Friday 26 May 2023

1.   On Friday 26 May 2023 we were invited by the High Court to sit in on delivery of the Judgement at 2.30 pm,  on the renewed application of the Hillingdon (Bexley, Bromley, Harrow, Hillingdon and Surrey) claim CO/642/2023 v Mayor of London and TfL to renew two grounds of challenge Ground 2 Consultation and Ground 5: Consideration of consultation response -.

2.   Permission was granted on Ground 2 – which is the same as Ground 3 and Ground 4 in the Chris White claim Ground 3: inadequate consultation; as a matter of law, the consultation fell short. Ground 4 -nature of consultation-the claimant alleges that the consultation was a sham and unlawful for not following the majority preference in the consultation.

3.     We will be filling evidence by Monday 12 June 2023 in the White claim and will summarise here after we file.

4.     Below is an extract of the Note of the judgment  we took, that is relevant to Hillingdon’s Ground 2 and Whites Ground 3 and 4  

CO/642/2023- Friday 26/05/2023

" ..........(A) The consultation will be unfair and unlawful where the consultation paper is “materially misleading …also confused that it does not reasonably allow a proper and effective response” : Help Refugees Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Home Department & Anor [2018] 4 WLR 168 at paragraph 90 (ii)

(B) the presentation of information “.must be complete, not misleading and must not involve failure to disclose relevant information”  ;  The Electronic Manufacturers Association Petsafe Ltd v the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2019] EWHC 2813  Admin at paragraph 142. 

(C) “ in determining whether non disclosure of information renders a consultation unlawful’ , relevant considerations include “ 1) , the nature and potential impact of the proposal put out for consultation 2) the importance of the information to the justification for the proposal and for the decision ultimately taken 3) whether there was a good reason for not disclosing the information and for whether consultations were prejudiced by non disclosure, “  R (Law Society) v The Lord Chancellor [2018] 1 WLR 1649, at paragraph 73 .

(D) in relation to the 4^th such consideration, it is relevant “ whether the nondisclosure has prejudiced consultees by depriving them of the opportunity of making representations which it would have been material for the decision maker to take into account” :  Law Society at paragraph 74.

(E) A consultation process which demonstrates a high degree of disclosure and transparency serves to underline the nature and importance of the exercise being carried out. Thus non disclosure nondisclosure even in the context of such a process can limit the ability of a consultee to make an intelligent response to something that is central to the appraisal it says “  : Save Our Surgery Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts: EWHC 439 Admin; “   

(F) If fairness requires the release of information, the court should be slow to allow administrative considerations to stand in the way of its release. close quotes save our surgery at paragraph 27, (viiii)  and

(G) The mere fact that information is quote significant does not mean that fairness necessarily requires its disclosure to consultees. What fairness requires depends on the context and the particular circumstances. Eisai Ltd, R (on the application of) v National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) [2008] EWCA Civ 438 at paragraph 26 and 27.

Having regard to those principles ground two, Mr. Jaffey KC has been at pains to demonstrate that a comprehensive reading of the relevant documentation makes clear that sufficient information had been provided on the basis of which consultees and stakeholders could understand the basis for the reference compliance rate which had been far from unintelligible in my judgement, the contrary proposition is reasonably arguable, not least having regard to the various and separate locations of the material to which Mr. Jaffey pointed in seeking to make good that submission.

It is arguable that the material provided was not presented in such a way as to provide a clearer picture susceptible of an intelligent response by consultees and stakeholders. Similarly, it is reasonably arguable that at least some further information relating to the ANPR data of which news had been made, perhaps in part anonymized, or subject to confidentiality and or other restrictions, or to have been provided in order to enable an intelligent response. And that in light of its importance to the decision to be taken, there had been no need for a specific request to such effect.

It may be that at the substantive hearing, the defendants and interested parties submissions will provide that they will inevitably do so such that the claimant should be refused permission to advance this limb of ground to for the sake of completeness, I do not accept that the issue, albeit in general terms has been raised for the first time in these proceedings, or that the absence of a specific request for the relevant data should itself preclude the issue from proceeding to a substantive hearing........".

