The Green MP for Brighton Pavilion has backed calls for more action from the government to tackle air pollution.
Siân Berry spoke out as activist group Enact Equality sent an open letter to the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, saying that air pollution had a disproportionate effect on marginalised groups and low-income families.
The campaigners called on ministers to “take decisive and immediate action to confront one of the most urgent yet persistently under-reported justice issues” across the country.
The Green MP said: “Air pollution is a social justice issue. It hits hardest in communities who have done the least to cause it.
“The government must commit to these clear and reasonable demands for cleaner transport, greener spaces and stronger protections.”
Enact Equality’s letter said: “This is not just an environmental issue. It is a racial justice issue. It is a social justice issue. And it is a public health emergency.”
The letter cited York University research showing that people in the most deprived groups across England were more likely to live in areas with the highest levels of air pollution.
The campaign group, which has support from dozens of MPs and peers, called for a boost in investment in green transport as well as more green spaces and wider access to nature.
It also urged the government to introduce stronger laws, clearer targets and better air quality monitoring.
Enact Equality chief executive L’myah Sherae called for a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss how environmental policy could better reflect the lived experiences of marginalised communities.
She said: “People of colour and low-income communities are paying the highest price for toxic air – with their health, their futures and their lives.
“The government must act and we are ready to work with them to drive that change.”
The government said: “Air pollution is a public health issue and we are committed to tackling this issue across the country.
“We have already provided £575 million to support local authorities to improve air quality and launched a rapid review of plans to deliver our legally binding targets on air quality.”
Funny you never realised that putting traffic lights on the Old Steine instead of keeping the roundabout on your patch creates massive pollution.So don’t whinge when you had the chance to oppose it !!
Can she ask bhcc why they’re going ahead with VG3 when their own consultants told them it would cause more congestion and pollution?
Because Tom, that’s not what the consultants actually say. I know you live and breathe this particular narrative, but I recently read it, and it’s way more nuanced than what you are claiming:
“It is, however, likely that the scheme will deliver other benefits that have not been monetised for this business case. These include vehicle operating cost savings, air quality improvements and noise reduction benefits.”
“The environmental and social impacts of the schemes are positive and considered reasonable.”
“The scheme is expected to lead to increased cycling and walking, and hence deliver the following environmental benefits: Improved air quality; noise reduction; Retention of mature trees; and Contribute to biodiversity.”
An interesting reply there Ben. From the information I have gathered it seems the lenders, Dft and other interested parties have recorded this scheme as being of very low value for money with little or no benefit. BHCC have also confirmed a number of times that this scheme will create more congestion.
This scheme might generate a few people using alternative transport but not the huge numbers that BHCC expect. This road is a main hub with the majority of users going through Brighton.
Just in case it wasn’t clear – I quoted directly from the source you are alluding to. On congestion, the same report states that congestion is expected to ease during peak mornings and become more evenly distributed throughout the day.
To clarify, the “low value for money” rating refers specifically to a narrow cost-benefit ratio that doesn’t consider things like cleaner air, biodiversity, safer walking routes. In fact, the same information you gathered also say the scheme is “likely to deliver other benefits” not captured in the economic model.
So yes, DfT gave it a “low” BCR. But that doesn’t mean “little or no benefit.” It means the benefits aren’t measured in petrol receipts and saved seconds at junctions. Even not considering that, it’s still a quantified benefit.
Thank you for the reply.
The point on congestion is interesting, while we could debate the pros and cons of the effect of removal of the roundabout, there’s no clarification on the buses that will all be converging in a limited space once they close off access to the Royal Pavilion and of course the normal traffic. I estimate there being 200 buses an hour in that area all converging around the war memorial.
This will increase risks of crashes/incidents and increase congestion and pollution between Edward Street and The Sealife Centre.
Various reports claim with the funding being used, the return in benefits is very low and where cleaner air is concerned, it will not be improved by any significance and indeed become worse around the St James street area.
The scheme as you confirm has been quoted as being of very low quality that means it could be made much better. We will have to see what additional benefits there will be, but to be honest, what benefits maybe in place for cyclists and pedestrians will be offset by the additional congestion and pollution created by the new and IMO DANGEROUS road layout.
I appreciate the measured discussion. I’d like to suggest a few points you raised that may need closer scrutiny.
