Reform-led Council Omits Cycle Link in Highways Scheme
Just a quick thing...
I have chosen not to use adverts, pop-ups, mailing lists, or mandatory subscriptions, but it means there is an ongoing cost for me in researching and writing content, and generally advocating for active travel - time spent not working! If you can throw a few pounds my way to help out, your support is gratefully received! Thank you!
Warwickshire County Council has approved the design of an “upgraded” roundabout that sits between Bedworth and Coventry, just within the county border. The junction is an important link in the Coventry-Bedworth-Nuneaton urban corridor and indeed has been part of a long-planned cycle route. But with this roundabout design omitting a north-south cycle link, that route for active travel may be scuppered.
The approval came on 23 September 2025, yet while the plan does show a roundabout with a shared-use path around its southern aspect, there is no route crossing the junction to the north. Despite this, Reform council leader Cllr George Finch, who also represents a Bedworth ward, has said that residents welcome the change.
Earlier in the year after Reform became the biggest party in the council (though not big enough to gain full control), councillors voted to reaffirm their commitment to the Local Transport Plan (LTP4) which puts active travel at the top of the transport hierarchy and suggests a commitment to providing safe infrastructure. This happened despite Cllr Finch at the time being on record as saying cycle lanes are unused and a waste of money. His views on active travel for this scheme are perhaps unsurprising then, but it’s still extremely frustrating that the Council is not adhering to its own agreed transport plan.
“People of Bedworth are really happy that things like this are happening in our town and to make little knick-knack comments about cycle lanes, look at the bigger picture, look at what the people of Bedworth are prioritised on, and it’s those infrastructure changes that can get them from Bedworth to Coventry where they work.
“Cycle lanes are not our priority at the moment and with this development being put through with the roundabout, I think it’s the best thing for Bedworth that we can see, to get people into Bedworth, working into Bedworth.
“If we’re getting the traffic through Bedworth in an easier way, it’s a better deal for people in Bedworth. When I speak to people in the town centre, they actually are welcoming this change because they can get their cars through easier. It’s a chock-a-block all the time, especially at work hours when they’re travelling to Coventry to get to work. But if it’s a bigger roundabout, more space, people can actually get to work on time and earn more money.”
Cllr Finch (full transcript below).
Not only does this contradict the Council’s formal position, he appears to be suggesting that the only way to get to work is by car, ignoring those who do currently cycle or who might wish to cycle if only routes were safe. He complains about congestion but doesn’t attribute that congestion to the number of vehicles, nor does he realise that by giving people choice in how they move, maybe some of those vehicles can be removed, thus improving the situation for everyone.
It’s a very short-sighted position to take. The best time to integrate infrastructure is when a new road scheme is being developed. It saves time, money, and disruption as work is being undertaken anyway. Now, if the cycle link is ever to be realised, the county council will be on the hook for a higher bill and people travelling through the area will have to suffer additional disruption during construction. And for what reason? Because of some weird ideological opposition to people getting about outside of a car? It just comes across as spiteful and will only harm local residents – his constituents – in the long term.
What can be done?
I am now worried about the future of active travel in Warwickshire. While development in Warwickshire has been glacially slow, there has at least been some progress and schemes in the pipeline. If Reform councillors oppose schemes, we could see progress set back by years. All the while, congestion worsens, people remain trapped in car dependency, air quality and noise levels continue to pose a health risk, and people will continue to be killed and injured through unsafe infrastructure. Councillors who oppose and hinder schemes will need to accept responsibility for these outcomes.
In my frustration with how things are developing, I have decided to write to my MP about the issue of councils not providing for active travel in highways schemes, where they can completely ignore the needs of those walking, wheeling, and cycling or fail to design to current guidelines. In my view, central government should be creating legal obligations on councils to deliver for everyone, not just drivers.
I am including that letter here and would urge others to also write in to their representatives to push for the same. Please feel free to copy and/or adapt the following as you see fit.
