Civil servant's warning over Bath bus scheme
A senior civil servant has told council chiefs the axe is hovering over nearly £50 million of funding for controversial transport plans in Bath.
Politicians meeting next week to discuss the Bus Rapid Transit scheme will do so with the warning that rejecting it will also kill off Government funding for the expansion of park and ride sites and improvements to key bus routes.
Councillors came within a hair's breadth of turning down the BRT at a chaotic meeting earlier this month and the ruling Conservative leadership is desperate to push its flagship scheme through this time.
The threat to the funding is spelled out in a new report to Bath and North East Somerset Council's development control committee and in a hard-hitting letter to authority chief executive John Everitt from Department for Transport official Julian Abel.
Mr Abel, head of regional and local major projects for the south west, said he was prepared to give the council until "mid-autumn" to secure planning permission for the BRT.
He says a recent discussion with council officers and their transport consultants "raised a number of serious concerns which must now question whether the scheme should continue to be prioritised for central funding."
The council is relying on £48.65 million of DfT cash for the Bath Transportation Package, which includes the BRT through Newbridge and the equally contentious Bathampton Meadows park and ride scheme.
Mr Abel's letter says his department was prepared to accept what he calls the "non-material" change of location to this site from the council's previous choice of Lambridge.
But he says the loss of the BRT "will fundamentally change" the package and that he would then recommend to ministers that the entire package would be taken off the list of projects to be funded.
The letter, sent on Monday, says: "Clearly the developments over the last week and proposed revisions place the future of the scheme at significant risk. The loss of a scheme with such high potential would be disappointing and could represent a missed transport and funding opportunity in the long term for the Bath region."
Mr Abel says that if the BRT does get planning permission next Wednesday, he will need to see concrete plans to progress the package "to provide confidence to ministers that the authority is serious in taking this scheme forward."
The new report from planning officers to the meeting warns that rejecting the BRT - which would see a new dedicated bus route created along an old railway line - could even risk the viability of development at the city's Western Riverside.
The report mentions the recent meeting with civil servants.
It says: "They have stated that without the Bus Rapid Transit route, they would not be willing to continue to fund the package."
Opponents say the funding issues should not cloud councillors' judgements - and that the scheme has to be judged purely on its planning merits.
The report acknowledges: "The potential loss of funding is not in itself a material consideration to be taken into account in the determination of this application."
But it goes on: "The impact that failing to approve this element of the package would have on the deliverability of the rest of the package is a material consideration. "Members should therefore be mindful of the fact that, if this application does not get permission, none of the other elements of the Bath Transportation Package will take place."
The BRT route also includes a section through the largely derelict Western Riverside sector, where there are long-term plans for a new community of more than 2,000 homes.
The development is currently effectively on hold, with no start date because of the economic downturn, and the council has suggested that BRT buses would initially run along conventional roads between Windsor Bridge and the city centre.
But the report claims the BRT will be fundamental to the success of the Western Riverside once the recession eases.
It says the BRT would play a vital role in enabling restrictions on car ownership and use to work, and that without the scheme, fewer homes could be built.
"A Bath Western Riverside scheme with higher car provision would reduce the ability to provide housing numbers to support delivery of the Local Plan .... and weaken the council’s ability to secure private sector investment. Moreover the highway network would experience more congestion. Such a reconfigured scheme would be contrary to council policy and potentially open to third party challenge."
Objectors - who had called for next week's meeting to be postponed until after the summer holiday period - say the BRT route through Newbridge will destroy a much-loved green corridor without having any effect on pollution and congestion.
At a meeting on July 8, the council's development control committee voted against approving the authority's planning application to build the BRT and expand the Newbridge park and ride site.
But a follow-up vote to positively reject the application was tied and so councillors were controversially forced to vote to defer a formal decision.
Opponents and the Bath Heritage Watchdog pressure group claim the first vote was legal - and that the scheme should now be regarded as officially rejected, but the council's lawyers insist that the matter was deferred.
The meeting on Wednesday will be third time the committee has discussed the application.
In a statement, the anti-BRT Response2route campaign group said: "To many residents, it seems as if the current council leadership want the committee to keep on voting until they come up with their preferred answer."
The statement added: "It is not helpful that this protracted process will culminate at a committee meeting in the middle of the holiday season. However, residents will again be there to voice their strong objections and to urge the council to reject the plan and save their community."
