Blog

Could Susan Hall ‘speak up for local residents’ against planning applications as London Mayor?

The Conservative candidate's response to news of a major proposed scheme apparently biting the dust shines a light on the constraints on politicians
Dave Hill

The Conservative candidate for London Mayor, Susan Hall, is a prolific user of social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, and some of her past activity, such as encouraging Donald Trump to “wipe the smile” off Sadiq Khan’s face by being re-elected US President, have attracted much attention since her selection.

Last week, Hall continued her attacks on Khan in the form of a vow to “speak up for local residents” who object to property development plans proposed in their neighbourhoods. Should Hall be elected Mayor next May, how could this promise be honoured?

A possible difficulty was raised on X by Alan Griffiths, an experienced Labour councillor in Newham. “Are you promising to pre-judge planning applications?” he asked Hall. His challenge went to the heart of London Mayors’ freedom to “speak up” about planning applications and the constraints placed upon it.

Screenshot 2023 08 12 at 09.17.14

Hall’s X remark was made in response to another experienced borough councillor, Conservative Peter Golds of Tower Hamlets, welcoming the Architects’ Journal reporting that the Chinese government appears to have abandoned its long-gestating plan to build a large embassy complex on the Royal Mint site adjacent to the Tower of London and Tower Bridge.

The application was rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in December 2022, and in February Mayor Khan decided not to stand in the way of the borough’s decision, as he could have done given the size of the proposed scheme and its potential importance to London as a whole.

Khan’s role in determining the outcome of the embassy application is an example how the planning policy powers of London’s Mayors relate to those of London’s 33 local authorities – the 32 boroughs and the City of London – and the two mayoral development corporations. Those powers, originally set out in the Greater London Authority Act (1999), have been since been strengthened and are currently defined by a legal order that came into effect in April 2008.

London’s local authorities are required to send to the Mayor copies of any planning application submitted to them that meets the definition of being of “potential strategic importance” to London, for example if it proposes the building of more than 150 dwellings, or exceeds certain heights or amounts of floorspace.

The Mayor or, usually in practice, his or her deputy for planning and GLA planning officers, then have six weeks to decide if the application complies with the policies of the London Plan, the Mayor’s master blueprint for the use of the capital’s land. This consultation obligation, known as Stage 1, entails the GLA providing the local authority with written comments about the application.

Such comments are important, because if the application is found to be in breach of London Plan policies, the applicant will need to alter its plans accordingly. Even if the local authority approves them, they must again be put before the Mayor in a Stage 2 referral to secure his or her final blessing. And a Mayor who withholds that blessing can intervene in one of two ways: either by telling the local authority it must now turn down the application (to “direct refusal”), or by taking over the application so that the GLA becomes the local planning authority instead.

There are rules about how all the decision-makers involved, including the Mayor, must conduct themselves. The GLA’s Unified Planning Code of Conduct includes a general requirement that “any discussion about a specific planning proposal, or planning matters generally, does not prejudge or prejudice the formal exercise or any planning function” (paragraph 7) and “must not do anything by which it could reasonably be regarded as them having a ‘closed mind’ as to the outcome of the decision” (paragraph 17).

That does not prevent a Mayor from expressing views or campaigning about planning matters in general “provided that in doing so they do not do anything from which they could reasonably be regarded as showing they have a closed mind or have predetermined any future planning decision, application or matter, and they must be careful not to give any such impression” (paragraph 19).

Simply put, if an application to a borough is “referable” as defined in the April 2008 order, Mayors must keep their mouths shut about it and their opinions to themselves. Even Boris Johnson, notorious for his disregard for rules, adhered to this stricture when he was Mayor. At Mayor’s Question Time in December 2011, when asked about reports that Chelsea Football Club might seek to build a new stadium on the site of Battersea Power Station, he told a Conservative London Assembly member: “Come on. You would not expect me to fetter my discretion in any planning matter about one proposal or another”.

What happens if a Mayor “speaks up” about an application and breaks the code? He or she might attract a formal complaint, which could lead to censure by the GLA’s monitoring officer. In the meantime, that Mayor might be advised and think it wise to delegate the Stage 2 decision to the Deputy Mayor with responsibility for planning.

In practice, many such decisions are delegated anyway – in the current City Hall administration Jules Pipe often takes them on Mayor Khan’s behalf. Under Johnson, Edward Lister and, before him, Simon Milton, performed such responsibilities. And, given that Mayors’ deputies are very likely to take the same views about planning matters as their bosses and are governed by the same London Plan policies, such delegation is unlikely to make a difference to Stage 2 outcomes.