Dear Jodie Gosling,
You may have seen the recent report in the Coventry Telegraph about Warwickshire County Council’s approval of a highways project to redesign the Wilsons Lane/Pickards Way/Longford Road roundabout between Bedworth and Coventry. This is a scheme that has been criticised as providing no north-south active travel (walking, wheeling and cycling) link, where it would otherwise provide an important connection in the Coventry-Bedworth-Nuneaton urban corridor – indeed, a route that has been in planning since at least 2018 and, without this link, risks being scuppered.
I am extremely frustrated, indeed angry about this decision. It goes against the Council’s own transport policy (LTP4), DfT guidance for the provision of active travel, and general good transport planning and financial management. It will undoubtedly cost significantly more money and cause additional disruption to retrofit infrastructure years down the line than it would to install provision as part of the upgrade, never mind that these will be years wasted in providing a good car-free link where there is currently none.
At present, this is a very hostile environment to cycle, particularly northbound – an option that would only be used by fast, confident, or fearless riders. Yet, given the close proximity of homes, shops, businesses, the stadium etc., there are car-free journeys that could easily be enabled with the right infrastructure to support them.
I am aware that as this is a local decision at county council level, you cannot have any direct involvement, and now that the scheme has received council sign-off it presumably is too late to effect changes. However, I would like to avoid this situation happening again.
To that end, I would like to see more action from central government in two areas as follows:
- to mandate that all highways schemes properly provide for people walking, wheeling, and cycling in line with design guidance. We currently have DfT guidance in the form of LTN 1/20, but I believe it is not mandatory for councils to follow it or otherwise even consider active travel. This needs to change.
- that a meaningful, dedicated, and ongoing central annual budget is provided to support local authorities in providing the same.
In my view, every highways scheme at local authority level must contribute towards providing an attractive, coherent, safe, accessible, and high quality network for cycling, as well as the same for footways for walking and wheeling. Wherever a council does not deem it appropriate to provide this infrastructure, this should be by written exception only and subject to appeal – perhaps overseen by Active Travel England which should have enforcement powers to ensure councils cannot just opt-out of obligations on a whim or political ideology. I would also suggest that National Highways be subject to the same obligation where non-motorway schemes are concerned.
Is this something that can be brought up in Parliament and perhaps directly with the Transport Secretary, with the objective to create legislation that enforces these obligations on highways authorities?
To be clear, this is not an anti-car or anti-driver position. I’m not arguing against the provision of a redesigned junction for better driving conditions, just that it is inexcusable to omit active travel provision. Indeed, creating realistic alternatives to the car for everyday local journeys benefits driving by reducing congestion. There are many other benefits too – better physical and mental health and wellbeing, reducing car dependency particularly for those who cannot drive (including younger and older people, those with medical conditions etc.), improved local air quality etc.
Transport policy should be about enabling choice, to be able to choose to walk, wheel or cycle for some journeys and circumstances, but to use public transport or to drive for others as needed. We do not have that choice at the moment, and we won’t get that choice where councils are free to ignore non-motorised transport needs.
Active travel has for too long been subject to political whims and culture wars, piecemeal provision, crumbs of funding, and seen as a leisure activity rather than a valid mode of transport. Putting into law that walking, wheeling, and cycling must be provided in all highways projects can be a step towards redressing the balance, by installing infrastructure where works are occurring anyway and thus at minimal cost and disruption compared to revisiting later as a standalone scheme.
Done right, this could provide a lasting and very visible legacy of positive improvement to local areas. Not only that, it will be a key contributor to what I understand is (or at least was) a government target to have half of all urban journeys in England made by active travel by 2030. This will not happen without infrastructure to support it.
Thanks for your time.
Regards,
Ben
This transcript has been machine-generated but manually reviewed for accuracy.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
We’re going to move to item three now, and I’m going to invite Councillor Jennifer Warren to speak on the developer funded scheme, Section 278/D1915, the B4113 Pickards Way, Wilsons Lane, LILO, and the B4113 Longford Road roundabout, Exhall, Coventry.
Cllr Jennifer Warren (Ref)
Perfectly said, thank you Chair.
