Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
UK Local Elections 2026
22MAY

Grantham: 7 of 9 Reform councils cut climate

3 min read
10:09UTC

The LSE Grantham Research Institute found seven of nine 2025 Reform-led councils scrapped climate targets, three rescinded Climate Emergency Declarations, and five put climate-change-denial language into formal documents; eight 2026 councils already softened climate language in week one.

PoliticsDeveloping
Key takeaway

Rescinding climate declarations without a written replacement policy opens a second administrative-law front behind the LGR judicial reviews.

The LSE Grantham Research Institute published a study finding seven of nine 2025 Reform-led councils scrapped climate targets after May 2025, with three rescinding Climate Emergency Declarations entirely and five putting climate-change-denial language into formal documents 1. The 2026 cohort's first-week softening of climate language at eight Reform-controlled councils follows the 2025 pattern with near-perfect fidelity. Grantham's authors predict "the majority" of the 14 new Reform-led authorities will replicate the rescission pattern.

The administrative-law question sits inside this fact. Councils that strip climate targets without publishing a written replacement policy framework leave themselves open under the policy-framework-consistency tests in the Local Government Act 1972 and the Public Sector Equality Duty. A council that has formally declared a Climate Emergency and then rescinded that declaration without producing a successor policy carries the burden of demonstrating it had "due regard" to the equality impacts of the reversal, the same Public Sector Equality Duty test that anchors the Essex LGR challenge. The LGR judicial reviews will land in the Administrative Court first; climate-policy challenges, if they come, will follow later in the year.

Most peer-reviewed climate-policy research runs at national-government level; comparable subnational data reaches print through case studies rather than systematic samples. Grantham's five-of-nine climate-denial finding is therefore the first quantitative evidence of language drift in formal council documents, which courts can weigh under the reasonableness tests of judicial review. The 2025 baseline plus the 2026 first-week replication makes the prediction quantitatively grounded rather than rhetorically asserted.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Many councils across England declared a Climate Emergency in 2018 and 2019, officially committing to reduce carbon emissions and factor climate into council decisions. The LSE's Grantham Research Institute studied what happened when Reform UK took control of nine councils in 2025: seven of them scrapped their climate targets. Three formally cancelled their Climate Emergency Declarations. Five put language into official documents suggesting they do not accept that climate change is a serious problem. Now that Reform has won around 14 more councils in 2026, Grantham researchers predict the same pattern will repeat. Eight of those 14 new councils have already softened their climate language in the first week. There is a legal question here: councils that cancel their climate commitments without explaining what replaces them may be open to legal challenges. Courts have previously found that councils must think carefully about the impact of policy changes on vulnerable groups, and that applies to environmental commitments too.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

Grantham's 7-of-9 finding captures a governing-party dynamic the briefing body's administrative-law framing does not fully explain. Reform's local council platforms in 2025 and 2026 explicitly promised to reverse 'climate alarmism' and cut spending on sustainability officers and environmental commitments. Elected Reform councillors arrive with a mandate to rescind.

The problem is that most Council Executives have integrated climate commitments into procurement frameworks, asset management plans, and capital programme appraisals over the previous three to five years. Reversing the declaration is quick; unwinding the downstream commitments in those documents requires either the officers' cooperation or a formal decision on each document, each of which could be challenged individually.

The five councils that put denial language into formal documents crossed a distinct line. Formal council documents that list 'climate change is not proven' as a policy rationale become part of the documentary record a planning inspector or Administrative Court judge reviews when assessing whether a council had due regard to environmental considerations in a planning or service decision.

That language does not need to trigger a standalone climate challenge to damage the council in an unrelated planning judicial review.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    Councils that placed climate-denial language into formal documents face a more defensible litigation target than rescission-only councils, because formal documents carry legal weight in planning and procurement judicial reviews regardless of whether a standalone climate challenge is brought.

    Medium term · Assessed
  • Consequence

    Grantham's 78% rescission rate for the 2025 cohort, replicated at eight of 14 in the first week of the 2026 cohort, gives claimants a documented pattern of systematic policy reversal rather than individual council decisions, which provides a stronger framing for any future group litigation.

    Medium term · Assessed
  • Precedent

    If a successful climate-policy judicial review against any single Reform council establishes that Climate Emergency Declarations require a written successor framework on rescission, a procedural requirement would apply to all 20-plus Reform councils that have rescinded or plan to rescind.

    Long term · Suggested
First Reported In

Update #9 · Three constitutional contests open

LSE Grantham Research Institute· 22 May 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
Grantham: 7 of 9 Reform councils cut climate
Councils that strip targets without a written replacement policy framework risk administrative-law challenge under the policy-consistency tests.
Different Perspectives
UK Government (Labour)
UK Government (Labour)
Westminster framed the youth justice transfer as a culmination of prior work rather than a precedent, refused a Section 30 order before the request arrived, and omitted both the Representation of the People Bill and any Wales Bill from the 13 May King's Speech. Starmer is described as open to a devolved-leaders summit in June.
Reform UK
Reform UK
Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk filed pre-action protocol letters framing their LGR challenge as mandate-consistent, while 22 Reform councillors departed in 14 days at an annualised rate nearly three times the 10 percent projection. Richard Tice defended the Harborne 5 million pound gift as unconditional, with no acknowledgement of Farage's two contradictory accounts on record.
SNP (Scottish Government)
SNP (Scottish Government)
Swinney submitted a Section 30 request on 14 May citing the 73-seat SNP-Greens pro-independence bloc and the 2014 Edinburgh Agreement precedent, despite the SNP finishing seven below his self-set 65-seat trigger. Downing Street's contradictory readout of their call suggests Westminster is treating the request as a holding item rather than a live constitutional negotiation.
Welsh Government (Plaid Cymru)
Welsh Government (Plaid Cymru)
ap Iorwerth framed the youth justice transfer as a starting point for his six-power Wales Bill agenda, pressing demands at a phone call with Keir Starmer on 18 May and winning the first statutory function transfer to Cardiff since 1999. The Greens' unwritten confidence-and-supply arrangement gives him 45 of 96 seats, four short of a majority.
Russell Findlay (Scottish Conservatives)
Russell Findlay (Scottish Conservatives)
Findlay refused to resign as Scottish Conservative leader after the party fell to 12 Holyrood seats and lost all five constituency MSPs. He declined Swinney's post-election talks invitation, the only major-party leader to do so.
John Swinney (SNP)
John Swinney (SNP)
Swinney committed on 14 May to a Holyrood Section 30 vote within a week despite winning seven seats fewer than his own trigger threshold, relying on a SNP-Green majority of 73. He tabled a meeting with Starmer; Downing Street disputed that any referendum discussion was agreed.