However, a Mayor who opens him or herself up to being accused of prejudging a referable application – of having a “closed mind” about it – might nonetheless find him or herself in a spot of bother if they block an application a borough has consented, or reject it having taken it over. A developer so thwarted by the Mayor can still appeal to the communities (or “levelling up”) secretary to overturn that Mayor’s decision. Making the case that the Mayor had, to adapted Johnson’s term, fettered his or her discretion by speaking out against their plans while they were under consideration could carry some weight.

Susan Hall has been a member of Harrow Council since 2006, including briefly as its leader, and a London Assembly member since 2017. It seems unlikely that she doesn’t know about the constraints on what politicians can say about planning applications they are charged with determining, including those relating to London Mayors pre-judging referable applications – or, for that matter, that on becoming Mayor Hall she would inherit Khan’s London Plan and be unable to replace it with her own for at least three years.

Perhaps her reaction to Peter Golds welcoming the apparent demise of the Chinese Embassy scheme should be understood as a general statement of localist – or, more pejoratively, Nimbyist – planning policy principles, rather as a signal that she either doesn’t know or doesn’t care what a London Mayor’s responsibilities in this area are. But whichever is the case, Londoners should recognise that whatever Hall might say in advance of the election, she would do well to think very carefully before opting to “speak up for local residents” about major planning schemes should she end up becoming Mayor.

X/Twitter: On London and Dave Hill. If you value On London and its writers, become a supporter or a paid subscriber to publisher and editor Dave’s Substack for just £5 a month or £50 a year.

Categories: Analysis
Tags: Jules Pipe, Peter Golds, planning, Sadiq Khan, Susan Hall, Tower Hamlets Council

Waltham Forest: A visit to Blackhorse View

Transport for London's property company and its developer partner have completed a significant new housing project
Dave Hill

Transport for London has announced the completion of a housing development near Blackhorse Road station, comprising 350 flats of one, two and three-bedroom sizes of which 50 per cent meet Sadiq Khan’s definition of “affordable”. The scheme is the first finished result of a joint venture TfL entered into with Barratt London in 2017 along with housing association L&Q, which manages the affordable dwellings. Waltham Forest Council gave planning consent in 2018, work began in 2019, the first residents moved in in summer 2021, and now the job is done. It seemed important to pay a visit.

The development, called Blackhorse View, has risen upon what used to be a 280-space TfL car park. It shows what can be done when a borough is eager to build, as Waltham Forest is, and if government ministers do not make politically-motived interventions, as Grant Shapps did somewhat notoriously with a comparable TfL project at Cockfosters station in Enfield when he was transport minister.

Of the affordable homes, 60 per cent are for Shared Ownership and the remainder are for London Affordable Rent, aimed at people with low incomes. The proportion of affordable homes in Blackhorse View is in line with Sadiq Khan’s overall target for housing built on publicly-owned land, including TfL’s. Through its wholly-owned commercial property company, which came into independent being April 2022, TfL hopes to get 20,000 homes built altogether on its substantial property portfolio, in partnership with different property companies. Over 800 have been completed and 3,350 have been started.

Blackhorse View a good-looking development, designed by RMA Architects. Its six blocks are arranged around two green spaces linked by a through walkway. As the main photograph shows, it’s pretty tall, with one of the towers reaching 21 storeys – not to everyone’s taste, but a familiar manifestation of development finance if a scheme has to yield a high affordable proportion and produce a long-term income stream for TfL, even when the land comes free. And take-up of the homes seems to have been brisk: TfL says most of the 293 homes for sale have been bought, with around three-quarters of them going to first-time buyers, including 108 Shared Ownership units.

Img 1049

The scheme also provides 17,500 square feet of commercial floorspace, some of which is occupied by a branch of Tesco. Other retailers are expected to follow and TfL says some of it might be used as “shared workspace” augmenting the Blackhorse Lane Creative Enterprise Zone, backed by the Mayor.

Blackhorse View’s bulk is not out of place amid its immediately surrounding buildings, and it makes a determined statement about sustainable travel by being “car-free” except for some Blue Badge provision and by providing 650 bicycle parking spaces for residents. But arriving at Blackhorse Lane station by Tube and wandering in the surrounding area, the complexities of the wider transport environment become apparent.

