Cabinet Member Report
Date:
Subject:
17 October 2007
Response to the TfL consultation on emission
related congestion charging.
Summary
This report provides an overview of the proposals to link the congestion charge to
carbon dioxide emissions that was published for public consultation by Transport
for London (TfL) on 10 August 2007 and outlines the proposed response to the
consultation from the City Council.
The City Council is extremely concerned that the proposals outlined in the TfL
Variation and Transitional Provisions Order 2007 should not be detrimental to the
prime purpose of congestion charging, which is to reduce congestion. A balance
should therefore be found in the reduction of local air quality and a reduction in
congestion together.
The City Council supports the objective of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) from
vehicles, but wants more to be done to reduce local air pollution, particularly of
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and small particulates (PM10) and considers that amending
the congestion charge is not an appropriate mechanism to reduce CO 2 emissions.
The City Council believes that the Congestion Charge was introduced in order to
tackle traffic congestion and not as a form of environmental taxation. The changes
proposed to the current scheme could increase congestion whilst being largely
ineffectual in reducing some of the most serious types of pollution in central
London. The City Council believes the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) to be a more
effective way of reducing pollution across London and that TfL should explore
ways in which the LEZ could be used to achieve those aims rather than focussing
on the minimal impact of the Congestion Charge.
The proposals as set out by TfL would penalise drivers of Band G vehicles in
Central London despite the fact that, according to figures for the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), CO2 emissions from roads and
transport are higher in many Outer London boroughs. The City Council therefore
believes that the proposals as set out in the consultation would penalise motorists
in Central London to a disproportionate extent to those using similar vehicles in
Outer London and, in effect, that motorists would be charged on the basis of
where they live rather than, specifically, the emissions they produce.
In addition, the proposed policy does not appreciate fully that pollution in
Westminster is a more complex issue than simply tackling CO 2. Without
developing a comprehensive policy to tackle both NO2 and particulates, the
proposals will not achieve either the aims of TfL or Westminster City Council in
protecting both public health and the environment. A comprehensive strategy to
deal with all major forms of pollution should be developed by TfL on a pan-London
basis rather than pursuing the simplistic approach set out in the consultation
where TfL are concentrating on one form of pollution in a defined part of London.
The City Council do not believe this to be the most effective or serious way to
approach either congestion or pollution.
For the reasons outlined above and illustrated in Section 4 of this report, it is
recommended that the City Council objects to the proposals set out in the
Variation and Transitional Provisions Order 2007.
Furthermore, if the Mayor of London decides to proceed with an emissions related
congestion charge the extended transitional arrangements and simplified payment
system outlined in Appendix 1 should be adopted.
Recommendations
That the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport approves the
City Council’s response to the consultation on emission related congestion
charging being undertaken by Transport for London:
1. That the City Council objects to the proposals outlined in the Variation and
Transitional Provisions Order 2007 published by TfL for the reason outlined in
Section 4 of this report.
2. That the City Council encourages TfL to extend the proposed transitional
arrangements and simplify payment processes, as outlined in Appendix 1, if the
congestion charge is linked to CO2 emissions.
3. That the City Council expresses concern that the proposal will erode the
original congestion reducing aims of the congestion charging scheme and
reemphasises its support for the extension of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) to
reduce emissions from private cars.
4. That the preparation and submission of the response to the consultation on
behalf of the City Council be delegated to the Director of Transportation in
consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport.
Cabinet Member:
Date:
Classification:
Title of Report:
Report of:
Wards involved:
Policy context:
Financial summary:
Economic Development and Transport
17 October 2007
For general release
Response to the TfL consultation on emission
related congestion charging
Director of Transportation
All
Local Implementation Plan
Air Quality Action Plan
There are no financial implications associated with
this report. If implemented by the Mayor of
London the proposals are expected to cost the
City Council £70,000 per annum until the vehicle
fleet is replaced.
Report Author:
Richard Case, Head of Strategy and Programmes
Contact details
Tel: 020 7641 3398
email: [email protected]
1.
Background Information
1.1
The City Council is committed to taking actions to reduce carbon dioxide (CO 2)
emissions, as a signatory to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change. It is
also statutorily committed to work towards improving other aspects of local air quality.
The City Council declared Westminster an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in
1999, under the requirements of the Environment Act 1995. The AQMA was declared
because of existing and forecast exceedences of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine
particulates (PM10), rather than the other pollutants to which LAQM applies. The
Westminster ‘Air Quality Strategy and Action Plan’ (2001) sets the framework for
actions to address these.
1.2
It is widely acknowledged that road transport is one of the main sources of
carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) and local air pollution injurious to human health.
Studies by King’s College London have shown that Congestion Charging has already
had some impact on reducing air pollution, primarily from changed traffic speeds. The
Mayor of London is now determined to develop his congestion charging scheme into
a means of reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. It would work
alongside the London Low Emission Zone, which is focused on HGVs and large vans,
but not cars, and local air pollutants (NO2 and PM10) rather than on atmospheric
pollutants (CO2) affecting climate change.
