Blog

Dave Hill: How will the ‘tourist tax’ work in London?

The capital's local authorities and the businesses affected will want the Mayor to design the scheme with their needs in mind
Dave Hill

“This is a new era of fiscal devolution in England,” declares the government’s consultation on its plan to give the country’s Mayors the power to raise a visitor levy – also known as a “tourist tax” –  in their areas.  How is it going to work? How will the money be spent?”

The consultation document says the levy could be raised on people who pay to stay overnight in anything from a hotel or bed and breakfast to a religious retreat or a yurt on a glamping site.

It also states that Mayors “should be able to invest visitor levy revenues in pro-growth projects” ranging from public transport and public realm improvements to “housing to allow employees to live closer to their places of work”, to supporting visitor attractions such as concerts or exhibitions.

The word “modest” is used to describe the size of levies collected in cities in other countries. In Rome, it is between four and ten euros a night, depending on the accommodation’s star rating, for up to ten nights. In Edinburgh, where a visitor levy will come into effect next summer, it will be five per cent of the accommodation cost, charged before VAT, for a maximum of five nights. Take note that residents of Edinburgh who stay in their own city’s hotels will have to pay it too.

The consultation document says that in England the levy could follow either of these examples: it could be set at a percentage of the accommodation cost or as flat rate on each person for each night they stay or on each room that is hired. The former is more more complex, the latter, regressive, as, like all flat-rate taxes, it means the wealthiest feel paying it less. And, of course, it would need to be set at a level that didn’t do more harm than good to the visitor economy by being set too high, resulting in potential visitors being put off.

There’s also the matter of who should get to spend the money raised, which in London has been estimated at potentially around £250 million. The government says Mayors would set the rate but is seeking views about how much of it they should retain and spend on what they think best, and how much they should give to local authorities in their areas – in London’s case, the 32 boroughs and the City Corporation.

Should a minimum revenue share for local authorities be set? This, the consultation says, would  “ensure the impacts overnight visits have on local services is recognised”, but limit the ability of Mayors to “tailor shares to local priorities”. But maybe “tourist tax” takings could be allocated “based on the number of visitors in each local authority, or be agreed locally as part of the introduction of a levy”.

What London’s boroughs might get out of the levy is already of keen interest to them. Writing for On London, Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt said he strongly believes the visitor levy “must be flexible, designed by London boroughs, and its proceeds spent on the priorities of local people”.

He continued: “What works in Brent won’t necessarily work in Bexley or Bromley. And local leaders are best placed to balance the benefits of a levy against any risks to local tourism, adjusting the approach if needed.” If the boroughs are to be responsible for the levy being collected, he wants them “round the table” when it is designed.

The matter was also raised at the last Mayor’s Question Time by Gareth Roberts, who is both the London Assembly member for the South West constituency, covering Richmond, Kingston and Hounslow, and leader of Richmond Council.

As I reported in On London Extra, he asked Sir Sadiq Khan if he would be “seeking to ensure there’s equitable distribution amongst the boroughs of such revenues” or keeping it all for his own use. Speaking to BBC London yesterday, Westminster leader Adam Hug has made the same request. The Mayor told Roberts he was sure that whatever arrangement was made would “have the support of the boroughs”. We shall see.

In the meantime, there have been perhaps predictable complaints from UK Hospitality, though BusinessLDN deputy chief executive Muniya Barua told me in our pre-budget True London podcast conversation that although the timing of the measure might not be ideal, given how the hospitality sector has “been through the wringer” due to the pandemic and rises in the minimum wage and National Insurance, the principle of devolving the tax to London was a sound one.

She said the key would be the levy’s implementation and the importance of of it not having an adverse effect on a sector she described as “really critical to the vibrancy and attractiveness of London”. The consultation will continue until 18 February 2026.

Follow Dave Hill on Bluesky.

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture with no paywall and no ads. It is funded by subscribers to publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To receive it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s Substack or follow any Support link on this site.

Categories: Analysis
Tags: BusinessLDN, London Councils, tourism

Julie Hamill: Where are you going, strange little girl?

Punk politics and patchouli in a Prius - a spirited ride through the capital of contradictions
Julie Hamill

When I stepped off the bus at Victoria in 1991 and saw how different London was from the small Scottish town I had come from, I felt I was going to slot right in, for one great reason – it was full of mad weirdos (ok, eclectic types). Nobody cared about me. Nobody noticed my black clothes, my make-up, my long black hair, my purple fringe skirt. Nobody cared about my music, my lentil-based diet or the fact that I considered myself a strange little girl. I wasn’t the weird one off the bus, because everybody was.

