Council to pay £25k costs after illegally removing popular cycle lane

by 23

It’s been quite the week for infrastructure and utility cycling news, and today Cycling UK has announced that West Sussex County Council has admitted it acted illegally when it decided to remove a popular cycle lane in the seaside town of Shoreham in November 2020.

As a result of this admission, the Council will have to pay £25,000 in legal costs to Cycling UK, who brought the legal challenge against West Sussex County Council through its Cyclists’ Defence Fund.

“In Shoreham, Cycling UK has drawn a line in the sand, showing there are repercussions for councils which ignore government guidance. Hopefully West Sussex County Council’s acceptance they acted illegally will put a stop to short sighted decisions like this happening across other parts of the UK.

“This is a victory for people who want their children to travel to school in safety, for people who don’t have to breathe polluted air, and for everyone who would like healthier, safer streets where we live and work.”

Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns

The cycle lane was installed at the end of September 2020 through government funding to help more people walk and cycle during the pandemic, and was removed weeks later contrary to government guidance.

Timeline of the Shoreham Cycle Lane:

  • 09 May 2020: The Government announced the Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) and the legislative measures to support making changes to the road network.
  • 27 May: The Department for Transport (“DfT”) wrote to local authorities giving further details about the EATF, making it clear that the EATF funding was aimed at, and awarded for, schemes which could bring about long-term change and encourage active travel, such as cycling, rather than just focusing on measures responding to Covid-19.
  • 05 June: West Sussex County Council (WSCC) applied for the first tranche of funding available under the EATF.
  • 26 June: WSCC was awarded £781,000 from Tranche 1 of the EATF to allow implementation of seven new and improved pop-up cycle lane schemes, including the cycle lane on Upper Shoreham Road.
  • 21 July: WSCC published its decision to allocate the funds received from the grant to the relevant budgets and to implement the seven schemes.
  • 07 September: Work implementing the cycle lane at Upper Shoreham Road commenced.
  • 25 September: WSCC announced that the work on the cycle lane was completed, although additional works were still being undertaken throughout October.
  • 03 November: Councillor Roger Elkins took the decision to remove all the emergency active travel schemes, including the Upper Shoreham Road cycle lane.
  • 18 November: WSCCs Environment and Scrutiny Committee called in the decision concerning the removal of the Upper Shoreham Road cycle lane, noting that the scheme had exceeded expectations and that it was questionable why a successful scheme should be removed.
  • 25 November: Councillor Elkins confirmed the decision to remove the cycle lane.
  • 11 January 2021: Work commenced to remove the cycle lane, which was undertaken over a period of several days.
  • 25 February: Cycling UK applied for judicial review
  • 26 May: At a hearing in the High Court, Mr Justice Lane refused Cycling UK’s applications for permission to pursue the judicial review.
  • 02 June: Cycling UK appealed Mr Justice Lane’s decision, which was considered in the Court of Appeal.
  • 01 September: Cycling UK discovered its appeal had been allowed and High Court appearance scheduled for 25 – 26 January 2022.
  • 27 January 2021: Cycling UK announces out of court settlement with West Sussex County Council admitting it acted illegally and will pay £25k towards the charity’s legal expenses
Shoreham cycle lane

30,000 Shoreham cycle lane trips

During the weeks the lane was in existence, Cycling UK says it was used for 30,000 cycle trips, serving five schools along its length. It also featured in a government publicity video highlighting the community benefits of the new cycle lanes introduced during lockdown in 2020.

A previous Cycling UK press release on the matter said:

“Despite the popularity of the route for Shoreham’s families and residents, and no evidence to support unsubstantiated claims the lane had caused congestion or traffic delays, an arbitrary decision was made to remove the lane by Councillor Roger Elkins, West Sussex CC’s Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure. According to an FOI investigation, Cllr Elkins never visited the bike route. Justification for his decision appears to have been based on a small number of complaints about increased congestion. However these complaints are not borne out by the data gathered by the council.”

https://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/can-chris-boardman-lead-new-active-travel-england-to-real-change/

Active Travel England

We ran a story earlier this week on the launch of the new Active Travel England body, whose remit will include ensuring that active travel funds such as these are used properly, and schemes implemented correctly. Perhaps this case will also serve to remind councils and elected representatives to act on the basis of facts, data, and due process – especially when it’s easy to see loud and angry voices in the comments section of many articles related to cycling infrastructure.

“Challenging councils’ which act illegally by ignoring government guidance shouldn’t be the work of charities like Cycling UK. We hope Active Travel England will make sure councils not only promote cycling, but ensure they act lawfully and don’t waste public funds.”

Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns

Cyclists’ Defence Fund

Cycling UK’s legal challenge was funded through its Cyclists’ Defence Fund, which was set up to help fight landmark legal battles which the charity believes will benefit everyone who cycles in the UK.

