‘Shocking’ data shows every London borough exceeds toxic nitrogen dioxide guidelines, ahead of ULEZ expansion

The mayor said he is “determined” to improve air quality for children today and the next generation of Londoners, “wherever they live in the capital”.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

Every London borough is exceeding the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for toxic nitrogen dioxide (NO2), new data reveals, insight Sadiq Khan has described as “more shocking proof” of the capital’s air quality ahead of the ULEZ expansion.

The City Hall analysis, which is based on 2021 data gathered by diffusion tubes located at sites across the city, found that average NO2 concentration levels in all 31 boroughs which fed into the data to be above the WHO’s guideline of 10 µg/m3.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

14 of those boroughs also recorded five or more sites exceeding the health body’s legal limit, set at a higher 40 µg/m3.

While neither Bexley nor Harrow submitted data, due to having not installed diffusion tubes, City Hall said that reference modelling data and its own modelling suggests they also exceed the WHO recommended limit.

The analysis did highlight variances between areas. However, overall it showed a similar average pollution concentration in inner and outer London, which City Hall said demonstrated the need to tackle air quality across the city.

Brent reported having the highest average roadside concentration of NO2 (37.8 µg/m3), while the highest average background concentration was Barnet, with 29.4 µg/m3.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The lowest average concentration roadside meanwhile was recorded in Lewisham (22.6 µg/m3), with Croydon reporting the lowest background average concentration (14.3 µg/m3).

The borough which had the highest percentage of sites exceed the legal limit was Merton, where 27% of locations had NO2 levels above 40 µg/m3.

The City Hall analysis showed how all of the 31 London boroughs which provided data exceeded the WHO guidelines on NO2 levels. Credit: Justin Tallis/AFP via Getty Images.The City Hall analysis showed how all of the 31 London boroughs which provided data exceeded the WHO guidelines on NO2 levels. Credit: Justin Tallis/AFP via Getty Images.
The City Hall analysis showed how all of the 31 London boroughs which provided data exceeded the WHO guidelines on NO2 levels. Credit: Justin Tallis/AFP via Getty Images.

Of the four London boroughs, Harrow, Hillingdon, Bexley and Bromley, which joined with Surrey County Council in launching a judicial review into the mayor’s ULEZ expansion, two did not provide data, and Hillingdon did not have any sites above the legal limit.

However, it did record an average roadside concentration level of 26.4 µg/m3 and background level of 28.2 µg/m3, both of which are more than double the WHO guidelines.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Bromley meanwhile had one site exceeding the legal limit, with an average roadside concentration level of 25.9 µg/m3. Its average background concentration was not recorded in the data.

‘Rocket fuel for urgent action’

The mayor of London and campaigners have pointed to the new data as proof that the ULEZ expansion, scheduled for August 29 to cover all of greater London, is necessary to clean up the capital’s air.

The mayor said: “London’s toxic air is leading to children growing up with stunted lungs and causes around 4,000 premature deaths a year – with the greatest number of attributable deaths in London’s outer boroughs.

“This data is yet more shocking proof that London’s air quality has been in serious breach of the recognised global standard - and it’s a problem in every single part of the capital.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“I have made tackling toxic air pollution a priority since I was first elected in 2016, and we have made huge progress since then. However, I am determined to do all I can to ensure that children now and the next generation of Londoners can grow up breathing cleaner air – wherever they live in the capital.

“This is why I made the difficult decision to expand the ULEZ London-wide - to help save lives and to give all Londoners the right to breathe cleaner air.”

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Credit: Leon Neal/Getty Images.The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Credit: Leon Neal/Getty Images.
The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Credit: Leon Neal/Getty Images.

Once expanded, most drivers of non-compliant vehicles will be liable to pay the daily £12.50 charge. The mayor’s £110m scrappage scheme is available for those needing to purchase cleaner vehicles, though concerns from some, including several charities, have been raised about the timing of the expansion and the scrappage scheme’s scope.

Larissa Lockwood, clean air director at Global Action Plan, said: “The fact that every London borough falls short of the WHO’s global standards for air quality is appalling. This latest data should act as rocket fuel for urgent action to tackle the capitals toxic air.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“We have seen the power of Clean Air Day to unite a movement, to bring confidence to talk about the importance of tackling air pollution and to push for change. We applaud the mayor for giving children a platform to show what clean air means to them, as we know that children are particularly impacted by air pollution.

“Simple actions – like the mayor’s Clean Air Day poster challenge - all help to raise awareness and make a difference in improving local air quality as well as normalising grassroots action. We can’t wait to see what the children come up with.”

The mayor’s own integrated impact assessment report, published last year and informing his decision to expand the scheme, stated the ULEZ would have a  “minor positive” impact on exposure to NO2 levels in greater London.

Following the publication of the new data, Tony Devenish AM, City Hall Conservative’s environment spokesperson, said: "The science is clear: Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ expansion would have a negligible effect on air quality, while having a devastating impact on low income families, businesses and charities.

“Sadiq Khan should scrap this disastrous plan and start tackling air pollution where it is, instead of taxing people where it isn’t."