People living in streets where buses are being diverted for up to two years during Western Road roadworks have launched legal action against the council.
Diversions started last month to resurface the road and pavements, install a central strip to help pedestrians cross and redesign the junction with Dyke Road.
The work means buses can’t use the road in both directions, and so on 28 December, the council published a temporary traffic order (TTO) removing a restriction on heavy goods using Upper North Street and Montpelier Terrace.
This has allowed Brighton and Hove Buses to divert its eastbound Western Road routes along Upper North Street, using Montpelier Road and Regent Hill.
Residents petitioned the council, but have been told there’s no alternative.
However, they have now spoken to environmental law specialists, and have sent a letter to the council saying they intend to take action as they feel the TTO was issued unlawfully.
They have formed a new group called the Western Road Redirection Action Group (WRRAG), and launched a crowdfunder to cover legal fees.
So far, the campaign has raised £3,790 of a £4,000 target.
Resident Gillian Durham, who started the crowdfunder, said: “Since we became aware of the proposed diversion on 18 November 2022, we have made every effort to try to get the council to recognise the brutality of its plans on our safety, and on our health and wellbeing.
“Since the redirection began on 9 January 2023, we have reported details of collisions and other health and safety issues.
“Unfortunately, taking legal action is expensive but the council has to be accountable for the stress and danger we are exposed to.
“I have been overwhelmed by the response – 45 hours after the site went live, we are close to our all-or-nothing target.
“Thank you to all who have pledged their support. We are enormously grateful.”
The grounds of the challenge are that TTOs cannot be used to remove weight restrictions, and that there is no justification given for the 24-month duration of the order.
The legal team, Mrs Durham says, has also identified consultation flaws in the process.
The letter calls on the council to revoke the TTO, and if this does not happen, she will commence legal proceedings to get it quashed.
The group has consulted the Environmental Law Foundation, a network of lawyers and experts who have helped fight the removal of cycle lanes in Kensington and Chelsea, helped protect a wildlife site in Hastings and awarding village green status to a field in an East Sussex hamlet.
They are being assisted by Richard Buxton Solicitors, a law firm specialising in environmental and planning law, which recently successfully challenged Bristol City Council’s decision to allow Bristol Zoo to use downland as a temporary car park.
A spokesman for Brighton and Hove City Council said: “We have received this letter and are considering its contents. We are unable to comment further at this stage.”
Bhcc Transport dept is out of control and needs to be scrutinised. The department acts against the wishes of businesses and residents. The number of officers in the department has grown considerably over the last few years and it is only interested in pushing its own agenda.
BHCC generally is totally out of control and officers seem to do what they like, even if it’s unlawful. Hopefully, a new CEO will get a grip on them, but I’m not holding my breath.
The ‘elected administration’ (not that this bunch were elcted to run the council, but Labour failures let them in) is equally to blame because it does not sufficiently scrutinise or question what officers are doing and often just rubber-stamps whatever reports are put before committees – if officers’ actions even get as far as committees.
Come this May, I would hope that we get an elected council that actually gets a grip on all this cowboy behaviour by officers, but, again, I’m not holding my breath.
Well done Gillian! You are doing great work. Some of us are so fed up with the arrogance and incompetence of the council. In the latest propaganda leaflet from the Green Party they have a headline “Your hardworking Green Team is Listening”. What a laugh! Listening is one thing they are not doing. They just treat ratepayers and other members of the public with utter contempt.
Good luck to them and I hear that another legal challenge is being considered over the procedure for the closure of Gardner Street. The Transport Department requires a serious shake up. Too much is coming from them and not the councilors, our elected representatives.
Councillor Davis seemed to take pleasure from the fact he has made life more difficult for the disabled resident and any disabled visitors to Gardner St.
I think it important that people realise the SCALE of the threat to the community in Montpelier Terrace/ Upper North Street. This horribly ill-considered diversion scheme means that between 600 and 700 buses PER DAY are currently thundering along these streets – within feet of people’s living rooms and bedrooms. It’s a conservation area. Many of the houses are listed, early Victorian. It makes one despair of the Council. Particularly since they seem to have introduced this scheme without proper consultation and in a completely underhand way.