To get to Blackhorse View by foot you have to cross the busy junction of Blackhorse Road and Forest Road, which the new development faces on to as it runs downhill towards the Walthamstow wetlands and reservoirs. The effect is to make the station feel quite cut off from the new homes, despite its close proximity. A zebra crossing further down the slope might improve things, though perhaps it would be too close to the signalled crossroads.

Img 1065

For different reasons, the pavements on both sides of Forest Road are a mess. Major surgery is underway on the one next to the development, apparently to insert cycle lanes. Waltham Forest was a beneficiary of one of Boris Johnson’s first “mini-Holland” cycling infrastructure funding deals. As a result, bike tracks bisecting and criss-crossing pavements in unexpected ways are now a sometimes bizarre feature of the borough’s streets.

The wide pavement on the station side of Forest Road is split in two by one, which also runs in front of a bus stop, where waiting passengers sat oddly marooned in a shelter planted in the middle of the footway. Further down, huge planters block pedestrians’ ways on the roadside of the bike space, which then jags left across the footway to by-pass another bus stop to its rear. Less than a handful of bicycles went by. A triumph of zeal over outcomes?

It’s a discordant feature of an outer London street now distinguished by new housing for a range of income groups taking welcome precedence over facilities for private motoring. Here’s hoping Blackhorse View is a happy place to live.

X/Twitter: On London and Dave Hill. If you value On London and its writers, become a supporter or a paid subscriber to publisher and editor Dave’s Substack for just £5 a month or £50 a year.

Categories: Analysis
Tags: affordable housing, Blackhorse Road station, cycling, Transport for London, Waltham Forest Council

Josiah Mortimer: Jeru’s uneven Mayfair menu

Fine if you’re staying at the Ritz, but regular Londoners won't want to pay £40 for a rubbery main
Josiah Mortimer

I don’t often hang out in Mayfair. Who does, except sheikhs for holiday shopping or film directors crashing at the Ritz? So perhaps I set my expectations too high. Even so, the Jeru restaurant left me confused.

It’s fancy and, a stone’s throw from Green Park station, central, too. Fight past the mopeds on the busy side street and enter through a sliding door into a kind of louche forest. Think greenery and integrated wine buckets next to the seats – a practical touch, setting the stage for casualised luxury. 

For some time, I had no idea of the price of what my dining companion and I were eating.  Jeru’s signature mains include “French Farm Milk-Fed Lamb Shoulder” for 85, or the Charcoal butterflied Sea Bass for 38. You always know it’s expensive when they don’t include the pound sign. What currency are we talking here? Thai Baht or sterling? More frighteningly, their “Chocolate Aged Tomahawk Steak” didn’t have a price listed at all, just the letters “MP” next to it, which possibly means “speak to your parliamentary representative”.

Yes, the patrons are a wealthy bunch. But we were there to get a taste of the high life, watching the chefs through the open kitchen and eavesdropping on the heirs to Mayfair.

Things began on a high note. A serving of fried potato bread with black chickpea hummus. The fresh mushroom topping on the latter, paired with truffle honey drizzled on the bread, made for a pretty sumptuous, rich combination. The miso butter was a highlight. We caned through it quite happily. 

Out came the vegetarian’s nightmare: slow-cooked chicken and foie gras tacos. The taco shells were buttery and flaky, while pickles cut through the richness of the meat. A sprinkle of herbs added a fresh, citrus flavour. It was, my meat-eating companion told me, as delicious as you’d hope. 

The octopus, though, was not done justice. That animal deserved better than its unseasoned sauce. Nestled in what was essentially tomato juice, it lacked zest. And the halloumi donuts, while tasty, were more batter than halloumi. The result was a little heavy. The sweetness needed cutting through. I wolfed them down, though, because how often do you eat a halloumi donut?

If my critique of the donuts is nitpicking, in the case of the mains it is fundamental. For a start, the set menu does not have a vegetarian option. Jeru was happy to make its roasted aubergine mezze dish into a main, but £24 (sorry, 24) for half a vegetable will trigger even the purest stoic’s nerves. 

My companion was served a charcoal “brick-pressed” chicken. Perhaps they pressed too hard – it was rubbery and bland. It came with an aubergine sauce, which set alongside my roasted aubergine, amounted to too much collusion for a sharing menu.