I arrived carrying my brother’s overfilled green army backpack jammed with too many clothes and tapes (and a cuddly toy). The coach station was like 400 countries in one place, bustling with “alternatives” of every kind. Each person was dressed differently from the next and talked in another language, some alone, some with friends or family.

One guy was rollerblading in and out of the empty bays with a ghetto blaster on his shoulder, dicing with the moving buses, which I thought was the coolest, most Kids From Fame thing I had ever seen. I was all at once different to these people and the same as them, landing in a place where I could do, be, or look how I wanted to. I knew straight away that London wasn’t like Scotland, or even England. It was more like everybody in the world-in-a-smaller world (after all).

Now, almost 35 years later, interrupted only by a five-year Stateside gap based, coincidentally, not too far from the school the movie Fame was based on, London is still my home, and I love it. It still excites me. There’s still a buzz of mad energy. I see it as a city for brave, unboxed people, pioneers, adventurers, discoverers, visionaries and idealists; people who want to make a better life, get a better job, and do things that they maybe couldn’t do at home. These people are round every corner, making things happen.

Everybody is welcome here, but there are sometimes surprising contradictions. Like the other week, I went to see The Stranglers at the Roundhouse. It was a fantastic gig on what was the worst-weather Friday night of the year, with rain coming down like sheets of glass in the pitch black of Halloween. All the Tube lines were down and, with the help of a lift (thanks Gerard!), I made it to the venue just in time.

Upstairs on the balcony, both seats either side of me were empty, so I had space to move and enjoy the music, albeit with a faint smell of damp T-shirts and wet jackets drying on bodies. As the band played Something Better Change and No More Heroes, everybody sang back with some passion and a little bit of force, capturing the punk spirit of the crowd, or maybe the city, or maybe the world, but certainly some of London. At least that’s what it felt like.

While enjoying the thump and push of the old punks (now in their 70s, but still got it), I thought of the Zeds: Zohran Mamdani and Zack Polanski. The Zeds would make a good punk band, with punk politics. Zohran could rap. Maybe Zarah Sultana could join.

After the gig, which I loved, the rain had stopped, so I walked to Chalk Farm and my Uber arrived promptly at the station. As with all the best conversations I’ve had in London, they’re always with drivers. I got in his cab and we struck up a chat. He asked me where I’d been, and I told him I’d seen a band at The Roundhouse.

He asked what sort of music they played, and I told him about punk and post-punk and the Seventies and Eighties and the charts, all of which he seemed to enjoy. He didn’t know Golden Brown, despite my attempts at humming it. As we spoke, I noticed a familiar scent.

“Wow, sorry to ask, is that patchouli oil I can smell?”

“It’s whatever my mum told me to buy and use for cleaning my car,” he laughed. “What is patchouli oil?”

“It’s a fragrance oil Goths used to wear, and some still wear. I love it.”

“I think Goths are very cool,” he said.

I thought: This guy’s already a legend.

“Well, that’s five stars for you,” I said. “Six if you include your mum’s recommendation.”

He told me he came to London from West Bengal ten years ago. He said he wouldn’t have learned anything about the world if he hadn’t moved here. I agreed with him, and we had a fun conversation, listing all the foods we’ve tried in London. His list far outdid mine: I talked about Lost Souls pizza in Camden, spicy curries from Brick Lane and excellent chips from The Big Bite in Willesden. But my driver had tried jerk dishes from Brixton, Chinese bao buns from Soho, Vietnamese pho from Shoreditch, Turkish pide from Dalston, and Ethiopian stews from Peckham.

He said he had arrived in the city with nothing (I didn’t ask if he brought a cuddly toy) and worked his way into a place to stay, a couple of jobs, money in his pocket. Obviously, I identified with this, and we discussed the opportunities London had presented us with. He went on to say he loved the city but felt annoyed with those “who come after him”. I didn’t understand why he was bitter about new people coming from India.

“They’re getting it all on a plate,” he said. “I had to work for it.”

“What are they getting?” I asked.

“Everything! Money, houses, food, everything!”

“Are these people you know?”

“I don’t know them personally,” he said, “but I’ve heard it!  It’s true, believe me.”

