A petition objecting to ultra-low emission zones (ULEZ) and low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) is due to go before councillors for debate next week.
The petition, started by local election candidate Laura King, was presented to Brighton and Hove City Council in July.
The petition did not attract enough signatures to trigger a debate at the meeting of the full council.
But more than 2,000 people have now signed the petition, asking the council to scrap any proposals for ULEZ and LTNs because legally owned vehicles would have passed their emissions tests.
The petition said: “Brighton and Hove is not a high-emissions industrial city but a breezy seaside city – and (a ULEZ is) discriminatory to those who can least afford it – ie, sole traders and single mothers.
“Moreover, vehicles are already moving over to EV (electric vehicles), rendering all such schemes unjustifiable. Please scrap them.”
Ms King presented her petition to councillors in the summer and it was “noted”. While councillors did not respond formally at the meeting, her comments were well-received by many in attendance.
She said: “In view of the applause which greeted my petition presentation from both the council chamber and public gallery alike, I just hope that common sense will prevail.”
She added that she hoped that councillors would quash “this poverty policy to punish the people of Brighton and Hove for trying to get around and earn a living, not to mention drive our visitors away”.
“It has,” she said, “no evidence-based foundation and there is no place for a London copy and paste scheme in Brighton and Hove.”
The prospect of a ULEZ scheme had been aired by the council before Labour won the local elections and could have been considered alongside moves to bring in a car-free area.
During the election campaign, the Green manifesto included proposals for a London-style ULEZ to create a liveable city centre.
Outside the full council meeting in July, Labour councillor Trevor Muten, who chairs the council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee, said that there were no plans for a Brighton and Hove ULEZ.
This month, the committee killed off the Hanover and Tarner “liveable neighbourhood” project – a low-traffic neighbourhood scheme.
Instead of the original scheme, the council has agreed a limited project to bring in extra crossings and safety measures along Elm Grove and Queen’s Park Road.
The petition is due to be discussed at the full council meeting that is due to start at 4.30pm on Thursday 19 October at Hove Town Hall. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
Didn’t the Labour Council announce they had no plans to impose ULEZ on Brighton and Hove?
What’s the point in wasting council time debating something they have no plans to do?
Unless that’s a porkie pie.
They did, but Ms King is not a very intelligent candidate. I suspect she’s looking to be relevant before election season. It’ll have the opposite effect.
Said the resident pseudo-intellectual
She’s not interested in you Tom.
At least this time he managed to make a comment without randomly throwing in the word ‘disingenuous’.
I’ll stop making comments about you being disingenuous when you stop being disingenuously disingenuous. You’re not stupid. Stop acting like it, and I’ll stop calling you out on it. Deal?
Questionable motivation – https://thegreatclimatecon.com/ep-4-the-brighton-grass-roots-political-resistance-laura-king/
…that’s not going to help her electorial ambitions.
As I understand it, any proposals that were on the table under the last council still have to go through the process and anything else that has been signed off like these parking meters.
Procedure can certainly be a hassle. I don’t think anyone in the council realistically has an appetite for supporting ULEZ, so the sooner this can be dealt with, the better, in my opinion.
Benjamin
Agreed, so many projects on the table at the moment it’s time they took a step back and review what is actually achievable and get it done and put the others on hold until a definite plan can be put in place.
A 2021 study suggested the first stage of ULEZ – which covered only central London – reduced NO2 levels by less than 3%
Where can we access that report? It seems a bit of a vague comment. I notice the conversation about clean air and ‘Climate Change’, whatever that means, is shifting away from CO2 to N02.
But also reaped significant health benefits: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(23)00120-2/fulltext
Suggesting that small reductions in emissions can have measurable, beneficial effects on health.
Would be interesting to know what were the levels of NOx and particulates in the areas where benefits are claimed to have occurred, and which areas in Brighton and Hove are at such levels?
Also, why do you have to hide your identity?
Significant is debatable, although you are right there were five studies out of the 1600 considered for the synthesis that showed some improvement to subcategories of health after the implementation of LEZ in London.
Question is of course, how many drivers would a LEZ scheme realistically affect in Brighton? The geographical differences and reasons people are in Brighton and London are quite different, can we say our data is relatable and comparable?
Some good food for thought!
‘The geographical differences and reasons people are in Brighton and London are quite different’
Thanks for that – have you tried being less vague?
Just for you Tom, since you asked so nicely, I’ll illustrate with a very basic concept. Would you say London and Brighton have different developmental focuses?
One is very focused on economic structure and being the capital has a lot of thoroughfare, the other a heavily touristic city and an end destination.
This changes how a city should be developed, how it’s road networks, public transport, and traffic management is implemented.
Does that make more sense to you Tom? Just one aspect, of course, barely scratched.
Benjy Boy!
Grab some downtime – you’re getting angry
Less than 3% is excellent start
That’s fair, I respect that opinion.
I think the social and economic cost of ULEZ would be very high, I believe there are far more effective ways with much better value personally.