Planning consent was granted on the 24th of May 2022 for the erection of up to 73 dwellings and up to 55 750sqm of employment/commercial floor space, comprising of 500sqm of business-to-business use, including 2,500sqm ancillary office and 5,750sqm of business-to-business. Uses including the 300sqm ancillary office complete with access, local area for play, land remodelling, landscaping, attenuation and the diversion of a public right of way with all matters reserved except for access. I’m sorry, it’s a bit full of numbers and things.
This report covers the planning condition, financial implications, and the procurement requirements.
The scheme will introduce a new left-in, left-out signal junction at the future entrance to the development site on the B4113 Pickards Way westbound dual carriageway, and an emergency access from the Wilsons Lane. Safety improvements and upgrade of the existing Longford Road roundabout will include construction of a new third gyratory lane and a toucan crossing to be located at the southeast junction arm of the roundabout. The existing shared cycleway/footway is proposed to be widened and extended along Wilsons Lane.
The scheme will provide additional capacity to the existing Longford Road roundabout junction to accommodate increased traffic flows to the new development. Safety improvements will be made to the existing shared cycleway/footway, providing for a new signalised controlled crossing at Longford Road.
The estimated value of the scheme is approximately £6.4m. The scheme is subject to a Section 278 agreement and is fully funded by the developer. The addition of the scheme will not affect the overall level of available capital resources. The agreement will also require the developer to provide a bond of cash security. This security is required in the event of a default or insolvency by the developer and will remain in place until completion of the works. The developer is liable here for the cost of any unforeseen changes in the works or construction delays and overruns of the scheme, and this will be fully funded by additional costs. The council will undertake a review of the developer’s design and procure the construction works.
The expected construction start date and duration are not yet known. Once the works are programmed, the contract is in place, the start date will be communicated to stakeholders who may be affected by the works.
A recommendation that Council approves the addition of the £6.4m to the capital programme in relation to the Section 278 highways improvement section of B4113 Pickards Way/Wilsons Lane, left-in left-out junction, and Longford Road roundabout, Exhall, Coventry, which will be fully funded by the developer. Proposed to move.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Thank you, Councillor Warren. Do we have a seconder?
Cllr Stuart Green (Ref)
Yes, Chair, I second that.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Would you like to reserve comments?
Cllr Stuart Green (Ref)
Yes, reserve.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Right, I invite the debate on this topic. Councillor Kondakor.
Cllr Keith Kondakor (Grn)
Thank you, Chair.
It might be useful for members to look at page 51, which is a nice diagram of what we’re being asked to fund, and on page 51, you’ll see some purpley, bluey, dark coloured bits, which is a bit of cycle lane they’re adding to the bottom of the Longford roundabout, which goes east to west along the bottom.
For those who know the area, you’ve got the main roundabout for the M6 Junction 3, and to the side of that, you’ve got this roundabout, which then takes the local traffic under the M6 to Bedworth, or down to the south into Longford and then to Coventry.
This is a horrid area for cyclists, as you can probably imagine. It is a two-lane roundabout where, if you’re going northwards, you have to go round the roundabout, the two-lane roundabout, which if you don’t get in the right lane, you get taken towards the M6. It’s not a nice place at all. Going south is fine because you just get down the edge. And we’re now proposing to make it a three-lane roundabout. And we’re putting in some cycling bits, but only on the bottom bit, only on the Coventry side. So, all this £6m pounds of investment on doing this area up doesn’t actually help anyone get to these jobs by sustainable transport because you’ve got this ginormous and ever more trafficked roundabout.
And there is a solution. It is our Coventry-Bedworth-Nuneaton cycle route that should actually go up, on your diagram, the right-hand side and actually give people a route into all these new job opportunities. But we’re not doing that at the moment and we may never do it.
And this is the point, building little bits of cycle lane at great expense and then building giant road projects is not the right way of doing it. You need to actually have a bit of both. And so, because this doesn’t have any cycle connectivity at all into Warwickshire, into the bottom of Bedworth, I’m going to vote against it.
If you said we’re bringing this developer funded scheme forward and it’s going to be connected to our Bedworth to Coventry cycle route, that’d be great, that’d be useful. But what you’re doing here is, you’re making it more dangerous, more polluting, and spending £6m on it.
