory nuisance regime is wrong in law.

River Action is supporting the legal action. The initial complaint was sent as one of 13  statutory nuisance complaints submitted to councils across the Thames catchment in December 2025, as part of the group's ‘Make a Nuisance’ campaign.

The campaign group said the Richmond case could clarify councils’ duty to investigate credible complaints of sewage nuisance across the country.

Erica Popplewell, Head of Public Affairs at River Action UK, said that regulators have a role in protecting rivers, "but that does not let councils off the hook".

She said: "[Councils] have their own legal duties to investigate potential statutory nuisances and, where the legal test is met, take action.

"We’re backing Eleanor and Suzanne because those duties must mean something in practice. Richmond Council must reconsider its position, investigate these complaints properly and act on the evidence."

A spokesperson for the council said the London borough had carefully reviewed the complaint and the information provided and explained its position to the residents bringing this action, through their lawyers.

“We are considering the action they are now taking and will send a response to them by the 10 November deadline,” it said.

Richmond also described the legal and regulatory framework for sewage pollution and statutory nuisance complaints as “extremely complex".

It said: "While we take our legal obligations seriously, we must also carefully consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support formal enforcement action and the significant legal, technical and expert costs that could result from an appeal and any subsequent prosecution, at a time when our finances are being placed under huge pressure by Whitehall funding cuts.

"The focus should be on tackling the source of untreated sewage into our rivers and holding those responsible for it to account.

"Water companies must invest in the infrastructure needed to stop this pollution and protect the Thames. The government must ensure regulators have the powers and resources to hold water companies to account, and regulators must use those powers to enforce the rules."

Adam Carey