1.3
The City Council’s Air Quality Strategy of 2001 has identified high levels of
emissions of PM10 (particulates) and NO2 from road vehicles. In fact Westminster has
the highest concentrations of these pollutants in the UK.
1.4
The City Council’s responsibility to develop and implement an Air Quality
strategy results from the Environment Act of 1995 that requires all local authorities to
monitor the levels of air quality in their area and if defined levels are exceeded then
declare an air quality management area and develop a strategy and action plan to
reduce these emissions to meet defined levels in accordance with UK legislation and
EU Directives.
1.5
In this respect, air pollution in London is higher that anywhere else in the UK
and since the City of Westminster is in the heart of the capital, the pollution levels
have historically been high. The main cause of such pollution is the substantial flow
of cars, buses, vans, motorcycles and other fossil fuel burning vehicles that use the
combined Westminster highway network and Transport for London (TfL) Road
Network (TLRN) every day.
1.6
On a day to day basis, air pollution can cause headaches, coughs and sore
throats and there are also far more significant longer term health-related concerns
such as cardio-thoracic disease and cancers. Local air pollution can be detrimental to
those with conditions such as asthma. The City Council has actively developed a
number of projects to protect residents and visitors to the city, including:
•
a pollution monitoring network;
•
innovative schemes with transport providers to reduce vehicle emissions;
•
a fleet vehicle policy for vehicles used for the City Council’s services, so that
they are as low emission as possible;
•
lobbying for the introduction of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ); and
•
the ‘Clear Zones’ partnership scheme in the Covent Garden area.
1.7
Central to the City Council’s Air Quality Strategy has been achievement of a
Low Emission Zone (LEZ). In implementing this policy, the City Council has promoted
an LEZ for London, and has generally supported TfL’s proposed scheme for HGVs,
buses, coaches and heavier vans. The LEZ is to be implemented from February
2008.
1.8
The City Council’s statutory Air Quality strategy is currently being reviewed
and updated, and, as a signatory to the Nottingham declaration on Climate Change,
the City Council is committed to preparing a climate change strategy both for its own
activities and for Westminster and both climate change and air quality are priorities for
further action as part of the City Council’s ‘Go Green’ agenda.
1.9
The City Council is already proactively encouraging the use of low emission
vehicles through the following methods; although hitherto this has been focused
primarily on reducing NO2 and PM10, rather than CO2:
• Discounted Respark permits (29% discount to vehicles with an engine size of
less than 1200cc or electric and hybrid vehicles). At present approximately 6%
of Westminster residents take up this benefit;
• Free re-charging points for electric vehicles (on-street);
• Re-charging points for electric vehicles (via a registration scheme) in City
Council off street car parks;
• Free parking for electric vehicles at Pay & Display and Pay By Phone meters
for up to the maximum stay;
• All contracted enforcement removal trucks conform to Westminster’s Fleet
Vehicle policy;
• The recently introduced mobile camera vehicles operate on Liquefied
Petroleum Gas (LPG); and
• Electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles will soon enjoy free Respark permits.
2.
Congestion Charging Policy Background
2.1
The City Council has consistently opposed:
 the original central charging zone that commenced on 13 February 2003;
 the charge increase from £5 to £8 of 5 July 2005; and
 the western extension that commenced on 19 February 2007.
2.2
Also when appropriate, the City Council has:
 supported and worked with TfL on the introduction of a number of scheme
variations that have assisted residents and visitor motorists to the City of
Westminster such as the Fleet Discount Scheme, the Christmas period
scheme suspension and the Pay Next Day facility; and has
 worked with TfL on the preparatory work necessary for the western extension
to commence through the delivery of both on-street and off-street schemes and
initiatives. This included work on the St Mary’s Hospital and Paddington charge
free zone, junction improvements and a programme of highway works on
Harrow Road.
3.
Summary of TfL consultation on emission related congestion
charging
3.1
On 10 August 2007, Transport for London issued for consultation proposals for
emissions related congestion charging. Copies of the consultation material can be
downloaded from:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/roadsandpublicspaces/5667.aspx
3.2
Copies of the Consultation leaflet have been provided to all Members of the
Council and distributed to the City Council’s libraries and one stop shops. In addition
TfL has undertaken a public consultation exercise.
3.3
TfL proposes three payment levels for private cars:
 Low - CO2 emitting cars - 100 per cent discount (£0). Includes cars in Vehicle
Excise Duty (VED) Bands A and B (up to and including 120g CO2 per km),
but these will also have to meet Euro 4 air quality standard;
 The majority of cars - VED Bands C, D, E and those in F with emissions up to
225g CO2 per km and those in VED Bands A and B that do not meet Euro 4,
as well as those registered pre 2001 with engines up to and including 3,000
cc, will continue to pay exactly the same daily charge as at present - £8; and
 The highest CO2 emitting cars - VED Band G and equivalent vehicles (above
225g CO2 per km), as well as those registered pre March 2001 with engines
larger than 3,000 cc, will pay £25 a day.
