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
Rhyl Journal
36 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
MPs to debate and vote on decriminalising abortion
The issue looks likely to be debated and voted on on Tuesday, as part of amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. The latest attempt follows repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th-century law – the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act – after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019. MPs had previously been due to debate similar amendments removing the threat of prosecution against women who act in relation to their own pregnancy at any stage, but these did not take place as Parliament was dissolved last summer for the general election. Earlier this month, a debate at Westminster Hall heard calls from pro-change campaigners that women must no longer be 'dragged from hospital bed to police cell' over abortion. But opponents of decriminalisation warned against such a 'radical step'. Ahead of debate in the Commons, Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi said her amendment would result in 'removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. Ms Antoniazzi said the cases of women investigated by police had motivated her to advocate for a change in the law. She said: 'Police have investigated more than 100 women for suspected illegal abortion in the last five years including women who've suffered natural miscarriages and stillbirths. 'This is just wrong. It's a waste of taxpayers' money, it's a waste of the judiciary's time, and it's not in the public interest.' She said her amendment will not change time limits for abortion or the regulation of services but it 'decriminalises women accused of ending their own pregnancies', taking them out of the criminal justice system 'so they can get the help and support they need'. Her amendment is supported by abortion providers including MSI Reproductive Choices and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) as well as the the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). A separate amendment has also been put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy and goes further by not only decriminalising abortion, but also seeks to 'lock in' the right of someone to have one and protect those who help them. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) urged MPs to vote against both amendments, saying they would bring about 'the biggest expansion of abortion since 1967'. Alithea Williams, the organisation's public policy manager, said: 'Unborn babies will have any remaining protection stripped away, and women will be left at the mercy of abusers. 'Both amendments would allow abortion up to birth, for any reason. NC20 (Ms Creasy's amendment) is only more horrifying because it removes any way of bringing men who end the life of a baby by attacking a pregnant woman to justice.' Ms Creasy rejected Spuc's claim, and urged MPs not to be 'misled'. She highlighted coercive control legislation, which would remain in place if her amendment was voted through, and which she said explicitly identifies forcing someone to have an abortion as a crime punishable by five years in jail. Abortion in England and Wales remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. The issue has come to the fore in recent times with prominent cases such as those of Nicola Packer and Carla Foster. Ms Packer was cleared by a jury last month after taking prescribed abortion medicine when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks for taking such medication at home. She told jurors during her trial, which came after more than four years of police investigation, that she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks. The case of Carla Foster, jailed in 2023 for illegally obtaining abortion tablets to end her pregnancy when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant, eventually saw her sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal and suspended, with senior judges saying that sending women to prison for abortion-related offences is 'unlikely' to be a 'just outcome'. A separate amendment, tabled by Conservative MP Caroline Johnson proposes mandatory in-person consultations for women seeking an abortion before being prescribed at-home medication to terminate a pregnancy. The changes being debated this week would not cover Scotland, where a group is currently undertaking work to review the law as it stands north of the border. On issues such as abortion, MPs usually have free votes, meaning they take their own view rather than deciding along party lines. During a Westminster Hall debate earlier this month, justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said the Government is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon. She said: 'If the will of Parliament is that the law in England and Wales should change, then the Government would not stand in the way of such change but would seek to ensure that the law is workable and enforced in the way that Parliament intended.'
Glasgow Times
37 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
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.'
Glasgow Times
37 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Primary school pupils using screens for tests is ‘normalising' use, Tories claim
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott said the Government was instilling screen usage for children as young as four, as the Government came under pressure to ban smartphones in schools. Ms Trott said the policy was supported by teachers, health professionals and parents. She said: 'Every day we have new evidence of the harm screens are doing. So why is the Education Secretary (Bridget Phillipson) ignoring this, and still pressing ahead with screen-based assessments for children as young as four from September? 'Does she accept that this is normalising screen time for young people, which is the opposite of what we should be doing?' Education minister Stephen Morgan said: 'Is this all she can go on? Frankly, after 14 years, they broke the education system. As I said, there's guidance already in place for schools, the majority of schools already have a ban in place on mobile phone use.' Earlier in the Commons, Mr Morgan had told MPs mobile phones had 'no place' in schools. He said Government guidance said schools should ban the use of smartphones during the school day. However ,he said it was up to schools to use their powers to take them off pupils. Shadow education secretary Laura Trott claimed the Government was normalising screen time for young children (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Conservative MPs raised the links between mobile phone usage and violent behaviour, as well as schools with bans having better grades on average. Conservative MP Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) said: 'Schools with smartphone bans were rated higher by Ofsted, and their students achieved better GCSE results. So all the evidence shows the benefit of banning smartphones in schools. 'But the Government is simply issuing non-statutory guidance and passing the buck. So does the minister not understand the evidence, need more evidence, or do you not trust the Government to be able to implement a ban on smartphones in schools?' Meanwhile, John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) said: 'Mobile phones in classrooms are linked to disruptive and violent behaviour. So does the minister agree with me that mobile phones should be banned in all schools, so the children are focused on their education and not glued to Instagram and TikTok?' While in government, the then Conservative education secretary, Gillian Keegan, sent guidance to schools that told headteachers they could ban mobile phones during the school day. However, this was short of an out-and-out ban. Since their election defeat last year, the Conservatives have pushed for Labour to introduce a full ban. In March, it tried to amend Labour's flagship education policy to legally prohibit smartphone usage. A Government spokesperson said the existing guidance meant about 97% of schools restrict mobile phone use in some way. Studies are unclear on the impact of a smartphone ban. One by the University of Birmingham, published in the Lancet earlier this year, suggested there was no link. Replying to Ms Bool, Mr Morgan said: 'I'll take no lectures from the benches opposite on this. When in government, they exclaimed the same guidance meant a consistent approach across all schools. So you have to ask, were they wrong then, are they wrong now?'
