The Burnham Programme
A Ten-Year Programme for National Renewal
Responding to the attacks: Clean Air Zone

The Manchester Clean Air Zone: What Actually Happened

The attack line is that Burnham wasted £100m on a clean air zone he then scrapped. The reality is more complicated and considerably more favourable to him. The scheme was government-imposed. Burnham fought against charging drivers. He won. Greater Manchester is now delivering cleaner air without a charging zone.

The Attack and the Reality

The attack

  • Burnham wasted £100m on a clean air zone he then scrapped
  • 462 cameras and 1,300 road signs installed at public expense then abandoned
  • His wife had links to an EV charging firm that would have benefited
  • He supported a ULEZ-style scheme that would have charged van drivers £10 a day
  • The whole exercise was a flagrant misuse of public funds

What the record shows

  • The Clean Air Zone was legally imposed on Greater Manchester's ten councils by the Conservative government following a 2015 Supreme Court ruling
  • Burnham consistently argued against charging drivers, calling for an investment-led non-charging approach from the beginning
  • He publicly put the scheme "on pause" and fought the government for more funding rather than impose charges
  • His wife's employer worked with an EV charging client. Burnham declared it and removed himself from related decisions
  • Greater Manchester is now delivering cleaner air without a charging zone, using the investment-led approach Burnham demanded

The Timeline

2015
The Supreme Court orders the government to take immediate action to cut air pollution. Government issues legal directions to local authorities including Greater Manchester's ten councils requiring them to develop Clean Air Zone plans.
2019 to 2021
Greater Manchester develops a Clean Air Zone covering all ten authorities. Burnham calls for government funding to help businesses upgrade vehicles to cleaner standards. He publicly opposes a charging model and demands an investment-led alternative backed by central government money.
2021
Burnham puts the charging Clean Air Zone "on pause" after public backlash. He writes to the Environment Secretary: "We know this is a major challenge for many individuals and businesses which is why we have always been clear with Ministers that it must be accompanied by a fair package of financial support." The government had provided £120m but not the additional support Burnham requested for van drivers and small businesses.
2022
Burnham fights the government for a non-charging Category B Clean Air Zone. He argues the scheme "must be accompanied by funding adequate to the scale of the challenge." The government resists. Infrastructure including cameras is installed in preparation for a potential charging scheme because the legal direction from central government required it.
2022 to 2023
Burnham wins the argument. Greater Manchester secures agreement with government to deliver cleaner air through an investment-led strategy rather than charging. The charging zone is formally abandoned. Cameras are repurposed to Greater Manchester Police.
2026
Clean Air Greater Manchester confirms the city region is delivering all measures agreed with government, meeting nitrogen dioxide legal targets without a charging Clean Air Zone. The investment-led approach Burnham demanded from the start is working.

The £100m Question

The £100m figure is real but misleading in the context it's used. The spending occurred in several categories: infrastructure required by the government's legal direction, vehicle upgrade grants for businesses, electric bus investment, and expanded EV charging networks. The cameras and signage, the most visible "wasted" expenditure, were installed because the government's legal direction required preparation for a potential charging zone. They were not Burnham's discretionary spending.

The government provided £120m for the scheme. The additional spending came from central government grants, council contributions, and transport authority budgets, not from a single Burnham decision to splurge. The buses that were electrified, the vehicle upgrade grants that helped businesses comply, the EV charging network; these are not wasted. They are functioning clean transport infrastructure.

The cameras specifically: 462 ANPR cameras were installed at a cost of approximately £8m as part of the scheme's preparation. They were not scrapped. They were transferred to Greater Manchester Police, who use them for crime detection and traffic enforcement. They are operational public safety infrastructure repurposed from one function to another.

The Wife Allegation

Critics alleged that Burnham's wife, Marie-France van Heel, had a financial interest in the Clean Air Zone because she worked for a marketing firm that had an EV charging company as a client.

Burnham's account: van Heel was employed by Heavenly, a marketing agency, which worked with Iduna Infrastructure, which owned Amey MAP Services, which held a contract with Transport for Greater Manchester to operate the public EV charging network. Burnham stated clearly that his wife had no direct financial relationship with Iduna, no shares, and no bonus or incentive payments. He declared the indirect connection proactively and removed himself from any related decision-making. There is no evidence of any financial benefit to the Burnham household from the EV charging contract.

The Political Context for Makerfield

The clean air zone attack is being deployed in the Makerfield by-election specifically because the constituency includes many van drivers, tradespeople, and small business owners who were among those who would have faced charges under the original scheme. The attack is designed to associate Burnham with the London ULEZ, Sadiq Khan's charging zone for private cars, which is politically toxic in Northern England.

The association is factually wrong. Burnham explicitly opposed a charging scheme for private cars and vans throughout. He argued publicly and consistently that the cost of cleaner air should fall on central government funding not on individual drivers. He won that argument. Greater Manchester does not have a ULEZ. It does not charge van drivers. It never did.

The honest verdict: the clean air zone episode is not a success story. £100m is significant public money and some of the spending on infrastructure subsequently repurposed was inefficient. But the narrative that Burnham was the architect of a ULEZ-style scheme who then abandoned it after wasting public money is simply wrong. He was the opponent of the charging scheme, the person who fought the government for an investment-led alternative, and the politician who ultimately delivered cleaner air without charging a single driver. That is a record to defend, not retreat from.

The Programme Position on Clean Air

The Burnham Programme's approach to clean air and transport follows the same logic he applied in Greater Manchester: investment-led, not charging-led. Public transport electrification. EV infrastructure. Vehicle upgrade grants for tradespeople and small businesses. Clean air through making clean transport genuinely affordable and available, not through punishing people for driving the vehicle they have.

The fuel duty restructure in the programme charges higher-emission vehicles more and holds the rate for smaller vehicles, with rural relief built in and the proceeds ring-fenced for EV infrastructure. Clean air through changing the incentive structure over time, not through sudden charges on existing vehicles that people cannot immediately afford to replace.

Read the transport and cost of living section →

The Victorians did not do Treasury Green Book assessments. They just built.

The ambition ceiling is a choice, not a constraint.

The Burnham Programme is an independent policy document. It was not written by Andy Burnham and as of has not been endorsed by him.