- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Old Shoreham Road pop upCouncil admits it acted illegally in ripping out emergency bike lane showcased in DfT video
West Sussex County Council has admitted that it acted illegally in ripping out an emergency bike lane that was showcased in a Department for Transport (DfT) video highlighting examples of how local authorities were rolling out temporary active travel infrastructure in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The council had been awarded £781,000 in June 2020 under the government’s Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) to put seven proposed schemes in place, including the protected cycle lane on Upper Shoreham Road in Shoreham by Sea.
It began work on installing the facility in September of that year, and the cycle lane proved hugely popular, including with parents of children attending the five schools along the route.
But less than two months later the Tory-run council’s cabinet member for highways, Councillor Roger Elkins, said it would be removed, even though the cycle lane had not yet been completed.
The decision was called in by the council’s environment and scrutiny committee, but Councillor Elkins – who it transpired had never even visited the site to see the infrastructure first-hand – stood by it, and work to remove the cycle lane began in January last year.
The council’s own monitoring subsequently found that there had been a dramatic increase in speeding on the road after the wands marking the protected cycle lane were removed last year.
> Dramatic increase in speeding after pop-up cycle lane removed
Cycling UK sought a judicial review of the decision in February 2021, with its application initially refused, though permission was granted following appeal, with the case due to be heard this week.
Today, the national cycling charity has announced that it has reached an out-of-court settlement with West Sussex County Council, which admitted that it had acted illegally, and is paying £25,000 towards Cycling UK’s costs in the action, which had been brought via the Cyclists’ Defence Fund.
Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, said the council’s admission that it had acted illegally should send a message to other local authorities across the country on not scrapping infrastructure before they have had a chance to evaluate its effectiveness.
“In Shoreham, Cycling UK has drawn a line in the sand, showing there are repercussions for councils which ignore government guidance,” he said.
“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.”
He expressed hope that the new governmental body Active Travel England, launched last Saturday with Chris Boardman named as its interim commissioner, would in future situations take action against local authorities rather than leaving interventions to campaign groups.
“Challenging councils’ which act illegally by ignoring government guidance shouldn’t be the work of charities like Cycling UK,” he said.
“We hope Active Travel England will make sure councils not only promote cycling, but ensure they act lawfully and don’t waste public funds.”
He added: “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. We hope they can continue to support us and our ongoing work to make the UK a better place for everyone.”
The charity was represented by solicitor Rowan Smith of law firm Leigh Day, who 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,” he added.
The council has since said that it plans to install high-quality permanent infrastructure on the same route – a promise on which Cycling UK is urging it to follow through.
> Plans to install permanent cycle lane in Shoreham where pop-up lane is being removed
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Mr Blackbird 4 sec ago
We need to also take into account the van driver's viewpoint. He may have been obese and on his way to McDonalds for a salt/ sugar / fat fix. Can...
- HKR 52 min 25 sec ago
Can't believe that child threw his bike on the floor at the end of that. Young people today have no respect... ;))
- Griff500 5 min 37 sec ago
Its not the same stem fitted to the two bikes though, and we aren't talking about HTA we are talking about stem inclination or "stem rise" to use...
- TheBillder 8 hours 53 min ago
My new double glazed wooden framed sash windows are £1600 plus vat per (quite large) window. House built in 1904. The cost includes fitting and...
- galibiervelo 9 hours 9 min ago
We promote #bikefriday You dont need it - go for a spin. Nice bikes and kit are lovely, but not as noice as a dawn spin this friday morning with a...
- David9694 9 hours 12 min ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
- David9694 9 hours 16 min ago
Man taken to hospital after vehicle crashes into pub...
- David9694 9 hours 26 min ago
Car flips in Millennium Way, Sheerness, near former Aldi supermarket that reopens as Home Bargains this weekend...
- RoubaixCube 9 hours 55 min ago
Ive been using the same £2-3 dish brush I bought from wilko, tesco or pound land for as long as I can remember. I dont understand why anyone would...
Add new comment
44 comments
Fantastic work by Cycling UK. We had a similar scenario in Ealing, West London, but lacked the funds to fight the council.
I do fear this ruling could deter some councils from creating cycling provision - unless the government and Active Travel England can find sufficient sticks and carrots.
Good news that Boardman is the Commissioner at Active Travel England. Let's see if the body backs him up!
