The High Court has announced on 25 May that it will allow further grounds for challenge as part of a Judicial Review by a coalition of councils into the proposed expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
At today’s hearing, the coalition comprising the London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Hillingdon and Harrow, along with Surrey County Council was successful in its appeal, getting two additional grounds for challenge – out of three previously refused in April – added to the Judicial Review.
– unfair and unlawful consultation in relation to expected compliance rates in outer London
– scrappage scheme
– irrationality due to uncertainty and inadequate consultation.
On 12 April the High Court granted permission for the coalition to challenge the legality of Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor of London’s plans to expand the ULEZ to outer London from August 2023.
The permission then was granted on the following grounds:
• – failure to comply with relevant statutory requirements
• – whether the Mayor properly considered the previous “buffer zone” approach as a material consideration in relation to the scrappage scheme.
The Leader of Hillingdon Council, Cllr Ian Edwards, said: “Today’s result is another step forward for the coalition and outer-London. These grounds are key to understanding the harm the ULEZ expansion will have on our residents.
The Mayor estimated that only one in 10 of vehicles in outer London would be non-compliant but this is proving to be widely inaccurate. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders data shows that one in six cars registered in outer London did not meet Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) standards last year, and yesterday a new study by TfL found that half the vans registered in outer London are not compliant.
As each day passes the harm that the expansion of ULEZ will cause is becoming clearer and the sheer number of vehicles that don’t meet ULEZ emissions standards in Greater London suggests there will be a massive financial impact on motorists and businesses as well as enormous social harm.
We believe that we’ve assembled a valid and robust case to put before the court and have every confidence that the inappropriateness and harm of these expansion proposals will be given the scrutiny, exposure, and ultimately, the expulsion they deserve.”