Ed Gregory on 27 May 2023 at London Bridge speaking with Politoons@UkPolitoons 

A.   FOI -TfL advertising budget for proposed ULEZ expansion =£450,523.35          

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we hold some of the information you require. You asked:

1. Please supply a) the dates and times of when the adverts took place b) exactly with who they took place with?

Details of advertisement platforms, dates and press/radio titles are included in section 3 of the consultation report, available at:

https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/15619/widgets/58629/documents/34558

2. What was the costs of the publicity campaign of the consultation

In 2022 TfL ran a public consultation from [22] May- [29] July on the next proposed ULEZ expansion. When we run a consultation we look to raise awareness of this with all of the diverse communities that may be impacted by the proposed changes. By doing so we hope to receive feedback from these communities to help us in making the best decisions regarding the future of our projects, programs and policies for London’s transport. A key part of raising awareness, particularly where a proposal impacts people over large parts or all of London, is how we use marketing to promote the consultation. For these large consultations we often use press, digital and radio advertising to ensure communities are aware of what we are consulting on, when we are consulting and how to respond to a consultation. The table below provides the breakdown by month and includes some media activity related to the outcome of the consultation in December 2022 for all actual spend.

                                  Total                                                  £450,523.35 

3. Please supply a copy of the email as if it were being sent to me at this address

A copy of the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) email is available in Appendix B of the consultation report, available at:

https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/15619/widgets/58629/documents/34534

4. Please advise:

a) Were the email settings set to request a read receipt? 

No.

b) If the emails did request a read receipt , how many receipts were received?

Not applicable.

c) How many bounce backs were received?

3,952 emails were undeliverable.

d) How many email replies were received?

The CleanAirYourView inbox received 4,608 email responses, including those from stakeholders. We also received a total of 11,868 emails from five separate organised responses, organised by five different campaign groups. The exact breakdown of emails per organised response is included in the consultation report. We do not actively monitor replies to bulk emails so we do not hold this information for the CRM email.

e) How many jpeg attachments were in the email?

We did not include jpeg attachments within the CRM email.

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for any reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

________________________________________________________________________

B.   FOI- TfL advertising budget for proposed expansion

= £9,000,000                          

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we do hold the information you require. You asked for:

1. It has been stated by TfL that the extensive works for the ULEZ expansion are estimated at £159.5 million 

The estimated final cost to deliver the expanded scheme was reported in November 2022 as £159.5m. However, since this time we have undertaken further design work and now expect the costs to be in the range of £130-140m.

2. Please advise of the breakdown of that figure at 1:

1. how much for cameras 
2. how much for signage 

The current estimated total cost to supply and install the ANPR cameras and associated supporting infrastructure for LW-ULEZ is in the range of £45-50m. The current estimated total cost to supply and install signs and associated supporting infrastructure for LW-ULEZ is in the range of £18-24m.

     c. how much for advertising 

The Marketing and Campaign budget allocated for the ULEZ expansion into outer London boroughs is £9m.  [emphasis added]

In January 2023, TfL launched a multi-channel campaign targeting Londoners and home counties drivers to raise awareness and to explain who is affected, where the expanded zone will operate and how the scheme operates including hours of operations, daily charge and how to pay. The campaign aims to encourage vehicle checking to help drivers prepare ahead of when the scheme expands from 29 August 2023.

Activity is running across TV, video on demand, radio, local and pan-London press, national specialist press e.g. What Van and What Car, and national press, a radio and local newspaper content partnership, digital display, messaging on Waze, a wayfinding app, social, roadside posters, and petrol pump nozzle advertising. In addition to advertising, emails are being sent to customers registered to TfL’s database, leaflets and letters detailing the expansion are being distributed to households in the outer London expansion area as well as being distributed face to face in high footfall areas. DVLA letters are also being sent to owners of non-compliant vehicles seen in the outer London expansion area to help provide options in advance of the expansion date.

