Category: Transportation

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Statement on Road Safety Strategy

    Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Statement on Road Safety Strategy

    The statement made by Lilian Greenwood, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2026.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our new national road safety strategy.

    It is a sad truth that, by the time I finish speaking and we hear the Opposition’s response, it is likely someone will have died or been seriously injured on our roads. It is an even sadder truth that that would likely have been entirely preventable. Even though we have some of the safest roads in the world, more than 1,600 people died on our roads last year, and nearly 28,000 were seriously injured.

    Over the course of my lifetime, road safety has improved immeasurably—in no small part thanks to a titan of my party, Barbara Castle—but it is safe to say the last 10 years represent a lost decade. Death and serious injury numbers have plateaued despite improvements in vehicle safety. The UK has slipped from third to fourth in Europe’s road safety rankings, and the human cost of too little action and too much complacency is clear: lives taken too soon, lives altered beyond recognition, and lives grieved by the families left behind.

    If that was not enough, a decade without a comprehensive road safety strategy has meant that the country lost out on nearly £7 billion in economic output last year. That should not just give us pause; it should spur us to action. We would not tolerate that on our railways or in our airspace, and I am determined to ensure that we no longer tolerate it on our roads. That is why I am standing here today: to say quite simply that enough is enough.

    The targets that we are setting match the full measure of our ambition. We want to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035, and by 70% for children under 16. Our vision is clear: any road user—however they choose to travel—should be able to move safely on our roads. There are four main ways in which we will deliver that vision through the strategy.

    First, we will put all road users at the heart of the strategy. When it comes to protecting vulnerable road users, we will be guided by the evidence. We know, for example, that young drivers between 17 and 24 are at a higher risk of death or serious injury on our roads. They account for 6% of driving licences yet are involved in 24% of fatal and serious collisions. That is why we will consult not just on a minimum learning period for learner drivers, but on a lower blood alcohol limit for novice drivers. I would also recognise the important debate on young driver safety that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) secured last January.

    Another key area is the safety of older drivers. In 2024, about 24% of all car drivers killed were aged 70 or older. While driving is rightly seen as a vital form of independence in older age, it cannot come at the expense of safety, so we will consult on mandatory eyesight tests for drivers over 70 and explore options for cognitive testing, recognising the risks of driving with conditions such as dementia.

    We also will not ignore the fact that motorcyclists are 40 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on our roads compared with car drivers, so we will reform the motorcycle training, testing and licensing regime. That starts today with a consultation, including on removing the ability to ride on L-plates indefinitely.

    Let me move to advances in technology and data. We will consult on mandating 18 new vehicle safety technologies under the GB type approval scheme—a change that could prevent more than 14,000 deaths and serious injuries over 15 years. That includes autonomous emergency braking, a proven safety technology that Meera Naran has tirelessly campaigned for as Dev’s law, after the tragic loss of her son. I am delighted to see her in the Public Gallery; she has been an incredible campaigner on this issue.

    To learn from collisions and prevent future harm, we will establish a data-led road safety investigation branch covering the whole of Great Britain. It will draw on data to carry out thematic investigations and make recommendations. To give those involved in collisions the best chance of survival, we will ensure that police-recorded collision data and healthcare data are shared more effectively.

    The third theme is about infrastructure. Safer roads and effective speed management are essential pillars of the “safe system” approach that guides the strategy. That starts with investment. The Government are providing £24 billion between 2026 and 2030 to improve motorways and local roads, building on record funding for pothole repairs. We will also publish updated guidance on setting local speed limits and the use of speed and red light cameras, supporting local authorities to make evidence-based decisions.

    Because rural roads remain among the most dangerous, with motorcyclists often navigating sharp bends, we will build on the success of Project PRIME—perceptual rider information for maximisation of enjoyment and expertise—in Scotland, which saw real safety improvements thanks to new road markings.

    Finally, let me talk about enforcement. We know that most drivers are safe, and we do not want to get in their way. However, they need to feel confident that the Government have their back, so my message to the minority of drivers who are unsafe and reckless is simple: if you drive dangerously, if you drive illegally or if you make our roads less safe, you will face the consequences.

