FactCheckRadar Fact-check archive

Published fact-check

London residents told to remove air conditioning as heatwave grips Britain

Mostly true

Claim checked

“Britons ordered to remove air conditioning from homes in 40C heat under Net Zero crackdown”

Published

Reviewed · no changes to this report

Verdict

Mostly true

Multiple outlets confirm that Camden Council ordered at least one London homeowner to remove air conditioning units during a heatwave, citing local planning policies linked to environmental goals. The orders stem from building regulations and London's local planning framework, which prioritize passive cooling over air conditioning. However, the claim's framing as a nationwide "Britons ordered" directive overstates the evidence: the documented enforcement actions are confined to specific London properties, particularly in Camden, and the homeowner in the highest-profile case ultimately won on appeal. The underlying story is real, but the headline language implies a broader policy than what has been documented.

Reasoning

The core of this story is well supported by reporting from GB News, the Daily Express, and Birmingham Live, all dated June 25, 2026. These outlets describe enforcement actions by Camden Council in north London, where planning inspectors ordered a resident to "permanently remove" two cooling units from a first-floor flat. The orders were issued under Camden's local plan, which actively "discourages the use of air conditioning" because it increases energy demand and warms the local microclimate. Camden's policy derives from the London Plan and from national building regulations that prioritize passive cooling methods such as open windows and fans before air conditioning.

The 40C heat context is also supported. Multiple outlets note that forecasters predicted temperatures could reach 40C during a rare red-warning heatwave in the same week the enforcement was reported.

The claim becomes less precise in its framing. The word "Britons" suggests a nationwide order, but the documented enforcement is localized to specific London properties under Camden's local planning rules. National building regulations do not ban air conditioning; they merely require that passive cooling be prioritized. The government spokesperson quoted by the Express confirmed that "air conditioning units are not banned" and can be installed in both existing and new homes. In the most prominent case, the homeowner actually won on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate by demonstrating the property had environmental improvements like solar panels.

The "Net Zero crackdown" framing is partially accurate. The policies are motivated by environmental and climate concerns, and Conservative politicians including shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho have attacked them as part of a "miserabilist net zero mindset." But the enforcement mechanism is local planning law rather than a new national Net Zero policy. The distinction matters for readers trying to understand the scope of what is actually happening.

Overall, the substance of the claim — that some residents were ordered to remove air conditioning during a heatwave under environmentally motivated planning rules — is true. The breadth implied by the headline is not.

Key checks

  • Were residents actually ordered to remove AC units?: Yes. Camden Council planning inspectors ordered at least one north London homeowner to permanently remove two cooling units, and other enforcement actions were reported. The homeowner ultimately won on appeal.

  • Is the 40C heat context accurate?: Yes. Multiple outlets reported forecasters predicting temperatures up to 40C during a red-warning heatwave in the same week.

  • Is this a nationwide 'Britons' order or local enforcement?: Local enforcement. The documented orders come from specific London councils, mainly Camden, applying local planning policies derived from the London Plan. National building regulations do not ban air conditioning, and the government confirmed units are not prohibited.

Confidence

High

Was this useful?

Your vote helps us see which fact-checks deserve more attention.

4 reviewed sources behind this verdict.

Might interest you next