Glasgow LEZ: Court told Glasgow low emission zone is ‘unnecessary’

A legal challenge to Glasgow’s low emission zone has claimed the measure was illegal and unnecessary.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

A lawyer representing a Glasgow garage owner told a judicial review that data showed most air quality targets in the city centre had already been met. His client William Paton believes that the information available demonstrates that it was unnecessary for a low emission zone to be introduced. Glasgow City Council has said it will “vigorously defend any legal challenge” to its LEZ.

Advocate Lord Davidson of Glen Clova KC told the judicial review led by judge Lady Poole: “The submission is that the low emission zone scheme is illegal as air quality objectives have been met already and they were continuing to be met by the time the low emission zone was brought into operation in the city centre. To bring the scheme into being was an irrational decision by the council.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Lord Davidson told the court there were 27 monitoring stations in Glasgow City Centre that reported levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the air – the gas which the local authority hopes to reduce through the LEZ initiative.

The advocate said 25 out of the 27 stations had recorded “downward trends” of NO2 in recent years. He said: “The council did not display a relevant understanding of the facts when making its decision to implement the scheme.

“There were no sufficient facts available to the council to demonstrate that the LEZ was meeting objectives. It is unreasonable of the council to have imposed an LEZ of the entire area because of the exceedences in these two areas. The council’s decision was unlawful.”

The Scotsman reports Glasgow City Council’s advocate Ruth Crawford KC told judge Lady Poole that the local authority had acquired evidence about NO2 emissions which gave it a lawful justification to set up a LEZ.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Ms Crawford added: “In my submission that modelling cannot be properly criticised by the petitioner.

“It cannot be said by any stretch that the decision is irrational.

“Without a Low Emission Zone there would be a continuing problem with exceedances. But with a Low Emission Zone the air quality would be improved.”

Related topics:

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.