Blue Green London Plan (BGLP)

Dear EU Environment Commissioner,

Following our 2014 meeting in London at your public lecture 'New Environmentalism and the Circular Economy', where, in answer to my question, you gave the circumstances under which the Commission is bound to take a Member State to Court:

Those conditions have now arisen, and I would be grateful if you would forward this letter to your successor and the appropriate authority in the Commission. As you see, it has also been sent to the Appeal Court for their information only.

Under the Aarhus Convention for public participation in law, the attached 'Call to Act' has been posted on the website home page hosted website, together with TBGE: ' The Case Against The Thames Tideway Tunnel & In Favour Of Integrated Water Resource Management For The Thames Tideway', which is beginning to be discussed in the media.

Following the worldwide calls for Britain to remain in the EU, as the vote will have an effect on the world economy and the aspirations of the EU in reversing global warming under Article 191TFEU, now until June 23 is the best time for the Commission to demonstrate its effectiveness and benefit to the UK, to be continued after a 'remain' vote.

Of course, the Commission may well choose to do this in a different way, but there is widespread misunderstanding of the nature of treaties as freely entered-into agreements on common standards and goals of civilization. The 'Brexit' misrepresentations of the functioning of the EU is where their main support originates. Taken together with the VW/ Mitsubishi air pollution scandal, the successful Urgenda case, and the Philippine v Oil Majors case, The Commission is well within it's function to clarify its benefits to the UK with a particular example like water supply; understood by everyone.

With very best regards,

Graham Stevens

Call to Act Notice. with Annex 1 and 2

Call to Act Notice renewal 2017. Following notice to the EU of Article 50, the following Call to Act has been renewed under the UN Aarhus Convention on March 28th 2017. The following front page and 'big read' articles by Gill Plimmer and Javier Espinoza appeared in the Financial Times on May 5th 2017.

Front page: Thames Water fine over river sewage dwarfed by £1bn payout to owners

Big read: Murky Waters

These articles are to be given in evidence as to how the UK Constitution was circumvented by the Secretaries of State for DEFRA and DCLG in their development consent for the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The same means of avoiding the Consitution was employed by the Government for the EU Referendum and triggering Article 50 procedures as also demonstrated by Gina Miller having to take the UK Government to the Supreme Court.


Whereas a 'Blue Green London Plan' is necessary to implement the Climate Change Act 2008 in compliance with Paris COP21 Framework Convention on Climate Change 2015, the Water Framework Directive and others,

The following reasons are given under Article 232 for the Commission to act:

1. 'Blue Green' technologies represent the 'Best Technical Knowledge Not
Entailing Excessive Cost' for reversing global warming.
2. The Secretaries of State’s ("SsoS’s") Thames Tideway Tunnel Development
Consent Order (“DCO”) of September 2014 is a clear indication of the UK's  
refusal to abide by our Treaty obligations to the European Union.
3. Avoiding the rule of law protecting UK subject's environmental health is an
underlying reason for proposing to abandon our Treaty with a ‘Brexit’.

In the particular case of The Queen (on the application of Blue Green London Plan) v Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Communities and Local Government. [2015] EWHC 495 (Admin), [2015] EWCA Civ 876, the SsoS corrupted the Planning Court with an unlawful National Policy Statement (“NPS”) for Waste Water in March 2012, making compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (IEAD) a procedural impossibility, requiring the court to refuse grounds for permission to appeal to the High Court, Court of Appeal or The Supreme Court from 24 October 2014 to 4 December 2015, against the public interest by denying substantive consideration of false scientific and technical data and absence of meaningful public consultation to mislead the court into failing to hear substantive argument on a fiscal fraud.

Following an independent blue green experts’ open letter finding scientific consensus that the Tunnel is no longer needed or necessary, this Notice is to guide the public and Commission through arguments lodged in court. Under Article 191, the EU is now required to enforce Treaty law for the protection and benefit of all EU citizens against a fiscal fraud, and COP21 signature countries against EU greenhouse gas pollution.  

Evidence continues on the website

Graham Stevens LLB,
Interested Party, Litigant in Person, Aarhus Convention Claimant,
Chair, Blue Green Independent Expert Team.
Thamesbank 2011-13
Chair, Justine Greening MP's Thames Tunnel Working Group - Technical Subsection,
Board Member, Thames Blue Green Economy

April 7 2016

Guidance Notes.

1. Action under the Aarhus Convention was taken [1] against the UK Secretaries of State’s decision of 12 September 2014 to grant development consent for a £4.2billion Thames Tideway Tunnel, to be operational at the earliest by 2023, as submitted on 27 January 2007 by the UK in mitigation of guilt without an environmental impact assessment or a public consultation[2] at the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in Judgement C-301/10, 18 October 2012: Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations - Pollution and nuisance - Urban waste water treatment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3, 4 and 10 - Annex I(A) and (B).

