Politician explains 'contrary' BRT vote
The politician who has plunged the future of a controversial bus route into chaos has explained his thinking.
Councillors had been on the verge of killing off the Bus Rapid Transit scheme through Newbridge last night, in a move that would have driven a coach and horses through a £50 million plan to tackle congestion in Bath.
-
BrianWebber
But they were forced to defer a decision because a councillor who voted against a motion approving the scheme then abstained in a second and crucial follow-up ballot suggesting it should be rejected.
The apparent change of heart by city centre Tory Cllr Brian Webber has left the £16 million scheme in limbo.
Opponents of the dedicated bus route scheme say its handling has been a fiasco but will have to wait at least until the next meeting of Bath and North East Somerset Council's development control committee - on August 5 - for the issue to be resolved.
The committee had met yesterday to discuss a planning application which lumped the BRT and the expansion of Newbridge park and ride site together.
Cllr Webber says he is in favour of the park and ride extension, but is not convinced of the merits of the BRT.
He says he voted against the first motion - to approve the application - because of his worries over the BRT.
But the retired accountant said he could not support the second motion - to reject the application because of its impact on homes and wildlife - as it included objections to the park and ride element.
The vote was tied, meaning the application had to be deferred.
Cllr Webber (Con, Abbey) said: "That's why I voted in that slightly contrary fashion."
He added: "I shall be as interested as anyone else to see what the powers-that-be decide to do."
He said he hoped the application would be split in two before the next committee meeting.
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.
But city MP Don Foster said the BRT should now be abandoned in its current form.
He said: "If only the Conservative council had listened to what I said at a council meeting in September, and what Liberal Democrat councillors have been saying for months: more work was needed into alternative routes, and residents needed to be involved in the process.
"The council did not heed this advice, and with the proposed BRT route twice having failed to pass through planning, it is time for the council to go right back to the beginning.
"The Conservatives have mismanaged this process, and could well be putting the Government money at risk. Had they taken on board my comments last autumn, then this would not be the case."
10 Comments
View all
by PW, Bath
Monday, July 13 2009, 9:18AM
“Surely the future of such an important plan cannot depend on the whims of one councillor? Whilst I'm pleased he's getting his 15 minutes of fame, I'm sure there is more to this process than this article suggests. I certainly hope so. And whilst Don Foster's 'told you so' tone sounds a little disingenuous, he does say one thing that is central to this - that any plans should have the approval and so operation of residents.
As for the many people who criticise others for not understanding the vagaries of planning applications - perhaps they have lives and jobs that do not allow them the time to get a handle on this obstructive and seemingly nonsensical system!”
by Maurice, Bath
Sunday, July 12 2009, 9:43AM
“So......Why didn't Cllr Webber propose 'that the application be refused because the BRT would have an adverse affect on too many local residents'
I rather doubt that the lib dems would have voted against that.
The option to make a new application for the park and ride expansion would have still been possible.”
by not convinced, Bath
Saturday, July 11 2009, 10:27AM
“Wasn't Cllr Webber supposed to be involved in coming up with the reasons for voting against the motion of passing the scheme? Afterall, he was one of the councillors who originally voted it down. If he was unhappy with the reasons put forwards by other councillors, why did he not speak up and help to word the decision?
As I understand it, when this chaos was happening, the planning committee were supposed to be entitled to some time away from the chamber to discuss with the aid of planning officers valid reasons for turning down the application.
The officers are supposed to help councillors, without bias, by summarising the debate and drawing out the relevant objections.
This did not happen. Why?”
by Kirsten, Bath
Thursday, July 09 2009, 5:34PM
“Surely the blame for this mess lies not with the planning committee, who, as several of you have pointed out, had to give a reason for the refusal, but with those in the major developments section who presented a muddled report and who seemed unclear whether these were all part of one application or entirely separate - or even if they were dependent on Western Riverside. This, contrary to what Cllr Haeberling insisted on Radio Bristol, does not yet have full planning consent, and in the current climate, it looks unlikely that Crest Nicholson has much enthusiasm to press on with it. It is this constitutional and procedural muddle, that should have seen these applications sent back for revision, as English Heritage said in the first place, which has led to this debacle. The determination to force through these flawed applications has resulted in some brave Tory councillors resigning the whip when their voices warning of this were ignored, and in parts of the project being called in by GOSW instead of the successful outcome wanted by the council. B&NES should have requested a public inquiry on this in the first place, then there would have been a neutral arbiter, no complaints about a failure in democracy, and an open discussion. The facts would have had to have been more rigorously presented on all sides so there could have been no accusation about figures being fudged. If Cllr Haeberling is to come out of this with any dignity left or any claim to leadership, she should now tell her advisers that this is clearly the best way forward.”
by David, Bath
Thursday, July 09 2009, 4:46PM
“Yes the Council cannot appeal but should all the 'pro' camp be for it they can lobby the GOSW to call it in. Then you need proper reasons for refusal to be able to stand up in any public inquiry.
Even if Cllr Webber did put his own motion through to refuse only on the BTR reason, the Lib Dems would have refused it because it didn't include the Park and Ride expansion!
Could people stop seeing things through such blinkered eyes?”