And then of course, the people who don’t like cyclists will drive round the roundabout and say, “There’s no cyclists on that bit of cycle lane.” Well, that’s because it doesn’t actually connect. You actually have to build a network.
So, I’m really asking that we obviously vote against this and get the connectivity right, but also we need to be doing this as an integrated project. This is where we’re doing our jobs. Why can’t people cycle there from Bedworth?
Thank you.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Thank you, Councillor Kondakor. Any other comments, debate? Councillor Finch.
Cllr George Finch (Ref)
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to say, Bedworth has seen significant infrastructure changes in the last few years. We’re getting more, we’re getting a bigger, better deal for Bedworth, and I think it’s a great thing to see, that infrastructure like this is actually being there. People of Bedworth are really happy that things like this are happening in our town and to make little knick-knack comments about cycle lanes, look at the bigger picture, look at what the people of Bedworth are prioritised on, and it’s those infrastructure changes that can get them from Bedworth to Coventry where they work.
The bus routes there are quite good, so if you want to talk about sustainable transport, bus lanes through there would be a good suggestion. But cycle lanes are not our priority at the moment and with this development being put through with the roundabout, I think it’s the best thing for Bedworth that we can see, to get people into Bedworth, working into Bedworth, local infrastructure, especially with the £20 million that the previous MP, Craig Tracey, got for Bedworth. We can see that improvements being made in the town centre, we can get more people into Bedworth town.
And that’s the thing, if we’re getting the traffic through Bedworth in an easier way, it’s a better deal for people in Bedworth. As a councillor, when I speak to people in the town centre, they actually are welcoming this change because they can get their cars through easier. It’s a chock-a-block all the time, especially at work hours when they’re travelling to Coventry to get to work. But if it’s a bigger roundabout, more space, people can actually get to work on time and earn more money.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Thank you, Councillor Finch. We have Councillor Chilvers, please.
Cllr Jonathan Chilvers (Grn)
Thank you.
Back in the 1990s, the Department for Transport did a very large piece of work on what happened when you built bigger junctions and bigger roads. And what they basically found was, that more people did more journeys to fill up those roads, and it became known as induced traffic. And so, if you – I haven’t done this because it’s not my area – but if you go and have a look at the modelling and see when that junction would be back to being as congested as it is now, you’ll probably find it’s not very long.
So, on the edge of my own area on Europa way, we’re just finishing a £9m project. But by our own modelling it shows that it will be as congested as it was by 2029. So, people might be happy in the short term, but all the evidence is, in the long term it doesn’t work. And that’s why we actually only need to take a relatively small number of people to do walking and cycling for short journeys, and actually that frees up the traffic.
And I just really want to support what Councillor Kondakor said. We shouldn’t be doing cycling schemes which do a tiny little bit and don’t connect to the network, and we probably do agree on that bit because we don’t want that bit. So, go and look at the evidence and let’s actually put aside the dinosaur solutions, and look for solutions that actually are going to work for the long term and and stop the dangerous air pollution that is probably affecting us all across Warwickshire.
Thank you.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Thank you Councillor Chilvers. Councillor Carvel please.
Cllr Stan Carvell (Ref)
Yes, thank you Chair.
This is on my area and it forms part of the Longford Corridor improvements into and around Exhall.
You may recall at a previous meeting I actually stood and spoke about the School Lane development, and there were various members of the public here, and councillors from the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, who all felt very strongly about the School Lane development. This is literally only a few hundred metres away from the School Lane development, and the people that attended the public meetings with regards to School Lane are the same people and the residents’ associations for the meetings for this area.
There are no local issues around this development whatsoever that I’m aware of, and I’d just like to make that point. Nobody locally is concerned about it and we’re all very happy to have this development.
Thank you.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Thank you very much Councillor Carvel. Councillor Feeney please.
Cllr Sarah Feeney (Lab)
Thank you Chair.
It’s a question possibly for the Portfolio Holder. I accept she might not have the answer and it might be one to come back on, so I’ll already preface that by, I understand that.
