guce

Yahoo is part of the Yahoo family of brands.

When you use our sites and apps, we use cookies to:

If you click 'Accept all', we and our partners, including 236 who are part of the IAB Transparency & Consent Framework, will also store and/or access information on a device (in other words, use cookies) and use precise geolocation data and other personal data such as IP address and browsing and search data, for analytics, personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, and audience research and services development.

If you do not want us and our partners to use cookies and personal data for these additional purposes, click 'Reject all'.

If you would like to customise your choices, click 'Manage privacy settings'.

You can withdraw your consent or change your choices at any time by clicking on the 'Privacy & cookie settings' or 'Privacy dashboard' links on our sites and apps. Find out more about how we use your personal data in our privacy policy and cookie policy.

Manage privacy settings

Store closures across London have hit a 10-year high following Sir Sadiq Khan’s expansion of the ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez).

According to new figures from property analysts firm CoStar, the vacancy rate for shops across all London boroughs soared to 6.2pc this year, compared to 1.9pc in areas immediately outside of the capital.

The figures reflect the impact of the Ulez on high streets, particularly after the Mayor of London expanded the charge to cover the whole of the capital two years ago.

CoStar’s researchers said that while the effects of the pandemic have increased retail vacancy rates across the country, the increases elsewhere were “more moderate” than those in the capital.

Store closures have been proven to be a particular problem in outer London.

For example, the number of empty shops in Bromley has more than doubled to more than 20 since July last year, figures show.

Retail parks within the Ulez zone are also battling vacancy rates of 4.2pc, CoStar found, compared to 0.2pc for those in unaffected areas.

This has been fuelled by a drop in leasing demand, as retailers fear reduced footfall caused by Ulez, which charges drivers whose vehicles do not comply with emissions standards £12.50 a day.

Thomas Turrell, the Conservative London Assembly member for Bexley and Bromley, said: “The Conservatives warned the Mayor quite clearly that the ULEZ expansion would have unforeseen impacts on the way people in outer London live and work – and as we see now in the data, one of those consequences is the high street.

“Local economies are struggling already as a result of the Labour Government’s catastrophic jobs tax, and the Mayor whacking ULEZ on top is only exacerbating that. High streets are at the heart of our local economies, and I want to see work done to save them before it is too late.

“Sadiq Khan and Labour just don’t get Greater London, the ill-advised expansion of ULEZ to Outer London was a clear example of this.”

Patrick Scanlon, senior director of market analytics at CoStar, said the group’s findings signalled that the expanded policy has shrunk demand for retail space.

He said that the negative impact of Ulez could potentially be a “short-term problem” because more drivers will gradually trade their old vehicles for newer ones.

However, Mr Scanlon warned that high vacancy rates could have a serious effect on investment.

He said: “The question is how much more vacancy we’re going to see because of the Ulez expansion. Investors will tend not to want to buy into areas with systemic high vacancy, so there are implications. Attracting investors might become difficult.”

A spokesman for the Mayor of London said that TfL and the GLA’s report found the Ulez expansion “has not impacted footfall or retail and leisure spending in either outer London or London as a whole”.

She also pointed to research from the Centre for Cities, the think tank, which concluded that the expansion has not reduced demand for high street goods and services.

The spokesman said: “Recent data shows that Ulez works, driving down levels of pollution and bringing cleaner air to all Londoners.

“With 97.1pc of vehicles seen driving in London now Ulez compliant, the data also shows that Londoners have continued to upgrade their vehicles to cleaner models.”

The worker – who has not been named but who is thought to be an IT specialist – tried to reclaim the £1,239 cost of the visa by claiming it was money he had spent booking a plane flight.

When it was explained that expenses claims were limited to £400, the worker then submitted three claims for the maximum amount permitted, and a fourth for the £39 that remained outstanding.

The near breach of the Greater London Authority’s financial rules only came to light following a chance investigation by its internal counter fraud team.

Critics are now questioning why the GLA covers the cost of immigration visas for temporary staff, amid concern at the rising cost of agency workers at City Hall.

The counter fraud report, revealed to the London Assembly, said: “One expense claim for £1,239 was coded as ‘Travel via flight’, however, this expense was a claim for a Certificate of Sponsorship from UK Visas & Immigration.

