LABOUR councillors are calling for a halt to further expansion of cycle lanes.

They say Brighton and Hove City Council must pause plans to extend the lanes on Old Shoreham Road and the A259 seafront road for further consultation.

The Labour group brought in the current measures with “Tranche 1” funding from government.

However, it is now calling on the new Green administration to pause all “Tranche 2” plans, for which the council asked the Government for £2.6 million to implement.

A spokesman said: “As Labour we implemented changes during Covid under the emergency rules.

“Post-lockdown, we believe we should pause all Tranche 2 proposals to publicise and consult widely on the plan, and consider changes based on the evidence input from residents, user group and experts including disability groups and equalities.

The Argus:

“We want an evidence-based solution to getting the city moving and a consideration of options to improve the shared use on Madeira Drive so that businesses, blue badge holders and pedestrians can use it in harmony.

“We should look again at Old Shoreham Road, considering an officer report that includes resident consultations and is evidence-based, looking at traffic flows, and includes the position of neighbouring authorities.”

The city council has asked the government for £2,680,000 to establish the “ambitious” cycle lanes – and to widen the pavement in Western Road – under its Emergency Active Travel Fund.

Tranche 2 plans include:

Labour opposition spokesman on environment, transport and sustainability, Councillor Gary Wilkinson said: “In keeping with our manifesto commitments, our priority is to encourage clean transport in the city to help us reach carbon net zero and we remain steadfast in our belief in a green recovery based on the needs of everyone who lives and works in the city, and our many visitors who help to drive our local economy.

“We look forward to the climate assembly we set up considering these and a range of other changes to help us tackle the climate crisis in a way that ensures residents across the city have their say and help shape the future of our city.”

Conservative transport spokesman, Councillor Lee Wares said “The Conservative Group are pleased to see the Labour Group’s U-turn on their previous position.

The Argus:

"It is good to see they have recognised their errors as the architects of the chaos that has been brought upon our city.

"We are pleased they now echo everything we have been saying when they pushed their plans through with the Green Party in June when the Conservative Group voted against the proposals.

"It is a shame that Labour voted against all the Conservative amendments and Notice of Motion at Full Council in August that would have provided everything they now ask for.

The Argus:

"I am sure however, many in the city will be disappointed it has taken Labour so long to come to their senses”.

To have your say, visit

Find the impact assessment for lane near you

THE Argus has put together a searchable tool to find the assessment for the cycle lane near you. 

See the (🟢G) (🟠A) and (🔴R) key below

Value for money:

🔴R= Temporary measure would require significant, costly infrastructure with lower expected demand and little likelihood that it could be made permanent

🟠A= Measure would require a higher level of expenditure but this would have the potential to provide a longer term benefit for active travel and have higher expected demand

🟢G= Measure would be low cost

Interaction with junctions:

🔴R= At least one junction defined as critical using the LCWIP Route Selection Tool (RST) and this would require significant intervention to overcome

🟠A= At least one junction defined as critical using the LCWIP RST but mitigating measures may be possible

🟢G= No junctions defined as critical using the LCWIP RST

Impacts on public transport users (buses and taxis)

🔴R= Route passes a number of bus stops served by frequent services and would either impact on the ability of buses to serve these or introduce significant conflict with cyclists and / or bus route (including bus and taxi lane) would be diverted / removed as a result of scheme with likely journey time implications

🟠A= Route passes a number of stops or has interaction with buses, but services are infrequent or interaction with cyclists limited (i.e. low risk of conflict)

🟢G= No conflict with buses

Impacts on traffic flow

🔴R= Route would substantially reduce capacity for vehicular traffic and risks significantly increasing congestion

🟠A= Route would substantially reduce capacity for vehicular traffic but this is expected to have a limited impact

🟢G= No increase in congestion is expected as a result of the scheme

Equality implications

🔴R= Scheme is likely to have a substantial adverse impact on group(s) with protected characteristics and this cannot be mitigated

🟠A= Scheme has the potential to have an adverse impact on group(s) with protected characteristics; however, it is expected that this could be satisfactorily mitigated

🟢G= The scheme is not expected to have an adverse impact on groups with protected characteristics

Legislative requirements

🔴R= Require a permanent or experimental TRO

🟠A= Could be introduced under a temporary TRO or parking could be re-provided or addressed through suspensions

🟢G= No legal process required

Impacts on loading / freight deliveries

🔴R= Route likely to have an unavoidable impact on loading opportunities and no alternatives exist

🟠A= Route would be likely to have an impact on loading but this could be relocated or mitigated

🟢G= Route would not have an impact on loading

Impacts on parking

🔴R= Route would have an unavoidable impact on parking and there is no realistic alternative for those who would lose parking (for example residents in an area of high parking stress)

🟠A= Route would have an unavoidable impact on parking; however, this is not essential (e.g. shops) or could be displaced elsewhere with limited impact

🟢G= Route would have limited impact on parking

Impacts on pedestrians / public realm

🔴R= Route would significantly reduce space for pedestrians to the extent that this would be detrimental to efforts to maintain social distancing

🟠A= Route would have some impact on pedestrian provision but there is sufficient capacity to accommodate this

🟢G= Route would either not impact on pedestrians or enhance provision (for example by replacing a shared facility with on-carriageway segregated cycle route)

Available width

🔴R= Not possible to provide a facility within the highway boundary or without significant infrastructure works

🟠A= Route could be provided but to a limited quality (less than 2m available for single direction within the highway boundary)

🟢G= 2m or greater available in each direction providing opportunity for a fully segregated route without the need for significant works

Connection to wider network

🔴R= Route is isolated and would not connect to the wider network

🟠A= Route has some connections to a wider network but these are currently of low quality

🟢G= Route has connections to a wider network and these connections are generally of higher quality (or these are to be provided / upgraded through a planned complementary scheme)

Expected demand

🔴R= No evidenced need for intervention. May have low potential use or a significant barrier to uptake.

🟠A= Some limited evidence for intervention such as route is on desire line to major trip attractors. May have some constraint to potential use such as steep gradient.

🟢G = Demand or potential demand is evidenced by existing data and/or an area-wide strategic assessment

Strategic linkage

🔴R= No linkage to existing strategy

🟠A= Some alignment with existing or emerging policies or plans but not direct

🟢G = Complete alignment, route included in LCWIP or similar document