Cycling UK has threatened a council with legal action if it will not reconsider its controversial decision to keep a known rat-run open to motor vehicles.
The Keyhole Bridge in Poole Park was closed to drivers under an experimental traffic restriction order (ETRO) in 2020 to improve active travel access during the pandemic. However, in December, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council ignored a public consultation showing the majority of residents supported the permanent closure, deciding to keep the underpass open to motor traffic.
Cycling UK has written a letter before action to the council, saying that the decision of 14 December was “unlawful” and failed to take into account statutory guidance issued to highway authorities under the Network Management Act 2004.
The charity says residents were “dismayed” by its reopening to motor traffic, with one local, Paul Bradley saying “children were able to cycle and travel safely” and he “can’t understand” the decision “when all the evidence points to the benefits and popular opinion is in favour”.
“Children were able to cycle and travel safely while KHB was closed,” he said. “I felt safer too and without rat-running traffic the streets I call home became a better place to live with a growing sense of community.
“I can’t understand when all the evidence points to the benefits and popular opinion is in favour [of closing KHB to motor traffic] why the council is stubbornly refusing to budge, ignoring the evidence, public opinion and government guidance.”
BCP Council opted to reopen the route to motor vehicles in March 2021 due to its assessment that the closure would cause delays of around three minutes at peak times which, it turn, would result in an economic cost of £220,000 per year.
However, a report commissioned by the Keyhole Bridge Group and authored by independent body KMC Transport Planning concluded the decision to reopen was based on flawed analysis.
The analysis by KMC suggested that the closure could result in a positive financial impact of £8.5 million over a 20-year period.
Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, added: “It shouldn’t be down to local groups or charities with limited resources to police council decision-making to ensure due process is followed, mounting legal challenges that rely on donations when councils act unlawfully.
“However, this is where we find ourselves with authorities like BCP Council persistently ignoring not just public opinion and expert analysis but also statutory guidance.
“As it stands this decision has no rational evidence base, which is why Cycling UK is asking the council to reconsider, on a lawful basis, their decision to keep Whitecliff Road open to motor traffic.”
Commenting on the decision to reopen the route to traffic, Mike Greene, a portfolio holder for transport said the cabinet had “considered the views of all those who use this route for travel to work, school, or leisure, as well as the views of local ward councillors and all other evidence including the assessment reports appended to the cabinet report.”
“On balance, cabinet considered that the benefits of retaining the access as it is outweighed the benefits of closing it to vehicular traffic,” he said.
39 thoughts on “Cycling UK threatens council with legal action over “unlawful” decision to keep rat-run open”
And this is why I switched
And this is why I switched from BC to CUK. Whilst they cant fight every battle they take a good swing at some, and at least they don’t look for sponsorship in all the wrong places.
They’re in touch – BC are out of touch.
Same here, happy to pay my
Same here, happy to pay my subs.
Got my 25 year pin a little
Got my 25 year pin a little while back.
Classic CTC styling.
…and me. Good effort
…and me. Good effort CyclingUK, keep up the top work.
Me too.
Me too.
Me too.
Me too.
weirdly its stuff like this
weirdly its stuff like this which is why I wouldnt, as I wouldnt want my subs to fund what I think is a wasted action.
BC might annoy me with their sponsorship deals, and offering new members a bunch of free see.sense lights, whilst existing members renewing get nothing.
But at least they promote cycling in my area alot more than CUK have done.
one of the things I keep highlighting is holding councils to account with what they have done with their active travel funds, and how many of the experimental schemes have been reversed, because I bet the picture is alot worse across the UK, than just one road on the south coast.
The pick and choose their
The pick and choose their battles but this is the 3 or 4 th one they’ve threatened legal action over. The aim isn’t to fight them all but to make councils behave properly when doing this stuff and to create legal precedents. Seem smart to me.
Happy CUK camper here too –
Happy CUK camper here too – but again if your local group swings the other way I think there’s room for two tribes. Local things being important is a good thing about cycling IMHO. And I think that is always where the main “campaigning work” / “promotion” will always be.
I’m not aware that BC is massive on the “cycling defense” / “holding councils to account”? Although I know almost zero about them – having hitherto assumed they’re “mostly about sport”. (Which is great, just not my particular focus.)
Similar yet possibly incompatible groups? That sounds like “cycling” to me!
I didnt say BC challenge
I didnt say BC challenge local councils, I said they had promoted cycling in my area, certainly more than Cycling UK have, through helping & assisting organising Breeze rides, supporting local Breeze champions, and were supporting Women on Wheels.
Consequently I feel my BC subs are being put to some use locally, despite my reservations with them as a body, whilst if i joined CUK my subs go to help some legal actions which I think are wasted anyway, but have absolutely no impact on me or my locale.
The Women on wheels initiative had to close down recently, probably due to lack of council budget, but where was the Cycling UK legal challenge for that ?
Where was the Cycling UK legal challenge when the bailey bridge link to Southwold, which is a cycling route, was out of action for months during the summer and the alternate suggested route was ride on the A12 or take a boat. It didnt even get mentioned as an issue.
