Meeting documents

1 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the Panel Members and officers present.

The Panel agreed to a request for photographs to be taken at the beginning of the meeting for publication in the Bath Chronicle newspaper.

2 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

The Chair drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on the Agenda.

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

At the request of a Panel Member the Democratic Services Operational Manager confirmed the position relating to Panel Members who had subscribed to the Call-In which was that there was no difficulty about them doing so on the basis that they were able to give the Call-In request a fair hearing.

4 TO ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIR(PERSON)

There was none.

5 ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC OR COUNCILLORS - TO RECEIVE DEPUTATIONS, STATEMENTS, PETITIONS OR QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THIS MEETING

Members of the Panel were informed that there would be 7 Public Speakers. The Chair advised the Panel that he had received a copy of a letter from Don Foster MP enclosing a constituent`s letter and referring to several similar letters he had received on the subject of the A36/A46 link. Copies of the statements and the Edinburgh Council leaflet regarding Congestion Charges referred to by Major Crombie are retained on the minute book in Democratic Services.

Rae Harris - Living Streets made a statement where he asked Members of the Panel to consider carefully the original aims of the Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study and the Study's recommendations for protecting the World Heritage Site of Bath. He felt that the Council Executive decision on 30^th June 2004 was a reasonable interpretation of the Study's recommendations but omitted some of the Government Office for the South West's additional proposals for discouraging traffic in Bath and asked that the call-in review should ask for these to be examined further as a means towards improving the centre of Bath for pedestrians.

Chris Benson - Bath Friends of Earth made a statement where Bath Friends of the Earth supported the call-in to ensure that priority be given to those aspects of the appraisal work which could well prove that an A36/A46 link road is unnecessary and/or would be ineffective in solving road congestion and pollution associated with through-traffic.

Tony Crombie - Bath Society made a statement where he indicated that he did not understand why the Council would spend £400,000 on a feasibility study for an A36/A46 link road. He suggested that instead efforts be made to identify other measures to address traffic problems in and around Bath e.g. a congestion charge such as Edinburgh was introducing and circulated copies of their leaflet to Panel Members.

Adrian Kennedy - Brave2 Group made a statement where Brave2 Group supported Councillor Gitte Dawson's call to see that the Council Executive spent the money sensibly and retained direct control of the process rather than spend yet more large sums of tax payers money over the coming months on a link road that will not resolve the congestion problems of Bath.

Prabir Nandi made a statement where he agreed with the previous speakers and supported the call made by Councillor Gitte Dawson. He expressed concern that a large amount of the money on the feasibility study would be spent on the A36/A46 link road despite its decisive rejection following the Public Inquiry in 1990.

Robert Marshall - Campaign for the Protection of Rural England made a statement where he urged Members of the Panel not to waste any more money upon a lost cause. He said that this link road was rejected 10/12 years ago because it was judged to be environmentally bad.

David Redgewell - Transport 2000 made a statement which regretted the proposed call-in of the Executive decision to proceed with an in-depth investigation of the traffic problems within, around and across the City because it would delay the process for preparing the co-ordinated Local Transport Plan submission in 2005. It was important that this work ran concurrently with the Greater Bristol Bath Strategic Transport Study.

6 DETERMINATION OF CALL-IN REQUEST: BRISTOL/BATH TO SOUTH COAST STUDY (Report 7)

The Panel considered the report on the call-in issued with the agenda for this meeting and supplementary information brought together since the agenda was prepared including Appendix 5 of report 7. This Appendix set out proposals for examining the call-in request prepared in consultation with the Chair including requesting the Executive Member and the technical officers; Councillor Dawson on behalf of the call-in signatories; and Mr Robert Murphy, Wiltshire County Council Engineering Service to make statements and answer questions from the Panel. The supplementary information included written statements from these contributors and also from the Joint Strategic Planning and Transportation Technical Unit.

The Chair drew the Panel`s attention to the additional information provided and the proposed Terms of Reference for the Call-In. He asked the Panel if the latter was acceptable.

Members then debated whether to proceed to a review of the call-in request as set out in the Appendix or whether they felt able, in the light of the information already received and the public submissions heard, to make a decision at this point in the meeting.

