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
45 thoughts on “Council admits it acted illegally in ripping out emergency bike lane showcased in DfT video”
Staggeringly brilliant result
Staggeringly brilliant result! Thanks CUK for all that hard work, and although you may have got some of the costs back, I’m sure there was so much more dedication, blood and sweat that went into that challenge that can’t be reimbursed.
Aren’t there several more cases going through the system? If so, surely those councils will cut their losses and reach a settlement, hopefully including reinstating the cycle facilities and re-educating the councillors/officers responsible. Hopefully this will influence other councils that just want to rip out cycle provision if a single driver objects.
Maybe not such great news.
Maybe not such great news. The Brighton Argus quotes a council spokesperson: ‘ …there is no prospect…of the cycleway scheme… being restored…’
PS avoid the comments. Up to 9 this morning but the only one (of two) I read last night made me fear for humankind.
“as to the danger these steps
“as to the danger these steps will entail including stopping of vehicles on major roads because someone is waiting to cross a sidestreet”
“West Sussex CC acts illegally.
Gets sued and decides not to fight the cases as they know they would lose anyway.
Argus commenters – “Bloody Cyclists!’.”
C’mon who from here posted the last comment !
Never read The Argus comments
Never read The Argus comments, full of absolute knuckle draggers.
Superb. I’m glad that as a
Superb. I’m glad that as a member I’m suporting this kind of thing, but as Duncan says, it shouldn’t be charities that are ensuring that councils abide by the rules.
delighted! This case is about
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!
David9694 wrote:
Cool! Will we be getting crowns and robes?
brooksby wrote:
Mine arrived yesterday
Mine must be lost in the post
Mine must be lost in the post… 🙁
Looks like “Er – mine arrived
Looks like “Er – mine arrived yesterday”? Or is that a the first stoat of spring?
chrisonatrike wrote:
They’re weasily mistaken for each other
hawkinspeter wrote:
Upper Shoreham? Wear your fox hat!
brooksby wrote:
robes would be very dangerous on bikes
wycombewheeler wrote:
Father Brown doesn’t think much of that claim.
You’ll be wanting a
You’ll be wanting a Workcycles cross-frame pastoorfiets then!
There was an impact report
There was an impact report produced by the transport dept of the council who recommended the council take the decision to remove the cycle lane,that they enacted upon, that bit always gets lost in the coverage.
Sometimes councils do agree these settlements simply to stop protracting the legal costs further,certainly if defending the decision costs more than the cycle lane cost to built then it becomes pointless to continue in so much as the council doesnt gain anything by winning anyway.
Yet no repercussions for the
Yet no repercussions for the person wholly responsible – Councillor Roger Elkins who has moved on from his position.
Retired, apparently.
Retired, apparently.
This is exactly why I am a
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).
Despite the case publicity
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
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…
chrisonatrike wrote:
(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,
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.
Awavey wrote:
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.
GMBasix wrote:
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.
[…]— Awavey
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
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.
iandusud wrote:
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.
I’m a little confused. By
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?
EddyBerckx wrote:
I can’t imagine that CUK would settle for a bit of cash and not have the lane put back in.
hawkinspeter wrote:
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
Exactly, and I don’twant the money back that I sent to the fund!
That doesn’t mean anything
That doesn’t mean anything though if Sussex don’t reinstall the cycle lane.
Yep. These were judicial
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.
I can answer that. No, they
I can answer that. No, they didn’t win. No they didn’t get a good result. All they did was transfer money from the council to a firm of ambulance chasing lawyers.
So instead of new park equipment (or similar) for local residents, it will be champagne and canapes for the legal profession.
Garage at Large wrote:
Well, I guess you’d know all about ambulance chasing lawyers, wouldn’t you…?
I thought he chased the road
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
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.
Garage at Large wrote:
This from someone who has such a high opinion of Nick Freeman. I think my ironymeter just malfunctioned.
Again.
I live nearby and the cycle
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
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
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.
This is just typical of West
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.
Great to see this win. BUT I
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.
Good news that Boardman is
Good news that Boardman is the Commissioner at Active Travel England. Let’s see if the body backs him up!
Fantastic work by Cycling UK.
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.