A judicial review into London mayor Sadiq Khan’s plans to expand the city’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) at the end of August gets under way today at the High Court, following an appeal by five Conservative-led councils.
According to the Labour mayor’s plans, the ULEZ – inside which motorists will be charged £12.50 a day for driving non-compliant, high-polluting cars – will be extended to outer London from 29 August, a decision described by Khan as “not easy but necessary to reduce the capital's toxic air pollution”.
As part of the expansion, a £110m scrappage scheme will also be introduced, which aims to provide low-income Londoners with grants of up to £2,000 to replace their high-polluting vehicles.
> Boris Johnson blasts “unnecessary” ULEZ expansion as “mad lefty tax” designed to “rake in money from hard-pressed motorists”
However, since the start of 2023, Khan has faced increasing pressure from local authorities to reconsider the expansion. Eleven of the 19 outer London councils initially expressed their apprehension towards the scheme over issues such as the seven-month timescale of implementation (which they believe does not give residents enough time to switch vehicles), the scrappage policy, and poor public transport links.
But in the end, it was the Conservative-controlled Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Harrow, and Hillingdon councils who launched legal action over the expanded ULEZ, after publicly declaring that they would “do everything in our power to stop it from going ahead”.
The councils argued that there were five grounds for a judicial review, though in April the High Court ruled there was only sufficient evidence for three of them.
These include the belief that the expansion is too big and should thus be treated as a new scheme, that the consultation was flawed, and that it did not consider the potential for those bordering the zone to take advantage of the scrappage scheme.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Paul Osborn, the Conservative leader of Harrow Council, said the local authority believed the ULEZ expansion would have a “devastating impact on the poorest motorists in Harrow”.
“People who do low paid jobs in antisocial hours, they don’t have public transport alternatives,” he said. “They’re being asked to pay £12.50 every day to go to work and if they work over midnight, they’ll be asked to pay £25 because they have to pay it for the next day as well.”
However, Hirra Khan Adeogun, head of Car Free Cities at climate change charity Possible, told the programme that the legal action was a distraction from the main issues concerning pollution and the environment.
“It’s such a shame to see these local authorities wasting time and taxpayers’ money trying to prolong the negative impacts of air pollution and climate crisis,” she said.
“It’s absolutely essential that people in outer London get cleaner air and be part of a greener London and that includes poorer Londoners who are most at risk when it comes to toxic air.”
Meanwhile, Khan told Reuters: “The independent assessment confirms that ULEZ works and the expansion will lead to five million more Londoners breathing cleaner air.
“You’re not going to please 100 percent of people all the time. No politician in history has managed to do so.”
Earlier this year, Khan also argued that the opposition to the scheme was simply a political strategy by Tory councils who he says are “in the pocket of vested interests”.
The BBC was also told in January that the councils keen to instigate a judicial review accept that it would be unlikely to succeed, but that it would nevertheless act as a “delay tactic” to “tangle the mayor up in court and push a decision on the matter closer to the 2024 London mayoral election”.
Add new comment
78 comments
I was involved in a scheme in Central London many years ago (not the embankment) that introduced two cycle lanes, one west, one east and stopped cars, vans and taxis cutting through and clogging up the roads. Obviously it caused 'outrage' from a minority - the usual; think of the poor, the disabled, the good honest taxi drivers, the ambulances, etc. a judicial review was forced by the Taxi drivers and a local 'resident' group. The judicial review found everything in order and recommended one change. Which was never implemented because it made no sense. Anyway, the point is, years later this part of London is amazing, it's now full of bars and restaurants, a pub has reopened there are new shops and the streets are so calm. It's like an oasis. Because it is quite residential, for Central London the quiet and improved air quality must really benefit the residents.
I took the Brittany Ferries Plymouth-Santander and Bilbao-Portsmouth ferries a month ago, with a car, and started to think about a similar trip next year, 4 people, 4 bikes, no car. To get an idea of prices I looked at the 21st June this year, Plymouth-Santander. This is what I found:
Car (or large motorhome!) with 4 passengers - £565
4 cyclists £780
4 foot passengers £840 (why, given they don't even need garage space?!)
4 motorcycles £1300
(cabins extra in all cases).
The ferry came back on had a BF magazine with an article promoting cycling in the Bilbao area, and appearing to welcome cyclists on board. Some welcome!
I contacted BF customer services, the CEO and made some comments on this on the BF Facebook page three-weeks ago. Still waiting for a reply.... Looking at Condor Ferries to Brittany instead as on this basis I don't want to give BF any more money.
Brittany Ferries now part-own Condor Ferries I believe.
Groan... too much of a monopoly if you live in the west of England. Although a minority shareholder... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-guernsey-48758190
And another thing. The hard left have now infiltrated the banking service. And the Chinese communists are mining minerals from the moon. I know what's going on all right, I read the Daily Star. I've not found my bike yet.
over and out
Sadly nowhere near Essex so unable to help you out. Got an old 3-speed and a Dawes Mojave currently surplus; both step-through so would make a training challenge, or just put a smile on your face when cruising about the place.