The destination of his words wasn’t where I wanted to go, so I fell quiet and tried to make no judgements of my patchouli-scented driver in the Goth-mobile.

But of course, I couldn’t shut up for long.

“Don’t you feel a bit proud?” I asked him.

“What do you mean?”

“We scratched our way through, didn’t we? I mean, London helped us. Maybe it’s because of our experiences we’ve made it easier for others like us to follow after. Those with the same dreams and hopes? I’d rather help them.”

“Maybe, uh, I don’t know about that”, he said. “It was very tough.”

I went on to tell him stories of when I arrived in London, and how it wasn’t easy at first: bedsits with infested mattresses, shared house toilets, rats, and my regular dinner – a block of cheese to grate and last a week, a potato for five pence to make a jacket, and a three pence onion to chop.

It was microwaved tatties and grated cheese every night until payday, until a brilliant boss – Graham Singleton at Ogilvy – saw a glimmer of potential and pivoted me on my way to a great career. (What he actually said was: “You just seemed so keen, I couldn’t not do it). That same boss also gave me money and told me to go and buy some “office” clothes, and that was the end of the fringey skirt fire hazard at the photocopier.

“I had it tough too,” I told the driver, “but London offered me much more opportunity than there was at home. I feel like it always has, and still does that for people.”

“Oh yes,” he agreed. “But not easy for us, though, was it? Easier for them that come now. Much easier.”

My turn to be quiet again. Then he speaks.

“But it is a great city. Doesn’t matter where you’re from, everyone can make a living here. All kinds are welcome.”

The car pulled up outside my house.

“Where are you from, originally?” he asked.

“I’m Scottish. I suppose you could call me a domestic immigrant.”

“Ah! Or a Goth!” he replied, smiling.

The Prius whirred off down the road. I turned the key in the front door, and went back to thinking about The Stranglers. I made a mental note to to see Hugh Cornwell’s then upcoming gig at Islington Assembly Hall and find out what Stranglers tracks he’d pack into his solo setlist.

I sat down on the couch. Strange Little Girl was home, and thinking of baked tatties.

Follow Julie Hamill on Instagram.

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture with no paywall and no ads. It is funded by subscribers to publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To receive it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s Substack or follow any Support link on this site.

Categories: Culture
Tags: The Roundhouse

True London Podcast: BusinessLDN’s Muniya Barua on skills for a good growth city

The deputy chief executive of an influential business group talks about closing the gap between what employers need and what Londoners can offer - add the upcoming budget
Dave Hill

A paradox of London is that its schools and universities are very good, yet too many of its people lack the skills they need to take advantage of the city’s opportunities.

Unemployment in the capital is high and rising, especially in its poorest areas. At the same time, employers frequently complain that they can’t find the workers they need. How can the gap between what firms in London need and what Londoners can offer them be closed?

My guest for the latest episode in my endearingly rough and ready podcast series, True London, is Muniya Barua, deputy chief executive of BusinessLDN, which represents many of the capital’s larger employers and lots of its universities and further education institutions.

She explained to me the various reasons why matching labour supply to employer demand is not an easy task in the capital, and talked about the London Local Skills Improvement Plan, a government-funded, employer-led initiative for working with education institutions and others to better equip Londoners looking to get into work or to secure better jobs than they currently have.

In the last few minutes of our conversation, Muniya reflected on the pre-budget news that the government is set to back an extension of the Docklands Light Railway south of the river into Thamesmead – a scheme Sir Sadiq Khan and Transport for London have long had ready to go – and likely to give the Mayor powers to raise a visitor levy (or “tourist tax”) in the capital. She also has some thoughts on the funding of London local government.

Read more about Capital City College here, London South East colleges here and New City College here. For more information about unemployment in London, see Trust for London’s analysis from earlier this year. Photo from BusinessLDN.

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture with no paywall and no ads. It is funded by subscribers to publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To receive it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s Substack or follow any Support link on this site.

Categories: News
Tags: BusinessLDN, employment, Muniya Barua, Trust For London

Michael Stanworth: If e-bikes are the future, London must plan to make it work

Politicians, developers, transport planners and, of course, users must ensure that Lime and the like are an asset to the city, not a problem
Michael Stanworth

It is often said that death and taxes are the only two certainties in life. Most Londoners would add a third – that e-bike riders will run red lights, and worse.

