Havering Councillors Reveal Their Views on the ULEZ Expansion and Pay Per Mile Scheme
In an effort to promote transparency and foster community engagement, we recently reached out to all Havering councillors to gather their perspectives on two crucial topics: the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expansion and the widely discussed Pay Per Mile scheme. Our aim was to keep residents informed about their elected representatives’ stances on these important issues, which directly impact the future of our borough.
We posed two fundamental questions to each councillor:
- We asked whether they supported or opposed the ULEZ expansion in Havering, along with the reasoning behind their stance.
- We sought their perspectives on the Pay Per Mile scheme, asking if they would support or oppose its implementation in Havering and their reasons for their position.
Councillor Responses
The Havering Residents Association had the most councillors respond. The breakdown by party affiliation is as follows:
- Havering Residents Association: 20 out of 21 councillors responded.
- Conservative: 7 out of 20 councillors responded.
- Upminster and Cranham Residents Association: 1 out of 1 councillor responded.
- East Havering Residents’ Group: 0 out of 3 councillors responded.
- Labour: Only 1 out of 9 councillors responded, submitting a group response rather than individual answers.
It is essential to consider that some councillors may be on holiday, which could explain the lack of response from some parties. However, we received no “out of office” messages from those councillors, which leaves some uncertainty about their engagement. Alternatively, they may have chosen not to be transparent with residents, which raises concerns about accountability.
Councillors thoughts on the ULEZ Expansion
Councillors’ reasoning varied in length, but we’ve summarised them for ease of reading.
Havering Residents Association
Total: 21 | Responded: 20 | Support: 0 | Oppose: 20 | Response Rate: 95%
Councillor Support
/ OpposeSummary of Reasoning Ray Morgon
(Leader of the Council)
HactonOppose The air quality is generally very good in Havering and it is the wrong time to bring this in and there are very many unintended consequences arising from the expansion. Gillian Ford
(Deputy Leader of the Council)
CranhamOppose The expansion has various impacts on different sectors and groups in Havering, including the care sector, voluntary sector, businesses, people with disabilities, nurses, newly qualified police, and older residents. Additionally, the lack of comprehensive bus infrastructure and limited train stations pose challenges for efficient transportation within the borough. Oscar Ford
(Cabinet Member for Children and Young People)
UpminsterOppose Criticizes ULEZ expansion in Havering due to insufficient planning, irrelevant data, and negative impacts on businesses and local employment. They question the Conservative Government’s inaction on the matter, hinting at potential political motives. Sarah Edwards
Rainham & WenningtonOppose They strongly disagree with the ULEZ expansion, seeing it as a money-making scheme that impacts people’s livelihoods, such as carers quitting jobs due to affordability concerns and families worrying about caring for vulnerable relatives. They highlight the burden it places on parents, like their daughter, who have to pay for hospital appointments and those who can’t walk their child to school due to limited school choices. Laurance Garrard
Emerson ParkOppose Extensive personal research finds little justification for ULEZ in Havering. Air quality is improving without drastic measures, with potential emission targets at Romford’s bus garage and Rainham’s industrial area. Addressing CO2 from major roads through landscaping with trees could be beneficial. Havering lacks efficient public transport, hindering residents from using alternatives. Inadequate cycle lanes further discourage non-motorized transport. Urges the Council to focus on natural solutions like tree planting to improve air quality. James Glass
Hylands & Harrow LodgeOppose Does not believe that the data supporting the proposed initiative is convincing. They have spoken to a majority of people in their ward who are against it. While everyone supports clean air, the speaker asserts that the current proposal does not address the core issue effectively. David Godwin
Emerson ParkOppose They strongly oppose the ULEZ scheme, questioning its validity when Havering already has clean air, and express frustration over the lack of consideration from the Mayor. They believe it’s a political move by Labour to raise funds and criticize the Conservatives for not taking a stand against it. As a local Ward Councillor, they are personally against the ULEZ expansion and highlight the negative financial impact on residents who had to replace their cars. Additionally, they express concern about unauthorized camera installations by TfL in Havering. Jacqueline McArdle