“The claim was investigated by the DARA [Directorate of Audit, Risk and Assurance] counter fraud and should have been paid for by the sponsoring organisation and not the agency worker.”

GLA auditor Mark Woodley told the London Assembly audit panel last week: “Somewhere along the line, the process slipped a bit with regards to that payment.”

Neil Garratt, the Tory chairman of the London Assembly’s audit panel, said he was “alarmed” to discover “multiple steps of questionable behaviour” in relation to the claim. “It was clearly known to not be a flight,” he said.

The panel was told that the GLA does cover the cost of work permits for foreign workers but this is normally done by a manager using a corporate credit card.

Dianne Tranmer, from the GLA’s corporate resources team, told the committee that steps were being taken to increase monitoring of agency staff.

But she admitted: “I’m not sure how many [visa] sponsorships we are doing.”

Latest figures show that City Hall is spending almost £9m a year on 104 agency staff, despite a slight reduction in the total number of temporary workers.

Agency workers are provided to the GLA by Reed, the recruitment agency. The agency bill for City Hall rose year-on-year from £8,241,004 to £8,955,133.

Under guidelines on agency staff introduced by the GLA last year, temporary workers are not meant to be used for more than 12 weeks.

However the average length of contract has increased from 40 to 54 weeks – more than a year.

There are “no clear plans” to reduce the number of agency staff, according to the GLA’s auditors.

Mr Garratt told The Standard afterwards: “No one could tell me if it's normal to sponsor an immigration visa for an agency temp, or even now many visas in total the GLA is sponsoring.

“Far from alarm that the £1,200 visa cost went in as a dodgy expenses claim, it was explained that they're often just put on a manager's credit card. This case only came to light through the auditors' random spot check so we will now have a full review.

“Meanwhile, the plan to lower the agency staff cost has failed as the bill soared even higher. Perhaps because, as we learned, there is no plan, it's just something they've been talking about for 18 months.

A GLA spokesman said that, following a review, the wrongful claim was not classed as having been made fraudulently.

He said: “The money has not been recouped, as the GLA should have paid for the Certificate of Sponsorship.”

The individual is no longer classed as an agency worker and is on a fixed-term contract that will end on December 31.

The spokesman said: “The GLA recognises that it should have paid directly for this Certificate of Sponsorship, rather than handling it as an expenses claim.

“Actions have been taken to ensure the processes are more clearly defined to avoid this happening in the future.”

Back in May, we shared the news that a dedicated PAW Patrol-themed land is coming to Chessington World of Adventures in 2026, but the latest is that the Greater London theme park is getting five brand new PAW Patrol-themed hotel rooms – and they’re opening even sooner.

The five rooms will transport families straight to Adventure Bay with a control panel in the style of the pup’s famous Lookout Tower, a periscope with panoramic views, bunk beds made to look like the iconic PAW Patroller vehicle, and even a designated PAW Patrol parking space.

The five rooms will be the first and only PAW Patrol accommodation in the UK, and are available to book from October 24. Each room sleeps up to two adults and three children, and prices start at just £155 for a family of four, including breakfast. Every stay in a PAW Patrol room comes with early ride access, a Reserve & Ride one-shot pass, and a special ‘Pup Pass’ giving fast track entry to the daily Meet and Greets with Chase, Skye and Rubble in the park, as well as an exclusive chance to spot them in the hotel itself. As an added bonus, if you stay before the PAW Patrol-themed land opens in 2026, you’ll also be in with a chance to be one of the first to ride the new PAW Patrol rollercoaster next spring.

There are a bunch of fan-pleasing experiences available ahead of the grand opening of Chessington’s PAW Patrol-themed land in spring 2026: from the Meet and Greets to a dedicated PAW Patrol activity trail coming in September.

And if you’re PAW Patrol mad (or live with somebody who is), why not try and catch PAW Patrol Live! on their Great Pirate Adventure Tour, which is making its way around the UK now?

