Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cycling UK takes council to court over “unlawful” decision to keep rat-run open

This is the second time Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council is facing legal action over its decision to keep the incredibly narrow underpass open to motor vehicles.

Cycling UK deems it “unlawful”, residents find it “ridiculous”, but the BCP Council doesn’t see anything wrong with opening Keyhole Bridge — a 2.7 meters wide rat-run to vehicles.

After threatening BCP Council with legal action last month, the charity announced this week that it has followed through on its warning by taking the council to court.

The charity says the council decision was unlawful, as it failed to consider statutory guidance issued to highway authorities, and demands that the council retake the decision on a “lawful basis”.

‌Keyhole Bridge, located in Poole Park is a section of the Whitecliff Road and runs under the railway line. As the name suggests, it is incredibly narrow and doesn’t have enough space for a vehicle to share with even a pedestrian, let alone a cyclist, or someone with a pram or in a wheelchair.

> Campaigners seek funding for legal challenge to removal of Poole active travel scheme

Local resident Paul Bradley, who regularly cycles through Keyhole Bridge with his young son on the back of his bike, said, “With Keyhole Bridge closed, our community and our streets felt like a safer place, and children were able to cycle or walk to school.”

“The decision to keep it open was ridiculous when people living in the area were so overwhelmingly against it, and all the evidence supported public opinion. I’m glad it’s now being challenged, it’s just a shame it has to go this far to give people what they want and need,” he added.

This underpass has been a site of battle between residents looking to bike and walk safely and the Council since August 2020, when the first temporary closure was implemented during the pandemic under an experimental traffic restriction order (ETRO) to improve active travel.

Poole rat-run (Keyhole Bridge Group)

Poole rat-run (Keyhole Bridge Group), by Dan Alexander

In March 2021, the underpass was reopened by the council, despite consultation results showing 60 per cent of those who responded being in favour of prioritising the road for active travel. Local campaigners from Keyhole Bridge Group filed for a judicial review against the council. In November, the court ruled that there were errors in the process and ordering the council to carry out another round of consultation.

> Judge orders council that scrapped safe cycling and walking route to reopen consultation

The second round drew staggering responses from people who wanted it closed, with 71 per cent of those sending through written representations in favour of closing Keyhole Bridge permanently, as opposed to 29 per cent who wanted it to remain open to motor traffic. In another questionnaire, 65 per cent were again in support of shutting it to vehicles.

However, the Council ignored these responses in December last year, when it took the decision to open it again, leaving residents who had been using it for cycling and walking disappointed.

Now, Cycling UK argues that the council has failed to have appropriate regard for statutory guidance issued to highway authorities, like BCP, under the Network Management Act 2004.

Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, said: “Cycling UK gave BCP Council the chance to avoid an expensive court case, but it has failed to answer the questions we and local residents have raised, and hasn’t been able to explain or show how it took account of the statutory guidance.”

“The council has ignored the guidance all councils are required to follow, despite having already lost one judicial review on Keyhole Bridge, costing it a great deal of time, money and credibility.”

BCP Council’s decision to reopen the bridge in March 2021 was based on its assessment that the closure would create delays of around three minutes at peak times, resulting in an economic cost of £220,000 per year.

However, Cycling UK has pointed out that these assumptions were based from the short-term closure of a different part of Poole Park, and dated back to 2016. A new report by independent experts KMC Transport Planning in April found that the council’s decision was based on flawed analysis and ignored the health and economic benefits of cycling and walking.

In fact, the revised economic analysis by KMC showed a positive financial impact of £8.5m (£425,000 per year) over a 20-year period from closing the bridge to motor traffic.

Cycling UK is moving forward with the case aided by the law firm Leigh Day Solicitors. Rowan Smith from the firm said, “Statutory guidance says that schemes such as the closure of Keyhole Bridge to motor vehicles should be retained unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. However the council decision documents show that BCP Council has misunderstood this point.”

“Cycling UK will argue that the statutory guidance was unlawfully interpreted when councillors made their decision. We are confident that the court will agree and allow Cycling UK’s claim for judicial review.”

Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after completing his masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Cymru, and also likes to write about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.

Add new comment

19 comments

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 1 year ago
0 likes

Funnily enough BCP got a Level 2 rating from Active Travel England.

Avatar
Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
3 likes

I do wonder if Cycling UK could do the same over Brighton council's decision (Labour and Tories teaming up against the Green minority government) to close the old Shoreham road cycle lane falsely claiming residents were consulted on its closure.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
1 like

Consultation is a fig leaf. As they are not votes, (as Wikipedia would say !votes), the weight of views is not a significant factor. However, each point raised needs to be shown to be considered.

They should show they have considered all the guidance and the consultation. In terms of guidance, they are not obliged to follow it, but if they don't, they should show what their training is.

Key point is that they have to demonstrate they have acted reasonably. Ignoring the weight of opinion can be entirely reasonable. In this case though I suspect they've just wanted to do something and have ticked boxes and ignored genuine concerns.