Following further exploration Panel Members indicated that they wished to take a vote on whether to proceed or to determine the call-in at this point.

The Chair indicated that, if Members felt inclined to make a decision without hearing the contributions, he would ask Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, Executive Member for Highways and Transport and Councillor Gitte Dawson to make brief statements in support of their positions on this matter and they did so.

On a motion from Councillor Caroline Roberts, seconded by Councillor Ruth Griffiths it was RESOLVED that:

(1) That verbal and written statements from the public speakers be noted and;

(2) That the Panel proceed to a review of this Call-In as proposed in Appendix 5 of the report circulated.

Members voted as follows:

Voting - 4 for dismissal of the Call-In request at this stage and 3 against the dismissal of the Call-In request now because they wanted it to proceed to review.

Councillors David Hawkins, Steve Willcox, Chris Cray and Peter Edwards voted for the dismissal of the Call-In request.

Councillors Peter Metcalfe, Ruth Griffiths and Caroline Roberts voted against the dismissal of the Call-In request.

The Chair asked each Councillor to give a brief explanation of why they had voted as they had done and they did so as follows.

Councillor David Hawkins said that it seemed clear for him where the money (£400,000) would be spent and that it was necessary to undertake the feasibility study. The officer statement of 21^st July included with the supplementary information gave a further breakdown as to how it would be spent and in his view that was a reasonable explanation. The statement from Transport 2000 had focused his mind on the relevant issues. He supported dismissing the call-in. He considered that he had sufficient information on which to make a decision at this point without the need for a further investigation.

Councillor Steve Willcox agreed with Councillor Hawkins. Of the 7 Executive Members 6 had voted in favour and agreed how the money should be spent. He could see no point in proceeding to investigate further or referring this back to the Executive. He considered that he had sufficient information on which to make a decision at this point.

Councillor Chris Cray said that the Panel was here today to discuss how the £400,000 for the feasibility study would be spent. A number of members of the public who had spoken were touching on different issues about the A36/A46 road link which would need to be looked at separately at a later stage. The Council had no alternative under Government rules but to undertake this study. The money was put into budgets last year so Councillors unhappy about it had plenty of time to question how it would be spent and they should have asked these fundamental questions at an earlier stage. He was happy with the information provided by officers about how the money would be spent and he considered that he had sufficient information on which to make a decision at this point without the need for any further investigation.

Councillor Peter Edwards said that he agreed with Councillors Hawkins, Willcox and Cray that the £400,000 would be spent correctly. It was a reasonable sum to undertake a study of the total package of potential measures. He considered that he had sufficient information on which to make a decision at this point.

Councillor Caroline Roberts pointed out that the Council Executive did not specify exactly how the £400,000 would be spent and that was the point of the call-in. She was one of the few Councillors present to have attended both the Council Executive meeting on 30^th June and the informal briefing arranged by officers about the Study. She expressed her disappointment that the Call-In would not proceed to a review as proposed in Appendix 5 as she would have liked Members to look more closely into how the money was to be spent.

Councillor Ruth Griffiths said that she wanted this Panel to hear the Call-In as proposed in Appendix 5. She agreed with Councillor Roberts that the Council Executive did not specify in any detail how the £400,000 would be spent. She asked for the Panel's split decision to be recorded in the notes.

Councillor Peter Metcalfe noted with interest that a number of Panel Members considered that the supplementary information gave them enough basis to reach a decision on the Call-In request at this point. He welcomed the extra information which had been provided and agreed that it had added significantly to the understanding of these issues for future evaluation. However, he would have liked the Panel to proceed to investigate further and especially to hear from the Wiltshire County Council Engineering Service representative to whom he was grateful for attending today's meeting to assist the Panel if required.

In addition to this summary report, the submissions provided to the Panel are available as a full record of this Call-in Request:

Papers and supporting information circulated at public panel meeting on 26^th July 2004 and the public statements made at 26^th July 2004 meeting

Copies of these items are available from the Democratic Services Team, Riverside, Keynsham, Tel: (01225) 394360