London Borough of Hillingdon & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Mayor of London

The statutory power to make a road-charging scheme includes power to vary it. A substantial geographical expansion may remain a variation where the essential charging structure and purpose continue. The statutory requirement for a ten-year proceeds plan is assessed by comparing the scheme immediately before and after the proposed variation.

A consultation is lawful where the information supplied gives consultees a practical opportunity to make an informed response. Perfection, technical simplicity and the provision of every potentially useful detail are unnecessary. Political decisions about discretionary mitigation schemes are subject to ordinary public-law review and may attract a wide margin of judgment.

Five local authorities challenged the Mayor of London’s confirmation of the Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging (Variation and Transitional Provisions) Order 2022 and a £110 million grant to Transport for London for a vehicle scrappage scheme.

The claim alleged that the Mayor lacked power to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone by varying the existing charging scheme, that the consultation information was inadequate, and that the grant decision and consultation concerning the scrappage scheme were unlawful. The claim was determined at first instance in the Administrative Court.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. Paragraphs 4 and 38 of Schedule 23 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 provide a compendious power to make, vary and revoke charging schemes. The power to vary is not a separate vires power with a distinct boundary. The Mayor therefore acted within power in confirming the 2022 Order as a variation of the existing scheme.
2. The proper-purpose provisions in paragraphs 3 and 5 required consistency with the Mayor’s transport strategy. There was no additional legal standard distinguishing permissible from impermissible amendments. The expansion was an integral part of the strategy.
3. For paragraph 19(1), the relevant comparison was between the existing scheme and the scheme as varied, not between the original 2006 scheme and the fully amended scheme. The continued existence of the LEZ and ULEZ charges, the same vehicle classes and the same underlying objective meant that the 2022 Order remained a significant variation rather than a new scheme. The existing ten-year plan therefore satisfied paragraph 19(1). Paragraph 9(4) did not apply because Transport for London remained the charging authority. Paragraph 9(7) had no practicable bearing on legality in the circumstances.
4. Ground 2 dismissed. The consultation standard was whether sufficient reasons and information had been provided to permit an informed response. It was a practical standard, not one of perfection. The consultation documents adequately explained the reference case, compliance assumptions, data sources, forecasting methodology and camera-network limitations.
5. Ground 3 dismissed. The Mayor had no free-standing legal duty to fund a scrappage scheme, to make it available outside Greater London, or to compensate all affected vehicle owners. Eligibility and funding were political choices subject to ordinary Wednesbury review, allowing significant latitude. The Mayor had sufficient information about the scheme and its intended mitigation. The consultation question on scrappage was general and required no detailed scheme design.
6. The challenge was dismissed. Applications to rely on the Second Reply and further witness statements were allowed; the application to exclude evidence was refused.