    Take drink and drug-driving. We know that it was a contributory factor in 18% of road fatalities in 2023, so we will consult on lowering the drink-drive limit, which has not been changed in England and Wales since 1967. We will review penalties for drink and drug-driving offences and explore the use of alcohol interlock devices. New powers will be considered to suspend licences for those suspected of the most serious offences.

    We also propose tougher penalties for those who drive without insurance—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) for his persistent advocacy on this issue. We will also look at penalty points for failing to wear a seatbelt and failing to ensure that child passengers are wearing theirs, too.

    Thanks to the tireless campaigning of my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), we are tackling illegal number plates. We will increase penalties for using illegal plates and ensure that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is empowered to carry out more robust checks on number plate suppliers.

    These rightly bold ambitions cannot be met by Government working alone. We call on the support of Members from all parts of the House and extend our hand in partnership to the devolved Governments, mayors, local authorities, the police and other stakeholders. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for her support on behalf of the Transport Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety for his advocacy on this important issue.

    I have sat with families torn apart by deaths and serious injuries on our roads—it is one of the hardest parts of my job. Even through intolerable pain, they campaign, fight and demand change so that others can be spared their sense of loss. This strategy is for those brave families. I truly believe that this is a turning point for road safety in this country, when we finally put victims at the heart of policymaking, see road safety as a shared responsibility and understand that, while driver or rider error is inevitable, fatalities and serious injury are not. A multilayered system, from safer speeds and vehicles to safer roads and robust enforcement, is how we protect every road user. That is how we ensure that people walk away from collisions rather than being carried and how we deliver safer roads for everyone who relies on them. I have laid copies of the documents in the Libraries of both Houses, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Statement on Parking on Pavements

    Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Statement on Parking on Pavements

    The statement made by Lilian Greenwood, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 8 January 2026.

    This statement provides the House with an update on steps the government is taking to tackle pavement parking. In short, we are giving local authorities the powers they need to address pavement parking more effectively, while ensuring consistency, clarity and fairness for all road users.

    I am today announcing the publication of the government’s response to the 2020 public consultation Pavement parking: options for change. The response demonstrates our commitment to improve transport users’ experience, ensuring that our roads and pavements are safe, reliable and inclusive.

    The government is taking forward a new, devolved approach to pavement parking, reflecting our commitment to decisions being made closer to the communities they affect. Local leaders know their communities best, so they are in the strongest position to meet local needs effectively. Our overarching objective to make pavements accessible and safe remains unchanged, but rather than introducing a ‘one size fits all’ national prohibition, which was one of the consultation options, we will instead enable local transport authorities to prohibit pavement parking across their areas at the next legislative opportunity. 

    In strategic authority (SA) areas outside London, the power will be vested in the SA as the local transport authority (LTA). In non-SA areas the power will be vested in the LTA, which is either the unitary authority or county council. This will support more responsive and inclusive transport planning in the interests of local communities.

    In the meantime, secondary legislation will be introduced in 2026 to enable local authorities to enforce against unnecessary obstruction of the pavement. This provides a practical and proportionate interim solution, allowing councils to act where pavement parking is observed by uniformed civil enforcement officers. This power will sit alongside existing traffic regulation order making powers, enabling councils to enforce pavement parking restrictions both where TROs are in place and in other areas where obstruction occurs. The department will issue statutory guidance to support local authorities in using this power.

    Taken together, these steps will give local authorities the powers they need to address pavement parking effectively and fairly in their areas, and I commend the government’s response to the House.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Comments on the Government’s Road Strategy

    Lilian Greenwood – 2026 Comments on the Government’s Road Strategy

    The comments made by Lilian Greenwood, the Local Transport Minister, on 6 January 2026.

    Our vision with this ambitious road safety strategy is clear: to ensure that people can travel safely on our roads however they choose.

    One of the hardest parts of my job is speaking to families who have lost loved ones on our roads and this is something we as a government are taking action to prevent. No family should have to endure that loss, and this strategy sets out how we will work to ensure fewer do.

