A question of transport – readers have say on city's plans

By trodaway

I attended the B&NES overview and scrutiny panel on September 25 at which I was appalled by the actions of four councillors during the discussion on the 'Bath Package'.

The panel, who met on the morning of September 9, heard (among other claims) that:

Monstrous cost discrepancies allegedly exist regarding the proposed east of Bath park-and-ride;

Many instances of statements made by officers were claimed to be totally inaccurate (by the Highways Agency and traffic consultants);

The council's preferred site had been rejected by the last definitive survey in 2004.

Given the above, any process of proper 'overview and scrutiny' would conclude that these matters need to be investigated before proceeding to spend more tax payers' money.

Clearly, resources must be provided to enable officers to properly investigate the disagreements.

Faced with a motion to proceed in this manner, the four Conservative councillors duly voted (en bloc) to defeat it.

This leads me to ask 'what is the purpose of overview and scrutiny' without the scrutiny'?

Unless the council rejects such tactics and begins to properly and maturely engage residents in their planning process, I fear that the next Spa project looms.

How often did the council have the opportunity to question the Spa project?

How many times were councillors so arrogantly confirmed in their minority view that they failed to heed the warnings? And how much council tax is needed now due to their incompetence?

Could the Bath Package for transport be the next Bath Spa?

STEVE MACKERNESS Church Street Bathford, Bath

The seven members of B&NES 'safer and stronger' overview and scrutiny panel spent four hours listening to a variety of concerns last week (including those from our MP) about the Bath Transport Package.

The western section of the rapid transit route (costing £9 million to save TWO minutes travel time), the expanded and new park-and-ride sites proposed in green belt and the complete failure to consider railways were all brought up.

This meeting was chaired with great fairness and understanding for all, including those unused to public speaking. Such chairmanship contrasted strongly with that of some other recent council meetings so full marks for that.

A reasonable motion was suggested seeking further informed studies (including that of a circular route), a possible independent review and increased resources to help officers and improve outcomes.

Unfortunately, this was opposed by the block voting of four Conservative councillors. One of the latter lamented our quest for 'Utopia' and was fearful that the transport package 'would lose momentum'.

So much for scrutiny!

D DUNLOP Kensington Place, Bath

With all the congestion in the city, could they not have a park-and-ride sited next to the rail line at both the Batheaston bypass and the dual carriageway at Newbridge, with a slipway from the mainline that could run between both sites and stop at Bath Spa?

ROB HYDE Charlton Road Keynsham

If the old railway track at Weston was a horse, they would have shot it by now.

For goodness sake, who was responsible for allowing the Wessex sewerage system to be laid there when the 2003 Local Plan Deposit Draft specifically said the use of the old railway line had to be safeguarded?

Now, because of the BRT, the Wessex pipes are to be ripped up and laid deeper. Who meets the cost, the Wessex customer or the B&NES council tax payer?

Cllr Haeberling, it's time this BRT nonsense was laid to rest.

The notion that the bus Rapid Transit is a 'rapid' bus is a false one. Are they actually telling us these unwieldy bendy buses are going to have carte blanche to break the speed limit? Because with very limited 'clear' ways, how on earth can they claim the BRT is going to be fast through the snarl-up of central Bath?

Cllr Haeberling is like some blushing bride in her reluctance to say how bus lanes will operate in town. The councillor though is rather hampered in this by her planners' criteria of how wide roads must be and, as the wide Newbridge Road is ruled out, this automatically rules out Manvers Street and Walcot Street. So, where do the buses go?

PETER BURNS Avon Park Lower Weston, Bath

I attended the B&NES overview and scrutiny panel meeting last week and will long remember how four councillors failed completely in their obligations to properly scrutinise key aspects of the Bath Package, including the council-preferred park-and-ride on Bathampton Meadows.

Presented to the public as a new idea this park-and-ride is, in fact, an old, discredited idea.

I was dismayed therefore when these councillors chose to ignore the irrefutable, factual evidence of the rejection by the 2004 Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study which had been commissioned by Government Office South West.

This report stated that:

"A large adverse impact on the landscape can be expected . . . the site would be very visually prominent . . . it would require extensive mitigation measures that are likely to affect the character of the local area."

"The results for the traffic reductions indicate that this park-and-ride can be rejected on grounds of impact on the local environment and only marginal incremental benefits for traffic reduction."

"It will be very environmentally damaging to the green belt and likely to impact on biodiversity and natural water resources through surface run-off."

"It is therefore recommended that it should not be progressed."

Why, when this major study co-sponsored and co-steered by B&NES rejected the A4 (Batheaston) park-and-ride, is B&NES now proposing it?

And why did the four members of the scrutiny panel decide that the proposal did not merit proper scrutiny?

DAVID BATHO Claverton Village Bath