It’s my own personal gripe that no organisation from active travel England to BC to CUK seem to be monitoring what councils, UK wide, have done with their experimental traffic orders and the funding they received for them, because I’m aware of how much just locally was rolled back, protected lanes taken out, space given back to motorists, plans promised but never delivered, and I suspect that story is repeated UK wide but theres not even acknowledgement from any organisation this has happened, let alone some headline friendly grabbing legal challenge about it.
Awavey wrote:
That’s a shame, but I don’t think a legal challenge would help with budget constraints anyway. Given the government talk about promoting active travel, it would be better for there to be national initiatives to get women (and others) onto bikes, although I’m not sure that I’d trust them to be any better or allocate more money.
Well I’m sorry about your
Well I’m sorry about your area / Women on wheels (I’m uncertain what that was – while I can see several groups called “Women on wheels” e.g. Glasgow, Worcestershire etc. was that a local council initiative?)
Unfortunately there is no such thing as a national cycling organisation – or rather BC are it insofar as they are the governing body for the sports side. Cycling UK are just the former “cyclists touring club” which have expanded to do more campaigning / more general support. They don’t replace or act as an organiser for all the other local cycling campaign groups or related groups like Wheels for Wellbeing. As secret_squirrel noted they do pick a small number of specific issues – some of which may be local – and campaign on these on a bigger scale.
I’ve no idea how CUK they pick these things – I’m just a member, I’m not involved in the leadership.
For local issues I’d look to my local campaign and support group – I’m lucky in that it’s Spokes who are well established and active.
Anyway – both CUK and BC offer some useful things like insurance etc. so if it weren’t one I’d join the other anyway for that. I know that even in NL although there is a national “cyclists’ union” it isn’t the same as the national cycling sport body. The cyclists’ union history page is maybe illustrative in this context:
chrisonatrike wrote:
it was a local county council led initiative part of Suffolks Most Active County of England project that brings events like the Womens Tour, Tour of Britain to the county, as well as support other physical activities like park run etc, and was similar to the other Women on wheels projects I think and the BC Breeze rides, they organised some local charity rides, as well guided rides across the region to boost and create mass participation cycling rides for women in the county. Obviously badly hit by Covid lockdowns, but I thought the outlook was still positive, and then they just announced after 8 years of running it the initiative was ceasing suddenly.
I wouldnt expect Cycling UK to mount a legal challenge on it, but where do you draw the line on decisions councils make that CUK do or wont involve themselves in ?
Awavey wrote:
Thanks – sounds like something any group – particularly a local group – could lobby on or challenge? (Presumably lobbying for something like that to happen again – with council it may be “if it’s gone it’s gone” sadly?)
I’ve no idea who there is about that area. Google says there’s an Active Suffolk who’ve done something related to cycling and there’s a specific campaign group (not so near Southwold…) Cycle Ipswitch. (There’s a CUK local group based on Ipswitch too but they’re mostly about organising rides).
Perhaps British Cycling have the people to raise this with – after all it sounds vaguely sports / fitness related and I’d imagine that would be in line with their aims?
It would be great if there were some broader organisation across the country which could pick up all local cycling issues where there wasn’t some local campaign group. There doesn’t seem to be in the UK.
Awavey wrote:
Experimental traffic orders have left the building, no doubt. So a massive waste of tax payers contribution for little to no benefit. The few near me are all gone and no significant Active Travel have taken their place. War and the price of fuel probably had more effect on reducing motor traffic. Not that I’m arguing for the aggressive and unlawful acts of the tin o’ poo.
Surely the DoT should be holding the Active Travel funding recipients to account…
Absolutely. It’s the UK here
Absolutely. It’s the UK here though where we’ve come to expect charities to step in and fill the gaps that politicians and government have left. Usually the former because they suspect its literally more than their job’s worth (“controversial change”) and/or the system rarely motivates them to plan more than 5 years ahead!
What did Cameron’s “Big society” mean, after all?
On the basis of this
On the basis of this statement alone, I am switching to CUK from BC. I’m fed up of councils, in particular the useless BCP and it’s mouthpiece the Echo, of pandering to an aggressive minority of ignorant petrolheads believing that is what will get them votes. As can be seen from the last London Mayoral vote, the anti-cycling nonsense doesn’t have the backing they think. Go CUK, take these pillocks to task!
I’m a CyclingUK member, and I
I’m a CyclingUK member, and I support this action! ? Good luck CyclingUK legal team!
So most people wanted it
So most people wanted it closed to motor vehicles, independent analysis shows that it would be an economic benefit to keep it closed, and yet the council opens it; democracy in action. As I’ve said before, it would not be entirely surprising to find that some councillors who drive use the bridge as a rat run. If I lived there my local councillor would be getting hell.
“the views of local ward
“the views of local ward councillors and all other evidence”
BCP Council can’t tell the difference between Opinions and Evidence, so not surprised they made the wrong choice.
Deserves to be challenged.