    Experts and campaigners have long called for a comprehensive strategy that treats road safety as a shared responsibility – from car manufacturers and town planners to drivers and legislators.

    This strategy, the first in over a decade, shows a government that is not just listening, but leading and together, we can build a safer future for all road users.

  • Tony Vaughan – 2026 Speech on Free Bus Travel for Over-60s

    Tony Vaughan – 2026 Speech on Free Bus Travel for Over-60s

    The speech made by Tony Vaughan, the Labour MP for Folkestone and Hythe, in the House of Commons on 5 January 2026.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered e-petition 702845 relating to free bus travel for people over 60.

    Happy new year, Mr Mundell. It is, as always, a privilege to serve under your chairship.

    I start by thanking the petition’s creator, Mrs Karen Hickman, and the 101,000 people who signed the petition—including 211 of my constituents in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh—for securing this debate on extending free bus travel to all over-60s across England. I also thank Transport for London, Age UK London, Independent Age and the Local Government Association, which were incredibly helpful in my preparation for this debate, which I am leading for the Petitions Committee.

    There are many areas of our country where there is free bus travel for the over-60s: London, Liverpool, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Bus services are a critical form of public transport. They are a public good: they get people to work and allow them to visit friends and family, travel to health appointments and participate in social activities. Bus services support active lifestyles, reduce social isolation, and reduce car use, lower air pollution and make our environment cleaner and safer. It was a pleasure to meet Mrs Hickman. She was particularly frustrated by the regional differences that we have in this country when it comes to bus services, and she would like to see greater investment in rural bus services in her area of Lincolnshire.

    In our country, there is a growing misperception that if someone is over 60, they are somehow financially blessed, with a house on which the mortgage has been paid off, and they have plenty of assets and capital washing around. Many people think that the over-60s do not need free bus travel. I challenge that narrative, as does Mrs Hickman. Based on households below average income data, 875,000 people aged 60 to 64 are living in poverty. A new report from Standard Life identifies a substantial rise in financial insecurity among people in their early 60s, after the increases in the state pension age since 2010, and highlights that there are a quarter of a million more people aged 60 to 64 in relative income poverty than there were in 2010.

    In the UK, carer prevalence is greatest among adults in their 50s and early 60s, with people in that age group twice as likely as those in a younger adult group to be carers. Due to the rising pension age, many people in their 60s are seeking work. The high level of redundancy in this age group during the pandemic is one factor that has led to increased unemployment among 60 to 64-year-olds. Many people in this group are key workers: health and social care—a sector that is growing in my constituency—and retail are among the sectors with the highest proportion of older workers. In addition, over-60s with a disability or long-term health condition are more likely to face financial hardship.

    There is already free bus travel for the over-60s in several parts of the UK, so this policy can work. The 60+ London Oyster photocard, operated and funded by TfL, is available to London residents over 60. There are 383,000 active users of that photocard, which I know makes a positive difference to the lives of the 24% of Londoners in that age group who live in poverty.

    Residents of the Liverpool city region are eligible from age 60 for free travel on buses, trains and ferries. That is funded by the transport levy that the Merseyside local authorities pay. Looking for a moment at a younger age group in Liverpool, I commend the Liverpool city region combined authority for its recent introduction of the care leavers travel pass, giving free local travel on buses, trains and ferries to young adults leaving the care system. That is a commercially funded offer.

    What most or all of these schemes have in common is that they were implemented as a result of local powers being used by local people for the benefit of local people. Is that not how our local communities should be run? In my view, it is. Local people know what the local needs are. I understand Mrs Hickman’s frustration at the regional differences that can occur when some local areas have powers that others do not, but thanks to the Bus Services Act 2025, passed by this Labour Government, all English local transport authorities now have the power to set routes and fares. In my view, it is right that each local authority now grasps the nettle and gets on with delivering the high standards of bus services that the public are entitled to.

    Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)

    The issue that we face in Torbay is a significant shrinkage in the number of available commercial routes, whether for bus pass users or other bus users. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we need sustained investment in bus services to drive a better service for all our communities?