And the aubergine itself was both undercooked and unpredictably seasoned. One bite hit me with rock salt, the next was rather soggy. If it had a redeeming feature, it was the pine nuts and pulses which salvaged the dish by the skin of its teeth. But considering the high price point, you would expect a bit more finesse. 

Who is this restaurant for? There were high points with the bread, hummus, and the baklava desert – both tied together by the restaurant’s fondness for honey – but the inconsistency of the meal had me wondering. Do chefs sometimes give up a little on main courses? Perhaps they rely too much on the “peak end rule” – give them a banger of a dessert and they’ll go home happy. 

Jeru has some way to go before it can meet the expectations set by its chic Mayfair setting. Perhaps the millionaires will put up with the lazy mains because of the super-central location and proximity to the plush hotels. Londoners though? Don’t raid your savings for it. 

Josiah Mortimer is chief reporter for Byline Times and writes occasional food and drink reviews for On London on the side. Follow him on X/Twitter. If you value On London‘s output, become a supporter or a paid subscriber to editor and publisher Dave Hill’s Substack. Thanks.

Categories: Culture
Tags: Green Park, Mayfair, restaurants, The Ritz

Charles Wright: Fate of Thames South Bank TV studios scheme in contested balance as Gove delays

The strong opposition to the plans continues a long history of disputes about the best way to develop the less glamorous side of the river
Charles Wright

It will be a long summer for both proponents and opponents of the 26-storey 72 Upper Ground office scheme proposed by the Mitsubishi Estate London as a replacement for the former ITV studios on the south bank of the Thames, just along from the Grade II*-listed National Theatre. Communities secretary Michael Gove blocked the application last year. He had been due to give a final yes or no on the £700 million project this week following a public inquiry, but has now delayed his decision until early October.

The scheme, on Upper Ground, had previously given the green light by Lambeth Council’s planning committee and by Sadiq Khan, despite almost 6,000 people signing a petition against it. Local campaigner Michael Ball described it as a “great crouching toad on the riverbank”, and Nicholas Boys Smith, chair of the government’s new Office for Place, called it an “out of place stack of boxes…over-imposing itself on the river…with abandon”.

Gove has recently – and contentiously – thrown out Marks and Spencer’s plans to pull down and replace its flagship Oxford Street store near Marble Arch, in that case against the recommendation of his own planning inspector. The future shape of another of the best-known and most prominent locations in the capital now rests on his decision.

It’s not the only significant scheme on the South Bank. Further along the river, plans for three towers of up to 200 metres in height, designed by Foster and Partners, have just been submitted to Southwark Council. The site, once home to Sainsbury’s sausage factory and vacant since 2016, would see a 49-storey office block go up alongside two blocks of flats, 40 per cent of them affordable, rising to 26 and 44 storeys, plus shops, food outlets and new public space.

The development would stand between the prominent 50-storey One Blackfriars tower and the South Bank tower – formerly called King’s Reach tower – which dates from 1972 and was converted into apartments and extended to 45 storeys in 2016. It’s all part of a growing high-rise cluster, with more to come. And another residential, office and life science scheme, with five blocks of up to 16 storeys by Waterloo station, has been given the go-ahead by Lambeth and City Hall.

These recent proposals have attracted sometimes vehement criticism from local residents, heritage and conservation groups and from prominent architectural commentators. Historic England has been particularly concerned about their impact on the setting and views of the Palace of Westminster.

There is a long tradition of strong reactions against development on this strip of riverbank. Its wharves, industrial buildings and power stations set it apart from the grander north bank. Post-war institutional intervention in what was then a declining area was not always welcomed. When it was opened in the 1960s, the Queen Elizabeth Hall was proclaimed in a Daily Mail poll as the “ugliest building in Britain”, and Prince Charles described the National Theatre, another part of the South Bank complex, as looking like a nuclear power station.

Some office development began there in the 1960s too. The residential population was falling rapidly, as was that of London as a whole. In the early 1980s, according to the Coin Street Community Builders social enterprise (CSCB), the area was “bleak and unloved, with few shops and restaurants, a dying residential community and a weak local economy”.

Resident action groups eventually saw off plans for a hotel tower and more than a million square feet of office space between Waterloo and Blackfriars bridges. With support from the Ken Livingstone-led Greater London Council, a long-running battle between commercial interests and “people power” was resolved in favour of the residents’ plan for affordable housing, shops, workshop space and a new park on what had effectively been derelict land.

