Thursday, 20 August 2009

Have your say...

Don Foster MP has written to The Rt. Hon. John Denham MP, the Secretary of State, requesting a public inquiry into the BTP. His letter in full can be found here. The online version of the local paper, The Bath Chronicle, has run a story on this. If you would like to leave a comment on their site, this link will take you directly to the article.

Wednesday, 19 August 2009

Once upon a time...

We have researched instances of misinformation from B&NES Council and its officers. To begin with we looked at the Case Officer's report submitted with the DCC meeting agenda on 5 August 2009, click here and go to page 25 to refer to this.

Rather than post the whole document here, click on this link to view what we discovered. As you will see there are twelve points relating to this one report alone.

Uncomfortable reading.

Saturday, 15 August 2009

How much?

We thought it would be interesting to see how much B&NES Council has spent to date on consultancy fees, surveys and other costs associated with the BTP.

After submitting a FOI request on 1 March 2009 we got some information back on 1 May 2009, click here for the original document. Yes, we don't know what all the items refer to either. However, we do know that this statement is not accurate as in March 2009 the promotional costs ran to six figures.

No reminder is needed that this is tax payers' money being used on a proposal that cannot meet its objectives.

Thursday, 13 August 2009

Teamwork

Last night we attended a meeting with fellow BTP objectors from Response2Route and Save Bathampton Meadows.

The objective was to exchange information and develop a united strategy to run alongside our individual campaigns. We are optimistic that this partnership will strengthen our collective quest; namely, to petition B&NES to reconsider its illogical traffic management proposals and come up with a scheme that will work.

No entry?

While we in the car park this afternoon, we saw a lorry enter the protected field via the padlocked gate, ignoring the sign forbidding entry to motorists. The driver obviously knew the code and conscientiously locked up after he had driven in.

With due recognition of everyone's rights, we wonder why B&NES Council has not moved these travellers to a site which is not an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Nature Reserve, greenbelt land etc. Is the theory that B&NES is deliberately degrading this field fast becoming more fact than conspiracy?

Child's play

Today we visited the Newbridge park and ride to promote our mini online poll (see right) to car park users. Many thanks to everyone who has voted.

Thursday, 6 August 2009

Many hands make light work.

After the disappointment of yesterday's DCC meeting we are putting out a rallying call to prepare for the next round.

We would like to thank all our friends, neighbours and supporters for everything they have done so far. We look forward to a complete victory in the near future.

As the planning application has been referred to the Secretary of State it cannot be approved by the Council at this stage.

For some time now, we have been trying to correct various testimonies that have been made by Councillors in favour of this application and also the content of reports made by the Case Officer, without success.

One example of an incorrect statement made by the Case Officer in his last report to the DCC is to be found on page 27, paragraph 6 which reads as follows:


"As the BRT will run on a dedicated route it will not be delayed by congestion, traffic or other delays."

This is just not true as the park and ride buses will leave and enter the Newbridge park and ride site via the existing Newbridge Road and Brassmill Lane. These roads are used by heavy through traffic from the Industrial Estate and Caravan Park, alongside private residents' vehicles and regular buses. As the BRT will not be a dedicated route it will not accord with Policy T.11 of the Local Plan.

There are many claims that have been made during the period before and after the planning application was registered that are inaccurate and we intend to draw up a detailed list of these statements, and, with your assistance prepare them for submission to GoSW, where the application has been referred. GoSW will make recommendations to the DfT from which any funding will be made, if subsequent final approval is given and the CPOs are implemented.

We see no reason why any Councillor who opposes this scheme should not, if they wish, contribute, and, we would welcome their further help and advice before submitting any documentation.


The battle may have been lost but the war is not yet over.