3.4
Lorries and heavy vans which meet the Euro V standard for air quality would
pay a lower £6 Congestion Charge. The Euro V standard becomes mandatory in the
EU for new lorries on 1 October 2009 and for heavy vans on 1 January 2012. The
discounts for each category of vehicle would end on these dates.
3.5
Subject to the Mayor of London confirming the scheme order, TfL’s proposed
timeline is as follows:
4 February 2008 - Introduction of the discount for low CO2 emitting cars. The
Alternative Fuel Discount would be closed to new registrations on this date.
6 July 2008 - The last day an annual or monthly charge can be bought at the daily
charge rate of £8 (albeit discounted for the annual or monthly purchase) for high CO2
emitting vehicles (for charging days beyond 6 October 2008).
6 October 2008 - Introduction of the £25 daily rate high CO2 emitting cars. People
currently entitled to the 90% residents' discount, who continue to drive Band G cars,
would no longer be entitled to this discount and would be required to pay the full £25
daily charge.
July 2009 - Withdrawal of the Alternative Fuel Discount for existing vehicles
registered with TfL.
2010 - TfL review of the scheme to ensure that congestion benefits are maintained.
Exemptions and discounts
3.6
The 100% discount for vehicles with the lowest CO2 emissions (those in VED
bands A and B that meet the Euro 4 standard) will replace the existing Alternative
Fuel Discount. Drivers already registered for the Alternative Fuel Discount would
continue to receive the discount until July 2009, unless the vehicle changed
ownership.
3.7
The current discounts and exemptions for Blue Badge holders and Taxis &
Licensed Private Hire Vehicles would be unaffected by these proposals.
3.8
Under the Congestion Charging NHS reimbursement scheme, eligible
claimants are reimbursed the £8 daily charge. This scheme would continue for the £8
standard daily charge; however those drivers of Band G vehicles would only be
eligible for £8 reimbursement rather than £25.
3.9



Residents currently claiming the 90% discount will in future:
receive 100% discount, i.e. pay nothing if the vehicle qualified for the 100 per
cent discount;
maintain the 90% discount if the vehicle falls into the standard £8 charge
category; or
receive no discount if the vehicle falls into the higher £25 charge.
3.10 Monthly or annual discounts purchased before 7 July 2008 would be honoured
at the discounted rate.
Older Vehicles
3.11 The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) did not start recording CO2
data until 2001 so the Band G level is not appropriate for these vehicles. Cars first
registered before 1 March 2001 and which have an engine capacity over 3,000cc
would be subject to the higher daily charge of £25 as they have CO2 emissions
comparable with Band G vehicles.
4.
Analysis of TfL’s proposal for emissions based congestion
charging (The Variation and Transitional Provisions Order 2007).
4.1
The Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy provides the policy context for the
Congestion Charging Scheme as introduced in February 2003. The Transport
Strategy was modified in order to facilitate the Western Extension, which commenced
operation in February 2007. The primary aim of the Congestion Charging Scheme is
to reduce congestion within London.
4.2
A secondary effect of the current scheme is that emissions have been reduced
as a result of discouraging private vehicle traffic and enabling the remaining traffic to
flow more easily. The proposals contained in the Variation and Transitional
Provisions Order 2007 will have the effect of establishing the reduction of CO2
emissions as a stated aim of the Congestion Charging Scheme. Officers consider
that this proposal should be introduced through a revision to the Mayor of London’s
Transport Strategy.
4.3
The material accompanying the Variation and Transitional Provisions Order
2007 states that TfL expect that “Overall, the direct effects of the proposals on car use
in the short term are expected to have a small positive impact on CO2 emissions.” and
“This is .. designed to promote behavioural change at the individual level and increase
people’s awareness of the impact of their choices on the environment.”; and “As well
as continuing to tackle congestion, it is also important to seek to influence people to
switch to lower emitting cars.”
4.4
The aim of the proposals is to reduce levels of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in
London by varying the Central London Congestion Charge so that vehicles with high
CO2 emissions would pay more and those with low CO2 emissions would pay less.
Implementing this proposal would have a marginal effect on vehicular emissions of
two of the local pollutants considered most damaging to health, Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) and fine particles (PM10). There is no suggestion of providing any discount for
alternatively fuelled vehicles as there has been in the past. However, the proposed
scheme does partially address local pollutants by requiring cars to comply with Euro 4
and HGVs to comply Euro IV engine standards respectively.
4.5
Because Westminster has levels of NO2 and PM10 that exceed European and
UK statutory limits, the City Council has been legally obliged to focus on reducing
local air pollution; promoting the use of alternative fuels, notably through our own fleet
policy, and through various incentives to increase take-up of electric vehicles, such as
free residents parking, free metered parking for electric vehicles and provision of
recharging infrastructure. With the increasing awareness of the need to take action
on climate change by reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions there has been an
increasing emphasis on reducing CO2 emissions. It has also become increasingly
apparent that not all alternatively fuelled vehicles are as positive for the environment
when the CO2 emissions are considered. There is therefore, a need to connect the
issues of CO2, NO2 and PM10 emissions from vehicles. It is short sighted to consider
the prime objective of an emissions based charge as cutting carbon emissions without
considering the local air quality management consequences more fully.