The area has stepped up its cultural and tourism credentials too, with the Tate Modern, the London Eye, Borough Market and the South Bank regularly listed among the capital’s top visitor attractions. But more recent development has had a more commercial bent, amid continuing debate about affordable housing – local campaigners argued at the 72 Upper Ground public inquiry that “there is a housing crisis not an office crisis”.

The area’s remaining “brownfield” sites continue to attract developer interest, and with it the worry that, as Times commentator Richard Morrison recently put it, “bit by bit the south bank of the Thames is becoming a cluster-mess of architectural monstrosities”. For the Observer’s architecture critic Rowan Moore the Upper Ground scheme is the product of “no particular plan or logic beyond a desire to put as much profitable volume as possible on its site” and a “distillation of commercial and political attitudes that have radically changed the Thames”.

Others, of course, will see successful regeneration at work, albeit not to everybody’s taste. What is the right trade-off in a location which, after all, was built on commerce?  The scheme’s barrister, Rupert Warren KC, argued at the inquiry that it is “more than a local place” and “of metropolitan importance, at least” deserving of “statement” architecture. He pointed out that Lambeth councillors and the Mayor agreed that the scheme would bring a sorely-needed the post-Covid commercial boost. As Gove ponders his decision, there’s a lot at stake.

X/Twitter: Charles Wright and On London. If you value On London and its writers, become a supporter or a paid subscriber to publisher and editor Dave Hill’s Substack. Thanks.

Categories: Analysis
Tags: Michael Gove, regeneration, River Thames

Havering: Council balance of power unchanged after Residents’ Association by-election win

Jacqueline Williams easily defeated a Tory rival who had been suspended by his party prior to the vote
Dave Hill

Havering Council’s joint Residents’ Association (RA) and Labour administration has remained numerically unchanged after a by-election in the borough’s Upminster ward produced an easy win for the Upminster Residents’ Association candidate.

Jacqueline Williams retained the seat for the local RA with 1,642 votes, finishing well ahead of Edward Green (421 votes), who ran as the Conservative candidate despite having been suspended by his party prior to the election after complaints were made about his social media output.

At last May’s borough elections in the outer east London borough, the Tories ceased to be the largest party, leaving them and RA councillors with 23 seats each and then in opposition as the RA block reached an agreement with the nine-strong Labour group to run the council under the leadership of RA councillor Ray Morgon.

The by-election, which was held due to the death of long-serving previous RA incumbent Linda Hawthorn, saw Labour’s John Sullivan finish third with 234 votes, followed by former councillor David Durant, an Independent who has a long association with far right parties, with 150 votes. The Green Party’s candidate came fifth and the Liberal Democrats’ sixth.

Green, who would have had to sit as an Independent had he won, was suspended by the Tories after Facebook output from him which insulted Muslims and claimed most of those hospitalised after contracting Covid-19 during the pandemic only needed such care because they were “fat and lazy” were brought to their attention, including by the Romford Recorder.

Shortly before yesterday’s vote, the Recorder published a letter from Green in which he defended calling environmental campaigner Greta Thunberg a “little autistic messiah”. In other Facebook posts he called a black woman a “race baiting attention whore” and supported remarks by Andrew Bridgen MP comparing the use of Covid jabs to the Holocaust, which resulted in Bridgen’s expulsion from the Conservatives. Green claimed to the Recorder that he was the victim of a smear campaign.

Turnout at the by-election was 25 per cent. Williams joins two fellow RA councillors in representing her ward.

X/Twitter: On London and Dave Hill. If you value On London and its writers, become a supporter or a paid subscriber to publisher and editor Dave’s Substack.

Categories: News
Tags: Conservatives, Havering Council, Havering Residents' Association, Labour

Dave Hill: ULEZ will hit poorest most, say London Tories. How else could they stick up for the capital’s hard up?

As the city's Conservatives embark on a review of how they operate, how might they develop a key theme of their pre-election campaigning?
Dave Hill

If we’re calling it a “tax”, London’s Ultra-Low Emission Zone £12.50 daily charge can be defended as progressive only in the environmental sense. Financially, unlike income tax, it does not discriminate on grounds of wealth or income. Rather, it is a form of flat tax – one which is equally applied to all who have to pay it regardless of their ability to do so.

Therefore, like the VAT consumers pay on services or goods, the ULEZ charge takes a greater proportion of the money of the poorest than it does of the richest. London Conservatives, such as Greg Hands MP, who is also his party’s national chairman, have drawn attention to this in opposing the forthcoming further expansion of the ULEZ, saying it will “hit the poorest Londoners hardest”.