Howard Ebison, Divisional Director at Chessington World of Adventures, said of the new rooms: “We can’t wait to welcome families to Chessington World of Adventures and see the smiles on children’s faces as they go on their own PAW-some adventures right in their hotel room. It’s more than just a room – it’s an adventure waiting to happen!”

Marie Marks, SVP, Global Experiences at Paramount added: “We’re delighted to be partnering with Chessington World of Adventures on these incredible new hotel rooms, giving PAW Patrol fans the ultimate opportunity to live like Adventure Bay residents. PAW Patrol is a world that begins on-screen but truly comes to life through experiences like this. This delightful hospitality concept invites guests to extend their PAW Patrol encounter beyond the boundaries of the theme park and immerse themselves in an around-the-clock Adventure Bay adventure.”

How do you get to Chessington World of Adventures from London?

Although zone 6, Chessington is technically within Greater London (i.e. on the right side of the M25). You can get to the theme park by catching a 35 minute train to Chessington South from Waterloo, Clapham Junction or Wimbledon stations. From there it’s about a 10 minute walk.

A ruling on whether to quash the decision to approve plans to almost triple the size of the Wimbledon tennis site could come by the end of the month, a High Court judge has said.

Mr Justice Saini said he would do his “very best” to hand down a ruling by the end of July in a legal battle between campaign group Save Wimbledon Park (SWP) and the Greater London Authority (GLA).

Barristers for SWP argued at a two-day hearing in London that the GLA made an “irrational” decision to grant planning permission for the All England Club’s proposal to build 38 new tennis courts and an 8,000-seat stadium on the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club.

The GLA and the All England Club are defending the challenge, with barristers for the authority describing the decision as a “planning judgment properly exercised”.

At the end of the hearing on Wednesday, Mr Justice Saini said he would hand down a written judgment at a later date, adding: “I will use my best efforts to get it done before the end of the month.”

The plans for the expansion of the site were approved by Jules Pipe, London’s deputy mayor for planning, last year.

In addition to the courts and associated infrastructure, seven maintenance buildings, access points, and an area of parkland with permissive public access would be constructed.

The proposals also include work on Wimbledon Lake, which would involve building a boardwalk around and across it.

But Sasha White KC, for SWP, said that the land is protected by restrictions which govern how the land can be used, telling the court: “You could not have a more protected piece of land within the planning system, frankly.”

In written submissions, the barrister continued that the land is subject to a “statutory trust requiring it to be kept available for public recreation use” and that when the freehold was acquired, the club entered into “restrictive covenants” governing its use.

He added that the GLA “failed properly to consider the potential implications” that the trust and covenants could have on the proposals, an error which “vitiated” its decision and meant it should be quashed and sent back to the authority for reconsideration.

Mark Westmoreland Smith KC, for the GLA, said in written submissions that Mr Pipe received “detailed advice” over the “relevance” of the “alleged” trust and covenants, and made his decision on the assumption that they existed.

He said: “Officers advised that the alleged obstacle that they may present to delivery of the development was not itself a material consideration which should weigh against the grant of planning permission.”

In his written arguments, Russell Harris KC, for the All England Club, said that the GLA could lawfully grant planning permission “even if the development is incompatible with a different, non-planning restriction on the use of the land”.

At the end of the hearing, Mr Justice Saini dismissed a bid by the GLA to remove SWP’s “costs cap”, which meant it would only have to pay £10,000 of the authority’s costs if it loses its legal challenge.

Mr Westmoreland Smith told the court that SWP had crowdfunded more than £210,000 to pay for the legal action, which meant that the cap should be increased.

He said: “The defendant is a public authority. Incurring the costs of the litigation is a significant burden that is passed on to the taxpayer.”

He continued: “It is right that those who bring litigation should bear some cost, rather than almost exclusively the ratepayer.”

Mr White said that the bid was “unattractive” and “disincentivises crowdfunding”.

He said: “We have over 1,000 contributors. They would be horrified to understand that the money that they gave to support the claimant’s claim is being diverted to the defendant.”

He continued: “I can’t see any justification in the public interest to up the cap.”

Mr Justice Saini ruled that the bid “falls at the very first hurdle” as there had been no “significant change of circumstances”.

He said: “It does not seem to me appropriate for me to modify the cap.”