    Tony Vaughan

    I completely agree with the hon. Member. Central Government have to support local government in properly funding bus services. As I will come on to say, that is exactly what this Government have been doing, but the critical question will be whether those local authorities spend the money in a way that benefits passengers.

    Mrs Hickman’s view is that this policy should be centrally administered and nationwide. According to the Local Government Association, making the policy nationwide would cost central Government roughly an additional £250 million to £400 million a year. Without that money, evening and weekend services would likely collapse. Losing more bus routes would be damaging for over-60s who rely on buses to get to work.

    As the LGA suggests, many councils argue that £1 fares for apprentices and students offer a higher economic multiplier than free travel for the over-60s. That is especially important when we are desperately trying to raise our economy’s growth rate and reduce unemployment. There is also a strong argument for focusing more on getting apprentices and students to use buses, because that cohort of young people will develop the habit of getting on a bus, which will help to secure a more stable long-term revenue stream for bus operators.

    As I just said, what we need is ample central Government funding for local authorities so that they can decide how best to run the bus network. The Government are backing our bus network with a £3 billion multi-year bus funding settlement for 2025 to 2029, helping to create more certainty, stability and predictability for our bus system. The aim of the funding settlement is to deliver lower fares and more frequent and reliable bus services, and the national single bus fare cap was extended to run until March ’27. The Government’s Bus Services Act empowers local authorities to take greater control of bus services, and makes them more reliable, accessible and affordable by enabling franchises, lifting bans on municipal bus companies and mandating zero emission buses.

    In this debate we are rightly talking about the 60s, but it was the ’80s when it all started to go wrong for our bus network, with its reckless privatisation under the Transport Act 1985. The Bus Services Act takes a completely different approach by allowing local government to create locally and publicly operated and owned bus services.

    Local authorities across the country have received significant funding boosts to improve local bus services. For example, the petitioner’s council, Reform-run Lincolnshire county council, received a boost of £11.8 million to support better bus services. In my area, Reform-run Kent county council this year received a boost of £42 million to spend on better bus services. The Government are not being partisan with funding decisions; Reform-run councils are receiving cash boosts to improve bus services from now until 2029, and the public should expect Reform to deliver in places such as Kent and Lincolnshire. We must hold them to account in ensuring that they spend the money not on political advisers, or mad adventures such as the Elon Musk-inspired DOGE 2.0 cuts programme, but on making bus services work more accessibly, reliably and affordably.

    In December, I ran a bus survey to hear from my constituents how they would like the £42 million of extra bus funding to be spent. Many told me that bus services are not frequent enough and are often unreliable, with too many late and even cancelled services. Many highlighted the issue of affordability. They want Reform-run Kent county council to spend that £42 million of extra funding on protecting existing routes from private sector cuts, more frequent bus services, cheaper fares, improved evening and Sunday services, and better bus links to schools, colleges and hospitals.

    One constituent suggested extending free bus travel to the over-60s, but many of my constituents talked about wanting routes that had been cut under the failed experiment of privatisation to be reinstated. They asked for changes such as frequent, direct bus services from Folkestone to the William Harvey hospital, more evening and weekend bus services across Kent, and the reinstatement of routes such as the 73, 77, 78 and 111 services in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh.

    Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)

    Before I was elected, I ran mental health services, including for older adults, so I understand the importance of older people being able to access services in a way that means they do not lose their appointment. We have 47,226 over-60s in Bournemouth, and many decisions about bus routes have not been taken with their views in mind, particularly in Throop, where I am trying to reinstate a bus service, but also across Southbourne and Tuckton. It sounds like my hon. and learned Friend might agree, but does he also agree that we should be using our new bus legislation to make sure that those communities that have been disenfranchised, left behind and left out are considered by local councils when they are deciding on routes?