Buses run along streets with listed properties in conservation areas all over the city. It would be impossible to run a bus service if those were grounds for objection.
Gemini 2
Yes they do, but generally the buses that serve these areas are on main roads that are suitable and those that are scheduled to serve the tighter roads only run every 20-30 minutes or so.
Upper North Road is hardly suitable for buses running every couple of minutes, surely you can work that out.
They are not really thundering, are they Carol?
Surely you don’t expect the Greens / BHCC to consult ?!
Fantastic news – for the lawyers.
Since the work on Western Road has already started, and there is absolutely nowhere else that the buses can go, the council will be obliged to fight this action, which will ultimately cost all of us money (not just those with deep enough pockets to employ private lawyers).
So the only likely effect will be to delay the work and make it take longer. Ironic given that the one part of this argument that has any merit is that these works really shouldn’t take ‘up to two years’.
Can’t help feeling they would have done better donating the money to the earthquake relief fund.
They could have been diverted along the seafront, but for the extra cycle lane. I ride along there regularly, and the most troubling thing is watching the way ambulances now struggle to get through.
Diverting the buses down Montpelier Road, along the seafront and back up West Street (no other way back up) would add about half an hour to every journey at peak times and mean no bus could serve Churchill Square.
Fair to assume also that sending every bus along the already busy A259 would also create far more of an obstruction for ambulances than does a three-metre wide cycle lane.
Clive
Except they can serve Churchill Square, they can turn left at the top of West Street, Dyke Road, Left Upper North Street and Left Regent Hill.
Oh, we’re pretty experienced about getting around traffic, Jess, Kingsway is one of the easiest roads to make progression on in Brighton, and arguably East Sussex. You might be mistaking struggling with careful advancement, because other road users can, and are expected to be, unpredictable.
Clive
Absolute rubbish.
This diversion is very poorly thought out.
Why do they all have to go along one of the tightest roads in the area?
Some could divert via the seafront and turn up West Street, some can go via the current route, some could be diverted up to seven dials.
Further, they could have engaged a shuttle bus from Palmeria Sq, along the seafront and up West street and/or Old Steine up North street, Western road.
Plenty of options to minimise the impact but we’re talking BHCC so no thought as usual.
This would not minimise the impact as far as the travelling public are concerned. Seven dials is miles away. Seafront diversion not practical.
I’m sorry, but you’d have to go a long way to find a more classic example of entitled midldle-class nimbyism. I very much hope that the case is laughed out of court.
Oh, the tiresome old class thing again! How easy it is to criticise when you yourself are not having to put up with the traffic thundering past your home all the time. This is especially the case where the council had not consulted the public about it, and had not investigated other ways of dealing with the problem, such as some of those described here. I hope the campaigners win their case.
Clive
What ever diversions are in place will always impact the travelling public, so you really have no argument there.
The problem is the amount of buses using an unsuitable road. The impact on local residents and other road users are never considered with this council.
For a short term then it would be fine, but eighteen months isn’t practical. I hate to think what damage will be done to the ground works bearing in mind that HGV’s are banned from using this road, now there’s a clue.
As for the seafront, there’s no reason why that route isn’t suitable.
As for the dials, buses in previous situations have served the dials so irrelevant really of how far away it is.
It’s easy for you to call people classic example of entitled midldle-class nimbyism isn’t it, yet you haven’t considered all the facts.
Perhaps we can arrange for every bus to serve your street in you live in a similar road like Upper North Street, then lets see what your opinion is.
I’d like to think that if buses got diverted up my road I would see it for the minor inconvenience it is, and not attempt to inflict much greater inconvenience on bus travellers by much longer diversions. It’s not alll about me – there is a bigger picture. Same applies to you.
This campaign is very selfish! The roads and buses are for everyone, many roads have buses driving along them with no complaint from residents, and this is after all to benefit improvements to Western Road.
