Sir Sadiq Khan to pedestrianise Oxford Street ‘as quickly as possible'
Two-thirds (66%) of respondents to a consultation support the pedestrianisation plan, Sir Sadiq's office said.
A separate YouGov survey conducted in September 2024 indicated 63% of Londoners are in favour of the project.
Oxford Street is one of the world's busiest shopping areas, with around half a million visitors each day.
Sir Sadiq Khan wants to ban vehicles from a 0.7-mile stretch between Oxford Circus and Marble Arch, with the potential for further changes towards Tottenham Court Road.
Detailed proposals for traffic will be consulted on later this year.
A previous attempt by Sir Sadiq to pedestrianise that part of Oxford Street was blocked by then-Conservative run Westminster City Council in 2018.
His latest proposals depend on him obtaining permission from Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner in her role as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to establish a new Mayoral Development Corporation, which would provide planning powers.
The aim is for this to be created by the start of next year.
Sir Sadiq said: 'Oxford Street has suffered over many years, so urgent action is needed to give our nation's high street a new lease of life.
'It's clear that the vast majority of Londoners and major businesses back our exciting plans, so I'm pleased to confirm that we will now be moving ahead as quickly as possible.
'We want to rejuvenate Oxford Street; establish it as a global leader for shopping, leisure and outdoor events with a world-class, accessible, pedestrianised avenue.
'This will help to attract more international visitors and act as a magnet for new investment and job creation, driving growth and economic prosperity for decades to come.'
Ms Rayner said: 'We want to see Oxford Street become the thriving place to be for tourists and Londoners alike, and that's why we welcome the Mayor of London's bold proposals to achieve that.
'We will support the mayor in delivering this ambitious vision, which will help to breathe new life into Oxford Street – driving investment, creating new jobs for local people and providing a boost to economic growth in the capital.'
Adam Hug, leader of Labour-controlled Westminster City Council, said: 'While the mayor's formal decision today was not the City Council's preferred outcome, it is far from unexpected, and it is now important for Oxford Street's future to move forward together.
'Since the mayor's new approach was made public last autumn, Westminster has worked pragmatically and productively with the Greater London Authority (GLA) to ensure that the plan for Oxford Street more closely meets the needs of businesses, visitors, and residents.
'Since 2022, Oxford Street has roared back to life after the pandemic. Such is the level of retail confidence that existing brands have spent £118 million refitting their stores in the last 12 months alone, according to Savills.
'Westminster City Council will work constructively with the mayor's team to ensure the nation's high street is re-imagined in a way that works for visitors, shoppers, and our residents.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
31 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Welfare U-turn will cost £2.5bn by 2030, Liz Kendall tells MPs
The Government's U-turn on welfare cuts will cost taxpayers around £2.5 billion by 2030, the Work and Pensions Secretary has told MPs as she laid out concessions to Labour rebels. Liz Kendall said the costs and savings of the Government's revised welfare package would be confirmed by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the budget in the autumn. But her statement to MPs on Monday suggested the measures would save less than half the £4.8 billion the Government had expected from its initial proposals. Ms Kendall's statement confirmed the concessions announced last week in an effort to head off a major rebellion by Labour backbenchers, including protecting people who claim personal independence payments from new eligibility criteria. Responding to claims this would create a 'two-tier' benefits system, Ms Kendall said: 'I would say to the House, including members opposite, that our benefits system often protects existing claimants from new rates or new rules, because lives have been built around that support, and it's often very hard for people to adjust.' Earlier, modelling from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) suggested the Government's proposals would push 150,000 more people into poverty by 2030. The figure is down from the 250,000 extra people estimated to have been facing relative poverty after housing costs under the original proposals. Modelling published by the DWP said the estimate does not include any 'potential positive impact' from extra funding and measures to support people with disabilities and long-term health conditions into work. Speaking in the Commons on Monday afternoon, Ms Kendall insisted that changes to her proposals on Pip and universal credit would 'ensure no existing claimants are put into poverty'. A Number 10 spokesman also said that the DWP's poverty modelling was 'subject to uncertainty' and did not 'reflect the full picture', including investment in the health service to help people get back to work. Ministers hope the concessions will be enough to avert defeat when MPs vote on the reforms on Tuesday, although Downing Street remains braced for a substantial revolt. A 'reasoned amendment' proposed by senior Labour backbencher Dame Meg Hillier