The frustrating thing is all
The frustrating thing is all a judicial review can do is point out where they went wrong and ask them to retake the decision. Entrenched councils will simply then spend time and effort coming up with a review-proof documented decision to do the same thing again. It’s an expensive process where you need to be realistic about what can be achieved. It is interesting that a small number of vociferous motorists can persuade councillors to make poor decisions that risk high legal costs for the council, yet some councils can be immune to cyclist pressure.
Would the Local Government
Would the Local Government Ombudsman be a cheaper way to perhaps achieve the same thing?
I suspect that in principle,
I suspect that in principle, yes, but the LGO can only make recommendations, the courts have the force of law (though I think the only sanction is being in contempt, which has the joy of judges having a free hand in determining punishment, sadly usually a big telling off I should think). There are also timing issues, and it may be that going through the LGO runs out the clock on taking to court. Councils are very good at extending complaint times – sorry can’t deal with your level 2 complaint, nobody available – my response, let’s make it level 3 then as you’ve run out of time. We can’t do a level 3 as we haven’t got a level 2 to adjudicate on, etc.
‘Ignored a public
‘Ignored a public consultation’
I thought a consulation wasnt a vote? or at least thats what many cycle campaigners say when local consultation results want LTN reopened or cycle lane removed
.
(I support closing this route to cars, i just think double standards are funny)
STATO wrote:
I agree. I’m interested to know what the basis of the legal action is. Do local authorities have a legal obligation to do things that are demonstrably in the best interests of their constituents? I have no idea, but if they do, I’m surprised there isn’t a lot more legal action flying around. Maybe there is and we just don’t hear about it.
Broadly speaking, public
Broadly speaking, public bodies are obliged to follow fair decision-making processes. Judicial review is a means of challenging the decision-making, rather than the decision per se, e.g. did they give due weight to relevant facts, or undue weight to irrelevant ones. As Ian says below, the local authority is then free to come to the same decision again by a fair process.
quiff wrote:
Thank you for sharing 🙂
Yes. And the time passed and
Yes. And the time passed and the publicity often mean the bandwagon has moved on by the time a judgment is handed down.
BCP council aren’t exactly on a winning streak at the High Court: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/03/high-court-overrules-bournemouths-unlimited-strip-club-policy
see also: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-54377108
I guess CUK see the Keyhole Bridge as a test case. To give it its due, the Council are building a fair few cycle lanes – much drivist huffing and puffing but that’s another story. So too are all the disruptions due to leaking gas mains.
The Bournemouth Echo account of this latest challenge had got to over 100 comments last time I looked and then when I came back in again after work, they had shut down comments and everything disappears.
The troll drivists on there are pretty rabid. I had to bow out (and do some work) just as we were getting to “1600 people killed each year – that’s a pretty decent number, all things considered.”
The key word is reasonable. I
The key word is reasonable. I’m not sure if it was from common law or enshrined later, but public bodies have a duty to act reasonably.
The oddity is that legally they are deemed to be acting on our behalf (which gets very bizarre at planning inquiries when the public are annoyed at the council), yet these days that has been subverted so generally they are bound by central government dictat which has become more restrictive.
A consultation (including things like planning applications) should not be a vote, though they should give some weight to significant representations. The idea is they are information gathering exercises, recognising that local people and interested parties may have useful views. Ideally, the council should list the points raised in the consultation, validate them and examine each on their merits.
In this case, they are apparently acting unreasonably because there are limited benefits to their decision, there is demonstrable harm and cost, there was a weight of public opinion sampled that suggested it was not demanded to be opened and they don’t seem to have been able to claim a clear rationale for overriding the harm.
STATO wrote:
Cough-cough – “advisory referendum” – cough cough
The action would be on the
The action would be on the basis of failing to follow the guidance in the Network Management Duty to support active travel.
It says that ETRO schemes should be retained unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. Lack of public support could be such evidence, but where there is public support that would not apply.
We have a very similar
We have a very similar situation in Harrogate where the council took out a modal filter scheme on Beech Grove without publishing any evidence at all.
6 months on they have finally published the consultation results which show that 66% supported the scheme – but N Yorkshire refuses to reinstate it.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Have you tried the Ombudsman?
eburtthebike wrote:
Or you could even try becoming the Ombudsman – the job has just been advertised – https://www.lgo.org.uk/vacancies/local-government-and-social-care-ombudsman-lgsco-and-chair-of-the-commission-for-local-administration-in-england-clae
I am considering the
I am considering the Ombudsman.
I put in a complaint some time ago and I’m now going to ask the council for a final decision (even though I know what it is).
Cycling UK should go do one.
Cycling UK should go do one.
Agree
Agree
I think they are going to
I think they are going to court and attempting to “do” the council into at least making some more effort to justify that they didn’t actually breach their responsibilities in how they made their decision. That’s pretty small beer (as opposed to making them actually implement e.g. an active travel network). Still, I’m all for that, better to light a candle etc.
Was that what you mean?
When the Mini-Holland scheme
When the Mini-Holland scheme in Walthamstow was opened, I always thought it was strange that you could drive north through the scheme in the morning, and then south through the scheme in the afternoon and evening. The council offices are north of Mini-Holland. Through work I had a casual coffee with a member of the management team, and guess what they told me regarding certain councillors commuting habits?