Rainham & WenningtonOppose As a non-driver, they recognize the potential impact of the ULEZ expansion on many car owners with non-compliant vehicles. They view it as merely another tax rather than a genuine effort to improve air quality, as paying the fee allows driving any vehicle. In their perspective, ULEZ is not the solution to achieve cleaner air. Paul Middleton
(Cabinet Member for Corporate, Culture and Leisure Services)
St AndrewsOppose Havering lacks robust public transportation like inner London, making car ownership a necessity for many, despite the high costs involved. The air quality is generally good, except for certain areas like Romford and a portion of the M25, but they contend that the ULEZ expansion is merely a tax on motorists and not a genuine effort to improve air quality. Additionally, they fear that Pay Per Mile might be introduced to generate revenue rather than promote cleaner air. Barry Mugglestone
(Cabinet Member for Environment)
Elm ParkOppose Is firmly against the ULEZ extension due to concerns about its impact on care home staff, emergency service employees, parents traveling to schools, and the lack of attention to local hotspots with poor air quality in Havering. They believe the ULEZ tax poses a significant problem for low-income workers and argues that the extension may not effectively address air quality issues in key areas. Stephanie Nunn
(Mayor of Havering)
Elm ParkOppose They support air quality improvements but believe the proposed measure is primarily a revenue-raising tactic. They express concern about the impact on people with older cars in the borough, who may not benefit from the scrappage scheme, leading to potential isolation or higher daily costs. They question the Mayor of London’s actions regarding air pollution hotspots on TfL-run roads, such as the A12 and A127 (Gallows corner). Gerry O’Sullivan
St AndrewsOppose Strongly opposes the proposal, viewing it as a tax to support a mismanaged organisation (TFL) and expressing concern that it will disproportionately affect financially vulnerable members of society. Sue Ospreay
Rainham & WenningtonOppose They are firmly against ULEZ and have been compelled to part with their beloved orange van, affectionately called Tango, which had served numerous charities, events, projects, productions, and fun days due to the potential impact of ULEZ. Philip Ruck
CranhamOppose They are firmly opposed to the expansion of ULEZ in Havering and other Greater London areas. They believe that while addressing climate concerns is essential, ULEZ fails to target major pollution contributors like bus garages and the M25. The proposed scrappage scheme is inadequate for those affected, especially small traders, and carers from outside the ULEZ area will face unfair charges. They consider the scheme poorly planned, rushed, and view it as a revenue generator and additional tax on vehicle users, suggesting a complete reevaluation with better mitigation strategies and timelines. Natasha Summers
South HornchurchOppose Expresses concerns about the potential economic impact of ULEZ expansion on local businesses, carers, and most of all, the vulnerable. Bryan Vincent
St AndrewsOppose They are against the ULEZ expansion from inner to outer London and hope that, if the High Court doesn’t rule it illegal by the end of July, the Mayor will at least delay its implementation for several years to give residents of older cars enough time to make replacement arrangements. Reg Whitney
HactonOppose They are firmly against the extension of ULEZ in Havering due to concerns about its impact on staff and people with low-paid jobs. Julie Wilkes
Elm ParkOppose They strongly oppose the ULEZ scheme, questioning its validity when Havering already has clean air, and express frustration over the lack of consideration from the Mayor. They believe it’s a political move by Labour to raise funds, and criticize the Conservatives for not taking a stand against it. As a local Ward Councillor, they are personally against the ULEZ expansion and highlight the negative financial impact on residents who had to replace their cars. Additionally, they express concern about unauthorized camera installations by TfL in Havering. Christopher Wilkins
(Cabinet Member for Finance and Transformation)
UpminsterOppose They strongly support improving air quality in London but believe any changes must consider the differences in infrastructure, demographics, and geography between inner and outer London boroughs like Havering. The significant contrasts in age, income, and population density make a “one size fits all” approach discriminatory and impractical for residents, as illustrated by the lack of convenient public transport options in Havering compared to Islington for example. Graham Williamson
(Cabinet Member for Development and Regeneration)
South HornchurchOppose They oppose the ULEZ extension, arguing that the anti-pollution benefits are minimal, while the negative impact on those unable to afford a compliant vehicle would be costly for the less privileged or result in restricted access to Havering for essential workers like care workers. John Wood
Hylands & Harrow LodgeNo Response
Conservatives
Total: 20 | Responded: 7 | Support: 0 | Oppose: 7 | Response Rate: 35%