Even so, perhaps given a further nudge by September’s Tube strikes, this form of bike hire looks to set to stay and grow in London – and it’s clear that our built environment, planning rules and political leaders need to respond accordingly.

In today’s economic climate it is increasingly convenient to use an electric bike rather than to save up for, buy, and then store a new pedal bicycle, especially for young people. On top of that, the forthcoming budget may see the end of the government’s Cycle to Work scheme, and bike theft in London is 186 per cent higher than the national average.

It is therefore clear that the capital’s future is bike-led – but with Lime, Forest, Voi and also “Boris Bikes” to the fore.

What needs to be done to make this work well? For one thing, there must be better London-wide cooperation. Currently, places such as Chiswick Bridge act as 21st century versions of the Berlin Wall, because Hounslow priorities Forest and Voi, while Richmond has a license with Lime. Comedian Dara Ó Briain has called it ‘Checkpoint Charlie’ after the east-west crossing in Berlin during the Cold War, and there’s a risk of this proliferating along the Thames, which forms a boundary between many London boroughs.

The design of buildings and streets needs to change too. On-street parking bays are the storage space of tomorrow. Current London Plan guidance is for homes in highly sustainable locations to aspire to being ‘car free’. This forces developers to make space within often constrained urban locations for hundreds – and in some cases thousands – of storage spaces for conventional bikes and those who own them.

The proposed changes to these regulations, recently announced, include more flexibility around this rule to facilitate the viability of schemes – a sensible move, given that housing delivery in London is under unprecedented pressure and every square metre needs to be used. And boroughs should also consider allowing developments to ‘pool’ their cycle spaces and make it possible for spaces left unused to later be converted to additional homes.

With such provisions and freedoms must come a greater sense of responsibility. There need to be more penalties for riders and operators for bad behaviour. More dedicated parking spaces must come with better parking practices, more self-policing from operators and greater geo-fencing – virtual perimeters placed around specific areas – to ensure slower e-bike speeds in some of London’s most famous and special locations. The rise of so-called Lime Bike Leg breaks show that accidents are putting additional pressure on the NHS.

There is a growing need for City Hall, Transport for London and the boroughs to coordinate these processes. It has proven difficult to do this, even with a single political party, Labour, dominant in London government. It won’t get any easier after May’s borough elections, which opinion polls suggest could see a much more mixed set of Town Hall administrations. The e-bike revolution is underway and the clock is ticking.

Michael Stanworth is a director at Cavendish Consulting. 

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture with no paywall and no ads. It is funded by subscribers to publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To receive it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s Substack or follow any Support link on this site.

Categories: Comment
Tags: cycling, e-bikes, planning

Government to give go-ahead for DLR Thamesmead extension

The long-awaited green light has looked likely for several months and is expected to feature in the budget
Dave Hill

London is to receive a major infrastructure boost in the government’s budget next week, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves expected to announce her long-awaited backing for an extension of the Docklands Light Railway into Thamesmead.

The funding deal, which will enable the railway to reach one of the capital’s largest regeneration areas, is expected to draw in around £18 billion in private investment and lead to up to 25,000 new homes built.

Sir Sadiq Khan has welcomed the move as “a massive vote of confidence in London”, having previously expressed disappointment that no major infrastructure deal for the capital was included in Reeves’s spending review package, announced in June.

“I look forward to working hand in hand with ministers to deliver this vital project as we continue building a more prosperous London for everyone,” he said.

Reeves appeared to snub London in her spending review speech, saying she agreed with the complaints of politicians in the north of England that “areas outside London and South East” had been underinvested in.

However, as On London reported, transport secretary Heidi Alexander, formerly Mayor Khan’s deputy for transport, wrote to Transport for London to inform it that the government recognised the “potential housing and economic growth” a DLR extension could stimulate and acknowledged the “substantial work” already done.

Alexander added that she would be working with TfL and City Hall to finalise a business case “by the autumn”. TfL plans show the extension going from Gallions Reach station in Newham via another new station in Beckton and into Greenwich south of the Thames

The subsequent recommendation by the government’s taskforce that Thamesmead be designated a London New Town area made the case for giving a green light to the DLR project seem overwhelming.

With a deal now apparently done, City Hall has quoted a Treasury source saying: “This budget will choose growth over austerity by supporting renewal in every part of the country.”

Backing for the DLR extension was one the principle requests Khan made of the budget for London, backed by BusinessLDN, which represents some of the capital’s largest companies, and by the Peabody housing association which is leading a major improvement and redevelopment of the wider Thamesmead area, part of which is in Bexley.

