Senior councillors approved a new red route today (Thursday 17 September) for one of the busiest shopping streets in Brighton and Hove while facing the threat of legal action from fearful traders.
The red route will prohibit drivers from stopping in Western Road between Montpelier Road, Brighton, and Holland Road, Hove.
It is expected to go live in early November after a 45-day full closure of the same stretch of the street for substantial road repairs rather than just resurfacing work.
The Labour leader of the council, Bella Sankey, said that the work was essential to prevent the prospect of emergency closures because Western Road was in such a poor state.
The red route has proved controversial. A petition, signed by more than 4,000 people, was presented to the council – and the Western Road Community Group is weighing up whether to seek for a judicial review of the decision.
Labour councillor Trevor Muten, the council’s cabinet member for transport and city infrastructure, said before the meeting: “The resurfacing works represent an important investment in Western Road while the red route will help tackle long-standing problems with obstructive parking, congestion and delays.
“This will benefit residents, businesses, bus passengers and other road users alike.”
To avoid any perception of having predetermined what should happen, Councillor Muten recused himself from any part in the discussion and decision and left the chamber at Hove Town Hall this afternoon.
Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet backed the proposed “experimental traffic regulation order”.
The Labour deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor asked about enforcement of the existing double yellow lines that regulate most of the relevant stretch of Western Road.
He was told that enforcement officers carried out 705 visits to Western Road from April to August this year and on 2,315 occasions they found cars parked illegally but which left within five minutes of a parking warden turning up. Many were said to return once the warden had gone.
He said: “We have to make this decision on the balance and on the evidence that’s in there (the report to the council’s cabinet).
“The only ideological starting point is that we want a well-run city and we want decent traffic flow and we want bus networks that work and we have to get the right solution for each area.
Labour councillor Emma Daniel laid into people who parked on the double yellow lines when they should not and said that the red route proposals had become one of the biggest issues in her email inbox.
Councillor Daniel said: “What really gets my goat is people blocking, with no concern whatsoever, the dropped kerbs – and they’re just doing that all the time. It’s the level of selfishness and entitlement.”
Labour councillor Alan Robins said that there were disabled people who relied on buses – and he shared an incident he experienced when travelling by bus along Western Road.
Councillor Robins said: “A lorry was unloading outside the Co-op at the bottom of York Road, which meant the bus couldn’t pull into the kerb for somebody in a wheelchair to get off, so it had to move along to try to find a space where it could and get close to the kerb for this person in the wheelchair.
“It cuts both ways and that’s important to remember. At the moment it’s illegal to park on double yellow lines and we get emails which are telling us we can’t run a business unless we can break the law.”
The cabinet was told that the double yellow lines did not prevent people from legally being able to load and unload or collect people and drop them off.
Loading bays and disabled parking have been planned at intervals along the red route.
The Western Road Community Group put the council on notice that it may take legal action against the council over its decision on the red route.
After the meeting, one of the group’s members, Catherine Lane, who is a carer for her disabled father, said: “Today, the cabinet made its choice and made a shameful decision.
“On one side were older people, disabled people and carers and those the council’s equalities assessments said will be hit hardest.
“On the other was a bus benefit whose headline figures aren’t even in the cabinet papers. The cabinet chose to proceed and back the buses.”
Ms Lane was referring to a line in a council press release, published before the meeting, saying that bus journeys were taking 16.7 per cent longer than they did in 2015.
Real Patisserie founder and managing director Alastair Gourlay, who presented the council with a petition signed by 3,800 people objecting to the red route two months ago, was equally disappointed by the decision.
He said: “(I’m) absolutely gutted by the decision – a wrong decision. The cabinet did not take into account what we had told them. That’s so wrong.
“They said there was just no economic impact in London Road and Lewes Road (red routes) and that’s so wrong.”
Once the experimental traffic order is in place, drivers breaking the rules would be sent a warning during the first two weeks.
After that, the council would send a £70 penalty charge notice, with the fine reduced to £35 if paid within 14 days.
In the first six months, traffic flow is due to be monitored by cameras, as will loading and disabled bays, to assess the effects and to make any necessary changes.
The experimental traffic order cannot be extended beyond 18 months – after that, a permanent order would have to be made – and changes to the experimental order can be made only in the first year.
Catherine Lane, the sockpuppeter of many names, keeps going on about legal action, but I still don’t understand where she thinks there is a legal cause for a JR, procedurally, there’s no legal issue there? It would be a really expensive attempt at something that has historically has extremely low success rate.
I realise the story may only quote some of what she said but, as it stands, it appears Catherine Lane doesn’t realise that many older and disabled people depend on buses.