It said councillors should reject the application on the grounds that it would adversely affect a large number of local residents through its visual impact, additional noise levels, increased pollution and loss of privacy and amenity, as well as its impact on trees and other wildlife habitats.
At the last meeting, the second vote ended in stalemate after committee member Cllr Brian Webber (Con, Abbey) abstained because, while opposed to the BRT, he is in favour of expanding Newbridge park and ride.
But Response2route spokeswoman Jo McCarron said: "This application is seriously flawed, and if any part of it is unacceptable on planning grounds then it should be refused as a whole."
The council has refused to split the application into two.
Meanwhile the Downstream South pressure group representing people living along Lower Bristol Road in East Twerton has repeated its calls for that road to be widened to accommodate a new bus lane.
Spokesman Denis Lovelace said several recent buildings had been constructed set back from the busy road to preserve space for such a bus lane, which he said would then make the BRT's Newbridge section unnecessary.
Next Wednesday's meeting is at the Guildhall at 2pm, but the BRT application is unlikely to be discussed until 5pm.
122 Comments
View all
by Ding Dong, Previously SG
Tuesday, August 11 2009, 4:06PM
“Anil- "Fair enough JC, I don't mind people not agreeing with me. If they did, it would be like living in Bath; all comfort zone - no challenges." Knock knock, HELLO! yes thats what the people in Bath are doing, challenging... challanging a CAR BASED scheme which apparently dedicated bus users such as yourself will jump in their car to get to v. environmental Anil.”
by George, Chippenham
Sunday, August 02 2009, 2:29PM
“Graeme - Some modelling data can be found in the Major Scheme Business Case used to secure programme entry status for the BTP.
It's a dense document that takes some deciphering. Nevertheless, from this source, false claims have been made about A4 east traffic volumes and it consistently refers only to Lambridge as the eastern P&R site.
Because Mill Lane is therefore not fully assessed, modelled or costed in this Business Case, Mill Lane IS a material change to the proposals despite what Mr Abel says here and what B&NES and the DfT have privately agreed between themselves (without public participation).
B&NES own consultants, Mott McDonald, agree with this conclusion in their supporting Technical Assessment.
So it seems that even when the 'professionals' DO get it right, but the information is not what they want to hear, the applicant is prepared to ignore them!
I think this is what people are getting "emotive" about when they say B&NES are not listening to anyone or any reason.”
by donut, Weston
Saturday, August 01 2009, 8:30PM
“Mr Abel could be trying to help the council OR he could be genuinely concerned. A report at the end of 2008 suggests that SW are lagging in getting money spent and need to up their game.
(http://www.swcouncils.gov.uk/media/SWRA/Executive%20Committee/13th%20Feb%202009/Paper_D_-_Appendix_3b.pdf)”
by Stacey, Bath
Saturday, August 01 2009, 6:25PM
“Toadstool
it's quite normal for top politicians to blame civil servants for their problems - it's just unusual to see it at council level and for the civil servant, Julian Abel, to be named!
I wonder if his ears are burning?”
by JC, Bath
Saturday, August 01 2009, 4:45PM
“Clearly I'm not that much of an expert on where I live! I hope I have not got really confused and put baths on E Bay!”
by JC, Beanies
Saturday, August 01 2009, 4:41PM
“Graeme - After nearly 50 years of living in Bath, do I qualify as an expert? I cannot be a NIMBY, as this scheme does not affect me personally, and if it was a success, would reduce traffic in my part of Bath. Parts of the BTP are OK, we all recognise the need for an Eastern P&R, although whether they have got the right site is hugely questionable, and the data seems to be Top Secret. When it comes to BRT, just do a simple bit of Googling, and general consensus on existing ones is that they are fine on dedicated roads, but not as good as normal busses on shared roads, and very unsuitable for narrow streets. So straight away, alarm bells start ringing. Walcot loses it's parking - More alarm bells, bad news for all of the businesses there.
For the Western side, existing busses only have problems at peak times, and even then it is not that bad, so you really do have to question if a dedicated road is necessary. And we are told that it will 'solve' traffic problems - But most are caused by through traffic, RUH employees and school run, none of which will be affected. There have been suggestions to use the empty P&R busses for school run, as they pass schools, but apparently this cannot be done (Might upset First?). A suggestion for cheap school travel has been rejected as 'too expensive'. But then, I don't have a degree, and I'm not paid by B&NES to say what they want me to say, so presumably my opinion on wasting taxpayers money does not count. Oh, and if 'experts' had been allowed, Kingsmead Square would have been demolished in the 70's.”
by GS Faulks, Batheaston
Saturday, August 01 2009, 3:03PM
“Graeme - It's fairly well-known in local circles that Batheaston Parish Council submitted a comprehensive and substantial report on one alternative to the eastern park and ride site. This would not and could not have been done without considerable "in-depth knowledge".