The media activity will enable TfL to reach over 3.3m vehicle owners in London, 6 or more times as well as 6.5m vehicle owners in the home counties, six or more times so those who drive in London are aware of the upcoming expansion including boundary and how the scheme operates. [emphasis added]

3.  Please advise of the penalty clause for the cameras ordered in April 2022, if they were cancelled in say a) 1 month from order , 3 months , 6 months, 9 months 12 months, 15 months etc 

In the event of a cancellation of any camera order, the terms would be subject to the date of the cancellation. We have not cancelled any orders to date.

4. Please advise of a) the exact date the order for cameras was made b) how many were ordered , c) the company( ies) who accepted the order(s) 

In March 2022, the Mayor announced his intention to consult on proposals for expanding the ULEZ to operate London-wide. A consultation on London-wide ULEZ proposals with a start date of 29 August 2023, took place between May and July 2022, and the expansion was later approved by the Mayor (with modifications) on 24 November 2022.

As a result of the March announcement TfL followed the usual procedures to ensure preparedness in the event that the proposals to expand the ULEZ scheme London-wide were to be confirmed by the Mayor following consultation.

Given the timescales involved if the consultation proposals were to be confirmed, TfL took steps to prepare for the contingency of an approved scheme. This included placing orders of critical components and materials that have long lead-in times based on current market conditions. Orders were placed on terms that allow them to be cancelled or the equipment re-used elsewhere. Orders were placed from April 2022 onwards.

Yunex Traffic UK are TfL’s term contractor for the Detection Equipment and Infrastructure contract, and supply and install all Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)  [emphasis added] cameras for all TfL Road User Charging Schemes.

If this is not the information you are looking for please do not hesitate to contact me."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C.   FOI- Questions 3 & 4 not fully answered 

We have asked for TfL to reconsider and fully answer questions  3 and 4 above and await their reply.

Tuesday 2 May 2023

1.     On Tuesday 2 May at 2023  the Administrative Court Office advised that Application of 20 April 2023 in  CO/830/2023 -R (Chris White) v 1) The Mayor of London 2) TfL, and Interested Parties (1) The Secretary of State Defra, (2) The Secretary of State Department of Transport (3) The Secretary of State for the Home Department, is waiting to be processed and listed for a hearing.

2.      The Application requests that the Order made on Thursday 13 April 2023, which stayed the White claim until 14 days after the Hillingdon claim CO/642/2023 R (The London Borough of Bexley,, (2) London Borough of Bromley, (3) London Borough of Harrow, (4) London Borough of Hillingdon, (5) Surrey County Council)  v The Mayor of London and Interested Party TfL, is decided, is lifted and both claims are joined and heard together. 

Friday 5 May  2023

2.       On Friday 5 May 2023, the Administrative Court Office have further advised that the papers are with the case lawyer.

3.     We await a sealed copy of the Application being returned and once it has we will publish all 7 Grounds and the other applications made including renewing the interim injunction of the rollout of the expansion of the ULEZ cameras in all the other councils who have not issued a Judicial Review claim.

Application filed with Admin Court Office to lift the stay 

1. At 13:25 on 20 April 2023 Tilbrook Solicitors filed with the Admin Court Office, an Application in CO/830/2023 -R (Chris White) v 1) The Mayor of London 2) TfL, and Interested Parties (1) The Secretary of State Defra, (2) The Secretary of State Department of Transport (3) The Secretary of State for the Home Department.

2. The Application requests that the Order made on Thursday 13 April 2023 by Sir Ross Cranston sitting as a High Court judge, with respect is varied and the White claim CO/830/2023 is heard at the same time as the Hillingdon claim CO/642/2023. This was not only requested by White but also by TfL Legal in their letter of 5 April 2023 to the Admin Court and also confirmed by the Admin Court Office was meant to have been considered at the same time by the Judge but was not due to an administrative error.