Writing for the BusinessLDN website last week, Peabody chief executive Ian McDermott underlined the case for the DLR scheme, saying Thamesmead “offers one of the most exciting and deliverable opportunities for housing and economic growth in the UK”.

Reeves is also expected to give City Hall and other London leaders the powers needed to raise levies on people using the capital’s hotels and other stay-over accommodation, another measure the Mayor along with some borough leaders has been lobbying for.

Follow Dave Hill on Bluesky.

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture with no paywall and no ads. It is funded by subscribers to publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To receive it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s Substack or follow any Support link on this site.

 

Categories: News
Tags: Docklands Light Railway, Heidi Alexander, Thamesmead

Muhammed Butt: Let’s have a visitor levy for London – with local councils to the fore

A so-called "tourist tax" for the capital is long overdue and will work best if designed to meet boroughs' distinctive needs
Muhammed Butt

London is one of the most exciting cities on the planet. People travel thousands of miles just to spend a weekend here, whether it’s to see a West End show, a football match at Stamford Bridge, a gig at the O2, or England’s cricketers at the Oval. Wembley Stadium (pictured) and Wembley Arena are on my doorstep in Brent.

In 2023, over 20 million overnight visitors came to London. That’s more than half of all UK overnight tourism, pumping £27 billion into the economy and supporting 700,000 jobs. Last summer alone saw Brent proudly welcome 1.5 million Oasis and Coldplay fans to Wembley. It’s a great success story and something I am deeply proud of as someone born and bred in the Wembley area.

But there is another side to it. Hosting the world comes at a cost, and right now it is being paid by Londoners locally. Big events mean more rubbish to collect, more streets to clean, more enforcement to keep things safe. It’s our bin lorries, our street sweepers and our community safety teams who make sure London looks its best – and all of that is paid for out of already overstretched council budgets.

Other global cities have found a fair solution: a visitor levy. It’s a small, locally-set charge on hotel rooms or short stays, with the money ringfenced for local services. In Rome and Paris it is the norm – and it is becoming so in Edinburgh and Cardiff, too.

Some fear that these modest levies put off tourists, but the evidence is clear – they don’t. Recent research by Centre for Cities shows that visitors are not deterred by them and that London is an outlier as the only major G7 city that doesn’t have one. Bloomberg analysis has estimated that a levy for London could raise around £500 million a year – money that could go straight back into local services providing for visitors and residents alike.

When you went on a city break in Europe or further afield, did a charge of a euro or a dollar a night charge stop you? These small charges don’t scare off tourists and they give local communities a fair return for hosting them.

The problem? In England, local councils can’t introduce one without a change in the law. Meanwhile, Wales and Scotland already have or are introducing the powers needed. Manchester and Liverpool have come up with lengthy workarounds involving Business Improvement Districts, but local leaders would like to introduce a local authority one.

That’s why I, along with 10 other London leaders representing over three million Londoners, wrote to the government calling for a rethink. Now is the time to amend the English Devolution Bill and finally give local authorities the power to introduce a visitor levy, in consultation with their residents and businesses.

We are encouraged by local government secretary Steve Reed’s early steps with helping councils restore “pride in place”. But this can only be truly achieved if councils are given the fiscal and policy autonomy they desperately need. Other global cities have shown a different path, where such schemes are designed locally and the benefits flow directly back into their communities.

Crucially, I strongly believe that any visitor levy must be flexible, designed by London boroughs, and its proceeds spent on the priorities of local people – no differently to the new Pride in Place programme, where a neighbourhood board calls the shots on the way the funding should be spent.

London’s visitor economy is incredibly diverse – what works in Brent won’t necessarily work in Bexley or Bromley. And local leaders are best placed to balance the benefits of a levy against any risks to local tourism, adjusting the approach if needed. As the Institute for Government articulates, if a high visitor levy diverts tourists away from one borough to another, the policy can be recalibrated. But if it allows reinvestment into improved local transport and a more attractive public realm, it may benefit local residents and attract more visitors at the same time.

With Rachel Reeves now reportedly considering how such powers might work in London, it’s worth being clear about what genuine, local devolution really looks like. I’ve always backed stronger local powers.

But true devolution should benefit both London’s boroughs and the Mayor of London. If councils are the ones who’ll explain, run and collect this levy, then we must be around the table when it comes to shaping the design and the priorities for its use. London works best when its strategic and local tiers move in lockstep, each bringing their own strengths to the table.

