Agenda item

Pamela Galloway, Save Our 6-7 Buses campaign team addressed the Panel, a copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

‘When we registered to speak here today, we were set to campaign until March.  This is because, in June, we were horrified to hear on good authority, and I quote: “that in light of the many difficult financial decisions facing B&NES Council next year, it was going to be very hard for Councillors to justify continuing to subsidise the 6&7 Buses.”  That was followed by months of repeated statements by the Executive Member and other councillors that no commitment could be made until at least February to continue our bus subsidy. One councillor has recently termed our campaign “scare-mongering”.  What would you have done in our position?  We re-launched the campaign to preserve the vital 30 minute frequency to keep our community vibrant and our elderly from becoming isolated.’

‘It is with great relief that we learned at last week’s Budget Fair, that a “myth was being dispelled” and that bus subsidies would not be cut. Although the Save Our 6-7 Buses campaign team, along with hundreds of residents in our area, suspect that the campaign was crucial in ensuring this, we are very grateful to the Cabinet for relegating the threat to a myth. 

Since the Budget Fair we have had further assurances that the subsidy for our bus service is in the Cabinet’s proposed public transport budget but, as other bus services are affected, this is subject to a Consultation with stakeholders. We, and the members of the community, look forward very much to giving our input to this Consultation.

We also had assurances at the Budget Fair and again since that the cabinet’s proposed public transport budget is not under threat from any Central government cuts that might be announced in Dec.

We would like to thank the councillors and officers who have worked so hard to allocate funds within a limited budget. We realise there are a few hurdles yet to be overcome but we will continue to monitor any new developments and remain alert to any potential threats. Let us hope that the campaign will not have to be revived between now & February, or again in a year’s time.’

The Chairman asked if she had seen the latest consultation document.

Pamela Galloway replied that she had and had emailed Cllr Symonds and Andy Strong to ask for it to be placed on the main consultation area of the website.

Amanda Leon, Radstock Action Group addressed the Panel, a copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

‘The papers for this afternoon’s meeting reflect the difficult situation faced by the council. We appreciate the current financial problems and would like to highlight some of the issues from the point of view of one component town, particularly as we feel that money could be saved by joined-up thinking.

Recently, Radstock has been subject to a very large number of road works, largely to do with water service improvements and resurfacing. At the same time, B&NES has been debating the future of the Victoria Hall, has commissioned a study regarding the future of the railway link to Frome and has put out for consultation the proposals for spending £500,000 in the town. Meanwhile, with the at least temporary collapse of the Core Strategy, there are signs that developers will be taking advantage of the absence of planning overview to be making speculative proposals which could damage the character and long-term future prospects of the whole Somer Valley, particularly Radstock and Midsomer Norton.

There are positive signs – B&NES has finally accepted that many of the pedestrian routes are unsafe and speeding on local roads is a danger to all residents and road users. Funds have been earmarked to make welcome improvements to roads and pavements, though we question why these funds are not coming from Highways as they should. The Radstock and Westfield Economic Development Forum, having started up as a means of consulting local people and businesses about the future economic development of the town, has become a secretive group with very little local presence but B&NES wants to give it £100,000 of our money, without any public statements of what it is for.

Parking has become ever more difficult, bus services are expensive and of diminishing reliability, thus ensuring that more and more people either can’t go out at all or use their cars to get to work.

We suggest that the budget could be used far more effectively and money saved, if only B&NES would look at the overall picture. Our overarching concern is that, whatever the intentions of the major Resource Plan you are considering today, plus the bus tender issues, on the ground there is a total lack of joined up thinking. And it is places like Radstock which experience the ensuing chaos and uncertainty.

Finally, we welcome the intention to save library services and are currently looking with interest at the proposal to move the Radstock library to the restored Victoria Hall. We also welcome the commitment to the Victoria Hall, and the support that has been given to Youth Services in the past year and we request that this spirit of listening is cultivated and that the council enters into a more regular and structured dialogue with people in Radstock to ensure joined up thinking is introduced.’

