Fuming councillor blasts “unacceptable” decision to spend “ring-fenced” roadworks cash on cycling and walking schemes instead

A councillor has hit out at a local authority’s decision to spend money which initially had been “ring-fenced” for road improvement works, as part of a housing development planning obligation, on cycling and walking schemes instead, claiming the move “ignores” the wishes of residents and has led to the road in question “significantly deteriorating” in recent years.

However, the council says the £77,000 provided by the housing developer, which was spent on “delivering further active travel improvements” in the area, fell far short of the funding required to carry out “meaningful” improvements on what residents have described as a “dangerous” narrow road.

In 2015, Harworth Estates, as part of their plans to build 325 homes in Mapplewell, South Yorkshire, agreed to pay Barnsley Council £77,580 for work to be carried out on Swallow Hill Road, close to the entrance of the development on Carr Green Lane.

The agreement came after residents raised concerns during the consultation period that the road, which narrows to a single track, would become increasingly “dangerous” due to the additional traffic caused by residents accessing the new development.

Swallow Hill Road, Barnsley (Google Maps)

While the sum of £77,580 was apparently ring-fenced to carry out the roadworks, at a meeting of Barnsley Council last week, it was confirmed that the funding had instead been used to deliver schemes designed to encourage cycling and walking in the area.

At the meeting, independent councillor Steve Hunt, who represents the Darton East ward where the active travel schemes have been implemented, asked the local authority why the improvements to Swallow Hill Road were “no longer on the table”, arguing that the road had “significantly deteriorated”, as predicted by residents, since the new estate was built.

“This sum was agreed through Section 106, which sees developers put cash aside for local losses of amenity caused by housebuilding,” Hunt told the Barnsley Chronicle this week.

“Things like extra school places, green space improvements or boosting local road networks – as was agreed in this situation – are regular things which are insisted on by the planning board.

“It is unacceptable that the amount was agreed and paid, but the council then decided to ignore Swallow Hill Road and spend the money elsewhere.

“Residents’ views were listened to, hence why the road was agreed and the sum was paid, so it’s a shame that this was then ignored.

“Swallow Hill Road’s problems remain and have in fact got worse since the housing estate’s completion, which is exactly what residents warned about at the time.”

> £2.6m investment in new cycle lane is "misleading" and actually funding road resurfacing for drivers, report suggests

Responding to Hunt’s complaints, James Higginbottom, cabinet member for environment and highways in Barnsley Council, confirmed that the housing developer’s contribution had been spent on active travel projects instead – but also said that the road would be considered for improvements in a 2025 maintenance programme.

“Delivering meaningful improvement works to Swallow Hill Road would cost far in excess of the Section 106 contribution and there are no identified funding pots to complete the work,” Higginbottom said.

“I can confirm, however, that the Section 106 monies have been transferred into delivering further active travel improvements within the Darton East ward.

“We are prioritising investment in active travel schemes in the Darton East ward, which will enhance accessibility and promote sustainable travel for our residents.

“We are committed to ensuring that our communities benefit from these improvements, and I look forward to seeing the positive impact they will have.”

> “It beggars belief”: Council slammed for raiding active travel funds to build “unnecessary, damaging” new road in small town

While Hunt was up in arms over roadworks cash being diverted to active travel schemes in Barnsley, down in Oxfordshire the opposite has proved the case.

Last week we reported that Oxfordshire County Council’s plans to plunder its active travel budget to build a highly contentious and “unnecessary” relief road were condemned by local campaigners and politicians, who said it “beggars belief” that the authority would spend the bulk of its active travel funding on new roads, instead of “investing properly in walking and cycling”.

In the first draft of its new proposed budget, set to be finalised in February, Oxfordshire County Council says it will take £11.1 million from its £13.62 million cycling and walking fund, earmarked for schemes which “encourage and facilitate active travel and improve market towns”, to build a new relief road in Watlington, a small market town with a population of around 3,000.

However, the Oxfordshire Roads Action Alliance (ORAA), a community-based campaign group which promotes sustainable transport across the county and opposes the creation of new roads, wrote to councillors last week calling on them to vote against the Liberal Democrat and Green Party-controlled authority’s proposed budget.

“At a time when the county council is seriously short of money it makes no sense to be pushing this unnecessary road,” the ORAA’s co-chair Chris Church said.

“This proposed road is not an active travel measure and should not be considered as such. A track for pedestrians and cyclists beside a large new road does not meet current standards for such schemes.

“This is a questionable use of public money and misrepresentation of its purpose.”