unless you have an agenda.Please assume good faith - I could obviously have made the same accusation to you. Given you've thrown the first stone though I think you should consider your own possible biases.
For mine: I support extending the ULEZ but not when it is done in such an arrogant, undemocratic way.
My bias is for reducing pollution but against the undermining of the voices of people involved in local decisions - especially when, as here, they are explicitly asked.
My questioning of the decision therefore seems consistent with the context and free of "agenda"; your response rather less so.