A well-designed visitor levy is a simple yet meaningful idea – fair and proven to work elsewhere. Small change from visitors could mean cleaner streets, greener parks, and more funding to help us address the cost-of-living crisis in this city.

London will always roll out the red carpet for the world. But if we want to keep the ball rolling and the music playing for the rest of the world to enjoy, it’s time Londoners saw a slice of that success too.

I am therefore urging the Chancellor to give councils the powers to introduce a locally-led visitor levy and ensuring that those who’ll be delivering it on the ground are placed front and centre of any arrangements, so we can safeguard essential services and ensure our residents see a fair return from the millions who benefit from our city every year.

Muhammed Butt is leader of Brent Council. Photo from Wembley Stadium.

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture with no paywall and no ads. It is funded by subscribers to publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra at a cost of £5 a month or £50 a year. To receive it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s Substack or follow any Support link on this site.

Categories: Comment
Tags: Brent Council, Muhammed Butt, tourism

Charles Wright: Is London warming to more congestion charging?

The Mayor has again felt the strength of public opposition, but perhaps the tide is starting to turn
Charles Wright

Sir Sadiq Khan’s announcement of a £3 hike in the London congestion charge to £18 a day from 2 January 2, coupled with reduced discounts for cleaner vehicles – unwelcome to some, while, for others, not going far enough – has brought a new focus on the continuing problems of congestion and traffic management in the city.

The charge was famously introduced by the capital’s first Mayor, Ken Livingstone, in 2003 to better manage central London’s clogged streets, which were increasingly damaging the city economy, delaying buses and deterring walking and cycling. It was controversial, opposed even by the Blair government, which had included the power to charge road users when it set up the new mayoralty.

But the measure had an immediate impact. After 12 months, traffic speeds were up, congestion was down by 30 per cent, and bus ridership in the zone, boosted by service improvements, was up by a third. Importantly, as transport charity Sustrans said on the charge’s 20th anniversary, it showed “we don’t just need to accept congestion, pollution, and roads dominated by traffic as the inevitable consequence of modern life”.

That impact has diminished over time. Traffic speeds are down, eroding the benefit for those paying the charge as well as for bus users. Despite there being fewer vehicles in the zone, congestion is increasing – to the extent that, in last year’s “Global Traffic scorecard” produced by traffic analysts INRIX, London was named the most congested city in Europe, at an estimated cost to the capital’s economy of £3.85 billion.

There are a number of causes. As vehicle numbers have reduced, the road space allocated to them has also been reduced, in favour of bus lanes, cycleways and pedestrians. There are more traffic lights, more roadworks and more private hire vehicles. Larger SUV-style cars having difficulties negotiating the central streets are also in the frame.

That’s the context for the Mayor’s latest intervention, to ensure the charge “stays fit for purpose”. Doing nothing, he said, would see around 2,200 more vehicles in the congestion charging zone on an average weekday next year.

The growth in the number of electric vehicles (EVs), currently exempt from the charge, is a significant factor. There were some 20,000 EVs in the zone when the discount was introduced in 2019. Now, there are more than 116,000, close to 20 per cent of the total – an increase threatening to undermine the scheme’s main objective of tackling congestion.

It’s a tricky balancing act, encouraging the switch to cleaner vehicles while restraining overall numbers. The current discount was flagged from the start as lasting only to the end of 2025, and last year the Mayor remained bullish – retaining it would simply encourage more vehicles into the zone, “contributing to worsening traffic and congestion”, he told the London Assembly.

But a vocal backlash during the consultation on the new scheme seems to have prompted a climb-down. Khan will now phase out the discount rather than axing it in one go, initially to 25 per cent for cars and 50 per cent for vans and lorries, with a further 50 per cent reduction in 2030.

Business groups wanted it retained, while some green campaigners wanted it gone, but Khan may, for now, have found a sweet spot: the consultation showed 66 per cent of respondents supporting action to reduce traffic and congestion in central London, and 58 per cent backing steps to encourage the use of zero emission vehicles in the zone.

Where does this leave Khan’s sustainable transport target of 80 per cent of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle or by public transport by 2041? And his net zero by 2030 target, requiring a 27 per cent reduction in car vehicle kilometres travelled by that date?

