A South London council has voted to oppose the Mayor of London’s “vile” Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expansion, calling it a new “Berlin Wall” along London’s outer borders.

Bromley Council has voted to oppose the expansion planned for this August, which will see residents being charged £12.50 to drive through the borough if their car is not environmentally friendly enough.

The decision comes after the council announced on February 16 that it had legally challenged the expansion in a coalition with Bexley, Harrow, Hillingdon and Surrey County councils.

The topic was discussed at a full council meeting for Bromley Council on Monday, February 27.

Have you got a story for us? You can contact us here.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to keep up with all the latest news.

Sign up to our newsletters to get updates sent straight to your inbox.

Conservative Councillor Will Rowlands called the speed at which the Mayor of London was proceeding with the expansion as “vile”, and that hospital staff will be forced into exile from the scheme.

He said at the meeting: “When shops, traders and our local economy are crushed as a result of Khan resurrecting a new Berlin Wall along our outer borders, it will be as a result of not supporting this administration, as it holds the Mayor to account along with the four other local authorities trying to return democracy and order to City Hall.”

Labour Councillor Simon Jeal said he was astonished by the points made by Cllr Rowlands, comparing the comments to those made in a GCSE Government and Politics debate.

He said: “We are clearly not going to vote for this. Your motion is essentially calling on us to support you, saying that the Mayor of London is lying. You are testing that in court, but we are of course not going to support that.”

Lib Dem Councillor Chloe-Jane Ross said her group supported the Bromley Conservatives in opposing the expansion but felt they did not share the Lib Dem’s commitment to improving air quality.

She said: “Bromley Council should not be wasting taxpayer money on legal costs fighting ULEZ. Lib Dem-run Sutton is opposing the scheme just as hard, but they are not throwing £140,000 away to make a political point.

"This money should be spent on our residents, on the much-needed schemes to improve air quality and road safety.”

Councillor Colin Smith, leader of the council, said at the meeting that £140,000 would be the maximum legal cost to the council if the case was lost.

He said: “£140,000 is roughly £1 per household [in Bromley].

"The cost of allowing ULEZ to go through uncontested would cost tens of thousands of Bromley households quite literally thousands of pounds every year and it would cost individual businesses, those that could stay in business, those that don’t go bankrupt, those that aren’t pushed out of jobs [up to] £60,000 to buy new kit.

"It’s a fight worth fighting, it’s a just cause. That’s why we’re doing it.”

At the end of the motion, Bromley Council agreed to support the motion against the ULEZ expansion, and to label statements from the Mayor of London about the quality of air in the borough as “misleading”.

A Mayor of London spokesperson said: “Toxic air leads to the premature death of thousands of Londoners every year, stunts children’s lungs and causes dementia, heart disease and other serious illnesses.

"Data collated by Imperial College London shows that as many as 204 deaths are attributable to toxic air each year in Bromley alone. The Mayor is expanding the ULEZ London-wide so millions more people can breathe cleaner air.”

The spokesperson said the expansion was aimed at London’s most polluting vehicles, and that over 85per cent of cars and vans were already compliant.

They added: “The Mayor made the decision to expand the ULEZ after considering TfL’s full final report on the consultation responses.

"The consultation was not a referendum, however TfL made a number of modifications to the scheme following feedback received in the consultation.

"This included addressing cost of living concerns with a £110m scrappage scheme to help the Londoners who need it most, including low income and disabled Londoners, charities and small businesses and sole traders.

“TfL’s consultation outlined how one future option could be to abolish existing charges and replace them with a single simpler road user charging scheme which could take into account factors such as local public transport availability, employment and income, but the technology required is still many years away.”