VG3 was explicitly designed in consultation. The northbound flow from Kingsway is certainly a concern, but it is one that has modelling data behind it in the traffic impact assessments. Your estimate of 200 buses an hour doesn’t match the data. For context, Brighton & Hove’s total bus movements city-wide peak around 300 per hour, not in one location.
T-junctions with signals reduce high-speed collisions, especially for vulnerable users. Roundabouts favour flow, but not pedestrian safety, which is a key reason TfL and DfT have supported similar removals in urban schemes. Roundabouts can have higher vehicle flow, but signalised junctions give better control for vulnerable road users, which is the priority when you consider what surrounds that junction.
Finally, “low value for money” means the scheme delivers a modest return even before factoring in the environmental and health benefits. Once you include them, the qualitative return increases substantially. You’re absolutely right that we should monitor the impact. But I’d rather we base that on transport data and design standards, not subjective estimates, opinions, and imagined numbers.
Benjamin 50 mins ago
Once again thanks for the reply.
I’m happy to reply with the points you’ve now raised.
I work in Transport and as an operator we were consulted when the original plans were drafted. We raised concerns with Taxi, Bus, Coach and delivery services pointing out an number of flaws in the scheme highlighting the high volume of Transport traffic being forced into such a small road structure.
The main problem isn’t flow from Kingways, but the area around Castle Square and the Old Steine.
You say my estimate of 200 buses doesn’t match the data. Lets look at that in more detail then.
You are aware of course, that Brighton and Hove are not the sole operator in the city, with Compass, Big Lemon, Metrobus, Stagecoach, Worthing Coaches and community transport all operating inside the city.
If we consider main network routes run a 10 minute frequency that’s 6 buses an hour, or 12 in total going in both directions.
Main line routes are 1, 5, 5A, 5B, 7, 12, 25, 28/9, 49, There’s 120 already, now add in Stagecoaches 700 making 132 so far. Now add service 2 with 4 buses and hour, 136, 14 x 4, 140, 17 x2, 142, 18 x 3 , 145, 21×3, 148, 22 x4 152, 24/6 x 4 156, 27 x3 159, 37/37B x 4 163, 47 x2 165, 48 x 3 168, 50 x3 171, 52 x 2 173. Now add in metrobus 270/1/2/3 that adds another 4 making 177.
Now add the 1x, making it 181, the University UB1, 182, then 2 buses on Met Collage making 184, then there’s National Express with at least 4 an hour making 188 and we haven’t included the school buses run by B&H, compass and Community Transport at peak times. Nor are the city sight seeing buses taken into account.
My estimate isn’t that far short of around 200 an hour or 100 in each direction.
You make some valid points about junctions however the point you’ve missed, along with so many others, pedestrians already control traffic with crossings, removing the the roundabout will make no difference, pedestrians will still need to cross at controlled lights.
Why do people always quote what happens in London, Brighton is no-where near as busy or as complex as this city and buses run every 2/3 minutes so hardly a great comparison.
No the term ‘low value for money’ means just that and already recorded as of little benefit but lets not argue on that point.
And finally on transport data, you like so many forget as I’ve mentioned above other operators working in the town increasing vehicle numbers, study of the service’s and the frequency they run gives any observant reader an indication of how many buses will be running, a 10 minute frequency means 6 buses an hour in each direction making 12 as I indicated above.
I shouldn’t have to explain that to you Ben.
Thanks, Martin, and I appreciate the detailed breakdown. Your professional perspective adds a lot to the discussion, even if we interpret the same data differently.
You’re absolutely right that Brighton has multiple operators, and no one disputes that the city experiences high bus activity. But the point I was making is about concentration, not total city-wide frequency. The 200 per hour figure doesn’t all converge at one junction in one direction, which is what your original comment implied. Some of the services listed are interurban, infrequent, or routed well outside Castle Square. Others terminate at Pool Valley or Churchill Square and never pass through Old Steine at all. That’s why traffic modelling uses actual flow data by location and time, not just raw timetables.
Pedestrian-controlled lights are only one piece of the design. The removal of the roundabout is about reducing vehicle conflict points, providing continuous pedestrian and cycle priority, and simplifying decision-making for vulnerable users. That’s exactly why signalised junctions are preferred in TfL’s design guidance, and why DfT guidance treats roundabouts with caution in dense urban environments.