“Cycling UK is truly grateful for all the support we’ve received from the public who have helped to fund our legal battle in Shoreham,” said Mr Dollimore. “We hope they can continue to support us and our ongoing work to make the UK a better place for everyone.”

Rowan Smith, lead solicitor on this case from Leigh Day, said:

“This is a massive legal, as well as campaigning, victory that will benefit cyclists in West Sussex and across the country. Cycling UK has achieved a big win in upholding statutory guidance to embed more climate-friendly travel, which it hopes will contribute to a greener post-pandemic recovery. Such great news comes in the wake of the Government setting up Active Travel England, a new body with powers to rank local authorities on the quality of cycling provision in their areas.”

Estelle Dehon, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers (who, with Dr Christina Lienen, acted for Cycling UK), said:

“At its heart, this case is about the value of active travel, both in terms of promoting human health by reducing air pollution and in addressing the climate crisis. The Statutory Guidance which the Council should have followed made this clear.

“Building on our client’s legal success, it is now time for a consistent approach to be taken across the UK, similar to that in Wales, where there is a strong obligation on all local planning authorities to promote active travel. Given how many deaths are caused by air pollution, and the need for the most urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this should be a top priority.”

Since removal of the cycle lane, West Sussex County Council has made a public commitment to increase space for cycling on the A270 Upper Shoreham Road, and Cycling UK is urging the council to move on to delivery. Maybe checking it out will be first item on the list for Active Travel England? And will the new body, this case, the new Highway Code and fuel prices combine to create the shift in focus we need to push cars down the pecking order?

https://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/highway-code-changes-set-to-take-effect-this-weekend/
https://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/from-enduro-to-e-cargo-a-new-perspective-on-2-wheels/

Singletrack Weekly Word

Sports Newsletter of the Year finalist at the Publisher Newsletter Awards 2024. Find out why our newsletter is different and give it a go.

Author Profile Picture
Hannah Dobson

Managing Editor

I came to Singletrack having decided there must be more to life than meetings. I like all bikes, but especially unusual ones. More than bikes, I like what bikes do. I think that they link people and places; that cycling creates a connection between us and our environment; bikes create communities; deliver freedom; bring joy; and improve fitness. They're environmentally friendly and create friendly environments. I try to write about all these things in the hope that others might discover the joy of bikes too.

More posts from Hannah

Home Forums Council to pay £25k costs after illegally removing popular cycle lane

Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • Council to pay £25k costs after illegally removing popular cycle lane
  • Sandwich
    Full Member

    Not really a win though as it’s out of court to reduce risk to both parties. A win would be the councillor surcharged for wasting public money without using proper process (full cost of the removed scheme and the court costs), plus reinstatement of the original scheme.
    As it stands we have an airy fairy ‘commitment’ to put ‘something’ in place in the future.

    matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    I agree with the statement around it should not be a cycling charity who takes this to court.
    I also feel that there should be accountability for the councilor, who made a decision against the information and contract.

    a11y
    Full Member

    accountability for the councilor

    Pigs

    Olly
    Free Member

    Are those orange Bollards supposed to be a cycle lane? I can see the benefits in term of preventing parking (on a road that doesnt have parking restrictions on), but that does seem quite half arsed anyway.

    Dont looke a gift horse in the mouth/making the best of the limited budget, i suppose.

    keithb
    Full Member

    It was a temporary installation using emergency funds released by the government.  “light segregation” its called.  I think it’s a good way of trying something out as while it doesnt offer physical protection to cyclists from an out of control vehicle, it does mean that vehicles being drriven to a reasonable standard have to leave a safety gap to the cyclist, and gives a feeling of safety. Perception of risk often the most important thing in increasing cycling rates.  Or as I was once told “perception is nine thenths of reality”.  If ppeople believe its dangerous, then they wont use it, if they believe its safe, they might.

    Edit: Nottingham City Council installed a load of these with the emergency funding.  Many of which are now being made pemenant with the remodelling of the road network in the city centre.  They used them as eveidence for the demand and thus convince decision makers of teh value of permenant infrastructure.    The easiset way of going east-west across the city will be by bike (or hire scooter) before long.

    WildHunter2009
    Full Member

    West Sussex it seems have a bit of a problem with cyclists. They did something similar in Chichester with the admittedly poorly thought out temporary cycle lanes. Frustrating when there good Green representation locally, the South Downs and generally a great place to be a cyclist. Would think they might embrace it.

    sobriety
    Free Member

    Edit: Nottingham City Council installed a load of these with the emergency funding. Many of which are now being made pemenant with the remodelling of the road network in the city centre. They used them as eveidence for the demand and thus convince decision makers of teh value of permenant infrastructure. The easiset way of going east-west across the city will be by bike (or hire scooter) before long.

