A garage owner has dropped his legal case against Glasgow’s low emission zone (LEZ).
William Paton, director of Patons Accident Repair Centre, lost a challenge against the environmental scheme in October last year.
He has now confirmed to Glasgow Times that he’s dropping an appeal, meaning the scheme will go forward without facing any legal challenge.
The businessman said he’s “sickened” and insisted that the scheme is unnecessary.
“The council has all the data. They know they have already achieved compliance with air quality standards but still they wanted to push ahead with the LEZ,” he told the outlet.
Since June 2023, Glasgow became the first Scottish city to enforce a low emission zone in which drivers are fined if their cars do not meet certain standards.
Unlike London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone, in which owners of non-compliant cars have to pay £12.50 for each day the car is driven, Glasgow’s LEZ penalty begins at £60, and doubles for each subsequent breach detected, subject to a cap of £480. The cap for minibuses, buses, coaches, and lorries is £960.
If a fine is paid within 14 days, the amount is halved.
For the first year, only non-residents are required to pay the fine. From June 1, however, residents in the zone will also have to pay if they drive non-compliant vehicles.
In the first four months of the LEZ enforcement, Glasgow City Council made £478,560 in penalty charges.
The council has said the policy would protect public health by tackling “unacceptably high” levels of air pollution.
However, Mr. Paton has argued that the scheme was unnecessary in improving air quality.
Following a two-day hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Lady Poole ruled on Oct. 21, 2023 that Mr. Paton’s grounds of challenge to the LEZ were “not well founded.”
Mr. Paton’s lawyers, Hilson Moran LLP, had presented two expert reports in support of his claims that compliance with air quality objectives will continue to be achieved without the implementation of the LEZ scheme.
Lady Poole found this was based on two readings from the city’s Hope Street from 2021 which were not based on statutory guidance for modelling or implementing the LEZ, which Glasgow City Council did follow.
The judgment stated, “The petitioner’s expert opinion provides little assistance to the court because it did not use the methodology set out in statutory guidance.”
Mr. Paton argued the LEZ would have a knock-on effect on his business because he would have to reject customers whose vehicles were not compliant and that he would lose around £1.5 million to £2 million as a result of the policy.
The court found that Glasgow’s LEZ scheme is proportionate and represents a fair balance of interests.
In a statement to the Glasgow Times, a spokesperson for Glasgow City Council said the scheme is “a critical public health measure, specifically designed to tackle harmful levels of air pollution that have blighted the city centre for decades.
“We welcome the dismissal of this appeal which means our LEZ scheme can continue to support essential air quality improvements in the city centre, creating a cleaner, safer and more pleasant environment for everyone who lives, works or spends time there,” they said.
“As part of the usual process to recover the costs incurred as a result of being forced to defend this action, we’ve asked the court to rule on granting our expenses.”