Makes me wonder why there isn't a Pedestrian UK organisation devoted to The War On Pedestrians or whatever phrase suits pedestrians being sometimes above and sometimes below cyclists in priority. It seems to me that if there is an opportunity to get pedestrians to dip in their pockets they can expect usable infrastructure but if it is about getting from A to B infrastructure is going to be more half-hearted and low priority

Avatar
Awavey replied to Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
1 like

I thought they already had, and presumably lost since the decision hasn't been reversed.

Unless the council have made a decision which breaks the rules they are meant to follow, and the council employs alot of people to make sure that doesn't happen, you can't overturn a council decision on the basis of just well I disagree with that.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Awavey | 1 year ago
5 likes
Awavey wrote:

I thought they already had, and presumably lost since the decision hasn't been reversed. Unless the council have made a decision which breaks the rules they are meant to follow, and the council employs alot of people to make sure that doesn't happen, you can't overturn a council decision on the basis of just well I disagree with that.

Actually they won, with the council admitting it acted illegally and paying CUK's costs, but unfortunately that didn't create an obligation to reinstall the lane: https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/cycling-uk-win-council-admits-il...

Avatar
Awavey replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
1 like

well blame for Road.cc for not keeping us updated,how am I expected to keep track of every court case running in the country  3

interesting result, because that whole decision was prompted by a report by the councils transport dept, even though Cycling UK liked to make it more about the car liking councillor who made the decision,the report recommended taking the cycle lane away and the councillor and vote that followed simply followed the transport dept recommendations, so it should have been a pretty robust defence on the councils part imo at least.

but  there you go, its funny how CyclingUK present it as, we won their decision was totally illegal !!!! (technically Im not sure any laws were actually broken and after all no judgement was actually made on its lawfulness as it was settled out of court)

whilst the council seem to accepting they missed a step in the process, the specific individuals who took the decision arent around anymore, and have settled the case out of court, but also are like yeah we aint ever putting that cycle lane back in for you...

Avatar
Car Delenda Est replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
0 likes

That's a different cycle lane in Shoreham, I was talking about a cycle lane in Brighton.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
2 likes

Judicial Reviews never result in directions to do things they just cancel previous actions.

Avatar
Car Delenda Est replied to Awavey | 1 year ago
3 likes

As I understand it councils aren't meant to mislead the public about consultations and base their decisions on fabricated results..

Avatar
eburtthebike | 1 year ago
11 likes

I've never been prouder to be a member of CUK, and to support the Cyclists' Defence Fund.  I profoundly hope that they win this absurd court case, not that cases are won or lost on how sensible they are, only on the law, which can be a braying donkey at times.

Has anyone taken the time to map out where councillors live and their voting record on this issue?

EDIT: I'm guessing that someone local already tried the ombudsman and found out how utterly toothless it is?

Avatar
wtjs | 1 year ago
10 likes

I'm pretty sure how that 'Share Space' works out: queues of cars forcing their way through one after another, obliging pedestrians and cyclists to plead for a space. This is a very bad council- surely it's full of Mail-ster Tories?

Avatar
ktache replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
1 like

I'd assumed a banksy like peice of ironic performance art...

Avatar
Oldfatgit | 1 year ago
1 like

Why aren't British Cycling involved?

Aren't they supposed to be the representative body?

Avatar
ShutTheFrontDawes replied to Oldfatgit | 1 year ago
2 likes
Oldfatgit wrote:

Why aren't British Cycling involved?

Aren't they supposed to be the representative body?

Because Wael Sawan's dick doesn't suck itself?

Avatar
ktache replied to Oldfatgit | 1 year ago
3 likes

No one is racing through there are they?

Maybe Shell have come out a bit pro-driving?

This got a mention on an early morning south today sometime last week. Getting ready for work, only caught a snippet.

Avatar
giff77 replied to Oldfatgit | 1 year ago
4 likes

Their focus is competition rather than day to day. In the same way Cycling Scotland is more proactive in daily cycling than Scottish Cycling. The Scottish arm of Cycling U.K. will be active in road safety as well. It was them who helped me get back on the road after my clatter. 

Avatar
Eton Rifle replied to giff77 | 1 year ago
2 likes

Agreed. I cancelled my British Cycling membership and joined CUK last month. CUK seems to do a lot more for everyday cycling than BC and that Shell sponsorship was just the last straw...

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to Oldfatgit | 1 year ago
4 likes
Oldfatgit wrote:

Aren't they supposed to be the representative body?

Nope. They mostly represent Cycling as a Sport.   Which is why unless you are planning to race in which case they have a monopoly on race licences, you should get membership of CUK if you need 3rd party insurance. 

Avatar
mattsccm replied to Secret_squirrel | 1 year ago
0 likes

BC represents the competition in the Uk although an element wants to get involved with campaigning. CUK  self proclaims itself to be THE cycling organisation which it isn't and wants to get involved in campaigning. 

I do wonder how many of those wanting this bit of road shut are local and thus deseving of a voice.

Latest Comments