BRT public inquiry decision draws near
A decision which could determine whether a £57.5 million transport package for Bath stands a chance of surviving the public sector spending squeeze should be made in the next fortnight.
Senior civil servants say they will decide early next month whether to call a public inquiry into four sets of compulsory purchase orders over land needed for the Bath Transportation Package.
-
BRTimage
One set of Government officials controversially decided last month that an inquiry was not needed into the two most contentious aspects of Bath and North East Somerset Council's package - a new park and ride site at Bathampton and a new bus route along a former railway line at Newbridge.
Now another team are considering whether the 160 objections they have received into the orders affecting 59 plots of land in the city are serious enough to warrant a separate inquiry hearing.
B&NES has been given a deadline of March to get its paperwork in order on the package to be sure of securing the Government funding which will pay for the vast majority of the schemes.
That means it has to secure all the CPOs by that time, with a public inquiry likely to push the whole process beyond the next General Election and into major funding doubt.
The inquiry is now the most realistic hope for campaigners of delaying the scheme until such time that a new Government reviews its commitment to public spending.
Objectors and council officials are now due to meet in court next Friday to discuss an application for an injunction which would halt progress on the package.
Officials at the Guildhall insist that the way in which planning permission was granted for the Bus Rapid Transit route through Newbridge was entirely above board, with the decision legally watertight.
But a campaigner, supported by the Bath Heritage Watchdog pressure group and other campaigners, has applied through the county court system for an injunction to stop work on the scheme.
He is accusing the council of the common law offence of misfeasance in a public office because he says it has not replied to letters questioning the legality of the permission.
Meanwhile, campaigners say the council's claims over congestion levels in Newbridge are wildly inaccurate.
B&NES has argued the BRT is needed because it says it can take up to 13 minutes at peak periods to get from Newbridge park and ride to Windsor Bridge, and up to 18 minutes to get from the city centre to the park and ride site.
The current park and ride bus timetable allows just 10 minutes for the inward journey to Westgate Buildings, while surveys by Newbridge residents over the summer concluded that the park and ride to Windsor Bridge leg took just four minutes by car even at rush hour times.
Chronicle reporters took four minutes for this leg by car and seven and a half minutes by bus in the early morning rush hour last week.
The council says it is standing by the times, which were included in a document issued last year.
It has also repeated its insistence that alternative routes to the BRT - using the existing Lower or Upper Bristol roads - would have been more expensive and not delivered journey time savings.
A spokesman added: "The fact of the matter is that the Government were very clear that had either of these routes been used this would have represented a significant enough change to the business case for a formal reassessment to be required because they wouldn't have offered the same benefits as the proposed route, effectively meaning other transport projects in the region would have been funded instead of the Bath Transportation Package."
17 Comments
View all
by Andy M, Bath
Saturday, November 28 2009, 3:28PM
“Donut, fair enough... I think I "jumped the gun" there! Probably a result of my paranoia that too many ambiguous and misleading phrases have been used by those supporting the scheme! So no need for you to be careful in future just because of my own sensitivity and frustration!!
As for the reference files, it appears we both know what they contain. Glad we could clear things up.”
by donut, Weston
Saturday, November 28 2009, 1:12PM
“Andy
Hands up I may have read your comment a bit lazily.
I should make it clear that I am not in favour of this development as you appear to have made that assumption. As with the BRT, I consider the whole scheme unworkable. If you have read any of my other posts regarding the BTP you would recognise that. I can only apologise for raising your blood pressure to dangerous levels.
Jumping to conclusions has led you to overlook that the comment about negotiations is in inverted commas. This is meant to signify derision, not be a direct quote. I don't think smilies can be used here. Nobody accepts that discussions have been meaningful.
I am saying that the conditions laid down were considered by B&NES to be onerous, otherwise why did they try to get them overturned?
I got this information and the ecological bit from The report written by Alliance Planning who were sub-contracted to provide the basis of the planning application. Unfortunately I can't find it again but will give you the ref when I do. I accept that the council may subsequently have modified this.
I promise to be careful if responding to you in future.”
by Andy M, Bath
Saturday, November 28 2009, 10:28AM
“Donut, your response to my last posting has to be a contender for the most untrue and misleading comments on the subject, ever!
They suggest you are either extremely naive, deliberately divisive, or just not in possession of the facts. And why have you answered an imaginary question? I didn't ask one!
Firstly, the B&NES Council web link you included lists associated planning documents and while they include hundreds of objections, they DO NOT INCLUDE any records of meaningful consultations with residents, "extensive" or otherwise. I'd appreciate your explanation of how you think this might not be the case. But bear in mind that registering opposition, or support, for planning applications, does not translate as a consultation exercise.