had received support from 126 Labour MPs, enough to overturn Sir Keir Starmer's majority. On Friday, Dame Meg had described the concessions as a 'workable compromise'. But Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, who negotiated the concessions alongside Dame Meg, told ITV News on Monday that the Government had rowed back on what had been negotiated. Although she described the concessions as 'good', Ms Abrahams said the rebels were 'not quite there yet' on a deal with the Government. She added: 'The actual offer that was put to one of the negotiating team wasn't actually what we thought we had negotiated on Wednesday and Thursday. There are some issues around that.' In the Commons, both Dame Meg and Ms Abrahams raised concerns that a review of Pip, to be conducted by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms, would report too late to have an effect on the changes scheduled for November 2026. Meanwhile, Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately accused the Government of making 'unfunded U-turns costing billions and welfare plans that are not worth the paper that they are written on'. She said: 'Their latest idea is a two-tier welfare system to trap people in a lifetime on benefits and deny them the dignity of work while leaving the taxpayer to pick up the ever-growing bill.' Tory leader Kemi Badenoch confirmed on Monday evening that her party would vote against the Government's proposals, saying they were 'not serious welfare reform'. Accusing Sir Keir of having 'watered down the small savings Labour were making', she added: 'We have a Government that is incapable of governing. For that reason, we will be voting against the welfare Bill tomorrow.' The U-turn will also cause problems for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who will now have to find a way to cover the shortfall between the amount the Government had expected to save, and the new, lower figure. And that figure could be even higher, with economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation suggesting last week the U-turn could cost in the region of £3 billion, raising the prospect of further tax rises.
Spectator
36 minutes ago
- Spectator
Liz Kendall's humiliating welfare climb-down
'This government believes in equality and social justice,' began Liz Kendall. Which government she was describing is anyone's guess. I suspect that if you were to ask the general public what they thought the government believed in, 'equality' and 'social justice' wouldn't even make the top 100 printable responses. The government were facing a backbench rebellion so great that even the cabinet – who, as anyone who has ever seen them give an interview can attest, have an appetite for humiliation which appears to be almost sadomasochistic – were having second thoughts Kendall was at the House for the start of a monumental climb-down: think Hillary and Tenzing in reverse. The hapless one-time leadership candidate was now the face of the Starmer government as it explained why it was backtracking on its flagship welfare reforms. Kendall claimed it was because this Labour government listens. In fact, it was because they were facing a backbench rebellion so great that even the cabinet – who, as anyone who has ever seen them give an interview can attest, have an appetite for humiliation which appears to be almost sadomasochistic – were having second thoughts. The great climb-down was delivered in a sort of identikit motivational speaker voice. Kendall had the general air of someone leading a team ice-breaker exercise for a depressed corporate team at the Best Western off the Reading Ring Road. In a just world, this is exactly what most of her colleagues would be doing. 'We are delivering on our promises' Kendall whirred, all misplaced emphases and faux sincerity. There came a sort of apologia for what the government had done which, though technically delivered facing the Tory benches, was basically directed at the rebels. Kendall referenced what she presumably believes to be government successes. We heard at length and at volume about the 'Right to Try' scheme. This policy which enabled disabled people to try out the world of work is clearly an attempt to produce a catchy title and legacy akin to Thatcher's famous policy. To use a cinematic analogy: this is less an affectionate remake and more like someone filming a blockbuster on a handheld camera at the back of a cinema, with every other scene interrupted by someone going for a pee, and then trying to sell it out of the back of a van. After this bluff came the catering sized portion of Humble Pie. 'We have listened carefully,' Kendall said, 'in particular to disabled people and their organisations'. This must be some new policy on behalf of Kendall since she was one of the core cabinet cheerleaders of the Assisted Suicide Bill, which disabled groups opposed unanimously. The shadow secretary of state, Helen Whately didn't spend long responding to the absurdity of what had just been said. 'Nothing we've seen of Labour over the last few weeks suggests they have the courage and conviction to deal with this problem'. As Donald Trump once said, 'many such cases'. She asked one question of the Secretary of State: how were they going to pay for this? 'I'm in listening mode.' said Kendall in response which actually drew a laugh. She then reverted to an old trick of talking about how awful the Tories had been. For this she got some lukewarm cheers. Behind her, the crocodiles began to circle. This won't be the Starmer government's last cock-up and climb-down, but it might prove to be the first which its obituarists reference as leading to the inevitable.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Somerville made clear we have different priorities from rest of the UK
