Therefore, Victorian environmental law, despite being gradual to recognise environmental significance, intended to limit the destruction of these ‘nuisances’; even more to the public that to the environment per se. Later, in typical law, ‘mere nuisance’ altered to actual concern for the environment itself. There was clearly a change of viewpoint from tackling pollution of which was already present, to be able to trying to prevent the introduction of any new resources in the first spot. As an example, typically the English Law, House associated with Lords case Rylands sixth is v Fletcherwill end up being examined.
In this case it was set up that if a man’s nuisances spread to another’s land, he would end up being strictly liable for typically the damage caused towards the others land. Thus, these precautionary measures established precedent to control citizens from creating new pollution through anxiety about civil action. In addition to this, the later House of Lords case of Hunter v Canary Wharf Limited followed the ‘Rylands rule’ in that ‘nuisance’ (or pollution) would have legal causation to land damage only. Apparently so, this controlling intention in common law protected the environment from damage but was perhaps somewhat unfair to the private citizen in some cases.
To illustrate this, if a man had suffered loss because of harm caused by another nuisance he would be unlikely to get damages for example his property as in Canadian High Court situation of Bottoni v Henderson. Later, lawful reform wouldbe required to proportionate and protect both ecological, as well as exclusive interest.  Consequently , the purpose of environmental law developed in order to protective the environment more than public as it as soon as did in the earlier; despite perhaps being excessive in some circumstances.
In post-war Britain this intention to guard the environmentcontinuesbut, particularly after 1972 toward the principle of ‘sustainable development’; as defined by the particular Bruntland Report of 1987.  This is arguably the main goal of environmental law these days. Perhaps an unsubstantiated claim, it offers been argued that the principle in fact ‘…plac[es] human… passions above… environmental protection’;overlooking that it intends tolimit the impact of human population on planet ecosystems.
 The Brundtland report has been criticised to say that the breadth is difficult to be incorporated into plan. This is usually apparent in the BRITISH up until around the middle of the 1990s.  Despite this, there have been substantial intention to incorporate environmentally friendly development; the Climate Modify (Scotland) Act 2009 has been doing particularly well at this particular.  However, it must be asked how effective our sustainability policy genuinely is. The Sustainable Growth Commission – the policy advisor for your UK and Scottish Government is to be shut down.
More over, this closure has been openly criticised by its commissioners.  The intention therefore of environmental law in modern Britain is to pursue sustainable development; all be it not realised yet in policy. In conclusion, the purpose of environmental law was once public protection, manifested by popular concern, gradually achieved through statue. In addition, later common law provided a good effort to purpose pollution prevention. Now, from international cooperation it now pursues sustainable development, if somewhat ineffective at doing so.