4.6
Despite the stated intention being to reduce CO2, there is some link between
CO2 emissions and other local air pollutants in the current proposals. Of those
vehicles in VED bands A and B, which emit the lowest CO2, only those that are also
compliant with the Euro 4 engine standard will be eligible for the proposed 100%
discount. The Euro vehicle standards are used in local air quality management’ and
in the London LEZ scheme, as a system of identifying ‘cleaner’ vehicles. It is
considered that this should be more comprehensively considered, and the City
Council considers there is a strong case for TfL and the Mayor lobbying the
Government to do more in developing a system to identify a vehicle’s emissions more
comprehensively.
4.7
Officers are not aware of any work being done on integrating the impact of
vehicular CO2 emissions and other pollutants. The Government already recognises
that both are important in its dual tariff vehicle excise duty system, by offering
reductions for low CO2 and for alternative fuels and data on both is generally
available. However, the reality is that some vehicles, which claim to be ‘green’, can
have considerable impacts on local air pollution, so there needs to be a more
integrated system, which allows recognition of the combined environmental
performance of a vehicle. This would enable a simple classification of vehicles, and a
more equitable basis of the charge, taking into account the whole picture. It would
also address the dilemma that diesel vehicles tend to have lower CO2 emissions, but
emit higher levels of NO2 and PM10, the emissions that have to be addressed through
statutory local air quality management and action plans.
4.8
It is recommended that the City Council objects to the proposals outlined in the
Variation and Transitional Provisions Order 2007 as it is not considered appropriate to
modify the aims of congestion charging scheme to reduce CO2 emissions.
4.9
Figures published by DEFRA show that CO2 emissions caused by road and
transport pollution are higher in a number of outer London boroughs than in
Westminster (see
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/galocalghg.htm). The City
Council therefore believes that targeting efforts to reduce CO2 solely to the
Congestion Charge zone would not, alone, achieve the environmental benefits
envisaged by TfL.
4.10 Whilst supporting the use of low-emitting vehicles, the City Council believes
that by incentivising their use in the way proposed, congestion could, in the long-term,
increase within the Congestion Charge Zone thereby neutralising previous successes
in this regard. The current proposals will result in electric vehicles being treated the
same as other vehicles in Band A and band B categories, despite these vehicles
generating more tailpipe emissions than electric vehicles. This is at a time when the
City Council has been working hard to promote greater use of electric vehicles,
through re-charging points in our car parks and on street, plus free on street parking.
Treating other vehicles in Bands A and B in the same way risks undermining our and
other boroughs' hard work in this area.
4.11 The Variation and Transitional Provisions Order 2007 contains 14 detailed
recommendations. Appendix 1 outlines the proposed response to each individual
variation.
4.12 It is recommended that if the Mayor of London decides to proceed with an
emissions related congestion charge the extended transitional arrangements and
simplified payment system outlined in Appendix 1 should be adopted.
5.
Alternative proposals
Do nothing
5.1
The existing congestion charge has reduced the amount of traffic and
congestion in Central London. The Low Emission Zone is being introduced to reduce
pollution from heavy vehicles. Central Government has changed the taxation rules for
company cars and introduced variable Vehicle Excise Duty rates related to CO2
emissions.
Extend the Low Emission Zone to private cars
5.2 In its February 2007 response to TfL’s second consultation on the Low Emission
Zone, The City Council said: “In our previous consultation response our view was that
active consideration should be given to inclusion of cars in a subsequent stage of the
LEZ. We welcome the commitment the Mayor made when he confirmed the strategy
revisions, for TfL to look into the possibility of including cars in the LEZ at a later date.
However, a commitment of this kind needs a date by which the investigation should
be done. From our enquiries, it appears that no action is currently being taken on this
and that there is no clarity about when work will start on this assessment. We ask for
assurance of a date when this work will begin and a target date for a report to be
produced.”
Congestion charging not suitable for addressing CO2 reduction
5.3
The City Council believes that the Congestion Charge was introduced
in
order to tackle traffic congestion and not as a form of environmental
taxation. The
changes proposed to the current scheme could increase congestion whilst being
largely ineffectual in reducing some of the most
serious types of pollution in
central London. The City Council believes the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) to be a
more effective way of reducing pollution across London and that TfL should explore
ways in which the
LEZ could be used to achieve those aims rather than
focussing on the minimal impact of the Congestion Charge.
5.4
The proposals as set out by TfL would penalise drivers of Band G vehicles in
Central London despite the fact that, according to figures for the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), CO2 emissions from roads and
transport are higher in many Outer London boroughs. The City Council therefore
believes that the proposals as set out in the consultation would penalise motorists in
Central London to a disproportionate extent to those using similar vehicles in Outer
London and, in effect, that motorists would be charged on the basis of where they
live rather than, specifically, the emissions they produce.
