Park and Ride East of Bath - A different view

by David Lavington

Chair of Batheaston Parish Council

The more you learn about the Bath Transportation Package, the more rickety it looks. From thousands of residents of Newbridge, angry about the route imposed by B&NES for its Bus "Rapid" Transit – which isn't rapid at all – to whole communities on the other side of Bath, outraged by insensitive and overpriced siting of a park and ride, it's clear that B&NES has not consulted properly (i.e. listened to) those who really know the areas affected.

Looking at that park and ride, east of Bath, a large majority of people in surrounding villages oppose siting it on Bathampton Meadows. In Batheaston, for example, when consulted about their attitudes to development there, 85 per cent opposed it.

But residents are not arguing against tackling the traffic congestion in Bath; nor against a park and ride east of Bath. We are simply saying that Bathampton Meadows is a bad site for an eastern park and ride and that there is a much better alternative at Charmy Down (a hidden area, partly within Batheaston).

Let's look at four of the myths propagated by the B&NES traffic department:

First myth: B&NES say that Charmy Down will cost £12.2m, the Meadows only £6.3m. Fact: B&NES officers now admit that they costed the wrong site! Consultants estimate the actual cost of Charmy Down at less than £4.9m, including full environmental mitigation (unlike the £6.3m costs for the Meadows site).

Second myth: B&NES say that drivers will not divert two miles or so to a park and ride at Charmy Down. Fact: such a diversion is common to park and rides elsewhere in the country, and many commuters already divert more than 2 miles to use the rat run through Larkhall to Bath centre (indeed, B&NES itself encourages diversions of that length to other Bath park and rides!). Drivers coming from the north would actually save three and a half miles. Coming from the east, the extra distance would not be two miles, but only half a mile longer than the normal journey into Bath. Even then, only a few of the current users of the A4 and those on the A363 would need that short diversion, because from Chippenham to Charmy Down there's a faster road – the A420. It is saving time and avoiding frustration that motivates drivers, not minimising distance,

Third myth: B&NES say that they will "lose" £60m of taxpayers' money because Charmy Down will be "a departure" from the scheme approved by the Dept. for Transport. But so is the Meadows - and it would be strange indeed if the Government were to penalise B&NES for choosing a cheaper option.

Fourth myth: B&NES say that Charmy Down is in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and so would never get planning permission. But a park and ride on Charmy Down will be barely visible from elsewhere, including the AONB, whilst one on Bathampton Meadows would intrude violently on views from a vast swathe of the AONB, including much of the Bath Skyline Walk. A park and ride on the Meadows would be on the greenest of undeveloped greenfield sites. Charmy Down provides a brownfield site, already developed with old airfield runways and buildings.

Why B&NES has seen fit to try to pass off these myths as part of a reasonable decision-making process is a mystery.

A park and ride at Charmy Down is not just less expensive to build than one on the Meadows, and less intrusive on the AONB; it brings other advantages as well. It saves time for commuters and shoppers because the park and ride buses going down to Bath would use the old Gloucester Road and avoid the A4/A46 roundabout (which can take 30 minutes to negotiate). Charmy Down can also be expanded to meet any future need at negligible additional cost: so there's no need to expand Lansdown. It will even cure B&NES' annual headache of finding a place for the coaches bringing in the Christmas shoppers. And Charmy Down is not overlooked, whereas a car park in the Meadows would be overlooked by hundreds of homes.

Bath and its natural surroundings are indivisible. Together they are its beauty. To the east they are gentle and restful on the eye by day, a dark contrast with the city's lights at night. Who in their right mind would set out to destroy such harmony?

Five times development on the Meadows has been rejected by Government Inspectors, by B&NES planning committees, by official studies in which B&NES participated, and by consultants employed by B&NES. As one of the studies, co-chaired by B&NES, concludes "...the results for the traffic reductions indicate that this Park and Ride site [Bathampton Meadows] can be rejected on grounds of impact on the local environment and only marginal benefits for traffic reduction".

It really is time for the council cabinet to pull off the wool that has been wrapped over their eyes by their officers. Don't say "trust the traffic officers; they are the experts and know all about traffic considerations". That is like saying "trust the bankers; they are the experts and knew all about risks of credit failures." Cllr Haeberling has stated at a full council meeting that Charmy Down will probably be used as a P&R site in the future; why does she not bring it forward now and save us from the ruination of the Meadows?

A prudent politician would listen to the people – and would question the "facts" presented by officials! Cabinet now needs to move on from myth and propaganda, treat voters and the subject with more respect, and command a proper review of the best long-term site for an eastern park and ride.