On roundabouts and crossings: pedestrian-controlled lights are only one piece of the design. The removal of the roundabout is about reducing vehicle conflict points, providing continuous pedestrian and cycle priority, and simplifying decision-making for vulnerable users. That’s exactly why signalised junctions are preferred in TfL’s design guidance, and why DfT guidance (Manual for Streets) treats roundabouts with caution in dense urban environments.
The reason London comes up often is because it’s where many comparable schemes have already been implemented and studied safely. Not because Brighton is as busy, but because lessons from best-practice cities with data are still applicable. Evidence-based design, something I’m quite fond of, as you can see with my comments.
Finally, I won’t press the “low value” debate again, but I’ll just note if the scheme delivers “little benefit,” as you claim, it’s strange that the same business case highlights air quality, noise reduction, improved safety, biodiversity retention and modal shift as expected positive outcomes.
Whilst we may not agree on the overall assessment, I appreciate the respectful discussion, and I’m always glad to see someone engage with the detail.
Benjamin 26 mins ago
Thanks, Ben.
I take your point on concentration but it is a forgone conclusion buses on high frequency routes will all converge around the same location around the same time give or take a few minutes, so you will have a 1, 5, 5A, 5B, 7, 12, 25, 28, 29, 49 every 10 minutes mixed in with the other services.
I did indicate 200 per hour in my first point and my error at not stating both directions.
All the services I indicated do in fact serve Old Steine or continue to Churchill Square or onto the Hospital. Those that terminate at Pool Valley/Old Steine are the 25, National Express and the UB1.
These service will still need to negotiate the turn/serve the stop at the war memorial so can be counted.
My point being, buses that serve the Pavilion, will be picking up from outside the RBS or from the war memorial, this means that all services will now serve one or two stops creating congestion in that area.
I take your point on traffic modelling and of course the flow at this current time is favorable, but as indicated at various meetings and highlighted above, a change of bus stops and slight change of route and location hasn’t been taken into account. For example, 1,7 and 12’s serve North Street then serve St James Street or the Seafront. 5’s, 25,28,29 the royal pavilion, under this new layout all will be serving RBS increasing the number of buses at that location. Hope that makes some sense.
We already have Pedestrian-controlled lights at every exit at the Aquarium, so there will be no change there and no improvement to safety as such.
As indicated above, we already have PCL’s that provide a continuous pedestrian and cycle priority, so removing the roundabout makes no difference. An interesting point about vehicle conflicts, crash data reveals very few incidents at this location so I don’t agree it is a black area, however, I do admit a T Junction eliminates all conflicts…
A point to consider, that I picked up on this, or another thread on the same subject was somebody made the comment that without the roundabout and you have a green light, there’s no need to slow down and you can keep going.
I made the comment that perhaps, that was a reason to keep the roundabout because as drivers, we tend to slow on approach until we can see the road is clear. If you have a green light drivers tend to plough on, that is okay but what about the many pedestrians that will be around especially in poor light or at night and think there’s a higher risk under this new scheme/layout.
As I said, This is Brighton not London and while TfL may rule the roost, DfT have not backed them up on many of the schemes imposed and just out of interest, some LTN’s imposed have proven not to work and are being removed. We will have to see where that goes.
Correct DfT guidance treats roundabouts with caution in dense urban environments yet prefers them to T-Junctions in many cases. A possible suggestion is installing part time Traffic Lights but again we will see where that goes.
Your point on London, I agree there are some comparable schemes that have already been implemented and studied safely and may or may not be of benefit here, finding those that work I guess is trial and error, but there is question marks over some schemes that have shown while a situation has improved at point A, point B is now suffering the consequence.
The term ‘best practice’ can be taken at face value. While a scheme may well work in London, it may not be suitable elsewhere or a ‘Best Practice’ elsewhere may not be suitable for London. You have to consider all the elements, situations and conditions and any knock on effects these may cause.
I didn’t want to debate on the low value, but as you’ve brought it up, feel I need to put my case forward in more detail.
Well lets start with air quality. With the roundabout in place, with the exception of peak times the area is pretty much free from congestion and pollution as traffic flows. With the T in place, traffic will be standing idle for a few minutes increasing pollution in that area, all day long.