5.5
In addition, the proposed policy does not appreciate fully that pollution in
Westminster is a more complex issue than simply tackling CO2. Without developing
a comprehensive policy to tackle both NO2 and
particulates, the proposals will not
achieve either the aims of TfL or Westminster City Council in protecting both public
health and the environment. A comprehensive strategy to deal with all major forms of
pollution should be developed by TfL on a pan-London basis rather than pursuing the
simplistic approach set out in the consultation where TfL are concentrating on one
form of pollution in a defined part of London. The City Council do not believe this to
be the most effective or serious way to approach either congestion or pollution.
6.
Financial Implications
6.1
The removal of the Alternative Fuel Discount and the removal of the Borough
Operational Discount for Band G vehicles is expected to have some impact on the
City Council’s revenue budgets. The actual amount will depend upon the detail of the
scheme that the Mayor of London decides to implement. Based on the proposal as
outlined in the current consultation it is estimated to be around £70,000 per annum.
7.
Legal Implications
7.1
Officers are concerned that the introduction of emission based congestion
charging is being made through a Variation and Transitional Provisions Order 2007 to
the original Scheme Orders, without the scrutiny that would have prevailed through a
revision to the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy.
8.
Staffing Implications
8.1 There are no staffing implications arising from this report.
9.
Consultation
9.1
TfL is undertaking a public consultation exercise that concludes on 19 October
2007. This report outlines the City Council’s proposed response to the consultation.
9.2
Councillor Alan Bradley is responsible for the City Council’s ‘Go- Green’
agenda and as such has been given the opportunity to comment on these proposals
and supports the recommendations in this Cabinet Member Report.
9.3
All Members of the City Council received a briefing note from the Director of
Transportation and were invited to submit their views to the Director of Transportation
and TfL.
9.5
In order to ensure that local residents are aware of the proposal, Officers have
added a link to the consultation material to the website and distributed consultation
material to libraries, One Stop Shops. Ward Councillors and local amenity societies
within the City of Westminster.
9.6
All of the Westminster Amenity Societies have been invited to supply
comments to the City Council for consideration. At the time of finalising this Cabinet
Member Report, no formal responses have been received.
10.
Business Plan Implications
10.1
There are no business plan implications arising from this report.
11.
Health and Safety Issues
11.1
There are no health and safety issues arising from this report.
12.
Human Rights Act 1998
12.1
There are no Human Rights Act implications arising from this report.
13.
Impact on Health and Wellbeing
13.1 A health and wellbeing matrix has been prepared (Appendix 2). The impact of
this decision on health and wellbeing relates to climate change and local air quality.
The implications are considered within section 4 of the main report and Appendix 1.
14.
Conclusions and Reasons for the Proposed Decision
14.1 This report provides an overview of the proposals published for public
consultation by the Mayor of London on 10 August 2007 and outlines the proposed
response to the consultation from the City Council.
14.2 For the reason outlined in section 4 of this report, it is recommended that the
City Council objects to the proposals outlined in the Variation and Transitional
Provisions Order 2007. If, following the public consultation, TfL decide to proceed
with linking the congestion charge to CO2 emissions the changes outlined in Appendix
1 should be incorporated.
If you have any queries about this report or wish to inspect any of the
background documents, please contact Richard Case (020 7641 3398); email
address [email protected]; fax number 020 7641 2658
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
 TfL consultation documents
 City Council response to Low Emission Zone proposals
 For completion by Cabinet Member
Declaration of Interest

I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………
NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Economic Development and
Transport

I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………
NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Economic Development and
Transport
(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate to
make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled
Proposed response to the TfL consultation on emission related congestion
charging.
Signed ………………………………………………
Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport
Date …………………………………………………
If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection with
your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out your
comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the Secretariat for
processing.
Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an
alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Director of
Legal and Administrative Services, the Director of Finance and Resources and, if
there are staffing implications, the Head of Human Resources (or their
representatives) so that (1) you can be made aware of any further relevant
considerations that you should take into account before making the decision and (2)
your reasons for the decision can be properly identified and recorded, as required by
law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to
the Members of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision
falls within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working
days have elapsed from publication to allow the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee to decide whether it wishes to call the matter in.
Appendix 1:
Detailed comments on the proposals contained within the Variation and
Transitional Provisions Order 2007.
If, following the public consultation, TfL decide to proceed with linking the congestion
charge to CO2 emissions the following changes are recommended:
1.
Variation 1- 100% Discount for low CO2 Vehicles
1.1
This variation will introduce a 100% discount to VED Band A and Band B
vehicles, which meet Euro 4 standards from 4 February 2008. The discount will be
reviewed in 2010 to ensure that the schemes congestion reduction benefits are
maintained.
