Transport 'benefits' dwarfed by environmental and social costs

Trusted article source icon
Friday, June 26, 2009
Profile image for This is Bath

This is Bath

"The city blends harmoniously with the surrounding landscape which has heavily influenced its development throughout history…It is this Roman and Georgian heritage…and the harmony between the city and the landscape that makes Bath internationally important…" (International Council on Monuments and Sites UK).

I think the Bath Transportation Package in general, and the Bathampton Meadows Park and Ride proposal in particular, are a disgrace.

I was at the public meeting on May 20 and heard the most pathetic arguments from councillors supporting the plan to destroy Bathampton Meadows.

A representative from the Federation of Bath Residents' Association, claiming to be speaking "on behalf of the silent majority of Bath" said people in Bath were suffering terribly from air pollution. True, but how could anyone delude themselves that this will help?

Cllr Maybury said that if this plan was not passed in its entirety, Bath would lose £60m of funding. This was seriously meant to carry weight as a justification for pushing through plans whose minimal alleged benefits are dwarfed by the cost – environmental, social and financial.

The implied threat masks the inescapable fact that the level of due diligence, preparation and commitment shown by B&NES in search of viable and sustainable transport solutions falls shamefully short of what is required.

The concept of P&R needs to be rethought in the context of diminishing oil supplies; we would be better off spending the time and money on building sustainable local communities in anticipation of radically changing times to come.

JO SLEE Ashley Road Bathford

Cllr Clarke must only be an irregular reader of the local news to be questioning the view of our MP, Don Foster, on the Bath transport package.

On September 25, 2008, Don is quoted as saying there has been "poor and inadequate consultation over the Bus Rapid Transit scheme" and on November 20 he said "we need to look at alternative routes so that a reasonable decision can be made".

If Cllr Clarke and his Tory colleagues had listened to Mr Foster rather than trying to force the plans through, they wouldn't now have to worry about losing Government money.

DAN HILTON, Lansdown, Bath

Finally the truth is starting to emerge from the council that they will stop at nothing to make sure this traffic plan is passed.

But there are some councillors with integrity and courage to speak out about what has been going on behind the scenes with the ruling cabinet.

Who can we trust now and does this mean the cabinet will do anything to make sure this traffic policy goes through the planning department.

Cllr Haeberling had a lot to say at the beginning of this debate but now things are coming out about the cabinet, where are her comments?

I hope Bath residents learn from this fiasco when it comes to elections.

R MORRIS Bath

I am writing in support of the Save Bathampton Meadows spokeswoman, Cathy Freeman, to say there is another issue with the Bathampton Park and Ride which has not received much airtime.

As my late father would have been keen to point out, the proposed site would mean obstructing three public footpaths and a bridleway.

As far as I'm aware, according to the law, not even the council is allowed to do that or grant planning permission for anyone else to do that.

I'm sure the Ramblers' Association would be happy to have this aspect discussed in the public domain.

SEAN RUSSELL FRIEND Saint Peter's Terrace Bath

On the subject of the A36/A46 link road at Bathampton, Network Rail has already started to make straight the way for restoring Bathampton station in keeping with its original 1857 design and must be furious that B&NES Council was secretly planning to build a great concrete motorway over the top of it.

The Rail and River Templars are unanimously opposed to this and will accept no scheme to endanger Badon Field and its environment.

JOHN AKERS Roundhill Grove Southdown

2
Tweet this article
Report

2 Comments

  • Profile image for This is Bath

    by Peter Streater, Bathwick

    Monday, June 29 2009, 3:09PM

    “Three more reasons to reject B&NES argument that BTP benefits are greater than the costs:

    1 A B&NES Council Planning Committee, concerning flood mitigation measures for the Lambridge application, recorded on 18/01/2006: "the proposal would detract from the openness of the Green Belt and be contrary to Policies NE1, NE12 of the Bath Local Plan and Planning Policy Guidelines 2, and 7 paragraph 15". Without qualified reason or explanation B&NES Council dismissed their own advice when considering the park and ride. Nor is there record of the makers of the decision to develop Mill Lane first seeking any advice as a matter of public record.

    2. The B&NES 2009 planning application, Environmental Statement, states that the scheme directly contravenes Policy BH.1, harming the setting of the World Heritage Site. No meaningful dialogue has been undertaken with ICOMOS or UNESCO on this internationally important World Heritage issue.

    3. Contrary to B&NES claims, the BTP isn't about removing car journeys. It will attract them by doubling park and ride capacity without reducing the number of city centre parking spaces. 860 parking spaces at the soon-to-be-opened SouthGate will further encourage the release of suppressed demand, negating the applicants' objective of "fewer cars travelling in the city centre."”

  • Profile image for This is Bath

    by Anne Ville, Bath

    Friday, June 26 2009, 4:09PM

    “Sean Russell Friend - tell us more about the footpaths and bridleway. Sounds interesting!”

        Add your comments

        max 4000 characters
         
         
         
         
         
         

        Tell us about your area

        Got some interesting news? Write about it and let your whole community know.

          Write an article