Old Steine, with traffic all converging around the war memorial it is obvious the pollution will be increased with the additional traffic.
Noise reduction, no, again increased noise level around the War memorial with the increased traffic.
Safety, it will be safer with the exception of around the War memorial where as I’ve indicated all buses will be converging at this point. Pedestrians etc have to be wary now of contra flowing bus and car lanes and it is my opinion will make that area more of a high risk and dangerous.
Biodiversity retention, yes we need more all over the city.
And finally on this subject, the wording ‘expected’ positive outcomes says a lot. We were told 850K visitors ‘expected’ at the i360 and we know how that turned out, sorry Ben, business plans presented by BHCC in most cases don’t deliver so I generally take them with a pinch of salt. I may just add, that every scheme presented by BHCC over the last decade or more, there has always been flaws that have been pointed out and ignored, yet most if not all have been subsequently changed or discarded.
Ben, we may not agree on the overall assessment, but I also appreciate the respectful discussion. You make some very good points that I fully respect and hadn’t always considered so thanks for that. It’s always a pleasure to debate with someone who has a different view or angle and sometimes throws in something I had not considered.
Look forward to our next one.
Plus T-junctions are more dangerous than roundabouts, as well as more congesting and therefore polluting.
Not the sharpest tool in the box, is she?
Always a pleasure, Mike, let’s take that one apart:
It’s a traffic-light-controlled T-junction, not a free-for-all. That matters because signalised junctions allow better control of traffic flow, safer crossing for pedestrians, and priority measures for buses and bikes.
As for safety, roundabouts are only safer in certain contexts, usually high-speed rural roads. In urban centres, especially with mixed users, T-junctions with signals reduce collision severity and improve pedestrian safety.
“More polluting” only holds if you ignore the wider point: the scheme’s whole aim is to reduce car dominance and get people walking, cycling, and using public transport more. Fewer cars = less pollution.
Thanks for your contribution, though. Always good to see commitment to evidence-based discourse.
For years Brighton council have had a policy of increasing traffic queues, because it’s the only way they could think of to persuade people to use Brighton Buses, and it hasn’t worked. Plan B? – there isn’t one. Traffic queues cause air pollution, as anyone who knows about engines can tell you. The council’s transport office don’t have the skills to do the job
Weird that our Green MP raises the air pollution issue – when it was the Greens who started to close all the roads and narrow lanes, creating and worsening traffic jams.
They’ve also re-programmed junction traffic lights to allow pedestrians more time to cross – even at times when there are no pedestrians – and with poor indication for the walkers that it is their turn!
So every city junction has been slowed, and this is so frustrating for anyone needing to get about their business or to clever stuff.
The fantasy which took hold during the Covid lockdowns was that we don’t need to travel anywhere now. And try telling that to your builder carrying tools, your delivery driver bringing parcels, to anyone commuting for work from out of town, and indeed to any family trying to take their kids some distance to see Granny.
The Greens also famously squandered the welcome extra government money for improved cycle lanes to duplicate what we already had, and as an excuse to reduce road space for commuter and delivery traffic – and even the buses are slower now. This shambles continues under Labour, with the removal of the Palace Pier roundabout, under the Valley Gardens Disney+ Soap, season three.
Caroline Lucas was quite canny in avoiding local issues like these, knowing the local Greens were such ideological bimbos, obsessed with ‘fake green’ issues to the point they prefer a negative change that suited their faith-led agenda, rather than to resolve local traffic problems with a pragmatic compromise.
The Labour group now continue with this misplaced ideology now claiming that wood-burning stoves are the pollution issue – when that’s not necessarily the case, if you run your DEFRA-approved, clean burn, stove correctly.
The whole issue needs a rethink.
Wood burn stoves are a pollution issue.
DEFRA approved stoves used correctly produce 140% more pollution than using central heating. Defra stoves are not an eco solution it is just what the government have decided to accept this amount of pollution is acceptable.
There is no such thing as a clean burn, you are burning carbon it’s not possible .
James, to be fair, when we put on ANY heating we are polluting the air somewhere.
The energy used in your central heating has to come from somewhere, be that a gas-fired power station or from a wind farm that polluted at the point of turbine manufacture and site installation.