George Bailey had submitted a number of questions to the Panel that had been given a written response, a copy of these can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book.

The Chairman asked if he wanted any further clarification on the answers he had received.

George Bailey asked what future road works were planned that warranted the movement of the Oak Tree.

The Divisional Director for Planning and Transport replied that a scheme of road improvements had been agreed by the Cabinet, subject to planning permission. He added that the main reason for proposing to move the tree was that it is not thriving in its current position and that to move it in the timescales proposed gave it the best chance of survival.

Councillor Brian Webber addressed the Panel, a copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

‘On 8 October 2012 the Panel received a presentation on the Council’s parking strategy and the recent survey of residents’ views on the controlled parking zones in Bath.  The Panel asked for an update in May 2013.

Members commented on the presentation, but the Panel did not really give the officer a clear menu of issues for consideration, analysis and report back.  I would like to suggest the following and invite the Panel to endorse them and remit them to officers for consideration.

The overarching strategy of encouraging people to visit Bath while reducing the need to travel into the city centre by car is obviously right.  The work to identify an acceptable site for a Park and Ride to the east of the city and the enlargement of the existing Park and Ride sites need to be progressed with maximum vigour.  The forecasts of the supply of/demand for Park and Ride spaces are presumably kept under review.  Has there been any change from the forecasts in the February 2012 draft Parking Strategy? It is frequently complained that it is cheaper for a car with a full load of passengers (eg a family) to park in the city centre than to use the Park and Ride.  Is the balance of charges right?  If not, are any changes envisaged and what would be the financial implications for the Council?’

‘Is it the Council’s view that the primary purpose of the public highway is the safe and convenient movement of traffic, and that the use of the public highway for parking vehicles is a privilege and not a right?  There are a number of ostensibly 2-way streets in Bath (and possibly other towns), which are reduced to single-lane carriageways without passing places because vehicles are parked solidly on both sides of the street (especially in the evenings).  Has the Council a systematic plan for dealing with this problem by introducing into these streets double yellow lines at appropriate intervals, and, if so, has this been factored into the estimates of on-street parking capacity?

The parking zones have been created piecemeal and vary in size, times of operation, balance of supply and demand.  The northern mainly residential part of the Central Zone (‘Lower Lansdown’) was privileged to be included when that was the only Zone, but it is now disadvantaged because it is surrounded by new Zones in which Central Zone residents can no longer seek spaces.  Elsewhere, some residents have been left without any on-street parking marooned in isolated ‘pockets’ between Zones.

The Zone boundaries need to be reviewed.  Ideally, Zone boundaries should be natural;  have few entry points (in order to minimise signage); be large enough to give residents a wide choice of streets in which to park, but small enough to enable residents to park reasonably near their homes; and have broadly the same ratio of permit holders to spaces. 

Could residents of the Central Zone, who are not entitled at present to purchase visitor permits because of the shortage of on-street parking spaces, be permitted to purchase visitor permits exercisable in adjacent Zones?

There may be other aspects of controlled parking zones, which Panel members feel should be examined.’

The Chairman asked if he would like his statement to be submitted to the Cabinet Member for Transport.

Councillor Webber replied that he would.

David Redgewell addressed the Panel. He stated that he was concerned that the Council may be missing out on opportunities regarding the railway and that he was also surprised at the lack of the mention of the Greater Bristol Bus Network within the Medium Term Service & Resource Plan (MTSRP).

He said that the Council had been encouraged by Government Ministers to work closely with Somerset and Wiltshire yet he could find no evidence of that within the MTSRP. He added that cross boundary working was essential.

He also questioned when a report on matters concerning the West of England / Joint Scrutiny suggested by former Councillor Malcolm Hanney would be delivered to the Panel. 

The Divisional Director for Planning and Transport replied that the MTSRP was an overarching budget led report and did not go down into the level of detail specified by Mr Redgewell. He added that he would be happy to supply a further report if required.

He also stated that the Council is well placed for its future plans and that the Department for Transport has acknowledged that we have raised our game over the past few years.

The Chairman thanked all of the speakers for their contributions.