    Tony Vaughan

    The situation my hon. Friend describes is symptomatic of what I call the begging bowl approach of trying to reinstate routes, where a private company decides how it will run the service, it cuts the routes that are more difficult to make money on but which people really need, and we all go with our begging bowl, banging on the door and asking the company to sort it out for our constituents. The way that all local councils should be using the Government’s legislation, now they have the money, is by actually listening to what local people want and providing services that allow our communities to be joined up. What he describes is exactly what I have experienced in my constituency and why these changes are desperately needed.

    Rachael Maskell

    I am grateful for the speech that my hon. and learned Friend is making and I thank the 237 people in my constituency who signed the petition. At the root of this debate is the issue of inequality. There are many forms of inequality around bus use. The petition draws attention to the geographical inequality, but we also see socioeconomic inequality, particularly when we look at putting resources into enabling older people to access bus services so that, instead of paying £6 for a return journey, they can access things such as health appointments on time. Is it not worth looking at people living in deprivation and putting money into supporting people from those communities to use buses?

    Tony Vaughan

    I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is exactly why the Government introduced the Bus Services Act: to allow local authorities to be held to account for the decisions they make about how to fund bus services. I completely agree that bus services are a fundamental public good and a public service. In my constituency, they are essential to allow people living in rural areas, often in rural poverty, to reach GP surgeries or hospital appointments many miles away. It is not as if they can walk or rely on somebody to give them a lift; often, that is not available. A reliable and affordable bus service is often the difference between someone being able to access the town, with its shops and chemists and all the things that are needed to make life work, and sitting for days in pain, entirely cut off. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

    One survey response that stood out for a negative reason was this one:

    “Doubt Reform will take much notice frankly”.

    I totally understand that hard cynicism about Reform, given its bewildering incompetence in Kent. I implore Reform to spend the money wisely. I will take my bus survey responses and put them directly to the council, because we must see accountability and competence in the way our public services are delivered in Kent.

    While I am sympathetic to the arguments for extending free bus travel to all over-60s across England, I believe that our policy focus should be on encouraging and supporting more local authorities to set up municipal bus companies so that we can reverse bus privatisation, which has, like in the rail and water sectors, been a failure and meant that, all too often, the interests of the private company and the shareholder have been put above those of the passenger.

    Before closing, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What action beyond what I have talked about are the Government taking to make bus travel more accessible and affordable for the over-60s? What are the Government doing to make rural bus services more accessible and reliable, especially for that age group? What measures will the Government put in place to hold to account councils such as Reform-run Kent county council and Lincolnshire county council to ensure that they spend their additional bus funding prudently and purposefully? How do the Government plan to use investment in our bus network to help to increase economic growth and lower unemployment? Finally, can the Minister explain how empowering local government can lead to improved bus services?

    The answers to all those questions would be gratefully received, because my constituents constantly press me on this issue. We are a long, coastal constituency, so it is very difficult to get around unless there is reliable public transport. That is what we have to achieve over the coming years with the funding and the new powers that Kent county council has.

  • Graham Plant – 2025 Statement to Norfolk County Council Meeting on Sheringham Bus Stop

    Graham Plant – 2025 Statement to Norfolk County Council Meeting on Sheringham Bus Stop

    The statement made by Graham Plant, the Norfolk County Council portfolio holder on Transport, at County Hall in Norwich on 8 December 2025.

    I’m glad you brought this up, because it’s been a it’s been on my desk for a little while now.

    We’ve been through a proper process to get to where we are with the Sheringham bus stop.

    We’ve worked hard with Sheringham community, including local schools, the town council, bus operators, the North Norfolk railway, the local museum and Sheringham in Bloom, to shape the travel hub.

    We carried out a full public consultation in May 2025 with two Open Day events. And I’ve got to tell you that this started in 2022 so it’s not something that’s just suddenly dropped on the doorstep.

    More than 500 people engaged with this, and our plans were revised following the helpful feedback received from a number of people, notably, a new look bespoke glass and steel bus shelter with additional green spaces and more seating.