3. We have asked for the stay to be lifted on Grounds 1 and 5

Ground 1: scheme ultra vires (unlawful) ; 

• To lift the stay on Ground 1, in that the legal base and procedural requirements for the ULEZ scheme are that as a matter of law the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport was required for the scheme’s application to trunk roads.

Ground 5 -not all drivers compensated

• To lift the stay on Ground 5, as though poverty is not a protected characteristic under s.4 of the Equality Act 2010, Ethnicity (race) and Age are. The Defendants come close to conceding in their 5 April 2023 Acknowledgment of Service to the White claim, that the scheme will disproportionately affect members of the ethnic minorities and the aged; indeed, it will. Moreover, poverty is now recognised by the United Nations as “povertyism” in the same way as racism and sexism,

 Grounds 2,3,4,6,7.

4. We await confirmation from the Admin Court Office of the listing of the Application, at which time we will set out all 7 Grounds, to vary the order at an oral hearing, along with the details of several other applications made within yesterday’s application.

1. At 14.08 on 12 April 2023, online press reported

 “HIGH COURT RULES ULEZ EXPANSION JUDICIAL REVIEW TO GO TO TRIAL”

2.   At 13:35 on Thursday 13 April an Order was made by Sir Ross Cranston sitting as a High Court judge, on CO/830/2023 -R (Chris White) v 1) The Mayor of London 2) TfL, and Interested Parties (1) The Secretary of State Defra, (2) The Secretary of State Department of Transport (3) The Secretary of State for the Home Department, which in summary stated ; 

• The application for permission to apply for judicial review on grounds 2, 3 and 4 is refused.
• The claimant’s application for permission on grounds 1 and 5 shall be stayed pending a final decision of this Court on the judicial review, CO/642/2023  [Hillingdon claim] 

          Ground 1: scheme ultra vires (unlawful) ;  

          Ground 2:  irrationality of the scheme

          Ground 3:  inadequate consultation

           Ground 4:  nature of consultation

           Ground 5: not all drivers compensated

3.       The White case challenges the ULEZ scheme on two similar but three  different grounds to that in the Hillingdon claim

4.     The Mayor and Transport for London have made it clear in documents lodged with the Court that they are seeking to bring Greater London into line with the World Health Organisation (WHO) standards which have no legal force in Britain and go far beyond EU legal standards. The Mayor is entitled to his views but cannot lawfully treat Greater London as though it were similar to a Republic State, nor can he pursue his own foreign policy.

5.     As presently advised the Secretary of State for Transport is it seems supporting the Mayor and TfL, that is to say the Government have only recently stated that they are intending to resist the White claim which would imply they are backing ULEZ expansion in the High Court whilst pretending to the public that they are opposed.

6.     We are seeking urgent clarification from the Minister – Londoners are entitled to know where the Secretary of State stands. Londoners are also entitled to know whether the Minister was consulted by his officials.

7. The Claimant in the White case (CO/830/2023) will  on 20 April 2023 be asking the High Court to lift the stay and for the White claim to be heard at the same time as the Hillingdon claim (CO/642/2023) and for some of the refused grounds to be reconsidered at a hearing in open court.

https://youtu.be/48RgwGv9SjQ 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-01-12/debates/AC04E372-84A7-47C9-B7AC-F4B323B9C498/BusinessOfTheHouse 

On 12 January 2023 Gareth Bacon Conservative MP for Orpington asked the Government:

"Just before the Christmas recess, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) secured an excellent Westminster Hall debate to discuss the Mayor of London’s appalling plan to expand the ultra-low emission zone to outer London. That will do nothing to improve air quality, and it will be economically disastrous for poorer people in outer London constituencies such as Orpington, and for those living outside Greater London. It is simply a cash grab, the Mayor has no mandate to do it, and it is overwhelmingly opposed by people in outer London. Will my right hon. Friend encourage colleagues across Government to consider withholding funds from Transport for London until the Mayor decides to withdraw that insane plan, and may we have a related debate in Government time? "

Penny Mordaunt Conservative MP for Portsmouth North, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons answered for the Government:

"I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Whatever the merits or otherwise of setting up such a scheme, to do it at a time when businesses are recovering from a pandemic—this obviously affects not only businesses in London, but also those in surrounding areas, with tradesmen and others who will be coming in for materials or to do jobs, and I know it has had a hugely detrimental impact on many firms. I will raise the issue with the Secretary of State, but I encourage my hon. Friend also to raise it at Transport questions on 19 January."