    Does that mean that they’re going to put the ones on Carlton hill back in? As they were worse than the painted white line cycle lane that was there before:

    1. The downhill side has cyclists travelling at 20+ miles an hour easily, so in the flow of traffic anyways.
    2. They meant that the road didn’t get swept in those areas, so filled up with debris, forcing nervous cyclists into the main carriageway, or over said debris
    3. Cars knocked them over and they weren’t replaced, leaving the slippery plastic bases in the carriageway, right where cyclists would want to ride in terms of minimum distance from the kerb.

    It’s a route I use daily when I’m in the office, and both me and my barber (who also cycles the same route) breathed a sigh of relief when they took them out.

    franksinatra
    Full Member

    Councillor Roger Elkins – Conservative.

    Explains a lot.

    johnjn2000
    Full Member

    This infrastructure for cycling and the emergency finds etc. needs more policing. As a cyclist I fully support efforts to make it better and safer to ride from your home but last year I witnessed how this funding can be abused if you have the right contacts in local council.

    The ‘Active Travel’ initiative that came along when local councils got money to close roads during covid saw one of our local roads closed. Amazingly this was a road that residents have been trying for a number of years to get it as ‘access only’. After at least 2 failed attempts that were unanimously voted out by other residents further afield who use it, this small stretch of road is picked as a closure to help Active Travel. The temporary closure was to end in Sept 2019 but was then extended to May 2020 so they could ‘review’ the impact. It was then extended to July, then September 2020, and we finally saw it re-open in Oct 2020. All this time the 8 residents on the hill had a lovely private car free area to themselves, and everyone else had to endure the gridlock on the other routes caused by ongoing roadworks. During this time I had a conversation with Sustrans who were the advisors to the local gov and it turns out the info they provided had be sliced and diced to work in the favour of a closure.

    We have now had confirmation that the road will stay open for all users but will be reviewed again in the future. This road would now be closed and the residents house prices increased if a motivated group of locals had not stood up and fought for common sense and decency.

    Why can the people we elect not just do things the right way in the first place, it isn’t hard to be honest, and carry your job out with integrity…………………………is it?

    martymac
    Full Member

    Why can the people we elect not just do things the right way in the first place, it isn’t hard to be honest, and carry your job out with integrity…………………………is it?

    No, it’s really easy in fact.
    As long as you aren’t trying to get your cut, out of EVERYTHING.

    matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    Why can the people we elect not just do things the right way in the first place, it isn’t hard to be honest, and carry your job out with integrity…………………………is it?

    The thing is, for everyone of us being balanced and with best intention I bet he gets three frothing letters from constituents about ‘that bloody cycle lane’, plus there is the issue of being elected is no representation of your skill, integrity or personal attitudes…I mean, thousands elected Boris.

    munrobiker
    Free Member

    They are a funny thing these light segregation lanes. There’s a lot here that don’t seem to have been built with any thought – they’re too narrow, make it hard to pass slower cyclists as you can’t just nip out like you would normally, don’t get swept so are full of debris and none of the potholes that were there before have been filled but can’t be avoided easily because you’re hemmed in. There’s a lot round here that also don’t have space to exit where other parts of the cycle network join the main road.

    So while I’m glad that the council has been held to account over its provision, I don’t think light segregation is the answer.

    pmurden
    Full Member

    Correct

    keithb
    Full Member

    I Agree that light segregation is not the answer, but I think it could be used usefully in temporary installations to confirm demand, need, layouts, identify issues (like munrobiker hoghlights) to be developed into full schemes.

    I don;t understand why councils insists on doing both sides of the road on hills – re-allocate teh road space to a nice wide uphill cycle lane, and leave the downhill side as a multi-use lane on arterial urban & rural routes, provide parrallel quiet ways for those not happy/with kids to cycle on the road.

    I live on NCN route 6, and it’s horrendous, wifgglin through back streets and a muddy nature reserve.  To cross the canal you go over a bridge, which has cyclists dismount signs on it!  And the perfectly good main road (wide enough for fully segregated facilities) has a massive central hatched section, and lanes <1m wide….  Bonkers.

    Sustrans have  alot to answer for with regards to the proor quality and attitude towards cycling infrastrucuter in this counry, hopefully ATE sideline them in terms of active travel and utility cycling, leaving them to restore old railway lines (in itself a valuable thing).

    matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    I don’t think light segregation is the answer.

    I chatted to a friend who is weekly rider from local bike club at lunch.

    He said that the local bike club runs refuse to use any cycle provision – and wouldn’t use heavily or lightly segregated. The reason being that they wanted to move as a peloton and only on tarmac – that this a ‘right’ and one of the reasons they ride as a larger group and that the entrances are narrow, so requiring a reduction of speed for the cyclists.