    We have had many positive comments about the new travel hub proposals from residents and other key stakeholders, and people in the area are pleased with a significant financial investment in Sheringham and in ensuring the area is made safe and fit for the future, especially given that we have managed to up the national trend in terms of bus usage in Norfolk, and we’ve seen a 26% increase in bus passengers numbers over the past two years, which is phenomenal. Last Friday, Government announced even more money for Norfolk to encourage even greater use of busses. So schemes such as this to cope with both current and future demand are essential.

    The consultation ran from the second of May to the 26th of May. It was promoted and well received.

    Only 19% of respondents to the online consultation said they wanted the old shelter to stay.

    All statutory consultees were contacted directly about the consultation and about it being a heavy handed reproach approach and legality. Last week’s protesters forced their way onto a live construction site. This has saved the implications of both our workforce, the protesters and the general public and the immediate area. Therefore, we are quite within our rights to attempt to remove those who should not be on the construction site. We have followed all necessary legal advice and processes and have acted appropriately and proportionally. We have not physically attacked anybody or physically touched anybody in this process, but ultimately, the protesters have not listened to any requests for them to leave the site. We’re doing the work over winter so that it doesn’t affect the summer trade and a question about, why are we not protecting this shelter? It did go to Historic England and were asked to consider the listing of the bus shelter. In their response, where they declined to list the structure, they said that, given its late date, it does not exhibit the architectural interest and technical innovation seen in the most significant examples of the building time, and they give three other bullet points as well as to why it’s not been listed.

    We did decline TV interviews last week because I didn’t see any benefit to it, particularly given that the local MP, who’s also been involved very late in the process, very late in the process, I said it started in 2022 it’s been through several processes and the sharing of town council on many occasions. Not a word, nothing. But he did manage to come in at the very last minute and help these supporters of it.

    He also tried to do it on social media. I don’t do my politics on social media. He can write to me and I respond. That’s what I do with most people. They write to me and I respond.

    I’m sure they understand the benefits of the project. Now he’s carried out his own study of the plans, and he spoke to me as he spoke to the leader. We had a meeting last Wednesday morning, at 08:30 in the morning. And he even said in that meeting, delay it for five to ten days, and we’ll probably carry on with the project. But he wanted to give the people who were protesting enough time to protest and then let them go.

    This money has to be spent by March 26 it has to be in place if we don’t spend the money by March 26 then we lose the money. I’m not intending to lose that money. If I don’t spend it in Sheringham, I’ll spend it somewhere else. I will not lose the money. So from that point of view, I have several schemes across Norfolk that I can spend this money on the stop itself.

    It’s important to some people, not everybody, but it’s been through a proper process to find out how we are where we are. Unfortunately, if it continues, and I’m not going to strong arm people out of there, I will not do that, but I will spend the money elsewhere. Unfortunately, that also means that, because the bus companies have said it’s a dangerous stop in its current form, then they won’t be able to use that bus stop either. So we’ll have to find a different stop to use as well, which is unfortunate because it’s really quite close to the bus the railway station.

  • Steff Aquarone – 2025 Early Day Motion on Sheringham Bus Station Controversy

    Steff Aquarone – 2025 Early Day Motion on Sheringham Bus Station Controversy

    The statement made by Steff Aquarone, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, in the House of Commons on 3 December 2025.

    That this House notes with grave concern the plans of Norfolk County Council to demolish Sheringham’s historic bus shelter; recognises that the shelter is of Streamline Moderne art-deco design, dating from the 1950s; further notes that it contains a treasured poppy mural painted by a local artist which recognises the historic Midland and Great Northern Railway; is concerned that residents do not feel properly consulted or heard by the County Council; praises and expresses solidarity with the local people who have protested outside and occupied the bus shelter; calls on the County Council to suspend their plans to allow for further constructive discussion with the community; and agrees that Sheringham is a town which is not to be messed with.

  • Charles Sanders – 2025 Statement in Support of Bus Station Changes in Sheringham

    Charles Sanders – 2025 Statement in Support of Bus Station Changes in Sheringham

    The statement made by Charles Sanders, representing Sanders Coaches, on 7 May 2025.

