Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Department for Transport say councils must give walking and cycling schemes time

Three councils are currently facing court action for removing cycle lanes

The Department for Transport say local authorities must 'always' leave cycling and walking schemes in place long enough to be properly assessed after it was revealed three councils face court action for removing cycle lanes.

Minister of State for Transport, Chris Heaton-Harris said that the government would shortly be issuing guidance to all local transport authorities 'making it clear' that school streets, low traffic neighbourhoods, and cycle lanes, should be given time to have an impact.

He said: "The Department will be issuing updated statutory Network Management Duty guidance to all local transport authorities shortly which will make clear that they should always leave cycling and walking schemes in place for long enough for their impacts to be properly assessed."

The statement came as Cycling UK revealed that three councils are currently facing court action for removing cycle lanes and experimental traffic orders.

In February of this year, Cycling UK applied to the High Court for a judicial review of West Sussex County Council’s (WSCC) decision to remove a cycle lane along the A270 Upper Shoreham Road in Shoreham.

> 'Not a good use of public money': minister says council who ripped up pop-up cycle lane can't bid for more active travel funding

In March, in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), the council's leadership team unanimously agreed not to reinstall a government-funded cycle lane. 

> Kensington & Chelsea Council refuses to reinstate High Street cycle lane

This decision led local group Better Streets for Kensington to issue judicial review proceedings in June against RKBC. 

In August 2020, Keyhole Bridge in Poole was closed to motor traffic under an experimental traffic order (ETRO).

But in January, Transport Portfolio holder Mike Greene decided to remove the restrictions, despite officer advice, the equalities impact assessment, and public opinion all favouring the filter remaining in place.  

As a result, the Keyhole Bridge Group issued judicial review proceedings last month against Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council.

 On 26 May the High Court refused Cycling UK’s application for the judicial review of the A270 cycle lane.

The group has now appealed that decision in the Court of Appeal.

Cycling UK head of campaigns, Duncan Dollimore, said: "We’re obviously disappointed that we lost in the High Court and have had to take the case to the Court of Appeal. 

"However, the issues involved in this case and in both Poole and Kensington are too important for us just to roll over. Allowing these councils to remove cycle lanes and other active travel infrastructure without regard to guidance, legal obligations or due process could threaten cycle provision in other places."

Add new comment

15 comments

Avatar
Rich_cb | 2 years ago
6 likes

Another sensible announcement from the DfT.

These sort of things tend not to make headlines in the mainstream press but, together with the guidance on segregated infrastructure, will hopefully have a very positive long term impact.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
5 likes

Rich_cb wrote:

Another sensible announcement from the DfT.

scary, isn't it?  3

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
2 likes

It is!

I still have a sense of disbelief whenever the government does something that will actually improve active travel.

Avatar
TheBillder replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
4 likes
Rich_cb wrote:

Another sensible announcement from the DfT.

Apart from the initial idea of funding the active travel initiatives, I'm struggling to think of any other sensible things from DfT*.

Was it £29bn on new roads to solve the CO2 shortage and global cooling?

Or the £55-130bn for a new railway to London from Leeds, making perfect financial sense as no one works on a train ever (NB I'm not expecting them to have predicted the shift to remote working - the numbers didn't make sense even in the before times).

Or was it Highways England or the Highways Agency or whatever they are called to make things Not Grant's Fault filling in the tunnels that could have been used for cycle paths?

*Why is it Dept FOR Transport and not OF? Did they really want to be DafT and not DoT?

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to TheBillder | 2 years ago
2 likes

I was referring to the recent funding guidelines for segregated cycling infrastructure and the withdrawal of funding from councils that have been doing stupid things with their pop up infrastructure.

Both issues were covered on road.cc.

Avatar
Steve K replied to TheBillder | 2 years ago
3 likes

TheBillder][quote=Rich_cb wrote:

*Why is it Dept FOR Transport and not OF? Did they really want to be DafT and not DoT?

Genuine answer?  Before 1991, every government department was 'of' something (except Home Office, Foreign Office and the Treasury, of course).  And - in the lovely bureaucratic way, each had its own unique initials - with the 'o' for 'of' included if it was needed to distinguish between two Departments.

Then - in a shifting of responsibilities - the Department of Education and Science (DES) lost 'Science'.  If it became just Department of Education is couldn't be DE - that was Employment - and it couldn't be DoE - that was Environment.

So they made it Department FOR Education.  But, of course, the real reason was far too prosaic.  And so it was explained as a positive - it wasn't just 'of' Education; it was positively 'for' it.

Since then, when new Departmental names are required because of changes in responsibility, they normally plump for the more positive sounding "for" rather than "of",

Avatar
CarlosFerreiro replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
2 likes

Yes, if you look at the active travel specific funding, strategy, implimentation and design guides, it's mostly fairly good. Could always be better, but if we got what was outlined in those things, it would be a huge step forward.
So where does delivery go wrong after that?

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to CarlosFerreiro | 2 years ago
2 likes

I'm hoping that with a more sensible framework of legislation in place the end result will start to improve.

The best of the new guidance has only been in place for a short period of time, given how long it takes to get cycling infrastructure approved, see Chiswick, we likely won't start to see the benefits for a few years.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
3 likes

Shame the DfT don't tell other members of Central Government not to call the new cycle lanes "Lunatic" and the councils acting on Central Government advice and consent "Socialist" though. 

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
0 likes

That's just democracy.

I don't agree with JRM but I'm quite grateful to live in a country where plurality of opinion is tolerated.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
1 like

Is he speaking those words as his role as part of the Government, or as a personal MP though? If the latter fine, he is entitled to his opinion, but I was lead to believe the former as in the questions are being asked to the him as the Government liasion in Parliament. So wouldn't it be nice if the left hand and the right hand were on the same page. 

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
0 likes

You make a good point. I too would prefer a more unified message on cycling from the government.

I imagine JRM would claim that the actual cycling infrastructure is a matter for local government and that central government merely provides the guidance framework and the funding. Hence he can lambast an individual piece of infrastructure whilst simultaneously supporting the government's position that more infrastructure is needed.

Isn't politics great...

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
2 likes

I would imagine that JRM is an out of depth person who has been given a "top" job to appease the ERG and keep him under a semblence of control, but where he wouldn't need to give press conferences or interviews. Of course they can't stop him languishing across the seats at Westminister or stopping some of his archaic utterings from being printed officially, but as most people don't bother reading the Hustings, he can normally get away with it. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
6 likes

I too am quite happy for a plurality of opinions.

What grinds my gears though, is when opinions backed by science/evidence are put on the same footing as nonsensical opinions.

There's plenty of evidence of the benefits of decent cycle infrastructure and reducing car usage, so it's hardly 'lunacy' to be trying to improve facilities and improve people's health and well-being.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
2 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

What grinds my gears though, is when opinions backed by science/evidence are put on the same footing as nonsensical opinions.

I do agree. We see it all too often on these pages in the 'debate that shall not be named'.

The nature of democracy is that every person's opinion holds equal value, whether that opinion is based on years of meticulous research or a conspiracy theory you saw on YouTube once while you were drunk.

It's annoying but it's the least worst system we've got.

Latest Comments