Great to see this win. BUT I still feel we lost everytime I see the bike sign on the road RUBBED out as part of the undoing of the lane. The way this lane was dealt with by WSCC was appalling, the opportunity to improve and increase cycling in Shoreham was lost WSCC has NO VISION for the future of reducing cars and which will increase enormously in the next 5 years . I agree with previous commentator regarding the lane running out at Holmbush but given the impoverishment of LA's this was a welcome addition.
This is just typical of West Sussex County Council. Spending ratepayers money on anything except what they are supposed to do is the norm. They have an anti-cycling policy by their actions, they fail to maintain roads, pavements and cycleways to even a remotely safe standard. This is just another example of why they are not fit for purpose.
I live nearby and the cycle lane should have been useful.
However, between Shoreham and Brighton where it runs, there was a huge gap between Holmbush roundabout and Hangleton. You just get dumped off the cycle lane into either a massive roundabout at one end, or a horrendously junction with up to 4 lanes of traffic on each side.
The missing section was vetoed by the local councillor and taxi driver, Neil Parkin.
Then there were lots of complaints the sections that were built were underused.
It seems almost impossibly difficult to get any long stretches of joined up decent infrastructure built when it all depends on the whims of local councillors.
As a result, we're back to using our two cars to drop our kids at nursery / school instead of cycling. Just too many close calls to risk it on the roads
Sorry to hear that - it's a familiar tale. The "whims of local councillors" indeed.
As you remind us it's more than "just lycra-ists" - we're talking children's mobility and independence, health, more pleasant streets etc. At the national political level "local transport should be dealt with locally" is used to excuse the lack or inadequacy of national standards and the unwillingness to get involved when they're ignored. Cycling having been "designed out" of our public infrastructure ages ago it's now a "minority issue".
Probably your councillor doesn't even see that far. It's just "I get delayed on the roads as it is, no way we'll make anything worse for drivers!" The slightly more aware probably view this as the provision of space for those unpleasant, entitled, scofflaw MAMILS and young hooligans who don't even use it. What it's actually about is fairer and more efficient use of public space and money. Safer journeys for all. To allow people of all ages and abilities to take short - and longer - trips efficiently, possibly carrying shopping, children or other cargo, without needing a car.
Proper provision for cycling (or even pedestrians!) at junctions is indeed a literal missing link. The principles and even ready-made solutions [1] [2] are well-known. Or possibly not by those objecting - but then that is really willful ignorance. There are even specially-designed UK solutions now in use ("not invented here" applies until someone does). It's just the will to do this and spend the money is lacking.
This is is the problem with pretty much all cycling infrastructure, certainly outside London. It links nowhere to nowhere. In Surrey, there's a cycle lane between Esher and Walton which stops before the busy roundabouts either end, spewing riders out into traffic often travelling above 30mph. Pointless, brainless council thinking, basically.
I'm a little confused. By settling out of court, have they actually won? Does it mean the council doesn't have to do anything else regarding this?
25k to settle is a lot cheaper than putting in a proper cycle lane in their eyes (despite the massive, proven benefits over time) so will other councils just bat this away in a similar fashion?
I can't imagine that CUK would settle for a bit of cash and not have the lane put back in.
I suspect thats all they got. Its an important symbolic victory rather than specific to that cycle lane. They now get to say to everyone else - you're acting illegally - you might want to stop.
Exactly, and I don'twant the money back that I sent to the fund!
That doesn't mean anything though if Sussex don't reinstall the cycle lane.
Yep. These were judicial review proceedings, so it's all about the decision making process, rather than the ultimate decision per se. I don't think the court has the power to order the council to reinstate the lanes, so getting that in a settlement would be an achievement.
Well, I guess you'd know all about ambulance chasing lawyers, wouldn't you...?
I thought he chased the road police?
Quite right though - definitely a case of "wrong kind of lawyers" - these are clearly the money-grabbing, canape-and-champagne kind as opposed to the principled road-safety-expert ones (one) protecting people's rights by challenging poorly-written law...
Meanwhile in the real world a local authority has been taught a salutary lesson. Hopefully they will be less cavalier with the public purse in future.
This from someone who has such a high opinion of Nick Freeman. I think my ironymeter just malfunctioned.
Again.
This is exactly why I am a CUK member - they are THE body in the UK campaigning and lobbying for cyclists.
