Exclusive: Judicial review threat over transport scheme
Opponents of controversial council transport plans are preparing to challenge them in the High Court.
A specialist London law firm sent letters to Bath and North East Somerset Council and Communities Secretary John Denham last week, warning that it would be seeking a judicial review of the handling of the £57.5 million Bath Transportation Package.
-
Court generic
The package includes a new park and ride site at Bathampton, the expansion of the council's existing Newbridge Park and Ride site, and a new bus route along a former railway line at Newbridge.
The Bathampton Meadows scheme was rubberstamped by Mr Denham's officials at the Government Office of the South West, who also decided not to call a public inquiry over the Newbridge Bus Rapid Transit scheme, which had been approved after scenes of chaos at one of the council's own development control committee meetings.
A consortium of groups fighting all three schemes are behind the legal challenge.
They are using the Harrison Grant practice – which is acting for Greenpeace in a legal battle over government energy policy – to apply for leave to seek a judicial review in the High Court in London.
The alliance of groups has already obtained a leading QC's opinion and say they have the funding necessary to begin such a court fight.
The campaigners also say they are confident they can meet the high threshold of evidence needed to justify a judicial review, which would see a senior judge decide whether the council and government officials had acted properly.
Pre-action protocol letters were served on B&NES, and Mr Denham via GoSW, last Tuesday, with the campaigners arguing there has been a failure in process at both local and national government level.
The consortium says both the council and GoSW have failed in their duties to consider critical information when making judgements about the planning applications making up the package - such as the city's status as a World Heritage Site.
Government officials have, however, agreed to a public inquiry into the compulsory purchase orders issued by the council over land needed for the BRT and other elements of the package.
This will have the effect of delaying the paperwork needed by B&NES to get final approval for the Government funding needed for the package until after the next General Election - raising the possibility of the money being cut in a new round of public sector economies.
A B&NES Council spokesman said: "The council and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government recently received a pre-action protocol letter about the Bath Transportation Package planning applications. The council will be responding to the points made in the New Year."
GoSW planning manager Dave Jones said the matter was being dealt with by the Treasury Solicitor, and GoSW had no comment to make.
8 Comments
by Peter, Bath
Tuesday, January 19 2010, 2:06PM
“Cllr Hanney has a lot to answer for, if the claim of £3.5m wasted on manipulating the evidence for the Transport Package is true. Instead of paying his eager but ignorant publicists oodles of money to mislead the public, he should have spent a fraction of it on validating the better alternatives which people say he stubbornly refused to countenance. Even some of his own loyal Councillors have denounced the travesty thus caused.”
by Stevo, Bath
Saturday, January 02 2010, 5:28PM
“I suspect Francine Haeberling may find her oft repeated phrase "doing nothing is not an option" of limited use during the Judicial Review or indeed the public inquiry.”
by Sharon, Saltford
Friday, January 01 2010, 1:23PM
“I agree. BANES should put its people first. Jobs are much more important than new roads.”
by Consultant kerching, Bath
Thursday, December 31 2009, 7:29PM
“I wonder how many of the B&NES planning department who have just received "at risk of redundancy" letters from the Council according to the Chronicle were supportive of these scheme and the £millions paid to advisers by the Council. How many of their jobs would be saved if that sum hadn't been frittered away on the pointless BTP?
Happy New Year!”
by HS, Bath
Thursday, December 31 2009, 1:25PM
“The sentiments in Gary P's quote from B&NES' MSBC are laudable. Unfortunately, the BTP in its current format cannot achieve these objectives and will only succeed in increasing congestion and dependence on private cars. Park and Ride - the clue is in the name.
Happy New Year!”
by The Bright Side, Bath
Wednesday, December 30 2009, 8:15PM
“It appears our Council, its figurehead and real leader, are going to have to account for themselves in quite a lot of detail one way or another ...”
by Gary P, Bath
Wednesday, December 30 2009, 3:25PM
“On a related matter, in B&NES Council's stated reasons for making Compulsory Purchase Orders for the BTP, they say there is: "a compelling case in the public interest" for the undemocratic and often farcical course being followed.
Nowhere in copious documents, consultant's reports and presentations that have cost council tax payers in excess of £3.5 million to date, when other local authorities are implementing cut-backs in non-essential projects and departments, has the BTP been qualified in any way as being in the public interest or reasonably justified as a scheme to bring benefits to the Bath residents that councillors are elected by and answerable to.
For anyone who cares to look, there are plenty of indicators that the council continues to try and 'spin' this story as something positive and beneficial for Bath, when the only tangible advantages are political and self-serving. In contrast, the following facts are noteworthy:
The council's 2006 Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) summary records; "The Bath Package major scheme is a bold an innovative proposal to address existing traffic problems in the city, and provide a modern and efficient public transport solution to take the city forward. (It)...will reduce congestion, reduce dependence on the private car and create the reliable transport infrastructure needed to encourage regeneration in the city and economic growth through the attraction of increased business and tourism to Bath."
The problem for B&NES is that no proof that these aims can be met by the BTP has ever been provided.
In reality both the MSBC and planning applications show the BTP and its BRT route presented as a single park and ride service, with no modelling assessments given of its negative impacts upon other traffic. This lack of balance exaggerates claims of 'benefits' and has led directly to chaos, confusion and undemocratic manipulations of planning committee decisions prior to applications for the CPOs.
For this alone the BTP cannot be seen as a "public transport solution" and more recent council suggestions that it is only "a first step" totally contradicts their own Business Case.
Claims of reductions in congestion and improvements in air quality are also exaggerated, and not supported by data supplied in Bath and North East Somerset: Planning application 09/00307/EREG03 which records; (a) No impact on traffic congestion on London Road due to suppressed demand, and, (b) No notable improvement in air quality in Bath (at less than 1%).
The B&NES Council refusal to acknowledge these facts publicly, in continually paraphrasing the Business Case summary, has raised widespread suspicions of hidden agendas, revealed an aversion to honesty and transparency in informing the public of fundamental flaws in the scheme, and destroyed trust in councillors and their stated transport aims.”
by JC, Bath
Wednesday, December 30 2009, 3:13PM
“Might as well hand the Spa refund straight over to the lawyers! I wonder what will be the final bill for this folly, once it is finally consigned to the scrapheap?”