LGA research sets out proposals for new statutory climate duty on local authorities

Estelle Dehon KC of Cornerstone Barristers told the association that the best approach to a statutory duty would involve obligations to achieve the climate targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, as well as a duty to require councils to produce local climate action plans.

She also warned that while a new duty would bring litigation risks, local authorities are already “in the firing line” for inaction and therefore at risk of litigation for failing to act on climate change.

The KC’s advice was attached to an LGA report on implementing a climate duty, which also looked at the financial costs of decarbonisation. 

The report - which was partly based on a consultation carried out in Spring 2025 - estimated that the total investment required to decarbonise council social housing, public buildings, transport, and waste collection and disposal would be around £83 billion.

In a her legal opinion, Dehon described climate mitigation and adaptation measures as "positive economic steps", adding that the reverse was also true: "failing to mitigate and adapt to climate change is a costly economic failure".

Despite the economic benefits, she said that many consultation responses "were understandably (and rightly) concerned" that statutory duties would involve an initial economic cost for councils.

She said a new duty should be supported by funding under the New Burdens Doctrine.

Setting out her main advice, Estelle Dehon KC said local authorities "should be made subject to general statutory obligations, but not focused on binding carbon budgets (so not simply reproducing the national approach at a regional or local level)".

She recommended a "two-fold general statutory duty", supported by duties to collaborate and report.

The first duty would require all local authorities to exercise their functions in a manner consistent with achieving the mitigation targets and adaptation obligations in the Climate Change Act 2008, as well as delivering their most recently approved local climate action plan.

The second would require councils to produce local climate action plans addressing both mitigation and adaptation, with central government funding committed to supporting the process through resources and upskilling.

"Additionally (or, if desired, instead of that approach), explicit climate duties/powers, could be inserted into specific statutory powers/obligations (for example, to address emissions from buildings, surface transport and waste)," the advice said.

In terms of legislative mechanisms for implementing such a duty, Dehon suggested amending the Local Government Act 1972.

She recommended inserting a new, dedicated part into the Act, such as a new ‘Part VI(A)’ on climate change, within which the principal duties, plan-making requirements, collaboration and reporting duties, and supporting powers could be set out.

She added: "Amendment of the Best Value Duty in the Local Government Act 1999 would be useful as a supporting mechanism, but is unlikely by itself to deliver the type of climate duty sought."

Dehon acknowledged that introducing a new statutory duty would carry litigation risks, but warned that councils already face risks from failing to take action on climate change.

The advice noted that a failure to act consistently with climate objectives could leave council decisions open to legal challenge where the climate implications of an action had not been properly considered.

However, she argued that the litigation risk could also strengthen councils' position when taking significant climate action, as the new duties would provide a statutory justification for decisions made in pursuit of local climate objectives.

She said: "As matters presently stand, there is no such statutory shield in relation to mitigation and an almost invisible shield in relation to adaptation."

The advice noted that as a result of the litigation risk, councils "would need to take the general statutory obligations seriously".

"On the flip side, the litigation risk strengthens the hand of LAs in taking considerable climate action, because it is part of the justification for LAs meaningfully engaging with their locally set climate objectives (and can be deployed as such to counter criticism from those opposing the action) – as matters presently stand, there is no such statutory shield in relation to mitigation and an almost invisible shield in relation to adaptation," the advice added.

It also noted that councils are increasingly in the “firing line” for criticism for failing to take steps to address climate change, adding: "LAs are thus in any event at risk of litigation for failing to act on climate change."

The advice and report come after research carried out by Local Government Lawyer in partnership with Ashfords found that 58% of local authority respondents supported introducing a statutory requirement for councils to work towards net zero.

The report published in October 2026, also identified funding as the biggest barrier to councils' decarbonisation efforts, while highlighting the challenges authorities face in meeting their climate targets.

Jonathan Croley, a partner at Ashfords who advises on infrastructure contracts, said Estelle Dehon KC’s legal advice was comprehensive and "recognises the fact that failing to mitigate and adapt to climate change is an economic failure".

He said: "The Advice notes that a failure to adapt and mitigate carries with it is own economic burden: there is a very real cost of doing nothing.”

However, he said that careful thought would need to be put into the practical implementation of any statutory duties of the kind proposed in the advice, adding: "For example, in the context of a council procuring services, if one bidder proposes a lower price but has a lower level of mitigation of climate impacts as a more expensive bidder, which bidder has proposed the better solution?

“These are the types of question that local authorities would need to grapple with when engaging in a procurement of any sort, and always mindful of their (new) statutory duty."

Commenting on the report, Isaac Beevor, Partnerships Director at Climate Emergency UK, a campaign group that assesses local authorities' progress on climate action, said: "As the report highlights, many responders to the LGA consultation said that a funded climate statutory duty would assist climate action locally, providing further funding, improve capacity and providing consistency and standardisation across authorities.

"While this report lays out the possibilities for a climate duty, and our Scorecards show the need, the decision is now firmly with the national government to take decisive action."

Adam Carey