Cabinet Member Decision
Subject: A23 North (Patcham) TRO approval bus and cycle lane
Date of Decision: 29th October 2025
Report of: Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure
Contact Officer: Name: Russell McMillan – Senior Project Manager
Email: russell.mcmillan@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Ward(s) affected: Patcham & Hollingbury;
Key Decision: No
1.1. The proposed bus and active travel scheme focuses on a key section of the A23. This is an essential route for commuters, residents, and public transport services. The scheme includes the reconfiguration of existing cycle lanes, the introduction of a shared bus and cycle lane, and a new signalised pedestrian crossing. The scheme is designed to:
· Improve bus journey reliability and prioritisation
· Maintain and enhance cycling access in line with national design standards (LTN 1/20)
· Support the Council’s wider goals of reducing carbon emissions, encouraging active travel, and improving air quality.
1.2 This report is being presented to the Cabinet Member for a decision, as the proposed traffic regulation orders have each received more than 5 unresolved objections.
2.1 That the Cabinet Member for Transport and City Infrastructure approves that the three Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO – 7a- 2025, TRO – 7b- 2025 & TRO -7c- 2025) be sealed, and that the project proceeds to the construction phase.
3.1 Following extensive engagement with residents and stakeholders held on the council’s Your Voice platform from 15th July and 9th September 2024, three Traffic Regulation orders (TRO – 7a- 2025, TRO – 7b- 2025 & TRO -7c- 2025) were advertised and made available for public comment.
3.2 The TROs proposed to reconfigure the existing cycle lane on the A23 to accommodate a new bus and signalised pedestrian crossing, introduction of a new bus lane between Brangwyn Crescent and The Woodlands (TRO -7a-2025, and reduction of the 40MPH speed limit to 30mph,(TRO -7b-2025 beginning just north of the Brangwyn Crescent Junction.
3.3 While the proposals outlined in TRO 7a- 2025, TRO – 7b- 2025 & TRO -7c- 2025 did not receive majority support, the consultation process provided valuable insights into local priorities and concerns.
Key themes raised by respondents included:
· A desire to retain dedicated cycling infrastructure, with concerns about the proposed shift to a shared-use facility
· Feedback on the perceived potential for increased congestion, particularly along the A23 corridor
· Concerns about longer journey times and the loss of turning lanes, which some felt could impact access to local areas such as Westdene and Patcham
· That funding should be better spent on repairing potholes and general road maintenance.
3.4 A detailed summary of the comments received has been carefully reviewed, grouped into five main themes and responded to by officers. This is included in Appendix A. An analysis of the comments received has been undertaken and the conclusion and recommendation is that the scheme should proceed.
3.5 Approving and sealing the TROs would allow the scheme to move into the construction phase. This would deliver the proposed bus, active travel and accessibility improvements, support sustainable transport, and align with the council’s strategic transport and climate goals.
4.1 Do nothing and withdraw the proposals. Would avoid immediate construction costs and disruption. However, it would leave existing safety, accessibility, and public transport reliability issues unresolved. This could also result in missed opportunities to deliver long-term benefits for sustainable travel and may expose the council to reputational risk for not acting on identified community concerns and strategic transport priorities.
5.1 The Scheme was developed following extensive engagement with residents and stakeholders held on the council’s Your Voice platform between 15th July – 9th September 2024, the proposed scheme progressed to Traffic Regulation Order stage.
5.2 Three Traffic Regulation orders (TRO - 7- 2025, TRO – 7b- 2025 & TRO -7c- 2025) were advertised (7th to 28th March 2025) and were open for comments to be made on the proposals
5.3 The TROs were advertised in The Argus, emailed to stakeholders and notices erected on street. It was also published on the council’s TRO website.
5.4 The Council received 70 items of correspondence to the proposals from residents, businesses, and stakeholders. This included 2 comments of support and 69 objections to the proposals. A summary of these comments and officer responses are in Appendix A
5.5 Brighton & Hove Buses supported the proposals, citing frequent delays on this route that affect journey times and service reliability.
5.6 Cycling stakeholders expressed reservations, stating that the current infrastructure is already suitable and that the proposed changes may reduce comfort and perceived safety for cyclists.
5.7 Ward councillors expressed support for several aspects of the scheme, including the proposed speed reduction and the introduction of a new signalised pedestrian crossing, recognising their potential to improve safety and accessibility. However, they also raised concerns about the shared use bus and cycle lane, particularly in relation to cyclist safety and comfort.
5.8 No parking has been lost following the introduction of this scheme and resident access will still be maintained and not affected from the proposals. In addition to this local amenities will not be not be impacted by the scheme. This section 5 shows the council has taken into account its duty under S122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
5.9 Please see appendix A for further comments and summary to responses.
6.1 The expenditure incurred as a result of implementing this TRO is to be funded by the Bus Service improvement plan (BSIP). As a grant funded programme, it doesn’t have an impact on the council’s borrowing profile, but maintenance of the asset will be funded from the councils existing revenue budgets.
Name of finance officer consulted: David Wilder. Date consulted 23/07/25
7.1 Before a Council can confirm traffic regulation orders, it must take into account all relevant objections received as a result of the required consultation process and come to a decision whether or not to confirm the orders having weighed up the relevant material considerations including objections and having had due regard to its duty under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Name of lawyer consulted: Katie Kam Date consulted 29/07/2025
8.1 Failure to proceed with the scheme may result in the loss of secured external funding, which could impact the council’s ability to deliver future transport improvements and reduce the likelihood of success in future funding bids.
9.2 Overall, the implementation of the bus and cycle lane on A23 will have positive effects for the following protected characteristics, age, disability, carers, socio economic disadvantage, as it will improve bus reliability to and from the city. Potential negative impacts identified in this EIA will be mitigated through the project action plan. A23 bus and cycle lane project will continually work to ensure groups are aware of the project through clear communication and campaigns.
10.1 The scheme supports the use of sustainable transport modes, including public transport and cycling. It contributes to the council’s climate goals by encouraging modal shift and reducing emissions.
11. Health and Wellbeing Implications:
11.1 The A23 North (Patcham) scheme feeds into the council’s priorities and vision for Brighton & Hove - Make it easier for people to move around the city, by continuing to invest in maintaining and upgrading our highways network.
12. Procurement implications
12.1 If the scheme does not progress through to construction, the funding will be lost, and future funding applications may be affected.
13. Crime & disorder implications:
13.1 Not applicable.
14.1 After careful consideration of the comments and concerns raised, officers have concluded that the issues presented do not warrant withdrawal of the proposals. It is therefore recommended that the TROs be sealed, and the project proceed to the construction phase under delegated authority. Supporting Documentation
1. Appendix A – TRO comments Summary
2. Appendix B – Equalities Impact Assessment