TRO-12-2021 Objections

Date of Meeting:

16 June 2021

Report of:

Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture

Contact Officer:


Matthew Thompson


01273 290235



Ward(s) affected:

Hove Park, South Portslade, Patcham







1.1         The Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) amendment proposes changes of carriageway use under the Brighton & Hove Outer Areas (Waiting, Loading and Parking) and Cycle Lanes Consolidation Order 2018.


1.2         The consultation period was extended to 28 days from 1 April 2021 to take Easter public holidays into account


1.3         The TRO amendment consultation has received 6 objections from residents and one from a Ward Councillor to the proposed location of the Amherst Crescent / Aldrington Halt Station Bikeshare Hub.


1.4         The change to the ETS delegation to provide that 6 or more objections would trigger referral to ETS was approved by Full Council at its meeting on 14 May 2020.


1.5         The report confirms two further BTN Bikeshare hubs will now proceed to the construction stage under delegated powers due to the low level of objections and letters of support.


2.         RECOMMENDATIONS:    


2.1         That the Committee notes that there were no formal objections received from ward councillors during the consultation period for the hub proposals at South Street, Portslade and at Ladies Mile Road, Patcham, and the small number of residents’ objections to the site at Ladies Mile Rd means both this site and South St can now proceed to the construction stage under delegated officer powers.


2.2         That the committee notes the detail of the objections to the BTN Bikeshare hub at Amherst Crescent / Aldrington Halt Station in the report and approves the amendment concerning Amherst Crescent as set out in TRO-12-2021.









3.1         South St Portslade is the site of a major housing development at the former Brewery site adjacent. There are shops, pubs and cafes nearby. A Bikeshare hub will allow commuters to access Portslade Station and other cyclists to connect with the city wide bikeshare network. The nearby former Kings School site is being converted into council offices and staff commuting into the area will also be able to use Bikeshare.


3.2         The site at Ladies Mile Road Patcham is near many trip attractors including two schools, a community centre, a library, restaurants, cafes and shops either side of the junction with Winfield and Mackie Avenues. It does not remove parking directly outside retail frontages but is adjacent to a bus stop.


3.3         Aldrington Halt Station is the mainline station in the city which is furthest from an existing BTN Bikeshare hub


3.4         There will be three Bikeshare hubs in areas directly north of the station by summer 2021. The Amherst Crescent Hub and extra cycle parking will incentivise commuting journeys using bikeshare and private cycles from these areas to Aldrington Halt Station.


3.5         More hubs north of this location are planned as part of the BTN Bikeshare reorganisation to make the scheme city wide and to introduce ebikes which encourage cycling in hilly areas.


3.2         The Office of Rail and Road has published data to show 224,798 passengers used the station in the year 2019 -20. Station usage figures showed an 8.6% increase in 2019-20 on the previous year.


3.3      The hub and private cycle parking will promote cycling to the station, encouraging a shift from car usage which may reduce demand for parking in the area. The convenient site greatly improves cyclist access to the station.


3.5      Many pedestrians including school pupils use the rail underpass near the proposed site on a daily basis. Locating the hub here would mean less motorised vehicles moving in an area north of the underpass without footways. The site’s current usage as car parking presents a potential hazard for pedestrians using the tunnel.


3.6      An independent Stage 1&2 Road Safety Audit has been carried out which made no recommendations for alterations to the design. See Appendix 1.


3.7      City Transport colleagues in Parking Infrastructure have confirmed there are no plans in the foreseeable future to introduce any extension to the controlled parking zone or  any other schemes at this location.


3.8      The hub’s modular design means it can easily be moved to the new kerb if a pedestrian scheme is brought forward for the Amherst Crescent spur and finds support with residents and commuters.


3.9      Barriers at the northern and southern approaches to the rail tunnel underpass have recently been removed to improve disabled cyclist access in response to stakeholder issues raised. These works were implemented via a small works highways project used for improvements such as dropped kerbs and guard rail removal. The signage prohibiting cycling has been removed and was not enforceable because it was not included in the Traffic Regulation Order. Additional ‘Share the Space’ signage will be added  to encourage cyclists to slow down on the tunnel approaches. The impact of this will be monitored and reviewed.




The following alternative sites for a hub near Aldrington Halt Station were considered: 


4.1      Ruskin Place south of the railway underpass between Ruskin Rd and Tamworth Rd was ruled out due to insufficient width. Putting a hub against the wall of a private house is something the scheme tries to avoid across the network in order to reduce noise impacts on occupiers.


4.1.2   The width in Ruskin Place isn’t sufficient to put the bikes in the middle between the central trees. A hub in this position could make deliveries and access to residential frontages more difficult. Buggies and wheelchair access could potentially be obstructed with a hub in the middle if bikes are not left docked by users correctly.  


4.2         The Rail operator Govia Thameslink confirms there are no plans to create a station access from St Joseph’s Close or pedestrian access between Amherst Crescent and St Joseph’s Close so local residents will not benefit from a hub in St Joseph’s Close.  


4.3         There is insufficient width at the northern end of Ruskin Road to allow turning space for vehicles if a hub was placed in the carriageway. 


4.4         Tamworth Rd or Mortimer Rd sites would necessitate removing parking bays in a CPZ and would not be welcomed by residents. Replacing the motorcycle bay and adjacent double yellow lining with a hub on Mortimer Rd would make station access for motorcycle users more difficult and disrupt sight and desire lines for pedestrians crossing north to south. 