2. This call to act is to enforce Article 191TFEU of the Treaty[3]. The UK having failed to comply with European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 1, 6, 8 and First Protocol Article 1[4], and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) as held by the CJEU, in that the UK failed to carry out a proper scientific study of Best Technical Knowledge Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATKNEEC) under Article 10 - Annnex 1(A), or at all [5, 6]. The remedy remains implementing a ‘blue green’ plan according to EU requirements, ClientEarth v The SoS DEFRA [2013] UKSC 25 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 897 per Lord Carnwath at para 38-40 [7] and subsequent EU Orders.

3. The SsoS accepted they issued their public invitation to challenge their Decision in bad faith, having no intention of accepting evidence of the Tunnel being no longer needed under the UWWTD 1991, by changing UK law in compliance with the Aarhus Convention during the Hearing[8]. However, the Court of Appeal misdirected itself under Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIAD) procedure in holding the court had no jurisdiction, whereas under Denning M.R.’s interpretation, the SsoS’s act was ‘dies non’[9]. Further, there was ‘no other compelling reason to grant permission’ and hear substantive argument in the public interest [10, 11, 12],making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have independent experts evidence be considered by the court under the EIA Directive and Aarhus Convention[13].

4. Opinion 1/91[1991] ECR1 - 6079 at Opinion [14]: Compatibility with Treaty of draft agreement establishing a European Economic Area, EEA, cited Art 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:

' The fact that the provisions of the agreement and the corresponding Community provisions are identically worded does not mean that they must necessarily be interpreted identically. An international treaty is to be interpreted not only on the basis of its wording, but also in the light of its objectives. Art 31 of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties stipulates in this respect that a treaty is to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its objectives and purpose.' 

5. The case bundle includes a running catalogue of infringements, misinterpretations and misrepresentations of UK and EU law against the intention of Parliament. The bad faith of the SsoS and its Agency Ofwat is in order to dictate the Tunnel for a private monopoly interest, against the public interest of UK water policy not indebting taxpayers with a private commercial liability for 120 years, in particular when independent experts agree it is no longer necessary due to recent technical innovations in the water industry. Lord Woolf, a Lord Chief Justice, warned of ‘elective dictatorship’ in such manipulation of judicial review in the courts[14].

6. It is in the interests of the public, the Commission and the EU to act, before tunneling starts and the Brexit vote on 23 June, by holding the Tunnel incompatible with Article 191 TFEU. Thereby publicly demonstrating how compliance with our Treaty may save the UK taxpayer some £24Billion and lower Londoner’s water bills, as is being achieved by Welsh Water [15]. This would give some confidence in the EU’s combined ability to reverse global warming by integrating its infrastructure.

7. The claimant’s Request for a Preliminary Reference to the European Union in common ground with ClientEarth and later Thames Blue Green Economy (TBGE) has been refused since 13 January 2014 and is repeated here in the public interest. It is vital at this time for the Commission to demonstrate to the UK public the benefit of Community law overriding a Member State dictating infrastructure against the public interest.

8. This may be done in Common Ground with Environmental Law Foundation for TBGE’s 'Decision of the Secretary General under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - GESTDEM 2015/6617' (Brussels, 8.3.2016 C(2016) 1557 final) in further establishing a public interest.

Graham Stevens

1 June 2016 

9. Update: 6 June 2016: Doc 34 continues with the European Investment Bank granting a loan for the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

10. 7 June 2016: The Prime Minister David Cameron identifies ‘6 falsehoods in the Brexit Campaign’: of SoS for Justice, Michael Gove MP, Boris Johnson MP, former Mayor of London, Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Owen Patterson MP, former SoS for Defra, and both anti-Climate Change Act.

Annex 1

Treaty establishing the European Community (Amsterdam consolidated version)

Article 232

Should the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission, in infringement of this Treaty, fail to act, the Member States and the other institutions of the Community may bring an action before the Court of Justice to have the infringement established.

The action shall be admissible only if the institution concerned has first been called upon to act. If, within two months of being so called upon, the institution concerned has not defined its position, the action may be brought within a further period of two months.

Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the preceding paragraphs, complain to the Court of Justice that an institution of the Community has failed to address to that person any act other than a recommendation or an opinion.

Annex 2

Article 191 Treaty on the functioning of the EU

1. Union policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives:
- preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment,
- protecting human health,
- prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources,
- promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.

2. Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.

In this context, harmonisation measures answering environmental protection requirements shall include, where appropriate, a safeguard clause allowing Member States to take provisional measures, for non-economic environmental reasons, subject to a procedure of inspection by the Union.

3. In preparing its policy on the environment, the Union shall take account of:
- available scientific and technical data,
- environmental conditions in the various regions of the Union,
- the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action,
- the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions.