Councillor Support
/ OpposeSummary of Reasoning Keith Prince
(Leader of the Principal Opposition)
Squirrels HeathNo Response Robert Benham
Rush Green & CrowlandsNo Response Ray Best
Havering-atte-BowerNo Response Joshua Chapman
St EdwardsNo Response John Crowder
Havering-atte-BowerNo Response Philippa Crowder
Marshalls & Rise ParkNo Response Osman Dervish
Marshalls & Rise ParkNo Response Jason Frost
MawneysOppose They believe the ULEZ is a simplistic approach to address urban pollution, with concerns that the costs of the scheme will never be recovered due to the increasing compliance of UK cars over the next five years. Moreover, it disproportionately impacts specific groups, such as those on low incomes, new/young drivers, small businesses/self-employed, elderly drivers, and classic car owners, making it an unfair and unsound policy. Judith Holt
St AlbansOppose They Believe their opinions are widely known and they strongly oppose ULEZ. Robby Misir
Marshalls & Rise ParkNo Response Dilip Patel
MawneysOppose They are committed to improving the health of vulnerable individuals but believe the Mayor of London’s approach to ULEZ in outer boroughs is a money-making scheme, suggesting that paying the fee allows air pollution. They propose cracking down on utility companies to reduce pollution from waiting traffic and highlight the challenges for elderly residents affording ULEZ compliant cars due to the high cost of living. Nisha Patel
St EdwardsOppose They strongly oppose the ULEZ Expansion and view it as an unjust and unnecessary scheme aimed at filling the Mayor of London’s coffers due to mismanagement of funds. They believe it unfairly affects small businesses, the elderly, and those who can’t afford ULEZ compliant vehicles. They also oppose the pay-per-mile scheme, citing its impact on daily commuters and family visits to elderly relatives. Proper consultation and recognition of the differences between outer and inner London Boroughs are lacking in these proposals. Viddy Persaud
Rush Green & CrowlandsNo Response Timothy Ryan
Rush Green & CrowlandsOppose They strongly oppose the ULEZ expansion, expressing their disgust, especially since their father had to part with his cherished car, which was a retirement gift after 40+ years at Ford. Carol Smith
MawneysNo Response Christine Smith
Hylands & Harrow LodgeOppose They oppose the ULEZ expansion due to the personal burden it has imposed on them, having to trade in their car to become compliant, affecting their ability to care for their mother. They highlight that many other residents in Havering will also be impacted, including those needing child care, businesses, and public service workers, making it a widespread concern. David Taylor
St EdwardsOppose They strongly oppose the ULEZ expansion to outer London, including Havering, stating that it does little to improve air quality and is a wasteful use of £300 million. They believe investing in public transport, better bus links, and replacing TFL’s aging fleet would be a more beneficial use of funds. They express concern that the ULEZ will disproportionately affect the poorest, as many may not afford compliant vehicles, and suggest putting the entire budget into a scrappage scheme to truly address car-created pollution. Christine Vickery
Squirrels HeathNo Response Damian White
Havering-atte-BowerNo Response Michael White
Squirrels HeathNo Response
Labour
Total: 9 | Responded: 0 | Support: 9 | Oppose: 0 | Response Rate: 0%
Statement on behalf of the Havering Labour Group:
“We restate our previous position that the implementation of ULEZ should be delayed and that additional resources should be provided for the scrappage scheme. We are encouraging Labour Party Leadership to give further consideration to the implications for the outer London authorities who do not benefit from extensive public transport networks. Road pricing will have to be considered in future as new ways of travel are developed. This is recognised as a cross-Party issue at Central and Local Government levels.”
Councillor Support
/ OpposeSummary of Reasoning Keith Darvil
(Leader of the Labour Group and Cabinet Member for Climate Agenda)
HeatonNo Response Mandy Anderson
HeatonNo Response Patricia Brown
(Deputy Mayor of Havering)
GooshaysNo Response Jane Keane
St AlbansNo Response Paul McGeary
Cabinet Member for HousingNo Response Trevor McKeever
Beam ParkNo Response Matthew Stanton
Beam ParkNo Response Katharine Tumilty
GooshaysNo Response Frankie Walker
HeatonNo Response
Upminster and Cranham Residents Association
Total: 1 | Responded: 1 | Support: 0 | Oppose: 1 | Response Rate: 100%
Councillor Support
/ OpposeSummary of Reasoning John Tyler
CranhamOppose They acknowledge the validity of the stated reasons behind the ULEZ expansion but express concerns about the patchy transport network in Havering, particularly outside of Romford, which could unfairly disadvantage poorer residents, older individuals, and commuters with older non-compliant vehicles. They suggest that if ULEZ is introduced, a considerably expanded bus network should accompany it.