The point about woodburners is they pollute less if properly used and the energy source is pretty green if seasoned wood is locally sourced with low travel miles.
Once fired up, the smoke and pollutants from a clean burn chimney are pretty minimal.
On a tour of France this month at 81 miles per hour used fuel at 46 miles per gallon. In Brighton it only does 26 miles per gallon with most roads stop/staring with restricted lanes for cars.
London road one of the main traffic arteries into and out of the city are being strangled by little used cycle and bus lanes. The ludicrous new layouts mean that through Preston park when a bus stops so does all following traffic including emergency service vehicles which, even with sirens and blue lights cannot make progress. Is any study being made as to the effect the delays to emergency services has on those desperately awaiting arrival.
Is any study being made on the effects of increased exhaust emissions because vehicles take longer to pass through neighbourhoods blighted by the bus/cycle lane madness?
Emergency services were consulted during the planning of VG3, with meetings held in late 2018 and early 2019. Their input shaped several design elements, including access routes and signal priorities.
In terms of how emergency vehicles move through traffic, it’s worth noting that the biggest time savings tend to come from treating red lights as give way, rather than from speeding. Policy generally limits response vehicles to no more than 50% above the speed limit, so around 30 mph in most of the city.
Also, drivers of buses and larger vehicles are typically much more responsive to emergency vehicles. This is likely due to the higher training standards required to operate them and the improved visibility from their driving position.
There’s no published study showing that the new layouts have worsened emergency response times, and based on how emergency driving actually works, your concern may be misplaced. The aspect that causes more delays than traffic is handover delays at a hospital.
Further to my previous comment about my vehicle consumption…
…why not go electric? Well those smug ev car ones should reflect that 6% of the electricity they use to charge their cars is generated by the drax power station.
Drax burns wood pellets made from the felling of virgin woodlands in the USA where the factories that convert them into pellets are classed as the most polluting (one community mainly poor and black are suing due to the factory cased, health problems)..
My business is in henfield, public transport is sparse and sporadic I have no alternative but to be one of those nasty polluters who sit in the traffic jams coming into, out of and circulating around the city.
Infrastructure for electric vehicles isn’t quite there yet, and charging can be just as expensive as fuel. Give it a few more years.
Living in one of the pollution hot-spots in our town makes me personally invested in this action. I walk out of my front door into a wall of exhaust fumes, especially in warmer weather. I have no idea how to get all interested parties on the same side but reducing pollution can only be a good thing.
I think they do, left-wing parties do at least. I believe only Reform has explicitly stated that they are against pollution measures, under the fearmongering “war on motorists” narrative.
Time to stop blaming the Greens for everything, they have been in power for just 20 months in the last decade, and with the current Labour majority, are unlikely to be back anytime soon. Which is bad news for our environment – but also bad news for those who like to knock them all the time.
Hmm, See you can only think back a decade. I remember ‘Greens’ in their first period of administration that gave us the Brighton Station fiasco, Elm Grove and 7 Dials disasters that ALL had to be reworked, at expense to the tax payer, then we had the blanket speed limits enforced on us, narrowing of North Street, VG1/2 that took away the dedicated Bus lanes making journeys longer and the area more dangerous.
We can thank the greens for scrapping the Park and Ride, bringing in more restrictions, refusing to back a Park and Ride, causing congestion and pollution with more narrowing of road space without providing alternative means that the majority can make use of.
You may have a short memory, but the ‘Greens’ recorded the worse council for recycling, their refuge service appalling and the rest not much better.
The ‘Greens’ have created much of the congestion and pollution in this city with their demented views and plans, even when advised of the flaws, they went ahead and did them anyway.
‘Greens’ unlikely to be back anytime soon, brilliant news, we don’t need or want them in our city, they’ve done enough damage already.
The city’s population has doubled over the past 50 years, but the amount of road space hasn’t changed. Naturally, that results in congestion, more gas being burnt and vans and trucks driving down what were quiet roads.
The fault lies at the feet of the Labour party in power and in opposition.
It’s closer to 30% but I take your point, more people. Braess’s Paradox is an interesting one here; it sounds counterintuitive, but adding extra capacity to a road network can actually increase overall congestion and travel times. Plus, increasing road space is practically impossible in Brighton. You make a fine argument for LTNs, though.