Secondly, your comment that conditions applied to the previous Lambridge application were onerous is totally false. The flood prevention example you use was an essential Environment Agency requirement and B&NES Council, in the end, having obtained permission for the Lambridge site and given every opportunity to meet the condition, ruled that the work on Bathampton Meadows should not proceed on environmental grounds. The public records of their decisions made and the reasons for them are still be available from B&NES.
Lastly, and in light of the above, to say the new site is not considered ecologically important is to completely contradict B&NES Council's own conclusions. Not only for the reason already given but also because the site is next to a Wildlife Reserve, will affect the ecologies of neighbouring SSSI and SNCI's, is adjacent to Conservation Areas and is surrounded and overlooked by the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Ecological issues have also been seriously considered in objections lodged by the Bath Preservation Trust, Bath Heritage Watchdog, Cotswold AONB and English Heritage amongst others (see files in the link you provided).
So where are the details to support your opposing comments? Either admit there is no basis for what you have said or prove that your comments are true. Surprise me - because I expect to see no proof of any kind!”
by donut, Weston
Friday, November 27 2009, 5:50PM
“Andy
The ref Dave gave has loads of info on the numerous studies into Lambridge and also the "extensive consultations with residents."
Best to start at http://idox.bathnes.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appNumber=09/00308/EREG03
The answer to your question is that the planning approval for Lambridge had a couple of onerous conditions applied. B&NES subsequently tried without success to get these removed. One of them was that flood prevention work had to be done and signed off before any other works could commence.
Apparently no such problems exist with the new site. Also not considered ecologically important.”
by Andy M, Bath
Friday, November 27 2009, 5:32PM
“Dave - The B&NES Council investigation of alternatives referred to in PJs answer records that Lambridge has now been disregarded as a possible option for an eastern Bath park and ride.”
by PJ, Batheaston
Friday, November 27 2009, 3:46PM
“Dave, apologies for the flippancy of my last comment - it is after all a serious business!
It's because of this I prefer not to provide a link to the offending document. But be assured that it exists within the mess of information that both affected residents (in double-quick time) and Government Officers dealing with CPO objections, were expected to sift through.
You are entirely right about the location of Lambridge. The original P&R proposal to serve a BRT was for the site currently used as the rugby training ground.
B&NES Council obtained permission to go ahead with this but chose not to (in 2006 I think), because of an inability to relocate the rugby facility and the rejection on environmental grounds of a requirement for substantial flood mitigation measures - on the very site they now propose the new 1,400 space car park (joined-up CPO fact 4!)
If you want to see the location for yourself: Drive down the old A4 into Batheaston. Pass the Waggon and Horses and turn right as if going to Bathampton, over the toll bridge at Bathampton weir (60p! each way). You'll see Bathampton Mill on the right as you go over the bridge. The large grazing fields on the left, between this and the bridge over the bypass, is the site for the now proposed park and ride. There can't be a worse site in the whole country for a large park and ride!
As for the likelihood of Lambridge being taken up again, this would contradict B&NES statements that following their "investigation of alternatives" it's either Bathampton Meadows or nothing. But that's exactly what used to be said about Lambridge!”
by Dave F., (the real) Walcot
Friday, November 27 2009, 2:05PM
“PJ
No mention is made in the article to Lambridge, so I assume you are referring to a council CPO document.
Do you have a link to it?
The one I found was;
http://planning.bathnes.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=KEA2RSCT0KG00
Which doesn't mention Lambridge
http://www.multimap.com/s/CzVJmWK3
Take a look at this map, which clearly shows the the Lam Brook.
The bridge that crosses the Lam is the A4 at the junction with the Gloucester Road, next to the rugby training ground.
This may not be B&NES favoured choice, but, as far as I know, hasn't been completely disregarded especially if Batheaston Bypass fails.”
by PJ, Batheaston
Friday, November 27 2009, 12:16PM
“Dave, Walcot - are you sure it's not the ridge by the lamb?”
by Kirsten, Bath
Friday, November 27 2009, 9:04AM
“Why don't those of you who have formed groups at Bathampton and Batheaston to oppose this plan go directly to the DfT? I have been up there with my concerns about what is planned for the station, and they listened most sympathetically. Present these figures about congestion and the fact that it is not as bad as B&NES says it is. I took a Powerpoint presentation and there's no doubt the people I spoke to were impressed with some of the images I showed them. Go out and take pictures - videos even. Government departments don't like to think they are having the wool pulled over their eyes. Do it. All is not yet lost.”
by Dave, (the real) Walcot
Thursday, November 26 2009, 10:14PM
“PJ,
Excuse my ignorance, but where is the bridge over the Lam?”