Yes, we might quibble with this claim: many of the poorest Londoners don’t own a motor vehicle and therefore won’t be affected by the next ULEZ expansion at all. It is also a little incongruous: Conservatives in general favour taxes being flatter, such as smaller differences between the income tax rates paid by the highest and lowest paid.

Nonetheless, let us take it at face value as an expression of concern for some of London’s less well-off. And as Hands and colleagues embark on an “internal review” of how their party is run in the capital, let us consider other ways in which London Conservatives can speak up for Londoners with low incomes as next year’s mayoral and general elections approach.

Transport policy offers further opportunities, especially to Susan Hall, the Conservative candidate for Mayor (pictured), who is among the Tories who have criticised the ULEZ charge for its disproportionate impact on the least solvent motorists. Many Londoners who don’t have much money to spare depend heavily on public transport to get to work or to seek it, especially buses. What better way to champion London’s poorest than by promising to freeze the price of bus fares?

Of course, even though it might produce an increase in bus use, this policy would have implications for Transport for London’s finances. But Hall, as a Conservative, might be in a better position than incumbent Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan to secure the help required from the Conservative national government, assuming it still exists come 2 May 2024 when the mayoral election will take place.

The present TfL funding deal is due to expire at the end of March, but previous ones have been extended. Perhaps Hall could encourage such an extension and then be in a position to strike the next deal with her fellow Tories in Westminster, one that allows her to put London’s low paid bus users to the fore. As someone who has criticised the ULEZ expansion as a “money grabbing scheme” Hall would, presumably be equally opposed to TfL “grabbing” more of Londoners’ money through fare rises in general.

Housing is another area of policy where Hall could champion the interests of the poorest Londoners. Housing costs, typically in the form of rents, are a major contributor to an estimated 2.2 million Londoners – around 25 per cent of us – living in poverty. Proven and obvious ways to address this include the building of more homes for rent at well below market levels, enabled by a combination of sympathetic planning policies and central government funding.

London’s Mayors have significant powers in the linked policy areas of “affordable” house-building and strategic planning. Hall could again champion the poorest Londoners by vowing to secure from communities secretary Michael Gove the maximum flexibility for using funds allocated by national government towards building homes for social and low affordable rents. He has lately both shown and signalled an appreciation of the unmet need for them. Hall could publicly and privately urge him to go further.

She could also commit to persuading Tory-run outer London boroughs to increase affordable house building, such as on TfL-owned car parks. The transport body has been looking for development partners for three it owns in Harrow, where Hall is a long-serving councillor. These schemes could provide around 400 affordable dwellings. Who better than Councillor Hall to facilitate getting them built? And while she’s talking to him about bus fares, she could encourage transport secretary Mark Harper to let TfL go ahead with its plans for homes on Cockfosters station car park, 40 per cent of which would be affordable.

An area of national government policy London’s top Tories could address as part of their internal review would be the amount of local housing allowance (LHA), available to private renters who need it. LHA rates have been frozen by the government since April 2020 while private sector rents have rocketed. In London, according to the cross party local authorities group London Councils, this means a meagre 2.3 per cent of properties available for private rent are affordable to London households who depend on LHA.

In line with their commitment to London’s poorest over ULEZ, it is surely only a matter of time before Hands and Hall lead the cry for Rishi Sunak’s administration to sharply increase LHA rates in London without delay. Presumably, too, it won’t be long before we hear them demand that the Renters Reform Bill, currently creaking its way through Parliament, is enacted as swiftly as possible.

These are just some of the ways in which London’s senior Tories can develop their ULEZ campaign theme of defending the least well-off Londoners against policies that make their lives more expensive and difficult. It is a theme they give every appearance of believing to be not only morally correct but also a vote winner. Will this fervour be applied more widely? Will its scope and levels expand? Over to you, Hands and Hall.

X/Twitter: On London and Dave Hill. If you value On London and its writers, become a supporter or a paid subscriber to publisher and editor Dave’s Substack.

Categories: Comment
Tags: Conservatives, Greg Hands, Susan Hall, ultra low emission zone

Interview: The London Chamber’s James Watkins on ULEZ, logistics and land

The influential business organisation has had an important influence on the Mayor's keynote policy and hopes to have more
Dave Hill

Amid the media and political furore over Sadiq Khan’s forthcoming expansion of London’s Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), the views of organisations representing London’s vast array of businesses have received relatively little attention. Yet they and the firms, large and small, they represent have had, and continue to have, significant input into the shaping of the policy.