    Dear All

    I have read with interest the comments on the proposed revised station approach layout to improve the movement and especially the safety of both vehicles and pedestrians. I would like to add that this is a County Council scheme using ring fenced money for the provision of improved public transport facilities for our County. This money cannot be spent elsewhere and is not our town council’s project. We as the local operator were consulted on the scheme and I am happy to share with you all the issues we raised which are as follows:

    1. Coming from the Cromer Road roundabout to enter Station Approach when traffic is waiting to exit Station approach buses cannot access the turn into Station Approach without impinging on the pavement therefore Buses have to wait and this can cause a block to traffic flow. Members of the public exiting the car park tend to stand on the corner waiting to cross, creating a further hazard for our drivers to be particularly aware of.
    2. The Bus Shelter is sited too close to the kerb edge given the number of passengers that regularly wait for the buses, this causes buses to often have to stop short of the actual stop point as the crowd is so close to the road edge it would be dangerous for the driver to try to drive past them.
    3. People heading for the North Norfolk Railway or the public toilets have to regularly edge through the bus passenger queue to reach their intended destination.
    4. The growth in passenger numbers over the last few years has been huge. In the period from April 1st 2022 to March 31st 2023 the number of passengers boarding and alighting in Station approach was 286,958, in the last 12 months from April 1st 2024 to March 31st 2025 it was just over 400,000. If numbers continue to grow as more and more people seek to use green sustainable public tarnsport the current issues can only continue to get worse.
    5. There is also going to be an improvement to the waiting pavement space at the West End of Station Approach Bus Stop near to the putting green, again an area no longer large enough to cope with the demand placed upon it at busy times.
    6. Whilst change is not always easy to accept, or easy to fully understand, I hope that the above information will help people to understand why this improvement is being considered, and that ultimately everyone is on the same side here, and just looking to do the right thing to help Sheringham be a vibrant and forward looking town dealing with its current success as a destination, and allowing for even more potential growth in the future.
  • Sheringham Town Council – 2025 Statement on Bus Shelter Controversy

    Sheringham Town Council – 2025 Statement on Bus Shelter Controversy

    The statement made by Sheringham Town Council on 3 December 2025.

    Sheringham Town Council recognises the strong feelings surrounding the changes taking place around Otterndorf Green and specifically the bus shelter. We understand how important this area is to residents, both in terms of heritage and as a gateway to our town, and we are grateful to everyone who has shared their views.

    We acknowledge that some individuals feel that Norfolk County Council’s public consultation process did not meet their expectations, and we recognise this as an important lesson learned.

    The consultation process, which was publicly advertised online, in the EDP, on town noticeboards, and in the Sheringham Independent distributed to all households, generated substantial resident engagement. Feedback was provided through sessions at the North Norfolk Railway, the Community Centre, and directly to Norfolk County Council. This input significantly influenced the design and resulted in meaningful revisions.

    As a result of this community feedback and partnership discussions, the plans were updated to include:

    • Increased green space and coordinated landscaping with Sheringham in Bloom and an overall design that better reflected the local vernacular
    • A shelter design drawing on Victorian and local railway architecture; requiring bespoke metalwork and that will include artwork contributions from Sheringham schoolchildren with support from our community artist Colin Seal.

    These changes were made in good faith, working collaboratively with Norfolk County Council engineers and project managers and other stakeholders.

    It is also important to recognise the limitations of the existing shelter:
    • Its position on a narrow pavement at a busy pedestrian point has long caused concern to the local bus operator.
    • The current layout often forces waiting passengers and passing pedestrians close to the road, creating uncomfortable and potentially unsafe conditions, particularly during busy periods or for those with mobility needs or pushchairs.

    The new Travel Hub layout is designed to address these long-standing challenges.

