Former Green councillor Andrew Boswell rebuffs Keir Starmer’s criticism, arguing that his legal battles serve the public interest and safeguard access to justice

Andrew Boswell, a 68-year-old former Green councillor, has strongly rejected accusations from Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who labelled him an environmental “zealot” and dismissed his legal challenges as “vexatious” and harmful to growth. Boswell, whose two-year fight against the expansion of the A47 in Norfolk was defeated in the Supreme Court, accused Starmer of attempting to “demonise” individuals who seek to challenge potentially damaging infrastructure projects.

In a Daily Mail article, Starmer criticised activists like Boswell, arguing that judicial reviews from “nimbys and zealots” hinder progress and economic growth. Boswell, however, insists his legal actions are motivated by a concern for future generations, stating, “I’m doing this for my grandchildren.” He argued that Starmer’s attempts to restrict legal challenges undermine access to justice and close off important public debates.

The former Norfolk Green leader refuted the notion that he was opposed to all infrastructure. Instead, he emphasised his support for projects like pylons and solar parks, which are crucial for achieving net-zero goals. Boswell pointed out that public debate often leads to better solutions, even when there are disagreements. “Starmer is trying to shut down debate,” Boswell said. “We need to express concerns and get better solutions.”

Boswell also highlighted that his campaign against the A47 had a lasting impact, even though it ended in defeat. His efforts, which included crowdsourcing £73,000 from 2,000 individuals, brought the local community together and played a role in halting other harmful infrastructure plans. He cited the recent decision to cancel the proposed £274m Norwich bypass, which would have endangered local wildlife, as a success for nature laws. “Those laws should not be parodied by the Prime Minister,” he remarked.

Looking ahead, Boswell is planning further legal challenges, including one concerning the government’s carbon capture and storage plans, which he believes may ultimately cause more harm than good. He called for a more “nuanced” discussion on the matter, urging the government to listen to genuine environmental concerns rather than resorting to name-calling.