Shirley-Anne Somerville was excellent for the SNP: calm, measured and clearly stating that Scotland has very different priorities from the rest of the UK. She was clear, concise and to the point. She showed what Scotland could be, and is not ashamed to stand up and say it. Anas Sarwar only has his prepared script about SNP BAD. Once he recited that, he had nothing else to contribute. (The script is dulled through constant repetition by him and Labour politicians). I truly wonder if he has a conscience at all. He supported Starmer's 'reforms', which many Labour ministers clearly misunderstood. PIP and its equivalent in Scotland is to help disabled people to have a normal life, with help with travel costs etc that is needed because of their conditions. And never forget the debt left in Scotland from PFI and its descendants, which has left councils paying huge sums even yet and for many more years. READ MORE: Theatrics of Unionist duo on Question Time were cringeworthy Never forget the Waspi women – lauded until Westminster Labour abandoned them and Dame Jackie went into hiding about them. Never forget the women of Glasgow and their years of fighting with Labour over equal pay, which the SNP had to sort out and pay out. We may think this is old news, but unfortunately the debts incurred have not yet been paid off. Is it the case that it is only with rebellion that we can see a faint shadow of what Labour should be? Radio Scotland on Friday morning could get no-one from Scottish Labour and had to resort to an English Labour peer – Sarwar cannot even own his thinking and explain or humbly admit the U-turn. The BBC are certainly on the side of Reform. The way they promote them while ignoring the LibDems and the Greens, especially in Scotland, is a disgrace. One thing about Reform people is that they can talk, even if what they say is student politics and pie in the sky with no depth of thinking and no real answers to anything, just power-hungry millionaires. Mind you, that might just as well apply to the Labour Party. Winifred McCartney Paisley SUCH a moral victory for those Labour MPs who threatened to scupper the government's planned withdrawal of support for some disabled people. Will they now support the amended bill: a bill that merely delays the cruelty until next year? Apparently, the moral high ground is time-limited! Peter Barjonas Caithness IN response to Alexander Potts and his concerns for 'answers to a great number of questions before independence and not after it' (Jun 20), I can wholeheartedly recommend reading Lesley Riddoch's Thrive, if he hasn't done so, and her inspiring and multi-faceted approach to our constitutional crisis. For in the face of a widening gap between the Scottish people and their Scottish Government, we are heading for a crisis of democracy. Like a lot of independenistas, I also look forward to the day when the UN agrees that we are a colony of England. That day could be a lot closer than might be expected if only the alleged Cabinet Secretary responsible for the constitution would decide to act in the interests of Scotland's citizenry rather than play the lackey to his tartan Sir Humphrey. READ MORE: Labour accused of 'breath-taking hypocrisy' over English oil refinery rescue Whilst I've no problem supporting Alexander's plea for a rerun of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, the correspondence in The National Conversation demonstrates there is plenty of will but there appears no clear way of achieving our goal. The UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, however, is a clear route as the Covenant is unambiguous, in Part 1, Article 1: 'All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.' The only minor difficulty is that the Cabinet Secretary of the party of Scotland's independence declines to support the petition to have the covenant adopted into Scots law. Those behind the petition have defeated the argument spouted by the English civil service that adoption of the covenant is an infringement of reserved powers in the Scotland Act and while the petition PE2135, with 6931 signatories, is still under consideration at Holyrood's Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, it needs support. In particular, it needs the support of independenistas in Edinburgh Central and constituents of the said Cabinet Secretary, so that they might have an MSP who better reflects their views on our country's independence. Iain Bruce Nairn I WAS delighted by Roger Mullin's review in the Sunday National of a long overdue biography of my friend Neil MacCormick, whose distinguished career spanned so much in the fields of law, academia, politics and university life (This telling of my old friend's life can best be described as a joyful challenge, Jun 29). About a week before I was privileged to conduct his funeral in a packed Greyfriars Church in Edinburgh, I visited him at home. He was very frail, but the first thing he said was to ask how my two-week-old grandson was doing. That showed the true measure of a great and generous humanity, which undergirded all his public achievements and inspired his political service. Would that today, in a dark world, we would see this quality in public life. Iain Whyte (Rev Dr) North Queensferry