    Key benefits include:
    • a wider, safer and more accessible waiting area
    • improved pedestrian flow to remove the pinch-point
    • a shelter offering better visibility, more natural light and reduced crowding
    • facilities that support more reliable and efficient bus operations, as highlighted by the local bus operator

    Evidence from similar schemes elsewhere shows that improved facilities encourage more people to use buses. Sheringham Town Council believe that supporting increased use of local bus services is a positive step to:
    • promote sustainable transport
    • help reduce congestion
    • strengthen the long-term viability of the public transport services residents rely on

    Throughout this process, Sheringham Town Council has worked constructively with all authorities and local organisations to ensure that Sheringham’s heritage, safety and public realm were properly considered.
    While the Town Council is not the decision-making authority for highway schemes, we have consistently sought improvements that we believe reflect the values and priorities of our community.

    We remain committed to listening to residents, passing on concerns through the appropriate channels, and supporting the best long-term outcome for Sheringham’s public spaces and transport infrastructure.

    We would like to thank residents who have provided their feedback on this scheme. Sheringham Town Council would be pleased to engage in constructive dialogue both on this and other issues as they present themselves in the community.

    Sheringham Town Council

  • Heidi Alexander – 2025 Comment on Driving Lesson Backlog

    Heidi Alexander – 2025 Comment on Driving Lesson Backlog

    The comments made by Heidi Alexander, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 12 November 2025.

    We inherited an enormous backlog of learners ready to ditch their L-Plates, who have been sadly forced to endure record waiting times for their tests. Every learner should have an equal and fair opportunity to take a test.

    We’re taking decisive action and these new measures will deliver thousands of extra tests over the next year, helping learners get on the road sooner. This will ease pressure on the system, removing barriers to opportunity and supporting economic growth as part of our Plan for Change.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2025 Statement on Dartford Crossing Charges

    Lilian Greenwood – 2025 Statement on Dartford Crossing Charges

    The statement made by Lilian Greenwood, the Transport Minister, in the House of Commons on 17 June 2025.

    The Dartford Crossing is the only fixed road crossing of the River Thames, east of London, and one of the most important links in the strategic road network.

    To manage demand and protect the crossing’s role as a vital component of the nation’s economic infrastructure, a user charge has been collected at the crossing since 2003. In 2014, the tollbooths were removed to help make journeys smoother and the charge was increased to help manage increased demand. This was the last time that charges were increased for all vehicles.

    In the 11 years since, demand at the crossing has grown 7.5%, with the crossing now used by an average of over 150,000 vehicles every day and up to 180,000 vehicles on the busiest days. These traffic levels are well in excess of the crossing’s design capacity, causing delays for drivers using the crossing, congestion and journey disruption to drivers on the M25 and a range of knock-on impacts for local communities.

    Current charging levels are no longer sufficient to achieve their stated aim of managing demand so that the crossing works well for users and local people. The need to increase the charges to manage traffic highlights the need for the additional capacity that LTC, for which the government confirmed new funding yesterday, will provide.

    To secure the effective operation of the crossing, I have, therefore, decided to increase the charges for all vehicle types that currently pay to use the crossing from 1 September 2025. The new tariff is given below.

    Class Vehicles One-off payment Pre-pay account holders
    A Motorcycles, mopeds and quad bikes Free Free
    B Cars (including trailers), motorhomes and any minibuses that have 9 or less seats (including the driver’s seat) £3.50 £2.80
    C Buses, coaches, vans and other goods vehicles with 2 axles £4.20 £3.60
    D Buses, coaches, vans and other goods vehicles with more than 2 axles £8.40 £7.20

    The increase in charges for car drivers will be a maximum of £1, with significant discounts for local residents and account holders. The new charges will be significantly lower than if they had increased in line with inflation since the tariff was last fully revised in 2014.

    I am aware that these necessary changes to the charges will be unwelcome news for users of the crossing. However, we will continue to support local people through the local resident discount scheme and I have been determined to keep the nominal fee paid by local people as low as possible, as many rely on the crossing to get around their local area. Drivers who live in Dartford or Thurrock and who have signed up to the scheme will pay £25 for unlimited annual crossings from 1 September 2025 – a small increase from the current annual fee.

    There are no other changes to the charging scheme. Journeys made between the hours of 22:00 and 06:00 will continue to be free, when there is no need to manage demand, as will those made by motorcycles at any time and the bicycle pick-up service.