The impact of the new charging regime looks as if it will be a relatively small 2,200 fewer vehicles a day in 2026, a two per cent reduction, going up to 2,600 when the second cut in the cleaner vehicle discount kicks in, but declining to approximately 1,700 fewer by 2035, as the number of EVs goes up.

Experts quizzed recently at the London Assembly transport committee suggested it was time to go beyond the central zone, where intervention might be approaching its peak, and look to the wider city, where car numbers are actually increasing. So is it time to extend road user charging?

It’s not a new idea of course. It can be traced at least as far back as the government’s Smeed Report in 1964, with various schemes proposed since then, in the capital and more widely. But Livingstone’s congestion charge has to date been the only significant scheme to surmount the hurdle of public opposition.

Recent polling for the Centre for London think tank suggests the mood may be changing, with almost half of Londoners saying they would choose public transport over driving if fares were lower, a fifth saying increased road charges would encourage them to switch, and some 36 per cent now backing a “pay per mile” charge.

“It is well time to get this sort of discussion underway,” professor David Metz for University College London told the assembly. “It is all politically quite difficult but that is, I think, where you have to go if you are talking seriously about demand management.”

As with the original congestion charge, which was accompanied by major improvements to bus services, expanding public transport networks across the city might seal the deal. All eyes on the upcoming budget then, with government support for the Bakerloo Line extension, the Docklands Light Railway extension and the West London Orbital rail like high on the capital’s wish list.

Follow Charles Wright on Bluesky.

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture with no paywall and no ads. It is funded by subscribers to publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra at a cost of £5 a month or £50 a year. To receive it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s Substack or follow any Support link on this site.

Categories: News
Tags: Centre For London, congestion charge, Sadiq Khan

HollyShorts London: Cinema creatives and the capital’s global allure

Filmmakers from far and wide contributed to a West End festival that is building on its American success
Dave Hill

The HollyShorts film festival didn’t have to extend its reach to London – it’s been doing very nicely in its United States birthplace since it began in 2005. But Steven Adams, festival strategist and advisory board chair, says that doing so made perfect sense.

“It’s been clear for something like the past 15 years that the second biggest demographic at HollyShorts was British,” he said at Sunday’s closing evening of the three-day event, held at Vue West End, just off Leicester Square, which was also attended by HollyShorts co-founder and director, Theo Dumont.

Not only had British filmmakers been entering the Hollywood original in significant numbers, they had, Adams says, been winning awards too: “We started celebrating those filmmakers with parties here in London. And then we thought, let’s just step it up a bit. Let’s have a British edition”.

The first of those took place last year, and HollyShorts London has returned in 2025 to showcase nearly 80 short movies, selected to further its mission of celebrating “innovative storytelling and emerging talent on a global stage”.

The global dimension was very apparent from a gathering I joined at Lisle Street’s Imperial China restaurant prior to the evening’s screenings.

Dining there were members of the team behind The Secret Assistants, a shrewd and subtle study of unequal power relationships in the film industry, written, directed and co-produced by Katey Lee Carson.

A cosmopolitan bunch, several of them are based in Berlin, where the film was shot, while others live in Paris (where it was edited), London and other bits of Britain.

Like Adams, they expressed no doubt that London remains a pivotal location in the wide world of film-making, and not only because of Soho, the British industry’s historic central London hub.

Other parts of the capital, including outer boroughs, have seen new film and TV facilities open in recent years, for example in Enfield and Barking & Dagenham. A 2024 report commissioned by Hounslow Council found west London’s film and TV sector to be booming, post-pandemic. Meanwhile, in Camden, Yoo Capital has plans to build a new Kentish Town film quarter.

The Secret Assistants, whose lead roles were played by the excellent Camille Rutherford and one of Britain’s most distinguished actors, Richard Hope, was not among those to win a HollyShorts London award, but the competition was formidable. The grand prize went to British-German director Franz Böhm for Rock, Paper, Scissors, which tells a harrowing story of the war in Ukraine.

It was good to again be out in Chinatown and among the West End’s Christmas lights, seeing, hearing and feeling the capital’s creative sector retaining its international allure, despite challenges and hostilities from many directions. As far as Steven Adams is concerned, that will continue: “We will definitely be back next year.”

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture with no paywall and no ads. It is funded by subscribers to publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra at a cost of £5 a month or £50 a year. To receive it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s Substack or follow any Support link on this site.

Categories: News
Tags: cinema, Lisle Street, Soho