The monkeys in control have realised they can rob more people regardless of what they previously said, UK at its finest,,, nothing works and nobody cares and when it does work no one knows why,,, and we vote for this tripe
No-one has suggested this is going ahead Stanley, save your ire for now.
Ironically during one of the Hanover LTN public consultations an officer declared a Brighton ULEZ would never happen because the cost would never be covered as vehicles became less polluting, (by the time the scheme was consulted on, implemented etc it wouldn’t be worth it). Labour have already said no to a ULEZ.
No to ulez! I like breathing dirty air, especially when out with my baby daughter
Perhaps move to the countryside?
Best result for all concerned
Think this through. Aside from the economic reasons why people can’t, what would happen if vast numbers of people did so. The pollution would go with them. We are making it, and it’s everywhere, and it needs to be tackled at every possible opportunity because the personal and social costs are huge. The chief reason this has only recently been widely acknowledged is because air is not seen, so neither is pollution (much). Plus a lot of scientific studies have happened in just the last 20 years or so. I say “much” because all the wood burners that should never have been allowed are about to go off with the colder temperatures. These need phasing out. Just like diesel cars they are a huge mistake that kills.
What does vehicle emissions have to do with stopping the rat runners killing kids?
Laura King being a petrophilic joke once again.
People use rat runs to avoid the Council/Green engineered gridlock in Brighton . Looking for someone to blame? Try the local Green Party
Nah, I don’t think Greens aren’t organised enough to realistically pull off that particular conspiracy.
Seems people are conflating ULEZ with LTN’s. ULEZ in Brighton would be good idea especially if it targeted the huge number of chelsea tractors blocking up the streets.
The roads are blocked due to councils road narrowing schemes whilst causing public transport to suffer at the same time making them more and more unattractive, the goal to to make congestion worse and a justifiable reason to congestion charge. The greens wanted a C C in their first term in office but it was rejected as not being needed. Strange how more and more congestion has been created with these Road Improvement schemes.
ULEZ of course is a great idea, but I think the point is being missed. Drivers need to pay a fee to enter, therefore not ULEZ and still create pollution. I think ULEZ should mean just that, vehicle not compliant then it can’t enter no questions.
The excellent link provided by Anon shows some benefits but wasn’t conclusive enough when they are referring to results from Germany and Japan who operate differently.
Results by a University study recently shows a mix of some improvements in some areas but worse in many 20mph zones, the study included a full range of results from crashes to environmental issues. I can’t find the link but will share it when I find it.
The roads are being blocked by more and more cars on the road. The size of the cars has significantly increased in the last ten years as well.
Amen
Gareth
North Street narrowed causing back log of buses.
Valley Gardens area, reduced lanes causing backlog of traffic.
Reduced parking spaces for various reasons.
Anyone with any thought will understand that if you have 50 vehicles in two lanes then cut the lane to one, there will be more traffic in one lane, even a five year old could work that out.
Just three points, we could add Brighton Station, madeira drive, Viaduct road and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Poor traffic management increases congestion not reduces it.
Stop talking rubbish and smell the coffee.
Even when the Greens get seriously clobbered at the local elections, they refuse to apologize or admit their mistakes. Just listen to the hubris ridden psychobabble that the likes of Lloyd, Hills and Davis still spurt on social media.
It is clear – the Greens will never adapt or compromise. They are a dangerous bunch of fascist zealots
More anti working class Rubbish. Resist
This country is a absolute JOKE anything to rip off people more , if we all had a car that meets the standards this government would look at other means to con us even more , and yet we vote for them 😢 what can I say , we are idiots putting up with this and you know what your allowing them to do this
July was this petition, didn’t council scrap plans in August….
This is laughable when I drive a van that is allowed in London ULEZ zones but I still have to pay a higher rate for my parking permit in Brighton because Brighton and Hove council don’t even take into account the CoC certificate my van holds. Try and explain that to me please!?!
It’s quite simple, Daniel
We at BHCC are on a mission to screw as much money as possible from local residents and visitors because we managed to ‘lose ‘ revenue from 100s of parking spaces to pointless woke cycle schemes, AND £3m to a coin collector scam . Isn’t that hilarious?!
Don’t you just love us at the Parking Dept!
I mean I would love to hear from an actual member of the council on this, as a ulez scheme won’t work if you don’t take into account the CoC certificates of vechiles, and not some stoking the fire for the own agenda. But I am in agreement that the greens completely f**ked it. Purely on the fat alone that congestion creates worse pollution than flowing traffic.
Sorry, but no-one at the Council is ever accountable for their actions. Even if they make a colossal b@//s up costing the local taxpayer millions, they keep their job and pension and spend the rest of their career WFH
Agreed, I think it’s really wrong that they are able to just make these mistakes and not have to be responsible for them. It’s the same in politics and why everythings in the state that it’s in. Let’s hope the new council can provide a better service, admit and be accountable to any mistakes they may also make. Somehow I feel the latter may still not be the case however
Simple. London and Brighton are different cities.