She certainly has engaged in quite extensive conversation on here about the issue, even under her multiple different names. I would suggest she probably does realise, based on those conversations. What she thinks of that factoid though…well, she decided to make legal threats tonight, maybe that indicates what she thinks.
Benjamin, why is there an option to reply to some of your comments, but not others? Again, not being confrontational, I’d just like to know. Thanks.
Website only allows one to reply so deep into a thread, Peter. Once you’ve had several replies to replies, it’s a case of replying to the previous level to keep messages in order!
What would you know about JDs, whether this scheme has breached them and the chances of a JD success? Are you a lawyer now?
Well, to start with James, JD is a name of a popular sports shop, but that’s not important right now! 🙃
JRs, alongside most legal processes, are highly prescriptive by design, so we can simply read the criteria and objectively apply it ourselves and get a good idea of the outcome.
Or that the term ‘disabled people’ also includes people with visual impairments and those with learning disabilities, the very people dependent on reliable public transport services.
Indeed. There is a high bar to pass even to get to a full Judicial Review and many applications fail to get an actual hearing on the merits.
“Don’t like it” isn’t a ground for a JR.
The applicant(s) needs to identify significant legal and other failings in the decision making process.
And the courts are strict on that. A minor mistake isn’t enough.
And even if they won a JR the council would just run the process again and fix the error.
Whether the threatened legal action proceeds or not, one cannot help being struck by this Council’s extraordinary determination to wade into controversy with both feet – and then, when the water reaches the knees, to press resolutely onwards.
More than 4,000 signatures, serious concerns from traders, disability groups and the taxi trade, questions over the evidence base, and now a pre-action letter serious enough for the decision itself to be re-made. Yet onwards we march.
Perhaps the Council is right. Perhaps its critics are. The experimental order will at least provide some evidence by which that can eventually be judged.
But there is another experiment taking place at the same time: how many times can an administration leave substantial groups of residents feeling unheard before that begins to show at the ballot box?
One rather suspects the most interesting map of Brighton & Hove will not be the red-route map at all.
It will be the political one after May 2027.
Lady Bracknell, watching the tide come in.
My dearest Lady Bracknell, you have once again identified the rather important fly in the municipal ointment.
I was particularly entertained by the phrase “fresh new decision”. It has a certain administrative charm.
The Council originally decided to design and implement the Western Road red route in March 2025; in June it approved proceeding with the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order following consultation; and now, after a pre-action protocol letter, Cabinet has been invited to make a “fresh new decision”.
One begins to wonder whether “decision” has become the municipal equivalent of “vintage”: perfectly capable of being brought out again when the previous one has acquired an awkward smell.
More seriously, there is a rather striking question of consistency here.
Councillor Muten quite properly recused himself because he had previously spoken in favour of the red route and wished to avoid any perception that he had predetermined the matter. I applaud that sensitivity. Perception matters.
But if the appearance of predetermination is sufficiently important to warrant a Cabinet member removing himself from the discussion, perhaps the same delicate consideration might be extended to the wider decision-making process.
Because the public deputations at yesterday’s Cabinet make curious reading. There were three: one unrelated to Western Road, one from Brighton & Hove Buses supporting red routes, and one from Buswatch supporting the Western Road scheme. I can find no opposing deputation.
That is not, of course, the same thing as saying that opponents were forbidden to speak; I would not wish to put words into the Council’s mouth. But when more than 4,000 people have signed a petition, traders and residents are considering legal action, disability groups have raised concerns, and the Council nevertheless arrives at its decision with the formal deputations entirely weighted towards support, one might reasonably ask whether the process has provided quite the balanced public scrutiny one would expect.
And here I cannot help thinking of Wellington House, which you, Lady Bracknell, and I have discussed elsewhere.
There too, the public is asked to distinguish very carefully between a proposal and a decision, while the chronology leaves one wondering how much remained genuinely open to change. A saving was built into the budget; replacement services were being procured; contracts were apparently awarded; consultation followed; and Cabinet then arrived at its “final” decision.
One would hate to think that our city has developed a two-tier approach to predetermination: one for things where a Cabinet member might look as though he has made up his mind, and another for things where the machinery of government has already been merrily trundling down the track.
I am merely a Viscount, of course, and therefore wholly unqualified to pronounce upon these matters. But I have always understood that consultation is supposed to leave something capable of being consulted upon.
As for the red route itself, there may well be a perfectly respectable case for it. Illegal parking plainly obstructs buses, and the Council has produced evidence that enforcement of the existing double yellows is difficult.
But if the Council is confident that it has listened properly, scrutinised properly and considered the alternatives properly, surely it should welcome awkward questions rather than regard them as an inconvenience to be cleared from the stage.
After all, Lady Bracknell, the finest productions are generally the ones in which the audience is allowed to suspect that the actors don’t already know every line.