_______________________________________________________________________

On 3 April 2023 , the Department of Transport confirmed that the Government's funding for TfL cannot be used for the ULEZ expansion 

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-03-28/175670#  

Hansard (HC Deb, 3 April 2023, cW) UIN 175670,

On 28 March 2023  Mr Louie French Conservative Old Bexley & Sidcup Commons asked the Department for Transport:

"To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to the oral contribution of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport of 20 December 2022, Official Report, column 73WH, whether Government funding was used by Transport for London to purchase ULEZ cameras before the consultation started in April 2022."

On 3 April 2023 Mr Richard Holden Conservative North West Durham Commons and  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Roads and Local Transport)  answered:

"Transport in London is devolved to the Mayor and TfL, and it is their responsibility to manage and oversee the transport network. This includes decisions with regards to road schemes which charge users. The Mayor of London announced his decision to expand the ULEZ on 25 November 2022 following a public consultation.

Prior to the Mayor’s announcement, Government had been clear, via the August 2022 longer-term funding settlement, that funding cannot be used to cover the cost of implementing the new (or any future) scheme; this includes the purchasing of cameras."

Mayors powers being reviewed  by House of Lords

1.  On 20 March 2023 Lord Moylan put to the House of Lords an amendment to the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and other elected Mayor legislation, by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, to reduce the powers of every elected Mayor, and give it back to the full council of ;

(a) a district council,

(b) a county council, or

(c) a London borough council, 

that would be  affected by the decision of their Mayor, with the last say being made by that full council, which could then vote to retrospectively amend or cancel the decision of their Mayor .  

HL Bill 84 -Volume 828: debated on Monday 20 March 2023 

Committee (6th Day) (Continued)

8.38pm

Lord Moylan

(Con)

1) My Lords, in moving Amendment 176, I will speak also to Amendment 178B, both of which are in my name; I am grateful to the noble Lords who have given them their support.

2) In our discussion of the Bill, we have had much debate on the powers of mayoral authorities and the balance between upper-tier authorities—local authorities, regional authorities and mayoral authorities—and those lower down the chain. These amendments continue that debate in a different way. With noble Lords’ agreement, I will start by speaking to Amendment 178B; I will come to Amendment 176 after that.

3) Amendment 178B is very brief and technical but has quite a lot of effect. It amends the Greater London Authority Act to allow the assembly to amend the mayor’s budget by an absolute majority, rather than requiring a two-thirds majority, as now. Although it is drafted to apply to London, if granted this would have a wider effect, because there are other metropolitan mayoral authorities with similar arrangements for the scrutiny and passing of a mayoral budget. I will speak about London, from my experience, and the other matters can be taken later.

4) When the Blair Government set up the Greater London Authority through the 1999 Act, they were wedded to the idea that it should have a very strong mayor—a sort of Nietzschean super-figure bestriding the capital and, crucially for our purposes, able to impose his or her own budget on London, even if opposed by a majority in the elected assembly. No reason was ever given for this, as far as I understand, and it entailed a significant denial of the norms of democracy. When he was mayor, Ken Livingstone, who had a certain sense of irony, used to sit in the public gallery of the assembly when his budget was being debated. Every time he lost a vote and there was a majority against, he would give a little chuckle and declare a triumph, because although 50% or even 60% of the members were voting against that provision in his budget, it had no effect because they could not achieve a two-thirds majority.

