Controversial cycle lane ‘opposed’ by David Attenborough to go ahead after extremely narrow vote – as council says trees at centre of heated row are only being felled as “last resort”

Controversial plans for the final phase of a cycle lane project in Coventry, the subject of months of local outrage, protests, and an unlikely intervention by Sir David Attenborough, are finally set to go ahead – just – after a council committee approved the proposals by five votes to four.

Earlier this week, members of Coventry City Council’s scrutiny co-ordination committee backed the decision made last month by a senior councillor to approve the latest design for a protected two-way cycle lane on Clifford Bridge Road, in the east of the city, after representatives from across the political divide called for “more scrutiny” of the heavily debated scheme.

According to Coventry City Council, the 6km-long protected Binley Cycleway project, which will link the city centre to University Hospital Coventry, was “developed and designed to accommodate the needs of people that do not usually cycle” by reducing concerns about safety and lack of confidence.

The Labour-controlled council said it expects around 200 cyclists a day to use the Clifford Bridge Road portion of the route once it is built, while a report published by the local authority noted that collisions resulting in injury have been reduced on the roads where the previous sections of the cycleway have been installed.

> Residents oppose cycle lane plans that would make cyclists “sitting ducks” for motorists accessing driveways

However, despite the council’s ambitions to promote sustainable travel and improve road safety in Coventry, the final phase of the project on Clifford Bridge Road has been the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism from locals in recent months focused, activists say, on both safety and the future of the road’s trees, earmarked to be felled as part of the lane’s construction.

In fact, the council has been forced to redesign the scheme three times, after feedback from locals revealed opposition to reduced parking provisions along the road, the proposed narrowing of lanes for motorists, and the potential danger for drivers “reversing blindly” across the bike route, while a second design was opposed by residents and cyclists alike due to safety concerns.

In August, we reported that a petition was launched, reaching around 4,000 signatures, urging the local authority to stop the cycleway scheme “immediately” to save the “irreplaceable” trees on Clifford Bridge Road, despite the council pointing out that, if the plans are approved, the 26 felled trees are set to be replaced by 32 saplings and a range of low growing plants.

The campaign won the rather unexpected backing of Sir David Attenborough, after the veteran broadcaster and environmental campaigner responded to a letter from a Coventry schoolchild, who said it would be a “shame” if the council carried out its plans to cut down the road’s trees, by advising the 11-year-old to contact the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust for suggestions on “how to organise a protest”.

In November, that protest duly took place, as 900 people turned up to voice their opposition to the council’s plans as part of what campaigners described as the UK’s largest tree-hugging event.

> ‘Tree-hugging’ cycle lane opponents ‘backed’ by David Attenborough accuse council of spreading “misinformation” – but local authority says trees are only being cut down because residents opposed loss of on-street car parking

Since then, the issue has been mired in controversy, after campaigners accused the council of “spreading misinformation” following comments made on local radio by the local authority’s head of transport and innovation John Seddon. He claimed that the initial cycleway plans were rejected by residents due to fears they would lose car parking spaces on the road, and that many of the 26 trees forming the focal point of the debate are infected with Ash dieback, a highly destructive fungal disease killing the UK’s native common ash species.

“As a society we have to deal with misinformation from media and social groups, we do not expect council officials to mislead the public,” a formal complaint to the council said.

While one campaigner told road.cc that any suggestion that the initial opposition to the cycleway was based on fears surrounding the loss of on-street car parking spaces was a “lie”, Coventry City Council’s Mark O’Connell said that the original parking-based uproar was key to the current compromise design on the table, including the proposed loss of the 26 trees – and claimed that the campaigners were simply intent on stopping the infrastructure at all costs.

“In the first iteration of the scheme, there were some loss of trees involved, but nothing like the 26 we’re talking about now,” O’Connell, the local authority’s head of public realm, told road.cc.

“But as part of that design, there was going to be a loss of parking spaces. We’re talking about on-street car parking, not off-street. And the loss of parking spaces would have been adjacent to or outside properties that have already got private parking – it’s not like you’d have had nowhere to park, it wouldn’t have been like that at all.

“Also, as part of that scheme, the road was going to be narrowed, but leaving it plenty wide for two-way vehicle traffic.

“But there was obviously a lot of uproar, petitions, and public feeling, and those were the two big things that they commented on, that they didn’t really like, so that that scheme was unacceptable, and we got told to go away again.”

> “They just don’t want a cycleway”: Campaigners criticised for staging country’s largest tree hug to block “destructive” bike lane plans — while suggesting it could be built by “lighting up” nature reserve

He continued: “We’re on the third iteration, and there have been significant changes to the design, to incorporate people’s views. It’s the same things that they’ve got an issue with and it’s things that have already been answered, such as road safety and parking.

“But they're still not happy with it, even though they're actually going to gain parking spaces, and the road is unchanged.”

O’Connell pointed out that recent road safety stats have revealed that only three cyclists have been involved in collisions along completed sections of the Binley Cycleway – two of which featured cyclists not even riding in the protected lane when they were hit by drivers.

And he also noted that the much-vaunted off-road alternate route proposed by opponents to the scheme, through a nearby parkland, would lead to the felling of “a lot more than 26 trees”.

But despite this insistent opposition from campaigners, the latest revised plan was signed off last month by Patricia Hetherton, the cabinet member for city services, who said that the local authority had listened to residents and made changes based on their feedback.

> Hundreds sign petition slamming decision to “sacrifice 26 irreplaceable trees” to make way for “dangerous, little used” cycle lane that “adds to pollution” – but council says more trees will be planted in their place

And on Tuesday, a meeting was held after both Labour and Conservative councillors demanded more scrutiny of Hetherton’s ruling, and challenged the plans.

However, Hetherton’s decision was ultimately backed by a majority of the council’s scrutiny co-ordination committee, who approved the scheme by just five votes to four.

Responding to the committee’s approval, council officers stressed that the project will undergo another safety review by an external company before any work is carried out, noting that the road’s 26 trees are only being felled “as a last resort”.

“I’m saddened we’re losing those trees,” Hetherington said after approving the scheme last month.

“If we reduced the width of the highway, we could have saved more trees. But clearly the residents didn't want that, and as a consequence we're having to lose more trees.”