    I get it, and think they have a point, but wonder if they are being rather stubborn over it. Infringing Rule No.1? I don’t know what I think.

    keithb
    Full Member

    If riding in a group then dedicated facilties may not be appropriate for their usage.  Given that at some point they will be presented with a pram/wayward pedestrian and likley travelling at >20mph, then the road is the right place to be.  Infrastrucutre is for utility cycling and taking the kids out at weekends.  Active Travel, not training for your Cat 4 race at the weekend.

    Personally I woulfd rather we were startiing from a point further back, woth no existing infrastructure at all as so much of it is so poor, and mis-represents (to drivers) what cyclists want/need.

    And sorry for all the typos in my last post/rant, it was a total mess but I hope it made the point.

    Ta

    Keith

    EDIT: you could also consider the non-use of facilities by groups of road cyclists to be in line with the heirarchy of provision in the new Highway Code, by reducing the likihood of them coming into conflict with those using the facilities to get to shcool/shops/work safely in “normal” clothes.  By using cycle facilities at their typical speed they could be endangering those with probaby more need of the satefy of deicated infrastrucutre.

    matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    ^ a fair point, and one I agree with.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Sustrans have alot to answer for with regards to the proor quality and attitude towards cycling infrastrucuter in this counry,

    I believe sustrans have changed their attitude.  The used to follow the idea any provision was better than none and would use what influence they had to try to improve rubbish designs.  they now refuse to endorse rubbish designs I believe

    Bez
    Full Member

    Mr Justice Lane

    I mean, that’s just delicious, is it not? 🙂

    Bez
    Full Member

    They are a funny thing these light segregation lanes. There’s a lot here that don’t seem to have been built with any thought – they’re too narrow, make it hard to pass slower cyclists as you can’t just nip out like you would normally, don’t get swept so are full of debris and none of the potholes that were there before have been filled but can’t be avoided easily because you’re hemmed in. There’s a lot round here that also don’t have space to exit where other parts of the cycle network join the main road.

    It’s quite impressive that with just a few plastic wands they’ve managed to tick all of the quality control boxes that are required for permanent facilities.

    mrmoofo
    Free Member

    My local council and about 1/2 km from me.
    It wasn’t well thought out in the first place
    But the councillor who approved it’s removal never went to look at it. Which is impressive for someone who’s job it is to look after local interests.

    keithb
    Full Member

    I believe sustrans have changed their attitude. The used to follow the idea any provision was better than none and would use what influence they had to try to improve rubbish designs. they now refuse to endorse rubbish designs I believe

    If this is the case, then they need to acknowledge their error and start removing their blue stickers and signs from the routes they previously championed. I know the relatively recently released an article claiming that a significant portion of the NCN wasn’t fit for purpose, but that is mostly due th their own short-sightedness 20ish years ago.

    I hope ATE is a success and supplants Sustrans as the default frame of reference for cycle facilities, as they currently appear to be for any organisation/developer installaing cycle facilities. Let them concentrate on opening up the traffic free, rural and inter-urban routes like old railway lines etc.

    crazy-legs
    Full Member

    I believe sustrans have changed their attitude. The used to follow the idea any provision was better than none and would use what influence they had to try to improve rubbish designs. they now refuse to endorse rubbish designs I believe

    Yep – they originally used to champion anything at all. After spending years hassling a council to put in a cycle lane, the council would eventually get bored and pop a bit of paint somewhere and Sustrans would hail this as evidence of their extraordinary success. The result of that was a hodge podge of total bollocks that was in no way joined up or good condition.

    They did finally recognise this and accepted that almost 1/3rd of the “network” they’d spent the last 20 years building was not fit for purpose. But that’s what you get when you have a charity doing your road infrastructure.

    I agree that light segregation is not the answer, but I think it could be used usefully in temporary installations to confirm demand, need, layouts, identify issues (like munrobiker highlights) to be developed into full schemes.

    Which is what was supposed to happen. However councillors usually aren’t experts in traffic management and they’re very prone to listen to the tiny but very loud minority who are instantly up in arms about anything cycling and then they do knee-jerk stupid reactions like rip it all out again. Unfortunately, the £25k costs is going to come out of already tight council funds, as they squandered the installation money they’re not going to get any new funds so no more cycle lane.

    Most councillors are extremely risk-averse. They like to be seen to be campaigning for things that are known to be popular but when it comes to actually doing anything, they’re terrified of any fallout. It’s why things at council level move at glacially slow pace as councillors kick things down the road, wait for their own retirement when a successor can pick up the poisoned chalice and generally do everything for a quiet life. Not all of them but a significant %.

Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)

The topic ‘Council to pay £25k costs after illegally removing popular cycle lane’ is closed to new replies.