5) When it was set up, it was explained that the Greater London Authority’s powers were strictly limited to it being a strategic authority for London; it was not meant to be a delivery authority. The mayor did operate four functional bodies in addition: Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police, the fire and rescue authority and the London Development Agency. Although the architecture around the development agency later changed slightly, that position remained. However, the powers of the mayor have increased very significantly. As the Government have made clear in discussion on this Bill, the intention is to increase the powers of mayors in other parts of the country as part of their devolution and levelling-up approach.

6) We are seeing mayors accumulate more powers and larger budgets. For example, the Mayor of London is now responsible for the housing budget for London, which is billions-plus. These powers are being accumulated but the co-decision and scrutiny functions that go with them are not being kept up to date. In fact, the Government recognise this. It may not be government policy yet, but I even saw in a newspaper that the Government were speculating on increasing the scrutiny of elected mayors by setting up panels of local MPs to scrutinise what they were going to do. There is no need to do this: the assembly exists. The scrutiny body is there already: it needs empowerment, which this amendment provides. I am putting a burden on my noble friend by inviting her to explain why we should be denying democracy in our great cities and urban areas—such a burden that quite possibly she will decide to agree with me. I look forward to that very much indeed.

7) Turning to the question of balance of powers, we come to Amendment 176, which is drafted to cover the whole country and is not specific to London. However, I will speak of it in London terms because of my own experience and allow noble Lords to draw parallels with other areas. It relates to the ULEZ charge—a power the mayor has in fact had since the foundation of the Greater London Authority; road user charging was in the Greater London Authority Act as far back as 1999. It has been expanded in geographical terms. Under Ken Livingstone, it was small and very focused. There was a low emission zone around Heathrow Airport and a congestion charge around just the very centre of London. It has been expanded to include not only inner London, which has already been delivered, but outer London as well—the current proposal—into areas wholly different from inner London and best understood by their own elected councils. Yet, they have no say.

8) This amendment would give councils that say, not just in London but in other parts of the country. It would give a power of co-decision with local councils in the extension of a road user charging scheme— ULEZ in this case. It would require that that decision be made in full council. It would not be a decision of the executive arm—for example, the cabinet or the locally elected mayor. It would also be retrospective, so that existing schemes would have to be subject to such a vote in order to continue. It would also ensure that local councils have regard to their air quality duties under the Environment Act when making their decisions. Nobody is in favour of poor air quality; it is a question of how to get there.

8.45pm

9) Of course, Londoners and those in adjacent counties value clean, healthy air, but they are groaning under the proposed burden of a rushed ULEZ imposed during a cost of living crisis. A wholly inadequate scrappage support scheme is attached to it which, large parts of outer London, is not strictly necessary because of their very different, almost rural characteristics. This is evidenced from TfL’s own impact assessment of what ULEZ is going to achieve. Residents look to their local councils to express their voice. Our job is to empower them to do this.

10) This measure is supported by members of the Liberal Democrat party and Liberal Democrat councils, and the ULEZ proposal has been opposed publicly by Labour Party Members of the other place. I hope that my amendment will command the widespread support of your Lordships’ House, not least of the one party not mentioned so far—the Conservative Party—when my noble friend comes to reply. I beg to move.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3155/stages/17298

Thank you for your request received on 21 February 2023 asking for information about Ultra-low Emission Zone (ULEZ) cameras.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we do hold the information you require.

1.            When did the ULEZ cameras in the GLA began being installed

Camera installations on existing traffic signal equipment commenced in December 2022. Cameras have been installed on the TfL Road Network (TLRN) in multiple boroughs on existing infrastructure such as traffic signal heads. Currently the newly installed outer-London ANPR cameras are powered but not operational and no data is being transmitted.

2.            Have they been installed on traffic lights and if not where

Up to week ending 24 February cameras have only been installed on existing traffic signal equipment.

3.            How many have been installed each day

At present an average of 10 cameras a day have been installed.

4.            Have the number of installations increased since 12 January 2023 and if so by how many per day

No.