East Havering Residents’ Group
Total: 3 | Responded: 0 | Support: TBC | Oppose: TBC | Response Rate: 0%
Councillor Support
/ OpposeSummary of Reasoning Brian Eagling
Harold WoodNo Response Martin Good
Harold WoodNo Response Darren Wise
Harold WoodNo Response
If your councillor hasn’t responded to our inquiry, we encourage you to reach out to them directly to inquire about their stance on ULEZ expansion and the Pay Per Mile scheme. Engaging with your representatives can foster a deeper understanding of their perspectives and ensure that your voice is heard on matters of utmost importance to our community.
What about Pay Per Mile?
For ease of reading, we have summarised the comments from each group.
Residents Association (H.R.A, Upminster and Cranham Residents Association)
Overall, the HRA councillors are largely opposed to any potential implementation of a Pay Per Mile (PPM) scheme. They argue that residents already pay road tax and high fuel taxes, and introducing PPM would essentially be an additional tax burden on drivers. They express concern that the government might lose out on tax revenue as more people switch to electric vehicles and suggest that taxing EVs should be carefully considered to avoid penalizing all drivers.
Furthermore, the councillors criticize the Labour Mayor of London, saying he would use the PPM scheme as a way to generate more revenue. They also question whether a PPM scheme would address congestion effectively, especially in areas like Havering where congestion is not a significant issue.
Some councillors question the fairness of a PPM scheme, arguing that it could disproportionately affect certain groups, such as tradesmen, carers, and the elderly who rely on their vehicles for work or essential activities. They also express doubts about the efficiency and viability of public transportation in Havering, making a PPM implementation challenging for the area.
While some councillors remain open to considering a nationwide PPM scheme or alternatives to the current charging system, many express strong objections to its implementation in their borough or as a stand-alone measure in London, viewing it as a money-making scheme without adequate consideration for residents’ needs and financial burdens.
Havering Conservatives
Havering Conservative councillors hold varied opinions on the Pay Per Mile (PPM) scheme. Some are open to the idea of a national PPM scheme if well-designed, while others would reject it. A few councillors believe that PPM could replace the unfair road tax system, making payments more equitable based on actual usage. However, they are concerned that if introduced by TFL, it would be an additional burden alongside existing road tax, impacting vulnerable groups like the elderly and businesses dependent on driving. For PPM to be feasible, some councillors emphasize the need for substantial investment in transport infrastructure, especially in outer London areas like Havering, to provide viable alternatives to private motor transport.
The potential challenges of a PPM scheme include its fairness for lower-income drivers with older cars, privacy concerns related to increased monitoring, and its impact on daily commuting and family visits. The councillors express frustration over the lack of proper consultation in considering these schemes, and they highlight the differences between inner and outer London boroughs regarding PPM implementation.
In summary, the Havering Conservative councillors have differing views on PPM, with some supporting it under certain conditions, while others strongly oppose it, citing potential negative consequences and a lack of proper consideration for specific areas’ needs.
Labour
Labour made reference in their statement saying “Road pricing will have to be considered in future as new ways of travel are developed. This is recognised as a cross-Party issue at Central and Local Government levels.“
Support Local Journalism
We at The Havering Daily appreciate your support of quality journalism. Your generous donation, no matter the size, allows us to continue bringing unbiased and informative news to the community. Your contribution helps us maintain our independence and allows us to continue providing high-quality journalism. Thank you for valuing the work we do and for supporting our mission
Thank you
Stay up to date with all of our latest updates and content by following us on our social media accounts!
We have created community pages where we will share our up-to-date stories happening in the area. Add the area closest to where you live.
Discover more from The Havering Daily
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
An outstanding piece of journalism. Well done.
Wasn’t it depressing that there wasn’t a single mention of Public Health, early deaths and the fact that large numbers of Havering residents don’t have a car. The sharp focus on carers seems to me that they believe that this is a *killer* argument. There was also the usual, thinly disguised, special pleading because they personally were effected generalised to make it look as if this had wider credibility. Finally I like the idea that one councillor had spoken to the *majority* of residents in his ward – a bit of artistic licence there I think.
The worlds on fire but you want me to give up an old banger? This is why the world is doomed.
Yes, its also a money maker- but why is the money needed? Because the govt wont give TFL the funds it needs, it lost a lot of revenue during the pandemic, doesnt sound like mismanagement to me. Its politicians playing games.
Pingback:Emerson Park councillor’s on going battle against ULEZ. – The Havering Daily