Just reflecting on what the leader said, because one of the issues coming into Bedworth is actually coming up the Longford/Coventry Road is the Bayton Road industrial estate. There’s a huge amount of traffic movement in there with HGVs.
There has been some work done at the Blackhorse Road junction which I know very well because I have to drive through it on a fairly regular basis, and I just wondered whether the traffic modelling had actually looked at what we were going to do with the Longford Road to Bayton Road area. Because that is a key critical concern for local residents and I just wondered if you’d done any of the traffic modelling as to actually, does this island improve it? But actually, separate to that, what improvements may happen for the people of Bedworth there? Because that is a critical issue and people are kind of backed up in all directions there, on that Bayton Road junction.
Thank you.
Cllr Jennifer Warren (Ref)
Thank you for your question. Yeah, you’re absolutely right. I haven’t got any details now, but I will speak directly with the officers to make sure I come back to you with what you’re looking for.
Thank you.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Thank you for responding to that Councillor Warren. May I have Councillor Warwick please.
Cllr Adrian Warwick (Cons)
Yeah, thank you Chair.
An interesting debate and some sensible points.
I’d like to thank the officers for a really detailed, sensible report, and we need to come back to the fact that this is a development that’s been put in as part of a planning permission, and we’re putting the money into the capital programme for the planning permission that has been agreed and consented with us as a consultee on that.
Whilst I take the points on board, yes it would be nice to see more provision around there, Keith, it would, this has been consented. The site is going to be built out. If this isn’t dealt with, we’re simply going to get even more congestion. And I know this junction well. It is a difficult junction at the best of times.
So unfortunately, we either turn this down, the site gets built, and we gridlock the area, or we approve this, the site gets built, and at least traffic keeps moving.
So, I think the pragmatist in me says this has to be.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Thank you very much Councillor Warwick. And may I have Councillor Morris please?
Cllr Chris Morris (Ref)
Yeah, I’d just like to let everybody know that this is a development that’s in Coventry over in West Midlands and we are benefiting from it. So, nobody in Warwickshire has actually passed the planning permission. It’s been done through Coventry and West Midlands. So, we are benefiting in Warwickshire with our junction.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Thank you for that clarification Councillor Morris. Any other comments? May I call Councillor Boad please?
Cllr Sarah Boad (LDem)
Sorry Chair, perhaps when the Portfolio Holder gives her reply to the debate, perhaps she might like to answer some of these points? Because I think, to me, to spend all…
I mean, we get this constantly down where we are in Warwick and Leamington. Councillor Chilvers is quite right, a huge issue, a scheme that’s just been finished around Europa Way, the Shires Retail Park. And I’m sure that more of the people where I live up in the north that go, “Oh, can’t face going to the Shires. Oh, traffic’s awful,” will think, “oh, fabulous, it’s all signalled now. I’ll go three times a week.”
But the point about cycleways – and I know you don’t like cycleways; you keep telling us you don’t like cycleways – but we need to get people out of their cars. I appreciate it may not be directly in our area, but this is a very busy, very crucial junction. And if we’re not actually taking the opportunity to add in the active travel now, it will never happen, will it? Realistically, if it’s not done now, nobody’s going to add cycle lanes into this junction.
And I think Councillor Kondakor was quite right. I think you’d be taking your life in your hands to try and cycle around this, particularly if it’s dark or whatever.
So, can we have some answers please, to explain to us why this scheme does not include proper cycling provision? And if it doesn’t, perhaps the scheme should be taken back and we should actually be looking at this again to make sure that it does. Because with a lot of this stuff, there’s one opportunity. It may be developer funded, well, get the developers to do something about it.
We mustn’t be passive and just go, “oh, this is fabulous.” We need to be ensuring that action is taken and we’re getting positive benefit for our residents and a positive benefit that will go on forever rather than thinking, “oh, if only we’d done that, if only we’d asked them to do this, but now it’s too late.”
So, can the Portfolio Holder give us a really positive action that she’s going to take to make sure that these things are considered?
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Thank you, Councillor Boad. Councillor Warren, would you like to respond?
Cllr Jennifer Warren (Ref)
Yes, thank you for your question.