The London Chamber of Commerce & Industry (LCCI), which represents over 7,000 London firms and works in partnership with affiliates in every London borough, has been very active over the ULEZ, consulting its members, setting out its position and, with some success, pressing City Hall for changes to help businesses adapt.

Given that opposition to the coming expansion – as with the previous one, in October 2021 – often cites the costs small businesses face, whether for replacing commercial vehicles that don’t meet ULEZ standards or having to pay the daily £12.50 charge, some might be surprised that the LCCI has long been broadly supportive of the anti-pollution measure, even while arguing for more help for its members from the Mayor.

“I have to stress that I believe the evidence the Mayor has presented that poor air quality kills,” said James Watkins, the LCCI’s Head of Policy and Public Impact, when we met last week. “There’s no doubt on that score, and the Mayor is right to say we need to take action. We’ve only really wanted to encourage him to improve the implementation of the ULEZ scheme. It is about saving lives, as the Mayor rightly says. It should not be seen by Londoners, including in outer London, as yet another tax during the cost of living crisis. It’s good business that people have good health. At the end of the day the Mayor is right to say, ‘let’s improve air quality’. Our focus has always been on the practicalities.”

Our conversation took place in the LCCI’s Queen Street office on the afternoon before Sadiq Khan’s late evening announcement about boosting the size of his ULEZ scrappage scheme from £110 million to £160 million and widening access to financial help to every Londoner with a non-compliant vehicle from 21 August, along with immediately increasing the sums available for categories already eligible. While underlining the LCCI’s backing for the ULEZ’s air quality goals, Watkins expressed his wish for a concession the organisation had successfully lobbied City Hall for be extended.

The Mayor had already agreed to give businesses a “grace period” between ordering a ULEZ-compliant vehicle and receiving it, during which they would be exempt from the daily charge, as long as they could prove the transaction was underway. This was in recognition of the current failure of the supply of commercial vehicles to swiftly meet demand for them. Watkins said the grace period will enable many businesses to survive “an existential threat to them”. And he explained the LCCI’s view that this same flexibility should be extended to employees as well as employers, who may need cars to get to their places of work, to do their jobs or both. Simply put: “What’s good enough for businesses is good enough for the workers.”

That ask was not answered by Khan’s initiative last week, and Watkins has since urged the Mayor to take “one more step” and reach that destination by providing the same grace period “to cover all Londoners” as well as businesses and also charities. This, as he puts it, would mean “Londoners can join together to improve the air quality in our capital”.

As when we spoke, he drew attention to the “global microchip shortage”, exacerbated by political tensions with the world’s main supplier, China, which is slowing production of electric vehicles, and the state of domestic secondhand market, which Watkins fears is not nearly big enough in London at present (the Mayor and his Conservative challenger, Susan Hall, have offered their own, conflicting assessments of availability across a wider area).

However, Watkins was also clear that many small businesses will “breathe a sigh of relief” that the scrappage scheme can now cover three vehicles, along with its extension to Londoners as a whole. And he and the LCCI will keep on lobbying. The context is the concerns LCCI member firms of all sizes have expressed about the expansion’s possible impacts.

A survey of 510 of them conducted mostly in May, prior to Mayor Khan’s previous widening of eligibility for the scrappage scheme at the start of June, found that nearly half were not worried about the London-wide expansion’s effect on their employee but that a third of them were, with a slightly higher percentage in outer London areas. In terms of effects on their costs, 46 per cent thought it would have no impact compared with 40 per cent who thought there would be a negative one.

It may be that businesses’ worries have been reducing since the survey, given the further adjustments Khan has made. But they seem unlikely to have disappeared. And there are a number of other, related, transport issues on the LCCI’s radar, for example the provision of charging points in outer London for electric vehicles. Watkins praised Mayor Khan’s progress on this in central and inner London, saying it will be “one of his great legacies”. But he was clear that there is still work to do in outer London areas, particularly for commercial vehicles, not all of which can use the same charging facilities as cars.

“We are in discussions with Transport for London in terms of how that infrastructure could be substantially improved,” he said. “As we move forward towards the Mayor’s vision for London to be Net Zero by 2030, you do need a really robust EV charging infrastructure.” Secure land on which to keep lorries and vans is another matter of concern. Is there enough of it available to support the capital’s logistics industry? “One of the concerns the industry has had for many years is the issue of truck crime,” Watkins explained. “Trucks have been hijacked occasionally in the middle of the night by criminals. If there were more secure truck parks that would not only help with delivery, but also with the safety of drivers, who do a difficult job really well.”