1.2
Currently approximately 2% of the Greater London vehicle fleet are in VED
band A and B. Only vehicles manufactured after 2005 meet Euro 4 emission
standards. This discount would therefore currently apply to approximately 1% of the
Greater London vehicle fleet. As such TfL estimates that the discount will have a
minimal impact on traffic and congestion levels.
1.3
However, vehicle manufacturers are currently focussing on introducing lower
CO2 vehicles and the incentive of charge-free vehicle access to central London could
result in a substantial increase in the number of eligible vehicles. TfL considers that
the provision of a review in 2010 is essential if the 100% discount is introduced and
congestion reducing benefits of congestion charging are to be maintained.
1.4
The effect of the review could however be that there is uncertainty in the
vehicle purchasing market and as such any CO2 reducing benefit of the scheme could
be eroded.
1.5
Furthermore, Officers are concerned that the effect of
a 100 per cent
reduction could act as an incentive to motorists to drive in Central London, in
particular against the backdrop of increasing rail and underground fares. Any
discount introduced should be considered carefully to ensure that public transport
remains an attractive alternative.
1.6
Officers propose that payment of a reduced level of congestion charge, rather
than no charge, would ensure that the congestion impact of the vehicle travelling in
Central London would be recognised but would still provide an incentive for drivers to
switch to less polluting vehicles. Officers consider that a discount of 75%, resulting in
a congestion charge of £2 for Euro 4 Band A and Band B vehicles would be
appropriate. As this would not provide the same incentive to travel in central London
the need for a review after one year of operation would become unnecessary,
therefore introducing greater certainty for vehicle owners.
1.7
Officers understand that a driver will be required to register with Transport for
London in order to qualify for the discount. TfL has confirmed that a driver will be
advised of this requirement when they pay the charge. This appears to introduce
additional hassle for the motorist and should be avoided. Any motorist driving an
eligible vehicle should receive the discount automatically. Whilst TfL has not
explained why this provision is required its systems appear to be robust enough to
cope with such a provision as the higher charge, outlined in Variation 3, will be
automatically applied at the point of sale.
1.8
If, following this consultation, TfL decide to proceed with linking the congestion
charge to CO2 emissions the discount should be set at 75%, and a simple method of
payment that does not require pre-registration introduced.
2.
Variation 2- Abolish alterative fuel vehicle discount
2.1
This variation will abolish the current discount for alternative fuel vehicles from
4 February 2008. Any alternative fuel vehicles that will not meet the low CO2 discount
will continue to receive a 100% discount until 6 July 2009, providing that the vehicle
remains in the same ownership.
2.2
TfL has confirmed that only a quarter of the vehicles currently registered for
the alternative fuel discount will be eligible for the low CO2 discount. As well as
removing one of the encouragements to ownership of reduced CO2 emitting duel fuel
vehicles such as the Lexus RX400 hybrid (VED Band F/G) the removal of this
discount will also result in older, pre 2005 Toyota Prius vehicles being ineligible (Band
B but not Euro 4 compliant). However, this would be consistent with the objectives of
the City Council’s Air Quality Strategy and more recent Prius models would be eligible
for the discount.
2.3
Like many businesses the City Council has invested heavily in alternative fuel
vehicles since the 1990s in order to improve local air quality by reducing the emission
of particulates and NOx and many have been procured recently. Currently 40% of the
City Council fleet is in receipt of the Alternative Fuel Discount. The lease terms for
commercial and specially adapted vehicles tend to be longer with higher penalties
than for private cars.
2.4
Whilst the continuation of the alternative fuel discount until 6 July 2009 for
existing discount holders provides a short period of transition the withdrawal of the
discount is likely to cause some additional cost to existing discount holders.
2.5
The removal of the alternative fuel discount and the switch to CO2 and other
tailpipe emissions is considered a sensible mechanism to ensure that the ownership
and use of the cleanest vehicles is encouraged. If, following this consultation, TfL
decide to proceed with linking the congestion charge to CO2 emissions an extended
discount for three years following confirmation of the Variation and Transitional
Provisions Order 2007 by the Mayor of London for those people who are receiving the
discount on the date the Order is confirmed should be introduced.
3.
Variation 3 – Introduce £25 charge for Band G vehicles
3.1
This variation will introduce a higher charge of £25 from 6 October 2008 for
VED Band G vehicles. The variation also provides a grace period for owners of
extended cab dual purpose pick–ups (vehicle class N1). Those N1 class vehicles first
registered before 4 February 2008 and with CO2 emissions greater than 225g/km will
not be subject to the £25 charge until 6 July 2009.
3.2
The City Council supports the Mayor of London in his aspiration to improve air
quality in London and to reduce CO2 emissions as this is consistent with the City
Council’s own policies as outlined in the Westminster Air Quality Strategy And Action
Plan, Local Implementation Plan and Go Green Agenda.
3.3
The UK Climate Change Strategy aims to achieve a 60% reduction of CO2
below the 1990 level by 2050 and a 20% reduction by 2010. Transport emits 22% of
London’s CO2, and within that, cars and motorcycles are responsible for half the CO2
emissions. To reduce CO2 from cars by 20% before 2010 and 60% by 2050 will be
challenging.