Obviously, consent was given way back on 24th of May 2022, and I’m sure there have been many opportunities. I wasn’t there at the time or recently, so I’m quite happy to take away your observations and your questions and to look at that specific thing. That’s what I’ll commit to today, to look at it.
Thank you for your question.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Thank you, Councillor Warren. Anybody else like to contribute to the debate? Right, I’ll ask Councillor Stuart Green to speak if you’d like to on this subject.
Cllr Stuart Green (Ref)
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, taking all the points on board from all the Councillors, we’ll take that back and I’ll discuss with Councillor Warren and take it from there.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Thank you Councillor Green. I would like to ask Councillor Warren to move the recommendation.
Cllr Jennifer Warren (Ref)
Propose to move – third time lucky. Proposed move. I’ll be better next time.
Cllr Sarah Boad (LDem)
I appreciate you having me do this for very long, but normally at the end of a debate like this we would expect the Portfolio Holder to come back and answer the debate. I know you’ve been bobbing up and down during the debate, but I would expect you to come back and address the points, the very valid points that have been made by myself, by my Green colleagues, by Councillor Warwick, and actually give us a proper response.
Where is the response? Councillor Green says he’s going to take it back and look at it. So, you’re withdrawing it, are you? Or you’re amending it to say we’re going to pause and look at it again? Because that’s what your colleague has just said.
So, what are you actually doing? You’re just taking no account. You’re saying you’re going to look at it again, and actually you’re clearly not. You are going to just vote it through.
So, it’s weasel words I’m afraid.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Thank you for that. Would you like to respond at all? Councillor Warren.
Cllr Jennifer Warren (Ref)
Only that I made my position quite clear and that I will be following it through, as did Councillor Green.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
I’m afraid I’m going to have to draw a line there, unless there is a point of order to be raised.
Cllr Kate Rolfe (LDem)
Yes, point of order. It’s very difficult to vote on without knowing what we’re voting on. If the Portfolio Holder is going to look at it and perhaps look at amendments, then we shouldn’t be voting on this now. Simple as that.
Thank you.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
I believe we’ve actually moved the recommendation as written. Is that correct? Yes. Then that is the item that we will be voting upon.
Cllr Kate Rolfe (LDem)
So, I’m sorry, another point of order. If the recommendation is being moved, then what Councillor Warren said is totally irrelevant because nothing is going to happen. Is that correct? I mean, is Councillor Warren going to look at adding cycle lanes to this or not?
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
This isn’t going to be a further debate at this point.
Cllr Yousef Dahmash (Cons)
Chair, with your permission, can I just ask for clarification as to what is a point of order? And when somebody calls for a point of order, do they not have to, constitutionally, declare the chapter and the bullet, the sub-point to which they are making their point of order?
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
Yes, thank you very much for that clarification Councillor Yousef.
If you are going to raise a point of order, you should be raising the standing order reference. Can we have the standing order reference please?
[…]
Right, well I think we’ve come to a – after having taken some advice, if you bear with me please – this is very interesting. This is new to me. I’m sure it’s going to be quite exciting for everybody here too.
There was an opportunity at the very beginning there, to take proposed amendments, and that was not taken. Councillor Warren has acted in very good faith and has said that she’ll respond to the questions posed and consider them, and so has Councillor Green. The vote will move ahead based on the recommendation, and we’ll be moving to that at this point. And unless there is a point of order with standing orders, we shall be moving to the vote please.
Cllr Nicki Scott (Grn)
I don’t have a standing order I’m afraid, but I do make a point of order in that at the beginning of this, we were not aware of all the information that we are now. So, I would like to propose a deferment regardless.
Cllr Edward Harris (Ref) Chair
I don’t think we should be taking that up at this time. Thank you for your comment.
We are now moving to the vote. All those in In favour? Those against?
[…]
It wasn’t done at the beginning. It’s too late I’m afraid.
[…]
And abstain? Yeah, we’ll record it. Thank you. The motion has carried. We shall make note of what you said Councillor Kondakor.
Have you found this content interesting or useful? If so, and if you are able to, any contributions are greatly appreciated! Thank you! Oh, and do please share with others!