5.            What council areas have had installations on a daily and weekly basis since they began being installed

Please see the table below, the information is correct up to 20 February 2023:

Borough                            Borough road     TLRN     Total

Barking and Dagenham                    47           2             49

Barnet                                                 45           19           64

Brent                                                    21           3             24

Ealing                                                  18           6             24

Enfield                                                 31           20           51

Greenwich                                           24           5             29

Havering                                              28           8             36

Hounslow                                             22           30           52

Kingston upon Thames                     15           3             18

Lambeth                                               0             9             9

Lewisham                                            20           2             22

Merton                                                 20           5             25

Newham                                               0             2             2

Redbridge                                            39           6             45

Richmond upon Thames                   12           23           35

Sutton                                                   10           13           23

Waltham Forest                                   4             1             5

Wandsworth                                        11           9             20

Total                                                     367        166        533

Tuesday 14 March 2023

1. On Tuesday 14 March 2023, Tilbrook’s served by email and post ,the Judicial Review Claim form on Mayor Khan and TfL whom both are Defendants

2. We have also invited  as Interested Parties;

• the Secretary of State for Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, who is relevant to the position of monitoring of  air quality in the proposed expanded area for ULEZ
• the Secretary of State for Transport ,who is relevant to the position that a vehicle that has passed an MOT (Ministry of Transport) test and issued with a pass certificate, can have the appropriate road tax paid and insurance issued to use the vehicle, on the roads of the United Kingdom
• the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is relevant to the position that Parliament still retains jurisdiction (power) over an elected Mayor through the Greater London Authority Act 1999

3. We await their response.

Thursday 23 February 2023

1. We have now received the papers back from the Administrative Court Office, King’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, confirming that on Thursday 23 February 2023, the Judicial Review claim was filed and a claim number has been issued.

2. The claim is challenging the decision of Mayor Khan and TfL announced on 25 November 2022, to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone to the Greater London Area on Tuesday 29 August 2023

3. We will next be serving the claim on the Mayor of London and TfL, along with several Interested Parties

4. Once the claim has been served, we will be advising of the details of the Interested Parties .

Y. ULEZ Expansion would be UZELESS; by Dr M.J.Simons PhD, MRSC

31. The proposal to extend London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the whole of Greater London will cost a lot of money, cause hardship to very many residents, and yet deliver effectively zero benefit.

31.1. This might be justified if air quality were to be improved significantly, but there is much evidence showing that will NOT be the case, and that any benefit will be marginal, while the  Mayor of London has failed to offer any proper evidence to support his proposal, beyond broad, non-specific and unquantified generalisations about the evils of pollution.

31.1.2. We will be specific. We will consider mainly the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollutant as this is an exhaust-pipe emission. The fine particulate (PM2.5) emissions come mainly (two thirds)  from brake and road surface wear, thus largely from all vehicles, and will be little reduced anyway – as confirmed at “2. Comparison with the official Jacobs Integrated Impact Assessment estimates”   below;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. NO2 Levels are falling across the nation anyway

1) The main reasons for this are the increasingly strict emission standards imposed, quite correctly, on vehicle manufacturers. As older vehicles reach the end of their life, they are   replaced by newer cleaner vehicles, including electric ones. Nothing to do with ULEZ, it is happening anyway. The graphs below are from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/air- quality-statistics/ntrogen-dioxide (DEFRA) and are for the whole UK, not just London. 

2.) Between 2005 and 2019 (just before the lockdowns) the concentration curves  approximate to a straight line, with a slope, or rate of reduction of NO2, of 1.54 μg / m³ per year for the roadside case, and 0.86 μg / m³ per year for the urban background case.

3) NO2 levels are also falling across London, as shown in the maps below, at a rate of 1.7 μg/ m³ per year in Outer London between the measured (before any ULEZ) levels in 2016   and the projected without-ULEZ levels in 2023.

