Cycling group takes legal action against county council over Shoreham cycle lane removal

The council removed the Upper Shoreham Road lane in January as part of the reversal of several schemes across West Sussex set up during the summer lockdown.

While the other lanes in West Sussex were almost universally criticised, the case for Shoreham’s was less cut and dried as it was proven to have increased cycle journeys without affecting traffic or raising air pollution.

Now charity Cycling UK has submitted an application for the council’s decision to be judicially reviewed, branding it ‘irrational and unlawful’.

The group has accused the council of failing to carry out an equality impact assessment before making the decision and ignoring the statutory guidance on the management of their highways network.

A spokesman for the group said: “Despite the popularity of the route for Shoreham’s families and residents, and no evidence to support unsubstantiated claims the lane had caused congestion or traffic delays, an arbitrary decision was made to remove the lane by councillor Roger Elkins, West Sussex County Council’s cabinet member for highways and infrastructure.”

The decision had initially been called in by councillors, with a majority of 6-2, but Mr Elkins opted to stick with the original plan to remove all of the West Sussex lanes en masse.

A freedom of information request later revealed Mr Elkins had never visited the lane in person.

Duncan Dollimore Cycling UK’s head of campaigns said: “When the council introduced this cycle lane, people soon changed how they travelled locally. Children began cycling to school, pensioners felt safe to ride into town and commuters started swapping cars and public transport for their bikes. It was a complete success story.

“Cllr Elkins’ decision to remove the lane five weeks later without considering the evidence showing the lane’s benefits is contrary to statutory guidance. It demonstrates a fundamentally flawed process, which Cycling UK would argue, is both irrational and unlawful.”

Despite winning the support of cycling groups, the lane was not a complete success story and brought criticism from some residents, particularly of Upper Shoreham Road.

Concerns included the lane forcing delivery drivers and other vehicles to park across people’s driveways, affecting businesses and residents.

On-street parking was also removed to make way for the lanes, which limited customers’ access to local traders.

Following the announcement of the removal decision, the county council said it would look at installing a redesigned, permanent scheme, following a full consultation.

Cycling UK has argued the county council did not consider the impact on young people when deciding to remove the cycle lane.

Under the Equality Act age is a protected characteristic, which in this case the charity says the council should have considered before making its decision.

Commenting on the benefits of the cycle lane along Upper Shoreham Road Clive Andrews, a member of Shoreham-By-Cycle said: “For a few weeks, the people of Shoreham-by-Sea had a taste of what it felt like to be able to choose safer, more protected journeys by bike, on this key route across our town. The pop-up lanes had quite an impact: doubling cycling levels, and in some weeks even trebling them.

“The project was helping our town to consider how a better future for local journeys may look - especially for children’s journeys to school. WSCC’s decision to remove the lanes came as a surprise, given the huge increase in cycle traffic, and the potential that was there to leave them in situ while options for longer-term changes could be explored.

“The news that Cycling UK has been looking at the legalities of this decision is really interesting, and we appreciate the efforts of Cycling UK in examining the implications of what’s happened here in West Sussex.”

Cycling UK is funding its legal challenge via its Cyclist Defence Fund, and is concerned West Sussex CC’s actions could be mirrored by other local authorities under pressure from vocal minorities resistant to improvements in their community.

“Despite the public’s enthusiasm for having safer routes to walk and cycle along, it is frustrating to see the admirable ambitions of some councils wither away at the first sign of criticism,” said Mr Dollimore.

“If councils decide to make baseless knee jerk decisions with no evidence, then they need to realise there will be consequences. They should expect to be challenged, because such arbitrary and irrational decision making cannot be allowed to go unchecked.”

A council spokesman confirmed it had been served with legal proceedings but was unable to comment.