I shall therefore remain in the stalls, watching this “fresh new decision” with great interest.
And, naturally, a biscuit in hand.
One never knows when the next consultation might begin.
With the greatest admiration, and sentiments I shall leave Lady Bracknell to interpret as she sees fit,
Viscount Biscuit
This AI slop is weird and gross.
Talk about waffle!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, Viscount, you do ask the most inconvenient questions.
One had not appreciated quite how interesting Cllr Muten’s absence was until you pointed it out.
He quite properly stepped aside, having previously been closely involved in championing and approving the red route. And yet, unless one’s recollection has deserted one entirely, several of his Cabinet colleagues had themselves already voted to proceed with the Western Road scheme back in March 2025.
So one is left with a rather delicious question. If this week’s exercise was intended to be a genuinely fresh decision, why was Cllr Muten considered too closely associated with the previous one to participate, while others who had already voted for it were not?
There may be a perfectly good explanation. One would simply rather like to hear it.
Sometimes the most interesting part of local government is not how people vote, but who is permitted to do the voting.
My dearest Lady Bracknell,
You do ask the most inconvenient questions — although I confess I rather enjoy it when you do.
And your timing is exquisite. The attendance sheets suggest that, with the notable exception of David McGregor taking Birgit Miller’s former place, this is remarkably familiar company. Jacob Allen was there then and is still there now — which I mention only because I know you have something of a soft spot for the younger Mr Allen.
Cllr Muten, however, was sufficiently concerned about his previous involvement to recuse himself from yesterday’s “fresh new decision”. One is therefore left wondering what precisely distinguishes his earlier participation from that of colleagues who were equally present when the red route was originally approved.
There may, naturally, be a perfectly satisfactory explanation.
As for Birgit Miller, one can hardly fail to notice that she was replaced by Mr McGregor after apparently falling out with the administration — although I shall leave the circumstances of that particular rearrangement to those closer to the Cabinet furniture.
Perhaps, as you so elegantly put it, the interesting question is not merely who votes, but who is still permitted to sit at the table when the vote comes around again.
I fear, Lady Bracknell, that between your inconvenient questions and your evident fondness for youthful Cabinet members, I am becoming dangerously curious about you.
With undiminished admiration,
Viscount Biscuit
Oh, wrong way around. Miller was replaced before, not after.
Well I never…..
Another cash-cow road trap…
It’s only a cash cow if drivers break the rules and park where they shouldn’t.
Follow the rules = no fines.
It’s quite a simple concept really,
Rules designed to make money not improve road use…. Bus gates anyone… Get ready for lots of lovely empty shops and another ‘council success story’.
Cheer yourself with a drink at one of the many bustling coffee shops and bars between the thriving shops on bus-gated York Place.
I’ve never known such a kamikazi council so determined to abuse and anger its own residents in this way with no empathy and no concessions. They seem quite mad. I could have sworn Cll Muten was rocking and almost had his laptop screen pressing against his eyeballs at one point. Unless he had merely fogotten his glasses He looked very stressed, but hey he could have said ‘Let’s think about this for a few months people. There’s no massive hurry’ but no. he was determined to cause maximum harm to traders and businesses in the run up to Christmasa – a trading period which actually starts in September.
Did you listen to the part where the rationale of why now was given? To avoid the summer rush and be complete before the Christmas one?
Council elections in May 2027 & for Labour to try & stem the flood of their voters going to the Greens, by grandstanding in being anti vehicles.
Conservatives, the political metaphor of old man yelling at clouds.
What a nasty individual Muten is!
No concern for the disabled – only his beloved cycling mates
You ignore the fact that people with disabilities ride bicycles.
I know, what a horrible man, wanting the disabled who use busses to be able to get off at the correct buss top…
Have you been to a local bus stop recently? You could literally park three buses in one, they have made them so long. Absolute rubbish to suggest buses have trouble stopping at bus stops. Also absolute rubbish to suggest all disabled people are able to use buses, particularly when prone to falls or unable to risk being bumped into by other passengers owing to frailty.
Have you driven a local bus recently? You could literally drive a bus through your comment, you have made it so full of rubbish.
If the busses didn’t have to negotiate the chicanes created by parked vehicles or the actions of idiotic drivers pulling in or out of illegal spaces, the experience of a bus ride would be much more comfortable and safer.
Excellent news!!!! Common sense has prevailed at last. It’s unfortunate really that the selfish shopkeepers who constantly park on double yellow lines and in loading bays all day long have brought this upon themselves. Then of course, they got all their friends and family to sign a petition to try and stop it – and failed. Now they are trying to raise funds for a legal challenge. Bear in mind that if you try that and lose, BHCC can claim their costs from you.