3.4
It is understood that a driver of a Band G (or equivalent) vehicle will be
automatically charged the increased rate of £25 on provision of the vehicle’s
registration number.
Similarly any penalty charge notice issued would be
automatically calculated based on the failure to pay the £25 charge.
3.5
Whilst in general vehicles in Band G are prestige/luxury vehicles and a similar
vehicle is normally available in Band F this is not always the case. In fact a number of
large family cars fall in to this band including the Renault Espace 2.2 dCi, Vauxhall
Movana 2.5 CDtI, VW Sharan 2.0 automatic and Ford Galaxy 2.3. However, there are
alternative vehicles in the large family car category that are in Band F, so the issue is
one of allowing sufficient time to enable users to change to a more CO2 efficient car.
3.6
TfL estimates that 8% of the Greater London vehicle fleet will be eligible for the
higher £25 charge should they drive within the Congestion Charging Zone. Of those
vehicles currently driving within the zone TfL reports that 15% of the vehicles are
Band G or equivalent and of the vehicles currently receiving the residents’ discount
25% are Band G or equivalent. The proposed variation will therefore have a
significant impact on residents and visitors to the City of Westminster as it is to
incentivise use of vehicles that contribute less to climate change.
3.7
TfL has chosen to set the charge at £25, as it is considered that at this level it
will be a sufficient deterrent to ownership of Band G vehicles. TfL officials have
indicated to Officers that at £25 they expect the vast majority of Band G vehicles not
to enter the zone.
3.8
The proposed start date of 6 October 2008 (extended until 6 July 2009 for
some N1 class vehicles) is considered unreasonable. A large number of people
purchase their vehicles through lease agreements or with the aid of loans. These are
commonly for two or three years with a substantial financial penalty for early return.
The Mayor of London appears to accept that this exists for N1 class vehicles in
commercial use, but does not accept that similar arrangements exist for private cars.
TfL has stated to Officers that its research indicates that 50% of current users of the
Congestion Charge indicated in a survey that they would consider changing their
vehicle within the next two years. It would appear reasonable for any significant
change in price to be delayed until the majority of users have had the opportunity to
change their vehicle. It is considered that a delay of two years from the date the
Order is confirmed for those people that own a Band G vehicle on the date of
confirmation, would enable the majority of users to switch vehicles without
experiencing significant financial penalties.
3.9
It is recommended that vehicles first registered after the Order is confirmed or
that change registered keeper should be immediately eligible for the higher charge.
This approach would reduce the financial uncertainty for owners of such vehicles
whilst only slightly delaying the CO2 savings achieved from the proposal.
3.10 If, following this consultation, TfL decide to proceed with linking the congestion
charge to CO2 emissions, a two year exemption for existing Band G vehicles should
be introduced.
4.
Variation 4- N1 Utility Vehicles interaction with LEZ
4.1
This variation will enable N1 utility vehicles which are liable to pay the £100
LEZ daily charge to register with TfL to become liable for the £8 charge only in
addition to the LEZ daily charge.
4.2 From 6 July 2009, all N1 utility vehicles with CO2 emissions of greater than
225g/km would be subject to the £25 higher charge. From October 2010, dieselengined N1 utility vehicles between 1.205 tonnes unladen and 3.5 tonnes will be
affected by the Greater London Low Emission Zone (LEZ), and will be required to
meet the Euro 3 standard for Particulate Matter (PM) to drive within the LEZ or pay a
£100 daily charge. Those older N1 utility vehicles which do not meet the Euro 3
standard for PM and are liable to the £100 LEZ charge would be able to register with
TfL in order to pay only the £8 standard charge, and therefore avoid paying the higher
charge for both schemes.
4.3
This variation is not supported as it undermines the objectives of both the LEZ
and Congestion Charging Scheme by enabling a large and polluting vehicle to enter
Central London at a discounted rate and insufficient explanation has been provided to
explain the purpose of this proposal.
5.
Variation 5- £8 Standard Charge
5.1
This variation confirms that the £8 standard charge would continue to apply to
those vehicles that are not liable for the £25 higher charge, Euro V discounted charge
or any other relevant discounts.
6.
Variation 6- Euro V Heavy vehicle discount
6.1
This variation aims to encourage the early take up of Euro V HGVs and LGVs
in advance of the mandatory introduction of the standard by providing eligible vehicles
with a discounted charge of £6.
6.2
This variation is supported as it will benefit air quality within Central London.
7.
Variation 7- Payment of Charges and Refunds
7.1
This variation is administrative in nature and is required as a result of the other
changes proposed in the Variation and Transitional Provisions Order 2007.
8.
Variation 8- Residents’ discount
8.1
This variation will remove eligibility for the 90% discount from those residents’
vehicles that are eligible to pay the higher rate charge or receive the Euro V discount.