4. Within their respective spheres of competence, the Union and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and with the competent international organisations. The arrangements for Union cooperation may be the subject of agreements between the Union and the third parties concerned.

The previous subparagraph shall be without prejudice to Member States' competence to negotiate in international bodies and to conclude international agreements.


[1] The Queen (on Application of Blue Green London Plan) v SsoS DEFRA and CLG [2015], Bundle Document (BD) 1: 24 October 2014, para 8

[2] C-301/10 Commission v UK (2012) para 20

[3] Blue Green London Plan v SsoS DEFRA and CLG [2015] BD 1, para 12. Ground 1.2; ‘as submitted to Examining Authority (ExA) on 2 December 2013’ (BD 33. paras 4-5)

[4] ibid, para 20-23. Ground 4. ECHR, (HRA) and Expert’s Open Letter

[5] ibid, para 9-11. Ground 1.

[6] BD 6. Request for a Preliminary Reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Submitted to ExA 13 January 2014, in common ground with ClientEarth

[7] ibid, paras 1-7

[8] The Queen (on the application of Blue Green London Plan) v Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Communities and Local Government. [2015] EWHC 495 (Admin), 15 January 2015 Judgement paras 48-52, 169. Released 2 March 2015.

[9] BD 16. Skeleton filed 13 March 2015, paras 13-14

[10] BD 23, 23 June 2015 paras 1, 10-13, public interest, importance

[11] BDs 24, 30 June 2015 Reopening the Appeal, para 9-11 Ground 3, ‘Exceptional public interest’

[12] BD 32, 2015 22 September 2015 Supplementary Skeleton Argument, paras 1, 14-18, 21, 24-51

[13] ibid, paras 10-11

[14] BD 2, para 26, House of Lords 27 October 2014: “dangerous to tell judges what to do”

[15]www.bluegreenuk news Feb 2016: Royal visit for Welsh Water's RainScape scheme

Annex 3 Court Case Bundle Documents (BDocs)

The Queen (on the application of Blue Green London Plan (as Graham Stevens)) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Bundle Documents (BDocs), (without copyright Court Orders or Judgements, available from the court.)

BDoc 1. Friday 24 October 2014: STATEMENT OF GROUNDS AND FACTS


BDoc 3., BDoc 4. 21 November 2014: Summary Grounds of Resistance and Contesting


BDoc 6., BDoc 7., BDoc 8. (a) Request for a Preliminary Reference to the Court of Justice of the EU,
(a) 13 January 2014: (b). Framework for Fraud Investigation 10 Februay.2014 (c) Elements of Fiscal Fraud.

COURT ORDER: 10 December 2014: Order Refusing Extension of time and Permission for Judicial Review, with costs.


BDoc 10., BDoc 11., BDoc 12., BDoc 13. 9 January 2015:

SsoS Skeleton Argument. TWUL Skeleton Argument. BGLP SsoS covering note

15-16 January 2015: Permission Hearings in High Court
28 Jan 2015 Court Decision ORDER,
received 3 February 2015.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) Court of Appeal Case No. 20150340.

BDoc 14., BDoc 15., BDoc 16. 3 February 2015: Appeal lodged and served within 7 days.
a) 21 January 2015 b) 27 February Draft Skeleton Argument (Filed before Judgement released on 2 March 2015)
c) Skeleton Argument filed 13 March

BDoc 17., BDoc 18., BDoc 19., BDoc 20., 13 April 2015: TWUL EXPEDITION a) by way of letter with SsoS's support, b)17 April: BGLP Resistance to Expedition. c) 20 April: ELF's Resistance to expedition and d) 22 April: BGLP amendment in support.
a) 13 April b) 17 April c) 20 April d) 22 April

BDoc 21., BDoc 22., BDoc 23., a) AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 9 and 10 IN ADDITION FOR APPELLANT’S NOTICE (22 May 2015)
b) 15 June 1215-Magna Carta-15 June 2015 c) JUNE 23 for JUNE 24 Hearing


BDoc 25., BDoc 26., BDoc 27. Further developments: a) 7 July 2015 Real Injustice, b) Para 2.2 'Enron' doc, c) 20 July 2015 Skeleton Argument for on paper decision.

BDoc 28., BDoc 29., BDoc 30., BDoc 31. Further Developments: a)Interim Relief to restrain Ofwat. b) "OrMB" c) Part 31 request. d) Ofwat Reply and BGLP Grounds.
a) 4 August 2015 CPR 54.3.7. b) 31 July no TWUL Licence. c) 7 August 2015 Request. d) 14 August 2015 Replies.

BDoc 32., BDoc 33. a) SUPPLEMENTARY SKELETON ARGUMENT b) Original ARTICLES 4 and 191TFEU claim to Examination Authority, 2 December 2013.

Doc 34., 10 December 2015 Press release

Doc 35. Update: 7th June 2016, European Investment Bank (EIB).

Page last updated 16th May 2017