Background information

In 2005 the proposals for the Bath Transportation Package (BTP) from Bath and North East Somerset Council (B&NES) were for an east-west city route. Why anyone would want to travel from one car park to another is a mystery; naturally most people want to go into the City centre. The plan then was for an electric tram type arrangement with an expanded Newbridge park and ride south of the river with the existing car park to be used as overspill parking for the hospital, alongside three other park and rides around Bath.

In the intervening years this scheme has changed drastically.

The local paper, the Bath Chronicle, ran an on line survey in November 2008 to gauge opinion on the proposals. They received the largest number of votes ever with 81% against the BTP.

The BTP is now made up of four planning applications:

1. An extended park and ride in Lansdown (north Bath)
2. An extended park and ride in Odd Down (south Bath)
3. A newly created park and ride in Bathampton (east Bath)
4. A two lane road with cycle track and footpath, known as the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and extended park and ride in Newbridge (west Bath).

The planning applications were submitted at the end of January 2009 by B&NES to themselves. There were thousands of objections from local businesses, residents and statutory consultees.

On 20 May 2009 the planning committee (Development Control Committee - DCC) met to consider the applications. It was explained that as the Council was applying to itself for planning permission there could be no appeal if the application was rejected.

The committee approved the first three and deferred the Newbridge section. This was not without controversy as shortly afterwards five Councillors submitted an official complaint that the voting was not democratic and the Secretary of State announced the BRT was under consideration for a public inquiry. The Secretary of State's involvement means that the DCC cannot permit or reject the application it can only show that it is minded to permit or refuse it.

The deferred meeting took place on 8 July 2009. After four and a half hours the DCC voted to refuse the motion that they were minded to permit the application. There were then frantic whisperings and discussions between the Council's legal representative and the Chairman, as well as between members of the committee, and another vote was deemed necessary on the reasons for refusing the motion. Apparently, the belief that this part of the BTP would not meet its targets was not sufficient. This resulted in a tie as one of the Councillors and the Chairman abstained. Seemingly, a third vote followed on a deferral, which was carried.

What a shambles!

This is the official version of what happened:

• application to permit planning (1st vote) : refused
• reasons for refusal (2nd vote) : tied
• deferral on the reasons for referral (3rd vote) : carried

However, the Council are arguing that the deferral refers to the whole application and not just the reasons for refusal, basically overturning the first vote.

We are still in limbo.