Muriel Sanderson
Another one who hasn’t thought things out before posting.
Correct, buses do go along streets and in many cases run every 10 minutes on prime routes.
Running a bus every few minutes along Western Road isn’t the same as running them in a narrow residential area with the same frequency is it?
Yes we’ve seen the improvements this Council has given us in previous schemes, North Street to name just one, a disaster, Valley Gardens another, both schemes apparently to improve Public Transport, both have done the opposite and the increase in congestion has worsened, so please don’t pretend this scheme will be anything other than a disaster.
Helen. Upper North Street isn’t a narrow road, the perceived narrowness caused by car parking on the north side. If that parking was banned there would be plenty of room for buses and other vehicles to pass. The only reason the Council didn’t remove parking is because they feared a backlash from residents (and because they need the parking revenue too).
Gemini 2.
U N Road is narrow for large vehicles, surely you can understand that. This is predominately a residential road.
Yes they could have banned parking, but where exactly are they going to park, it is a residential area don’t forget.
There is absolutely no reason why all the buses have to go that way.
Whinge,whinge,whinge. You can run buses where you like as long as it’s not past my house syndrome…
If each of the diverted buses is carrying an average of 20 passengers that’s around 14,000 people a day who would be faced with longer journeys and delays if buses couldn’t use Upper North Street, just to satisfy a few residents.
One side of the street has a narrow pavement and terraced houses close to the road. The other side of the street has cars parked and houses set back. If they removed the parked cars it might help
A bit NIMBY, other people in the city put up with traffic all the time… And yes, we know it’s unpleasant.They are improving roads, pavements and buses for all. It’s a temporary change while they improve the busier street used by many more. Love how the homeowners have money for this, which will slow the project down for everyone and cost the council money when they are already cutting valuable services and people are suffering. By the time this legal challenge is mounted won’t the project nearly be over?
Phil
This has nothing to do with the workings, it’s simply if you had the brains to work it out, about the diversion of the buses.
Can they not just make Upper North Street one way, west to east, for the duration of the works? That would avoid cars mounting the pavement on the side with the houses closest to the road.
The focus should be on reducing the time taken for the resurfacing of Western Rd.
Two years seems unnecessarily long.
When you look at what little they’ve achieved since it started nearly 6 weeks ago then 2 years won’t be long enough!
And with the company that’s doing the works that comes as no surprise as well as it will probably need redoing as soon as it’s finished.
Stu
It’s not just reservicing they’re doing. They’re ripping out some bus stops and putting in wider pavements and I believe a central island reducing road space just like North Street.
Why does Montpelier Terrace and Upper North Street have a heavy goods vehicle ban at all? There’s nothing special about it and plenty of other roads are residential but don’t have one. They’ve been lucky to have it up until now, I think it should be removed permanently.
AlexG
Because of the weight, there’s plenty of cellars and underground works that are weak, hence HGV ban. Just waiting for the first sink hole to appear then lets see where they divert 600 + buses.
Clive 15 February 2023 at 11.37pm
Okay that’s your opinion and I respect that.
Now you quote it’s a ‘minor inconvenience’ but fail to state who for. Certainly for people living in the road it is causing serious problems and for other road users.
Now you say a greater inconvenience and quote a longer diversion for passengers, you do have a point yet your last bit actually works both ways.
There is a bigger picture, It’s not all about bus passengers you or me, but about the residents, other road users, the environment and the possible damage to the surrounding area including the possible collapse of the road, there’s a weight limit ban for a reason.
Sadly this was a perfect opportunity missed to review all of the buses which congregate at Churchill Square. I have never seen the logic of the number of routes which go along Church Road and Western Road from say Hove Town Hall to Churchill Square. Re-deploying some of those routes permanently to other east-west roads would have reduced the number needing to be diverted from Waitrose to Churchill Square in the first place and given a greater coverage of routes via Cromwell Road, Old Shoreham Road, Portland Road, Blatchington Road and the seafront.