Campaign group loses judicial review battle - but takes comfort from judge's verdict

Trusted article source icon
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Profile image for This is Bath

This is Bath

​A campaign group trying to stop the development of a park-and-ride site at Bathampton Meadows has lost its application for a judicial review.

But VeraCityBath (VCB) has taken comfort from the verdict of the High Court judge who threw out the group’s application.

The group - made up of opponents of key aspects of Bath and North East Somerset Council’s Bath Transportation Package (BTP) - had been keen to establish that different schemes within the programme could not be implemented separately.

It had sought the review over a letter from the council which appeared to leave the way open for individual schemes such as the Bathampton Park-and-Ride plan to be built in isolation, rather than altogether in the way which had been discussed at various planning committee meetings.

Deputy Judge Ian Dove, sitting in the High Court, said VCB had “read far too much” into the letter and that B&NES had not changed tack.

He went on to say: “It is clear from the committee report that the advice to the members (which they accepted) was that very special circumstances could be made out for the development when regard was had to the implementation of the Bath Transportation Package as a whole.”

VCB is concerned that uncertainty over Government funding for the package could mean that attempts might be made to build parts of it - such as the Bathampton facility.

Spokesman Mark Millar said the group remained angry by the way it had been treated by the council and at B&NES’s handling of the planning process.

He said: “We are delighted to have obtained, for the people of Bath, confirmation of protection from independent development of the Bathampton Meadows by the council under its own planning permission.

“This is what we had sought from B&NES Council in correspondence - without the need for costly litigation wasting VCB’s and taxpayers’ money - but is consistent with the woeful way that the council has treated, and continues to treat, its residents throughout the BTP process. This is ongoing.”

Mr Millar’s group - along with other protesters fighting the expansion of Newbridge Park-and-Ride and the Bus Rapid Transit scheme in that area - has called for B&NES to call off a public inquiry into compulsory purchase orders needed for the package.

There is much speculation that the new Government’s spending review - which will become clearer in its first Budget later this month - will sound the death knell for the £50-plus funding for the package.

Mr Millar said: “This was a case that we should never have had to bring but we are delighted to have obtained protection for Bath residents from inappropriate independent development on the beautiful and historic Bathampton Meadows.”

VCB was ordered to pay £2,500 in costs to the council.

In a statement, B&NES said: "The council continues to work to the timetable agreed with the Department for Transport for the Bath Transportation Package, which includes preparation for the CPO inquiry.

"This also includes the tendering process for the scheme works, preparing designs and traffic regulation orders for the city centre access restrictions and improvements, and scheduling any street works in line with our normal practice which means giving utilities firms at least 12 months' notice so they can plan their work schedules in advance."

1
Tweet this article
Report

Comments

  • Profile image for This is Bath

    by PJ, Batheaston

    Tuesday, June 01 2010, 4:01PM

    “B&NES's own Solicitor's Office created the problem and its associated costs by writing in a letter:

    "there are a number of factors which will, no doubt, have a bearing on how the (BTP) applications are implemented and... as with many transportation schemes of this nature, the intention would be to develop the whole scheme. However, the planning applications have been issued separately and as such are capable of separate implementation."

    The last sentence being the significant one, how could it ever be a case of "reading too much" into the letter when the language couldn't possibly be clearer in it's opposition to everything else B&NES Council previously said about the proposed development? It should be noted that Ian Dove's ruling also fundamentally contradicts the Council Solicitor's statement.

    It's therefore disappointing that Chronicle writers have chosen to label this a VCB "loss" when it's clearly a victory for the establishment of some transparency, on this crucial point at least, in making B&NES intent clear and legally binding.”

        Your comments awaiting moderation

        Add your comments

        max 4000 characters