8.2
TfL estimates that this will affect approximately 25% of residents across the
whole congestion charging zone currently registered to receive the discount. This
would be 17,000 or 23% of vehicles that would cease to receive the 90% discount
and become liable for the £25 daily charge. It is not possible to determine a specific
breakdown of this estimate for residents in the City of Westminster.
8.3
A resident’s vehicle that remained parked and unmoved in an on-street
resident bay during charging hours would continue to remain ineligible to pay the
charge. This may result in some households (under the current rules of the
Controlled Parking Zones an individual is only entitled to park one car in a residents’
parking bay) obtaining an additional vehicle for use during charging hours and hence
an increase in the levels of occupancy of on-street parking within the City of
Westminster.
8.4
Any resident owning a Euro V HGV or LGV will no longer receive the residents’
discount. As these vehicles are primarily commercial in nature it is considered
unlikely that this will have a significant impact on residents. The reduction in the daily
charge from £8 to £6 for Euro V vehicles will assist those businesses that adopt Euro
V technology in advance of mandatory introduction.
8.5
If approved, the loss of the discount will come into effect on 6 October 2008 for
most vehicles. It is considered that there is a compelling argument to delay the
introduction of the abolition of the residents’ discount for such vehicles. A visitor
choosing to drive to central London has a choice of destination and time of travel.
Therefore if they wish to avoid the payment of a £25 charge they can tailor their plans
in such a way as to avoid it. A resident of the congestion charging zone has no such
choice. Should the Mayor of London decide to proceed with these changes the
abolition of the 90% discount for residents should be delayed for two years from the
date of confirming the Order for existing discount holders in order to enable residents
to change their vehicle within the terms of their hire purchase or loan agreements.
8.6
If, following this consultation, TfL decide to proceed with linking the congestion
charge to CO2 emissions a two year exemption for existing resident discount holders
with Band G vehicles should be introduced.
9.
Variation 9- Borough Operational Vehicles and selected Partners
9.1
This variation will require that Borough Operational vehicles and selected
partners in VED Band G would cease to be eligible for a 100% discount and become
liable for the £25 daily charge.
9.2
TfL currently proposes that certain emergency vehicle operators (police, fire
and lifeboat vehicles and ambulance and health service vehicles) can demonstrate an
operational need to continue using vehicles to which the higher charge applies, a
100% discount from the higher charge would be applied on a case by case basis.
9.3
Officers consider that this should also apply to Borough Operational Vehicles
as there are some functions that require the use of a Band G vehicle as no alternative
is currently available. One example is the use of approximately 20 extended cab four
wheel drive class N1 utility vehicles by the City Council for parks maintenance.
9.4
Officers also consider that TfL should be pressed to enable all refuse collection
vehicles to be eligible for the Selected Partner Scheme rather than those exclusively
used for the collection of domestic waste. The reality is that the greater majority of the
City Council’s contracted waste collection vehicle fleet is not registered on the
Selected Partner Scheme because they undertake a mix of commercial and domestic
collections. It is not possible to separate these two operations, as this would increase
mileage and be the cause of increased vehicle emissions.
10.
Variation 10- Fleet Vehicles
10.1 This variation will enable Higher rate vehicles and Euro V vehicles to be
included in the fleet scheme although they will not be eligible for the £1 discount.
10.2 Both the £25 premium for Higher Rate Vehicles and the £2 discount for Euro V
vehicles would not be substantially altered by also enabling the vehicles to receive the
fleet discount. This discount was originally introduced to slightly reduce the impact of
Congestion charging on business and to reflect TfL’s reduced costs in processing
vehicles registered in the fleet scheme. Furthermore any change should be delayed
to enable the fleet operator to amend the composition of the fleet.
10.3 In light of the original reason for introducing this discount it is considered
appropriate that all vehicles registered in the Fleet Scheme continue to receive the
discount. The City Council therefore objects to Variation 10.
11.
Variation 11- NHS Reimbursement
11.1
This proposal would limit the NHS reimbursement for patients and staff to £8.
11.2 In addition to the reasons outlined under Variation 3 and Variation 8 a patient
may be unaware that they require treatment in a central London hospital at the time of
making their vehicle purchase. The value of this reimbursement should therefore
remain at the full charge paid for patients and be delayed for two years for NHS staff.
12.
Variation 12- Diplomatic and Consular Vehicles
12.1 This variation will require diplomatic and consular vehicles to continue to be
liable for the £8 standard charge but not the £25 higher charge.
12.2 Diplomatic and Consular vehicles are covered by the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations 1961 and 1963. This provides exemptions from the payment of
taxes and dues by diplomatic and consular officers and staff except where the
charges are levied for specific services rendered.
12.3 TfL is known to be in dispute with a number of foreign Governments
surrounding the payment of the Congestion Charge.
13.
Variation 13- Interpretation and Clarification
13.1 This variation is administrative in nature and is required as a result of the other
changes proposed in the Variation and Transitional Provisions Order 2007.
14.
Variation 14- Transitional Provisions
14.1 This variation is administrative in nature and is required as a result of the other
changes proposed in the Variation and Transitional Provisions Order 2007.