I am asuming that Cllr Elkins will be resigning after wasting so much public money (or is he going to offer to foot the bill personally).
No. There was no cycle lane, and if there was, no rules were broken and he definitely didn't attend himself, and he was ambushed by a cake.
CUK are the brilliant campaigners.
Despite the case publicity being centred on Cllr Elkins, because people are easier targets than mere process, he was following a normal council procedure, in that a report recommending the council do something, in this case remove a cycle lane, was presented to the elected council body responsible to make that decision official, by one of the councils depts, who youd trust were a) the experts on it and b) considered the legal implications fully, because that's their job when producing reports recommending councils actually do things, and as the holder of the transport portfolio Cllr Elkins simply approved those recommendations, why wouldnt he ? And it's also why it was totally irrelevant if he visited the specific location or not.
I was hoping this case might have exposed why the report recommended the removal and why legally the council were "wrong" to enact upon it. Because it's a very rare day in council chambers where an elected official goes against a department recommendation.
Agree - the report would be key.
Unfortunately your hopes that the official in the relevant department was a) an expert in the subject (at least with anything to do with cycling) and b) considered the legal implications fully ... are a bit ... hopeful.
From the little I'm aware of (mostly from the tram project in Edinburgh) council officers' / departments' expertise can be pretty constrained. Especially when it comes to cycling. The focus for so many years has been "road capacity". You tend to get what you ask for. Since the question has been "how to get more cars through" that becomes the culture of a department. That this is obviously the case can be seen from our tiny pavements - often with cars parked all over them.
There is also definitely a culture of not seeking outside expertise. That is unless it's brought in as part of a major project (e.g. tram
s). I guess it's just defending one's patch - "we're the experts - in this department / council".I imagine the legal implications were considered but this can be quite short-sighted too. Edinburgh Council managed to overlook this during the design / build of the tram lines and indeed for a year or so after. Until the mounting number of injury / liability suits (including a death) became impossible to ignore.
So yes - let's see the processes in this particular case. Maybe there's a bigger lesson than "bad egg in council". That'd be great to learn if it can help others move on. I am a little skeptical of the "councillor just a powerless slave to the process" though. Maybe I shouldn't read Private Eye's "Rotten Boroughs" column...
(Also Awavey)
You should be able to get a copy of the report and any relevant correspondence via a FOI request. Especially if you live in the impacted area. They arent hard to do.
The report is online,or was, it was part of the documents provided in the council meeting where the decision was made.
But it doesnt resolve the question as to why that report recommended the removal, if anything if you read the report youd conclude it should have recommended the opposite, and to me at least that was the key point and it's that reasoning or choice that's not documented which means no FOI could enlighten us.
Had it gone to court they might have challenged the reports author to explain it.
Because the whole point of democracy in a bureaucracy/technocracy is that the elected representative gets to approve or reject proposals, and it is encumbent upon him to interrogate the proposal for inconsistent thinking. This is not always a Good Thing, although the principle is very nice.
I take it this is tongue-in-cheek? Because PINS is awash with appeals where officers have to defend appeals against committee decisions that were made against officer recommendations.
Just this. It's all about decision-making and where you set your priorities. Ranty Highwayman has a excellent few posts [1], [2] on road crossings noting exactly this inappropriate pushing of responsibility for political choices down to the engineers. Obviously engineers need updating too!
I dont think what you describe is the point of democracy at all, it's not how I'd describe it anyway.
And maybe I was tongue in cheek and needed to add a & this is what SHOULD happen, because as you perfectly highlight when a councillor goes against the recommendations of an officer,its wide open to legal challenges,precisely because it goes against the recommendations of officers nd when that happens that's instant appeal, win & overrule in most planning permission cases.
Yet no repercussions for the person wholly responsible - Councillor Roger Elkins who has moved on from his position.
Retired, apparently.
delighted! This case is about procedure, not politics, so it will be interesting to know what failing the council decided it could not sufficiently hope to defend in court.
The Monitoring Officer is about those procedures, nothing to do with environmental or traffic. "didn't visit the site" would only count if the decision-making procedure requires a visit. "Didn't evaluate the impact" sounds more likely as an unreasonable action.
Change down on the ground is what now matters. Apparently, we now rule the roads (heard from a driver and they're always right) so let the reign be long and happy!
Cool! Will we be getting crowns and robes?
Pages