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 don't think the lock would have stopped them. No, it was just to stop it from falling over.
Ive just been on the dover to dunkirk ferry with dfds with my bike - £25 each way - staff uber friendly and helpful - no hi vis required or helmet - was first on and first off and did not rush me at all - waited till I was safe before allowing the other cars/lorries to move. they do need to update their cycle parking - basically a bike stand with some ropes to hold the bike in place. pretty sure something better could be done for minimal outlay. anyway can't recommend them enough.
.
Could have done a similar meme on the (lack of coverage on the) Migrant riots in France and Switzerland, but now more news about the cricket...
Let's hold our righteous indignation. Think what you like about health and safety, I'm sure all port and ferry employees have to wear high vis as they move around areas where vehicle traffic goes. I don't see why cyclists should be any different, the threat is the same.
How do people who came on board in a car get to the passenger areas? Do they have to wear hi-viz as they cross the vehicle hold?
Just a few points. If you are pushing a bike, why the need for hi viz? If so why not every passenger in the vicinity also? If you require everyone to wear PPE in that environment is it not then the ferry companies responsibility to provide it?
Everyone on the vessel moves around areas where vehicle traffic goes.
I think the objection is applying it to one group only.
Depends if cyclists are expected to move around while vehciles are moving. Generally you are expected to return to, and be back in your car before cars start to disembark. Basically there are a lot of unknowns here. Allowing cyclists to leave separately, either before or after would be the safer option surely? I suppose tight turnarounds may affect that though.
Very different scenarios. The crew are moving about directing traffic etc. Vehicles are being controlled and directed. They usually put cyclists on last and instruct the same to disembark last so there is no conflict.
.
'Anxiously waiting to see if they've published the result in the heading of the article.'
Back in the 80's I went to Ireland on the ferry and the crew member who escorted us on to the ship and secured our bikes was.........happy, shall we say. There was a aroma of alcohol in the air! Back in the day when ferries were roll on, roll over.
.
A helmet to push a bike? I would have thought they would not allow people to actually ride their bikes into the ferry and off again for 'health and safety' reasons. So why the need for a helmet? Also the high viz for controlling a piece of luggage is also a bit curious. Why not just say - all cyclists must dismount . There! stupidity avoided (potentially)
Which in all fairness, doesn't seem unreasonable in that environment...
Alternatively, maybe travel as a foot passenger with bike in a bag, then no need for a helmet or hi viz? No extra fee either.
Just a lot more faff.
I didn't notice anyone suggesting that motorists take their cars apart and put them in a shipping container or anything - they seem to be just allowed to drive on and drive off...
Just pragmatic coping with their rules. I've been on countless ferries with my bike & the almost universal rule has been to push bike (except crossing the Rhine upstream from Strasbourg, but cars were driving off even before the boat had completely stopped!).
I took my bike on the Plymouth-Roscoff Brittany Ferries route last year. We had to walk bikes onto the car deck just like the photo above, it was pretty simple. Two risks though: a crew member roped our bikes to a metal rail in the wall and my bike has the paint scratches to prove it, and, walking in cycle shoes on a wet and oily metal floor was lethally slippy. Didn't quite fall on my arse but it was close. This might have been a genuine use case for a helmet, lol.
Did you know that, even in Broken Britain, there are still thousands and thousands of very fine roads and tracks for cycling, through some very nice scenery not yet (yet) turned into an open coal mine or a landfill?
The best bit: no ferry required, especially not one run just to annoy the passengers whilst ripping them off then burning thousands of gallons of expensive oil sold by a nasy regime busy committing even worserer crimes than planet-rape, across the middle east and elsewhere.
You can even cycle straight out of your bike shed, leaving the car on the drive to perform its primary task of signalling your status to the other car owners. In't cycling great!?
Thats soounds like the Brexit shi1te one readson twitter. Im pretty sure you didnt mean it that way but thats how I read it.
But you'd still need to put up with crap weather and worse drivers. The 2 weeks I spend cycling in the Vendee each year (anywhere between 700-1,000km) are so far above the UK wide experience that I start wishing I was back in France halfway through my first ride at home. Great roads in great condition, friendly easy going drivers, and not many cars. Where there are cars aplenty, seperated cycle tracks absent of glass and holes.
They just don't want the business.
But if they don't get the business how can they afford to pay their workers more than minimum wa.... oh wait
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/p-and-o-ferries-get-away-with-sacking-...
Thanks Brooksby but I've told you before I also have google 👍🏻
Other people might not I was trying to find something that compared-and-contrasted all of the "OMG we have to prosecute them!" stuff at the time and how Absolutely Nothing has actually been done.
Seriously? There are people online on a web based forum who don't have access to Google?
just think about what you're saying there 🤦🏻♂️
Who doesn't have Google? Ya know, the biggest website on the entire internet.
Pages