Watkins describes those drivers as “the unsung heroes of the business world, and of London full stop. We take for granted that people drive at two or three o’clock in the morning so we can buy a new pair of a jeans in a shop the next day, but the fact of the matter is they are absolutely fundamental.” Competition for London land is intense, not least for housing. Watkins accepts this, but argues that it is also needed for businesses and the jobs they provide. Michael Gove’s recent speech about housing, in which he made plain his willingness to intervene in the formation of Khan’s next London Plan, prompted the LCCI to write to Gove, making sure its view is understood.

The London Chamber prides itself on having a London-wide perspective. This has been quite literally demonstrated in recent weeks. It has hosted a by-election hustings with Hillingdon colleagues in Uxbridge in the far west, at which Labour’s candidate announced his conversion to ULEZ expansion opposition, and in Havering in the far east it has held talks and meetings covering skills – hot topic to return to another day – and local bus services. Both the council and Watkins would like to see these improved, making it easier for local young people in particular to get access to jobs around the borough.

As for the future of road user charging in London beyond the current work-in-progress, the LCCI has been fully engaged. In March, it provided the London Assembly’s transport committee with a detailed submission for its investigation of the issue, as it has to the House of Commons equivalent and to TfL. Its preference in all cases has been for a “smart” but simplifying solution which, in the specific case of London, should, in the submission’s words, “focus on improving air quality for Londoners, reducing congestion and tackling the climate emergency”. These align with the Mayor’s ambitions, including making London Net Zero by 2030. In the coming months we might learn how far they align with those of Londoners.

X/Twitter: On London. If you value On London and its writers, become a supporter or a paid subscriber to publisher and editor Dave Hill’s Substack.

Categories: Analysis
Tags: James Watkins, London Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Sadiq Khan, transport, ultra low emission zone

Westminster: Almost 300 brands have applied for Oxford Street ‘meanwhile’ use scheme, council says

Emerging brands with imaginative ideas are being offered rent-free tenures to help revitalise the famous but ailing London high street
Dave Hill

Westminster Council says it has had a good response to its scheme for attracting emerging small businesses to vacant retail spaces on Oxford Street in any effort to revive its fortunes.

Launched on 20 July, the Meanwhile On programme, which will offer free retail space to selected applicants for an initial six-month period, has so far attracted nearly 300 a hopefuls, including fashion, sustainability and wellness brands, the council says.

Run in cooperation with the New West End Company, the business improvement district organisation for the area, the goal of the scheme is in part to replace the ubiquitous “candy stores” that have sprung up on and around Oxford Street in recent years, lowering the reputation of the UK’s most famous high street and in several cases being caught selling illegal goods.

The street’s future has been the object of speculation for some time, with major retailers reportedly put off by the deteriorating environment and high rents. Marks and Spencer has warned it might pull out of its landmark shop towards the Marble Arch end having been prevented by Michael Gove from going ahead with redevelopment plans. However, there has been brighter news with the coming return of the HMV music store to its former home and a branch of IKEA due to open in the former Topshop site by the end of the year.

The council says it is in discussions with landlords to arrange the first Meanwhile On unit to be made available, with eight to more to follow over the next three years. These will provide the first physical trading spaces for a minimum of 35 enterprises in all. As well as being entirely rent-free, business rates for those chosen will be reduced by at least 70 per cent.

Meanwhile On, which takes its cue from earlier “meanwhile” or “pop-up” schemes for revitalising retail areas and giving opportunities to innovative young companies, is part of a wider drive by Westminster, which came under Labour control for the first time in its history last year, to invest in high streets throughout the borough under its “fairer economy” plan.

Prior to the May 2022 local elections, senior Labour politicians spoke of trying to attract new types of shops to the ailing street in an attempt to improve its image and attract new visitors. The council says it is particularly keen to work with retailers who give customers an opportunity to see on the premises how their products are made, or to conduct workshops there, adding new dimensions to the shopping experience.

Applications to Meanwhile On can continue to be submitted until the end of the month.

X/Twitter: On London. If you value On London and its writers, become a supporter or a paid subscriber to publisher and editor Dave Hill’s Substack.

Categories: News
Tags: