Sadiq Khan on Friday confirmed he was pressing ahead with the Ulez expansion at the end of next month after winning a landmark ruling at the High Court.
Mr Justice Swift on Friday morning rejected a bid from five Tory councils to have the proposed expansion – which will now go ahead on August 29 - ruled unlawful.
Mr Khan, who was not in court, said after the judgement: “This landmark decision is good news as it means we can proceed with cleaning up the air in outer London on August 29.
“The decision to expand the Ulez was very difficult and not something I took lightly and I continue to do everything possible to address any concerns Londoners may have.
“This unambiguous decision today in the High Court allows us to press on with the difficult but vital task of cleaning up London’s air and tackling the climate crisis.”
The councils had argued that Mr Khan had acted beyond his powers in the way he set about proposing to expand the clean air zone from the inner boundary of the North and South Circular roads across all 33 boroughs.
They had described the Ulez expansion as a “tax on living in outer London”, where they said poorer public transport connections left residents much more reliant on cars.
Up to one in five cars and almost half of vans registered to an address in some outer London boroughs fail to meet the Ulez emission rules, meaning they will be liable for the £12.50-a-day levy.
The ruling is a landmark victory for the mayor, who had to contend with a public backlash led his own party leader, Sir Keir Starmer, who blamed the Ulez expansion for losing Labour the Uxbridge by-election.
Professor Frank Kelly, a world expert on air pollution at Imperial College London, said: "Today’s verdict means there will be no delays to London taking the action it so desperately needs to take to tackle toxic air.”
Sarah Woolnough, chief executive at Asthma + Lung UK, said: “The Ulez scheme has successfully lowered levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air and expanding it to greater London will mean more Londoners will experience the health benefits of reduced pollution.
“The Ulez expansion is a positive step towards cleaner air across the city, allowing Londoners to breathe more easily.”
Delivering a summary of his 18-page ruling, Mr Justice Swift said all three grounds of claim brought by the councils had failed.
“I’m satisfied the Mayor’s decision to expand the Ulez area by amending the present road charging scheme rather than submitting an entirely new scheme was within his powers,” he said.
“Having carefully considered the decision published for the purposes of consultation, I’m satisfied sufficient information was provided to permit this wanting to respond to the consultation to provide informed responses.
“I’m further satisfied that when taking the decision on the grant to meet the cost of the vehicle scrappage scheme, the Mayor understood the likely provision that would be made.
“While the consultation conducted was not in-depth, it was lawful.”
The five councils – Bexley, Bromley, Harrow, Hillingdon and Surrey County Council – now have to decide whether to seek to appeal the judgement. However, none mentioned the likelihood of mounting an appeal soon after the judgement was delivered.
Any appeal would depend on two issues: whether there is an issue of law at stake – and whether the councils are willing to incur further legal costs.
It is thought they will already have spent in excess of £500,000 of taxpayers’ cash bringing the judicial review case.
Defeat for the mayor could have forced him to delay the “go live” date of the expansion by a matter of weeks or possibly months – and made it more likely that next May’s mayoral elections effectively become a referendum on the Ulez.
The court did not have the power to indefinitely prevent Mr Khan from expanding the Ulez.
The £110m scrappage scheme, which is targeted at low-income Londoners, small businesses and charities, will expand next week to include London families in receipt of child benefit. It offers £2,000 grants to scrap a non-compliant car or £5,000 for a non-compliant van.
Speaking outside court, Tory mayoral candidate Susan Hall said she was “very disappointed” with the ruling and branded Ulez a “simple tax grab”.
“It means poor families have to be paid £12.50 to even get in their cars, and some can’t afford to do that. “It will damage charities, damage families, and damage businesses. Sadiq Khan just doesn’t care.”
Ms Hall has vowed to axe the expansion “on day one” – but retain the zone in its current format – if she defeats Mr Khan.
Council leaders react
Hillingdon leader Ian Edwards said: “I am hugely disappointed for our residents and businesses and I call on the Mayor of London to further reflect on his plans. Even the Mayor’s own supporters are now saying that it is the wrong time to be expanding this scheme. It will cause even greater financial hardship and for some it will cause the loss of business or employment.
“We will continue our fight on behalf of our residents and business through Parliament and at next year’s Mayoral election.”
Bromley leader Colin Smith said it was “not the end of the matter” and suggested the councils may look to Parliament to reverse the Ulez expansion after the summer recess.
Baroness O’Neill, leader of Bexley council, said: “The fact that the Mayor of London has got his way and that his Ulez expansion plan is to go ahead is devastating for the whole of outer London.
Paul Osborn, leader of Harrow council, said: “This is not the outcome we were hoping for and is hugely disappointing. I firmly believe that Ulez expansion is the wrong scheme for outer London. I am proud to have stood up for our residents and businesses.”
Councils claimed Khan acted beyond his powers
During the court hearing, which was held over two days at the start of this month, the councils claimed that Mr Khan had acted beyond his powers by seeking to expand the Ulez by varying an existing legal order rather than drafting a new one.
They also claimed there was a “gaping hole” in Transport for London’s consultation documents, meaning a claim that more than nine in 10 car drivers would be unaffected by the Ulez expansion could not be substantiated.
And they argued that Mr Khan had been wrong to exclude motorists living in the “buffer zone” just outside the Greater London boundary from being able to apply to his £110 million scrappage scheme. But TfL’s legal team — which mounted a defence on the Mayor’s behalf — said that allowing drivers living on the outskirts of the capital had been considered by Mr Khan but “rejected for good reason”.
They said that TfL had told the Mayor that, with a “finite” amount of funds available, the scrappage scheme would be “most effective” if targeted at low income Londoners and small businesses in the capital.
The court was told that TfL had relied on data from only 106 of its CCTV cameras in outer London — rather than drawing on evidence gathered by almost 1,500 of its cameras in central and inner London — to calculate how many vehicles would be eligible to pay the £12.50-a-day levy. The councils said this prevented them from accurately calculating the number of drivers likely to be adversely impacted by the expansion.
Craig Howell Williams KC, representing the councils, told the court: “The consultation documents were not as clear as they should have been.”
He accused Mr Khan of “courting disaster” by allowing only nine months between his decision last November to proceed with the extension and the “go live” date — despite knowing a legal challenge was always likely.
Ben Jaffey KC, representing TfL, said it had provided “more than sufficient information to enable an intelligent response” to its consultation. He said: “No further information was required for a fair consultation.”
Mr Jaffey said it would have been “bizarre” if Mr Khan were not allowed to vary the Ulez legal orders, as they had already been varied several times previously — including to establish the central London Ulez in 2019 and the North/South Circular Ulez expansion in 2021.
The expansion is due to generate a net profit of £200 million a year for the first two years for TfL.