I tried using a search engine to find it. I typed in '' where's my bike Essex '' but it didn't help at all
populist slogans of our time:
Take Back Control
Make America Great Again
Keep My Coutts Account Open
Probably a cycling one to add to this.
It might not be quite as catchy.. but I do like this one....
"I'm sorry you can't dream big and I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles"
The 'slogan' part was all the banners roadside which read... 'I believe in miracles'
Or unicorns.
Yeah, cos I'm sure that the Conservative leader of Harrow Council honestly could give a monkey's about the poor. They are just an excuse and ammunition for him to use in his party's culture wars.
There are two other problems with his argument:
1) The poorest people aren't motorists; and
2) The poorest motorists are the ones who qualify for the scrappage scheme.
It is also an extensive list of those eligible not all relating to income level.
A Tory spouting bollocks, sadly this isn't new news
Yes, but it is a different tory. Every day, spouting bollocks.
Also, one other thing to note. My full size diesel estate car is ULEZ exempt. ULEZ only applies to high polluting cars. Normal human size cars are fine. The poorest people aren't driving range rovers and ferraris, they are driving normal cars which, in general, are exempt.
Unfortunately (and I speak as a great supporter of the ULEZ) it doesn't really penalise high polluting cars, the Range Rover and Ferrari drivers aren't going to be penalised; a Ferrari 812 GTS, for example, puts out 372 g of CO2 per kilometre (whilst returning 14 mpg) but won't pay the charge, whilst a 2004 Fiat Punto emitting 136 g of CO2 per kilometre will. It would be a great step forward if the most polluting cars were charged a far higher rate regardless of the Euro number of their engine.
ULEZs are for air quality, and based on NOx and PM, not CO2. Don't worry about climate change, though: the government's net zero strategy will sort that out.
The thing is though, ULEZ and similar schemes are not targetting CO2 emissions. Sure that's bad for the environment as a whole, but not really for the quality of air that people breathe. It's all about nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) that are bad for people to inhale. Typically these came from diesel engines hence why only after Euro6 2015ish are exempt, these reduce both significantly with SCR and DPF and are about as clean as diesel power gets. It was never so much a problem with petrol engines hence why your example is also exempt - regardless of CO2, the Ferrari isn't putting out that much NOx. A better example would have been a 2005 Ford GT, similar age to the Fiat, no CO2 data available (but 5.0 V8 with single digit mpg you know it's high), yet still exempt due to the fact that it's also not emitting much NOx.
The poor aren't motorists? Undoubtedly there's 'Working poor' in outer London, who need cars and will be much worse off.
It's almost as if this is all part of some plan...? But don't worry, as Sadiq Khan's friend Klaus says "you will own nothing and you will be happy".
I'd be very happy to discover that this were all part of a plan: to make our cities, and the rest of the country, cleaner, healthier, quieter, more liveable. And tackle a few assorted crises along the way.
Unfortunately, outside your head, probably no big plan exists.
Yep, that's what this is all about, making your life better...good one.
How I wish I had such a rose coloured view on the UK's politicians and what their motivations are. The fact that Sadiq Khan has been involved with the WEF for years now I'm sure is because he's looking for ideas on better lives for us, right?
Well I for one would like to see him on the same tag team as Hulk Hogan. I think they would make a rather formidable team
Rubbish. Anybody who drives into/around London - a city with a public transport network that is the envy of the rest of the country - isn't poor at all. People choose to drive their cars when alternatives exist. That's not the case here.
Perhaps they could scrap the ULEZ and instead pipe each vehicle's exhaust gases inside the car/van/truck for drivers to breathe their own pollution instead of leaving it in their wake. Everyone else can then breathe cleaner air instead of choking on vehicle fumes.
Yes, I'm sure youre absolutely right. Every single tradesman is just itching to ride a bike with loads of tools, paint, ladders, etc. Every single person driving to visit elderly parents, ferry themn to doctor's, shopping, etc. would just be itching to load grandpa onto the handlebars.
Pillock.
.
That can't be right - I can't see all the spy cameras and Covid vaccines on it, nor any stickers promoting conformance to Illuminati. (Hey - this mind programming really works! Maybe it is itself a physical manifestation of fnord?)
Also - shurely some stories like this:
BBC - plumber challenges "white van man" stereotypes
And last-mile logistics EV hub launched in London.
And Amazon e-Cargo bikes set to carry out last-mile deliveries across London
And NotJustBikes "The car-replacement bicycle" (the bakfiets). Granted - that's in NL where there's the infra for it, but some parts of London are (very slowly) starting to enable that etc.
I had my first - and still only - experience of taking my bike (not attached to a car) onto a ferry this Easter. We were getting the ferry from Ryde on the IoW to Portsmouth. Booked on with the bike on the roof of the car; but because of a broken down ferry, they were using the middle deck in the car bit and so we had the choice of either waiting for a later ferry or me taking the bike on by foot. I was in normal clothes so definitely not hi viz - I can't actually remember if I dug out my helmet. I just walked the bike onto the ferry and secured it with a cafe lock; and then rode it off in Portmouth (and stopped almost immediately to put it back on the car).
What were you expecting - pirates?
Pages