High Court dismisses council challenge over ULEZ expansion in London

The High Court has dismissed the judicial review claim brought by a coalition of London councils in opposition to the proposed expansion of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).

In London Borough of Hillingdon & Ors v Mayor of London, Mr Justice Swift dismissed the challenge on all three grounds, concluding that the Mayor's expansion decision "was within his powers".

As of August 2023, drivers of cars that do not meet the emissions standards will have to pay £12.50 a day to enter the Greater London Authority boundary, as part of Sadiq Khan and Transport for London's proposed expansion.

The legal challenge, brought by the London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Hillingdon and Harrow, along with Surrey County Council, was granted permission for judicial review in April.

The case was heard on 4 and 5 July 2023 with judgment reserved.

In a ruling handed down today (28 July), Mr Justice Swift considered the following three grounds:

• Ground 1: Was it lawful for the Mayor to extend the ULEZ by amending the existing vehicle charging scheme; was the 2022 Order made consistently with all obligations arising under Schedule 23 to the 1999 Act?
• Ground 2: Was sufficient and/or sufficiently clear information provided for the purposes of the consultation exercise?
• Ground 3: Was the Mayor’s decision on the grant payment lawful?

On ground one, the High Court judge concluded that the mayor’s decision to confirm the 2022 Order as a variation of the existing charging scheme was "consistent with his powers under Schedule 23 to the 1999 Act, and does not give rise to breach of any obligation imposed under that schedule”.

Turning to Ground 2, Mr Justice Swift noted that in March 2022, the mayor announced he had requested Transport for London to consult on proposals to extend the ULEZ charging area.

“Transport for London devised a “consultation survey” which set out the matters on which views were invited by those responding to the consultation”, he added.

A number of documents were published to provide information for those who wanted to comment on the proposals.

The councils contended that it would have been possible to present information differently or explain matters in greater depth. A further aspect of the councils’ case was that insufficient information was given to explain the extent of Transport for London’s present network of ANPR cameras in the ULEZ expansion area, said the judge.

In relation to ground 3, Mr Justice Swift noted that the mayor decided to make a grant payment of £110m to Transport for London to meet the cost of a “London Vehicle Scrappage Scheme”.

The councils submitted that no consideration was given to whether eligibility to apply under the scrappage scheme should extend to those living outside the Greater London Authority area, and that the consultation failed to provide sufficient information about the scrappage scheme.

Concluding on grounds 2 and 3 Mr Justice Swift 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 High Court judge dismissed the challenge on all three grounds.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: "This landmark decision is good news as it means we can proceed with cleaning up the air in outer London on 29 August.

 "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.”

He added: "I've been listening to Londoners throughout the ULEZ rollout, which is why from next week I am expanding the scrappage scheme to nearly a million families who receive child benefit and all small businesses with up to fifty employees. I will continue to look at new ideas to support Londoners.

“Nine out of 10 cars seen driving in outer London on an average day are already compliant so won't pay a penny - yet will still see the benefits of cleaner air. Air pollution is an urgent public health crisis - our children are growing up with stunted lungs and it is linked to a host of serious conditions, from heart disease to cancer and dementia.

"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.”

Following the judgment, the coalition of councils said in a statement: “Although the Mayor of London and TfL may have the legal right to implement the scheme, the question remains whether the public would agree he has the moral right to do so, given it was only last week that the court of public opinion delivered a different verdict with the surprise by-election win in Uxbridge, an election that was seen as a referendum on the expansion of ULEZ.”

Cllr Colin Smith, Leader of Bromley Council, said: “Today’s decision cannot be disguised as anything other than bitter disappointment for motorists in general, traders who will now have to consider ceasing business and laying off staff, those who will now have to change jobs and, most desperately of all, people who will no longer be able to support vital care networks for vulnerable people across the whole of outer London in particular.  

“To all of them as well as the legion of families who will now have to trade in perfectly good cars at significant cost they can’t really afford, for a newer vehicle they don’t want or need, I can only say sorry. We’ve tried our very hardest to protect you but ultimately, today’s judgement does mean that the Mayor has taken another step closer to getting his way."

He added: “However, do please be assured that this is not the end of the matter and this battle will continue. To draw a positive from this setback, we have been extremely successful in bringing the Mayor’s intentions both around ULEZ, as well as Road Price Charging which is set to follow, to every front page and living room across the country in recent weeks, and what has become increasingly clear, is that the more that people see and learn of it, the less they like it. 

“We will take that energy and build on it over coming weeks and it may well be that we will now need to turn to Parliament for a solution immediately upon their return from their Summer Recess at the beginning of September.” 

Cllr Tim Oliver, Leader of Surrey County Council, said: “Whilst we respect today’s court decision, it is incredibly disappointing.  

“This has always been about protecting Surrey residents, many of whom will now be significantly socially and financially impacted by the Mayor’s decision as they go about essential, everyday journeys, without any mitigation in place to minimise this.”

Cllr Ian Edwards, Leader of Hillingdon Council, 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. Many thousands of low-income earners, vulnerable people ordinary workers and small businesses who are the beating heart of our borough will have to shoulder further costs which they cannot afford. 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.”

Lottie Winson