Unapologetically looking after local interests, as local residents demand, but mindful of the wider implications, this result of years of study and investigations was dismissed out of hand by B&NES who were only interested in considering first Lambridge, then the only site currently owned by the applicant (themselves), Mill Lane.
When you take into account the fact that other alternatives submitted for possible P&R funding included Alice Park, you can start to see just how serious they were about considering nothing but the choices they'd already made without the participation or consent of anyone adversely affected in the locality, fundamentally in conflict with their own Statement of Community Involvement guidelines.
As 'betweenthelines' says below, this is not an appropriate forum for divulging the details of these things so, and at the risk of sounding "emotive", this is just one sub-plot in a story of public service that doesn't smell at all healthy.
NB - I'm sure that of the organisations mentioned Cotswold AONB have registered unambiguous objections, if not to the BRT application then at least to the eastern P&R. It remains true that none of them have fully supported the scheme, for some very sound reasons.”
by betweenthelines, Bath
Saturday, August 01 2009, 2:18PM
“Fair points one and all Graeme! The enemy? Certainly not!
Worth remembering though that just as you've said: "We all benefit from economic growth to give us a vibrant city. Show me how the BRT won't provide this?...", it can be conversely asked "Show me how it will?", as there's no verifiable evidence to support such claims either.
These claims are also tantamount to saying Bath is not yet a vibrant city when it plainly is.
There's obviously a lot more to be said about the issues but I'm sure this is not the place to be doing it, in my opinion.
Have enjoyed the exchanges. Keep asking the questions!”
by Graeme J, Bath
Saturday, August 01 2009, 12:18PM
“Peter Streater posted that modelling data was unreliable. I asked for a reference and none was forthcoming. I thought it was a little off-topic in the sense that my main point is about the long-term, and Peter¿s observation was about current journey times. Granted, if current data is unreliable that could also undermine projections in BANES¿ data. But without good provenance Peter¿s point is anecdotal.
In referring to the ¿future¿ rail station, I was merely observing the wide-ranging nature of the study for the BRT in terms of long-term opportunities. It¿s not a huge point but it was noteworthy for context.
No official objections were lodged against the scheme by the organisations referred to by GS. Imposing conditions is a constructive way to steer a planning application for a project like this. How anyone can say a Parish Council has in-depth knowledge is surprising; they will always raise concerns for local interests only, as that is their remit.
Given that objectors could probably sue BANES for publishing inaccurate minutes, I look forward to a more formal criticism of the council if ¿Betweenthelines¿ assertion about the 20th May meeting is accurate. In the meantime, I see from the planning dept¿s report in advance of the 5th August meeting that there are a number of strong recommendations to the council Members that they focus on the issues, not the emotive side of the argument. Which of course is my point.
In the article above, Response2Route only object in terms of local impact. No long-term thinking at all. Indeed if you look at the objections (they are all published) there are some interesting requests for 2.5m high walls and so on. Nicely selfish, and not at all green.
¿Betweenthelines¿ ¿ I enjoyed reading your opening statement ¿Graeme your ideas on the debate are now clear¿. What am I, the enemy!? I¿m asking a few questions to the naysayers, and I don¿t see many responses that are anything other than short-term nimbyism. Park & ride benefits those from outside a city in terms of access to the centre, those in the centre with reduced pollution, and those along main arterial roads with reduced traffic. We all benefit with consequent economic growth to give us a vibrant city. Show me how the BRT won¿t provide this ¿ with expert analysis, informed opinion, and logical argument.”
by Newbridge Matters!, Bath
Saturday, August 01 2009, 11:44AM
“Graeme - Funny you should mention the WSP Report. Even if one takes its content at face value, B&NES' interpretation of the document is way out of kilter. The report looks at twelve alternative sites for an extended P&R at Newbridge. NONE of these options refer to the location put forward in B&NES' planning application.
Isn't this worth questioning?
If you go to www.newbridgematters.blogspot.com you'll be able to read more.”