4)    Note that the existing legal upper limit is 40 μg / m3, and the new WHO-based interim advisory limit is 20 μg / m3, this projection shows Outer London (Heathrow area excepted) to meet this lower limit by 2023, and certainly by 2024, without any ULEZ expansion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comparison with the official Jacobs Integrated Impact Assessment estimates:

5)    The Jacobs Assessment (downloadable from https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/15619/widgets/44946/documents/27025 ) was commissioned by TfL to assess the effects of implementing the ULEZ expansion. We           reproduce below an image of a relevant table from page 47 of that report:

6) These projections show NO EFFECT on PM2.5 particulate levels, and a tiny reduction of just 0.3 μg / m³ , or -1.4% , on NO2 levels in Outer London and in Greater London as a whole.

7) Since the ongoing (non-ULEZ) reductions in NO2 levels as shown on pp 1 and 2 lie between 0.86 and 1.7 μg / m³ each year, the one-off extra 0.3 μg / m³ estimated as the benefit from  ULEZ expansion would simply advance the ongoing NO2 reductions, which are steadily happening anyway, without ULEZ, by between just 8 and 16 weeks! A negligible effect.

8) The fact is the problem of pollution by NO2 is already being resolved by existing legislation    applying to vehicle manufacture, making ULEZ expansion an expensive but superfluous irrelevance. Or perhaps a vanity project raising funds from the pockets of Londoners.

9) On any sort of cost / benefit analysis, and especially in view of the significant hardship it would cause to the citizens and small businesses of Outer London, the proposed policy is  unviable, illogical, and irrational.

• We are delighted to confirm that Dr Michael Simons (Dr M.J.Simons PhD, MRSC) has joined the team as an advisor .

• Michael has worked for 40 years as a research scientist in an international industrial research laboratory, in the fields of chemistry, imaging science and printing and holds a PhD in physical science (chemistry) from Reading University.

Wednesday 15 February 2023 at 13 15  

1. Tilbrook’s Solicitors after instructing Robert Griffiths KC of Six Pump Court,  sent by email and post at 13 15 on Wednesday 15 February 2023 a  pre-action letter before a Judicial Review claim to;  

a) Mayor Khan,  and 

b) TFL

2.  A way forward has been suggested 

3. We await their response.

X. ULEZ Financial Impact Assessment to Drivers from 29 August 2023

22)      Milliken Consulting, Audit and Compliance, (www.Kmilliken.com) have   prepared a Financial Impact assessment on the affect that the ULEZ expansion would have on incomes- see Telegraph 25 January 2023 “ Sadiq Khan’s Ulez expansion would wipe out pay rises for teachers and nurses”

23)      The figures are based on a 5-day commute into or within the ULEZ;

Teaching Assistant

• £20,000 gross salary, will need to be increased to
• £24,411 to enable the driver to pay the daily ULEZ charge of £12.50 from net earnings
• 22%.*  increase in salary

Care Worker

• £25,000 gross salary, will need to be increased to
• £29,411, to enable the driver to pay the daily ULEZ charge of £12.50 from net earnings
• 17.6%.* increase in salary.

Bus Driver in London

• £30,000 gross salary, will need to be increased to
• £34,411 to enable the driver to pay the daily ULEZ charge of £12.50 from net earnings
• 14.7%.* increase in salary

Teacher, Paramedic

• £40,000 gross salary, will need to be increased to 
• £44,411, to enable the driver to pay the daily ULEZ charge of £12.50 from net earnings
• 11%.* increase in salary.

24)  As the figures show, the lower income groups are particularly discriminated against by ULEZ. 

25) There appears to be NO evidence to show that this critical information was disclosed by Mayor Khan to the public after the  "Have Your Say Consultation" opened on the 20th  May 2022  or  before Mayor Khans decision on the 25th November 2022 to expand ULEZ to Greater London.

* The precise amount is subject to the drivers’ financial circumstances (2022/2023)E&OE

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/24/sadiq-khans-ulez-expansion-would-wipe-pay-rises-teachers-nurses/