Reading through past comments on here it’s clear that the vast majority of people support the red route. The regular keyboard warriors who object to each other whatever the conversation could be excluded I guess as they aren’t really a true reflection on public viewpoints.
Nobody should have been parking on the double yellow lines in the first place. It’s simple really, and all the businesses who have put up signs and are encouraging their customers to continue are encouraging their customers to break the law. While it’s true that blue badge users will no longer be able to ‘park where they like’ there will blue badge parking available. People who fear they won’t be able to take a disabled friend to a coffee shop in Hove once a week and won’t be able to park right outside the shop anymore do have other options. There are over 350 coffee shops in Brighton and Hove – perhaps go to one where you can park safely and legally.
If the vast majority of people ‘support’ the red route, explain the 4,000 signature petition against it and a whole road of traders up in arms and ready to go to Judicial Review plus the local taxi association and Chamber of Commerce against. The London Road and Lewes Road businesses still surviving have reported an average 30% drop in takings since the Red Routes were implemented, so how much longer will they survive and why don’t the council care about the proveable damage to local shops and businesses of a Red Route where even the window cleaner can’t stop to service a business without a £70 fine? The Red Route is a council profiteering mechanism and that is what it is. They already have double yellow lines. They’ve just decided it’s not profitable enough to enforce them, pure and simple.
The window cleaner et al will be able to use one of the proper bays instead of parking on double yellows and blocking the traffic.
4000 is a fraction of the number of people in the city. Those that want the red route haven’t set up a petition as it was already planned.
Whilst I believe that keeping traffic from stopping other than in designated bays and keeping buses freely moving is good in principle, it mustn’t be overlooked that this is actually about the needs of pedestrians. Considering London Road also, this means that cyclists and e-cyclists on pavements, threatening injury, or even the lives of pedestrians, cannot go un-policed any longer.
Cycles on pavements and e-cyclists (usually in balaclavas) are an absolute menace, and people like Muten need to stop their personal agenda tunnel-vision and represent the public in general.
Even at the bus stop opposite the Royal Pavilion where new cycle lanes get priority over pavements, cyclists ignore then entirely. There is a zebra crossing across the cycle lane for pedestrians, but of the few cyclists that use the cycle lane, they totally ignore that and plough on through.
People are being killed by cyclists, and it has to stop.
What should be done to stop these rogue cyclists and e-cyclists?
Red Routes do sweet fanny adams to prevent e-scooter and e-bike abuse on pavements. If anything the Red Route will drive them to use and park on the pavements even more. Ditto petrol scooters and motorbikes.
Perhaps the enforcement officers that will be freed up could address these issues?
The council has now made its decision. But as somebody who has lived here for over 10 years, I still don’t feel that the people who actually live and work on and around Western Road have been listened to.
I chose to make my home here because I love this area — its beautiful historic architecture, its independent shops, its amenities and its wonderful village feel. Western Road isn’t simply a transport corridor to me. It is my neighbourhood and my local high street.
The council now says the primary aim of the Red Route is to reduce congestion in order to improve bus reliability. But I would still like to see clear evidence showing exactly where these delays occur, how much of the delay is caused specifically on this stretch of Western Road by stopping or parked vehicles, and what measurable improvement this scheme is expected to achieve.
I don’t drive. I walk, cycle and use the buses, so this isn’t an objection from a motorist who doesn’t want parking restrictions. I simply don’t recognise the picture of Western Road being presented. I have an extraordinary choice of buses and rarely wait more than a few minutes for one. When buses are delayed, how much of that delay has actually occurred on this particular stretch of road?
If bus congestion really is the problem, surely we should also be willing to examine the number and routing of buses. Do all of these services need to travel along exactly the same section of Western Road? Could some serve other parts of the city instead?
Likewise, if a delivery lorry occasionally prevents a bus pulling completely into a particular bus stop, perhaps we should look at whether that bus stop is appropriately positioned alongside a supermarket that necessarily needs regular deliveries. There will always be occasional competing demands on space in a busy high street. The answer shouldn’t automatically be to design the entire street around eliminating every possible delay to through traffic.
A high street has to work for everyone: disabled people, pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers, motorists, delivery drivers, businesses and, importantly, the people who actually live here.
Sometimes I don’t want to travel through Western Road. I want to stop there.
I want to use my florist, chemist, supermarket and independent shops. I want businesses to be able to receive deliveries and customers to be able to access them. I want to enjoy the neighbourhood where I deliberately chose to make my home.
My concern has always been what happens if making the road easier to travel through makes the high street itself harder to survive in. Empty shops and lost local businesses would fundamentally change the character and amenity of this area.
Western Road is not simply a route for moving people through Brighton and Hove as quickly as possible. It is a community, a neighbourhood and a high street.
That should have carried far more weight in this decision.