4.5         Alternative sites for hubs on or near the Old Shoreham Road temporary cycle lanes were considered as part of Emergency Active Travel Fund Tranche 1 measures.


4.5.1   An on-carriageway proposal for a hub at the northern end of Leighton Road was abandoned because an independent Road Safety Audit on the site raised concerns about turning space for vehicles in the available road width.


4.5.2    An alternative footway site near the Leighton Rd Junction was also considered, but the proportion of the footway fronting Old Shoreham road near this junction (nearest the kerb) which is in public ownership is not wide enough to allow for a hub. The majority of the footway width at this point is on privately owned land.


4.5.3    The landowners of the adjacent site were approached, but they made it clear they could not consent to a hub on their land because they want to bring forward plans for redevelopment of the site. If this took up the entire footprint of the site, a hub adjacent to the Old Shoreham Road kerb could become an obstruction for wheelchair users and buggies.


4.5.4    Legal costs associated with the leasing of privately owned land at the southern end of Holmes Ave and the short lease term available meant a proposed hub in this location was also impractical.




5.1         The South St Portslade Hub was the subject of three enquiries from residents and one message of support. All enquiries were responded to while the consultation was still open.


5.2         The Ladies Mile Rd Hub was the subject of one enquiry, four resident objections and four messages of support. Objections were responded to directly (where a contact was given) once the consultation had closed. The Big Lemon Bus co which runs services stopping at the adjacent bus stop has no concerns.  


5.3         The Amherst Crescent / Aldrington Halt Hub proposal received 6 resident objections and a formal objection from a Ward Councillor. This report deals with those objections.


5.4         Objectors claimed the Amherst Crescent Hub will displace car parking in an area where there are no parking controls and residents struggle to find parking places because of parking by commuters but do not consider the Bikeshare hub’s potential for reducing car parking space demand.  


5.5         Objectors suggested the hubs on Portland Road are close enough to Aldrington Halt station, but the nearest hub is over 400m distance from the station. Hub locations are commercial decisions and the current operator believes the nearest hub on Portland Road will not attract station users.


5.6         Some residents believe the majority of vehicles which are routinely parked in this area may belong to residents living on the southern side of the rail line where there is an existing CPZ and a limit to the number of parking permits per household.


5.7         Objectors claimed that the Amherst Crescent Hub would restrict refuse collection access. Refuse vehicles sometimes struggle to get down Aldrington Avenue because of parking but the hub is not on that route.


5.8         Objectors claim no market research has been done to justify the Amherst Crescent Hub. Station usage figures are referred to at section 3.2. The Bikeshare operating system allows the current scheme operator to track existing Bikeshare usage and they are satisfied this location will generate sufficient demand.


5.9         A Ward Councillor has objected on safety grounds. However, an independent Stage 1&2 Road Safety Audit commissioned by the Council identified no issues with the site or design.


5.10      There is no evidence in collision data city-wide that speeding cyclists are a major factor in pedestrian casualties. Motorised vehicles cause the majority of pedestrian injuries and this proposal removes car parking from an area used by many pedestrians.


5.11      The Traffic Management officer at Sussex Police had no concerns about the proposed location or design of any of the three hubs concerned.


5.12      Govia Thameslink’s Area Manager West Coastway welcomed the Amherst Crescent Hub as evidence of work being done to benefit the use of cycles


6.         CONCLUSION


6.1         The Amherst Crescent Bikeshare Hub and extra private cycle parking will benefit station users, encourage rail use and reduce demand for car parking in the area.


6.2         Safety concerns about the Amherst Crescent Hub are not supported by the Independent Safety Audit or Sussex Police.


6.3         Nearby hubs will not encourage commuting journeys using the station. The Hub may deter fly parking from other areas in this unregulated area and will not impact on refuse collection in the area.




Financial Implications:


7.1         Funding for the Amherst Crescent Hub is included within the 2021-22 BTN Bikeshare capital budget agreed at Policy and Resources committee. Funding for South St Portslade and Ladies Mile Rd Patcham will come from Emergency Active Travel Fund 2 grant funding and was part of the bid.


            Finance Officer Consulted: James Hengeveld                           Date: 01/06/21


Legal Implications:


7.2         Anyone can object to the making of a Traffic Regulation Order within 21 days beginning with the date the traffic authority has complied with the statutory publicity requirements. The traffic authority must transparently consider all consultation responses and objections and conscientiously take them into account in finalising proposals even if it is ultimately decided that any responses or objections are without merit. After considering any objections the traffic authority may decide not to proceed with an order or to make it with or without modifications. 


            Lawyer Consulted: Stephanie Stammers                                    Date: 27 May 2021


            Equalities Implications:


7.3         None of the sites reduces footway width or disabled parking space.


            Sustainability Implications:


7.4         BTN Bikeshare provides access to cycling for those without a bike and helps to reduce carbon emissions and air pollution from journeys around the city.


Brexit Implications:


7.5         None


            Crime & Disorder Implications:


7.5      None


            Risk and Opportunity Management Implications:


7.6      Independent Road Safety Audit Stage 1&2 carried out at all three sites.


            Public Health Implications:


7.7      The Health and Wellbeing benefits of cycling are endorsed by Public Health England.


            Corporate / Citywide Implications:


7.8      The hubs connect areas not served by BTN Bikeshare to a citywide network of hubs.








1.         Road Safety Audit S1&2 Amherst Cres


Background Documents: