Bath and North East Somerset Council was today considering the implications of a meeting which very nearly killed off a key element of its much-vaunted public transport revolution.

The future of a £50 million transport package for Bath appears to be hanging by a thread after a "shambles" council meeting on Wednesday night.

The meeting to decide whether to approve a controversial new bus route through the city descended into chaos as politicians looked ready to turn their backs on the scheme.

But although councillors narrowly voted against a motion to approve the Bus Rapid Transit scheme, they could not agree at a second vote to reject it.

The issue has now been deferred for the second meeting running by Bath and North East Somerset Council's development control committee.

The cheers of opponents turned to jeers as a vote to reject the scheme through Newbridge based on what had to be hastily-compiled reasons was tied.

The council last night said it was looking at its options in the wake of the meeting.

Transport cabinet member Cllr Charles Gerrish said: “The council is currently considering the position following the decision. The council continues to be committed to delivering a joined-up plan to help tackle traffic congestion across the area.”

At the centre of the debacle was city centre Conservative Cllr Brian Webber, who voted against approving the BRT - but abstained in the vote over a motion to actively reject it.

The issue will now return for a third time to the committee, which next meets on August 5.

There is pressure for the BRT to be separated out from the other half of the planning application, to expand the Newbridge park and ride site.

This could mean the council submitting new applications to itself, delaying the whole process by months.

The authority has claimed that the Government funding on which its plans rely would be lost if any element of the package - which also includes the equally contentious Bathampton Meadows park and ride scheme - was abandoned.

People in the public gallery fired questions at councillors and shouted that the process was a "shambles" as confusion over which way councillors had voted clouded the meeting in a packed council chamber at the Guildhall.

The committee was meeting to debate whether to approve the expansion of the Newbridge Park and Ride site and the building of a designated bus route along a disused railway track.

Campaigners cheered when six members decided to reject the application, outvoting the five who chose to approve it and one who abstained.

However, the majority group then struggled to come up with valid planning reasons for opposing the scheme and the next vote was equally split when the committee was asked to approve the selected objections.

Campaigners became increasingly restless as councillors and officers exchanged frantic whispers about what they should do next.

The decision was then made to defer the application once again and a request was put in to officers that the application be split into two separate ones.

Campaigner Jo McCarron from Response2Route described the meeting as a "shambles".

She said: “This fiasco is typical of the way the process has been handled by the council so far. The BRT was debated and we heard many coherent arguments against the proposal, but proponents of the scheme failed to provide any logical arguments in favour.

“Our main objection has been that the impact on our whole community is unjustified as the benefits have still not been identified.

“The council is letting Bath down with its lack of vision and organisation. If the scheme had been viable, surely our arguments would not have held up the plans, no matter how well articulated.

“The business case for the scheme is fundamentally flawed. It has become increasingly clear that the BRT holds absolutely no benefit to our city.

"The council are risking the funding for the whole BTP package by continuing to push through a badly planned and incoherent scheme, simply because they have not thought about the fundamental objectives of the BRT. If they had, like us, they would have discovered early on that the BRT would not achieve that goal.”

Cllr Loraine Morgan-Brinkhurst (Lib Dem, Newbridge) and Cllr Caroline Roberts (Lib Dem, Newbridge) were emotional at the end of the meeting and thanked residents and campaigners for all they had done to fight the BRT.

Cllr Morgan-Brinkhurst said: "We still feel really disappointed for our residents who have fought so hard to protect their homes and the environment around them.

"We have now got to go through this procedure once again and they are living with this over their heads every day.

"We feel for them and we will support them right through to the bitter end."

The pair also said they would be opposing both aspects of the application if they were separated by the next meeting.

More than 20 members of the public spoke in opposition to the plans at the meeting, voicing the concerns of the 759 individuals and businesses who have already written letters to the council.

Opponents believe the scheme would be a waste of taxpayers' money and would have a detrimental affect on the environment and people living nearby.

Those who are for it say it is the answer to Bath's traffic and pollution problems and would help the city expand economically.

Those who voted against approving the application were Liberal Democrat councillors Gerry Curran, Nicholas Coombes and Carole Paradise, Labour councillors Eleanor Jackson and John Bull and Conservative Cllr Webber.

Those in favour of approving it were Conservative councillors Les Kew, Brian Simmons (who was again standing in for Malcolm Lees), Richard Maybury, Steve Willcox and John Whittock.

Liberal Democrat Cllr Colin Darracott abstained.

On the second vote on whether the scheme should be rejected, Cllr Webber decided to abstain, meaning it was tied with five on each side.

If the Tory-run council had decided to approve the scheme, the Government Office of the South West would have had to decide whether to call the project in for a public inquiry.

The council as applicant cannot appeal - as a normal individual or firm could - to the Planning Inspectorate against itself as planning authority if the scheme is rejected.

But anyone in favour of the scheme could ask the GoSW to agree that an appeal should be allowed, triggering a public inquiry.

The reasons for the rejection could then become crucial, hence the vote.