Congestion is a shared outcome of policy across decades and parties, not solely Labour’s doing, especially when the national transport strategy has been set by Conservative governments for most of that period.
LTNs won’t fix the congestion on Brighton’s main roads. LTNs probably make pollution worse on the busy roads where many people live. As the city grows at such a massive rate, at the fault of Labour in opposition and in power, so does the volume of cars, vans, trucks, and big hulking diesel buses. It is mostly vans and trucks. Labour even scrapped electric buses! Over population and the Labour Party are the problem.
So to summarise, Rich: The Labour Party caused the sun to rise, the bins to overflow, and the buses to emit diesel. Also guilty of overpopulation.
But let’s put the torch down for a moment and look around. Brighton’s congestion is the result of decades of growing car use in a Victorian street grid hemmed between a national park and a seafront. Widening roads isn’t an option unless we start bulldozing homes, schools, or the Pavilion.
As for LTNs, they don’t aim to fix main road traffic; they reduce total traffic by cutting short trips and stopping rat-running. In cities where they’re implemented properly, overall car journeys drop. Fewer cars = cleaner air. No sorcery involved.
And let’s not forget: diesel buses? A Tory-led East Sussex County Council scrapped Brighton’s electric bus funding in 2013. But sure, let’s blame Labour for not retrofitting the 49 route personally.
The national transport strategy has been Conservative-led for 14 of the past 18 years, but let’s keep pretending the pothole in your soul is a local conspiracy.
“The Labour Party caused the sun to rise, the bins to overflow, and the buses to emit diesel” I didn’t say any of this.
You do appear to be manipulating my words and attacking me with sarcasm, not very nice, anyway.
LTNs won’t fix the pollution in the city, they may improve things slightly but they will make it worse on the main roads where people live by increasing congestion.
Some of the buses were electric before Labour ended the electric bus company contract THIS year. Labour supporters and politicians really need to take responsibility for their failings here.
Labour are the problem in opposition and in power on topics such as the environment, housing, economy, pollution, finance, crime, taxes, nature, immigration, bills and the cost of living (including the winter fuel allowance).
Rich, I appreciate that satire isn’t for everyone, but it was aimed at illustrating the broader pattern of blaming Labour for long-term systemic issues that extend far beyond any single council or policy. You listed overpopulation, congestion, buses, emissions and policy failures, and my reply reflected the scale of that claim.
On LTNs, you say they “may improve things slightly.” That’s exactly the point – they’re one tool in a broader set of interventions. But multiple peer-reviewed studies show that LTNs reduce traffic volumes, lower pollution, and improve road safety, especially in urban neighbourhoods like Brighton. The evidence is there.
On buses, it’s important to note that Brighton & Hove Buses announced electric bus investments as part of a ZEBRA bid backed by the government and the council. There’s a bit more than just Big Lemon that was not awarded a contract.
Finally, you listed nearly every issue in national policy, from immigration to fuel allowances, as Labour’s fault in both the government and the opposition. That’s quite a stretch. Especially when the Conservatives have been in power for nearly 14 consecutive years, and still control national transport, immigration, taxation and energy policy.
I’m always happy to debate on facts, but if Labour are simultaneously powerless and responsible for everything, we’ve probably left the realm of local planning and entered theology.
Ms Berry should be lobbying for all blocked roads, pinch points and one-way systems causing traffic queuing to be removed pronto if she truly cares about “air quality” and considering there is no real industry remaining here.
Brighton and Hove is a seaside resort, not Calcutta.
Almost everything wrong with this city has been artificially designed to make life expensive, unpleasant, dirty and difficult, mostly by a council whose job it is to serve the city and its taxpaying residents, but who would rather play politics instead.
Mike, I admire your ability to pivot from a national air pollution policy article to your personal vendetta against pinch points on Preston Road. It’s a real talent. While the rest of us were reading about government inaction on WHO air quality targets, you were courageously defending the lost art of the uninterrupted rat-run.
Just to clarify, this article isn’t about Brighton’s road layout. It’s about national legislation, public health, and holding the government to account. But sure, let’s blame Ms Berry for the UK’s air quality failures because your shortcut to Sainsbury’s got filtered. That’s definitely the issue here, lol.
I’m feeling frisky today.