Decision making process

The following information that have been drawn out of the large amount of committee reports and supporting studies are those that related specifically to this project. It should be noted that many other projects were under way at the same time that impacted on the city centre - including the revision of city centre signing, Milsom Street enhancement; extension of the resident's parking scheme; and extension of the UTMC programme

1. Traffic and Environmental Study for Bath City Centre - 1989/90

1.1 In 1989 Transport Planning Associates were commissioned to carry out a Traffic and Environmental Study for Bath City Centre. This was considered by Bath City Council's Environment Committee and Avon County Council's Planning, Highways and Transport Committee on May 1990. The final report, which included the proposal to restrict north-south movements between George Street and North Parade in the Guildhall area, was accepted by the two councils as a basis for consultation in September that year.

1.2 The results of that consultation exercise was considered by the two councils in July 1991 and some elements of the proposals progressed further at that time and through to the creation of the unitary authority in 1996.

2. City of Bath a Sustainable, Prosperous and Accessible Heritage City:

2.1 The City Centre Working Party was established by the Transportation sub-committee on 10^th March 1997 and included representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and Federation of Bath Residents Associations along with Council Officers and elected members.

2.2 A stakeholder consultation exercise consisting of a series of presentation was carried out between 18^th July and 26^th September 1997. The organisations involved represented Commercial Transport, Environmental Interests and Heritage groups and included the Chamber of Commerce. There was general agreement on a number issues including the need to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport and eliminate cross city centre traffic. The concept of organising access to City Centre by a series of `access cells' was also supported.

2.3 An exhibition of the draft report was held at the Guildhall between 24^th October and 20^th November 1997 along with presentations to individuals and groups on 7^th and 13^th November 1997.

2.4 The feedback was used to develop a shared vision for the future of the City of Bath as a Sustainable, Prosperous and Accessible Heritage City where:

3. City Centre Programme 1998-99

3.1 At its meeting of 9^th June 1998 Transportation sub committee endorsed a programme of activities relating to the City Centre including the investigation of options for Pulteney Bridge/Guildhall areas and the development of access cells.

3.2 On 20^th October 1998 a series of proposals were adopted as a priority for 1998-99 which included:

3.3 Informal consultation had already taken place on the principles of the strategy with key interest groups and through the City Centre Working Party. The Police, Emergency Services and public transport operators had also been involved however no formal consultation had taken place at that time.

3.4 On 12^th January 1999 Transportation sub-committee received a report on the consultation exercise which took place to evaluate the level of support for the programme and elicit observations about specific elements of the scheme. An exhibition had been mounted at various locations and a brochure widely distributed. Additionally local and national interest groups were urged to make use of the opportunity of an individual presentation. Generally more responses were received in favour of the scheme than against. There were a number of reservations raised and areas of concern including that:

3.5 At that meeting, the committee adopted a three-year implementation programme for the City centre, which included:

3.6 Members also, in light of the outcome of the consultation exercise, required that an assessment of the implications of reduced City Centre traffic levels resulting from the installation of bus gates, for air quality, economic performance, displaced traffic, environmental improvements, access, public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. This would be carried out through a series of case studies of typical user groups in the city centre, and together with the traffic studies, would give a more comprehensive picture of the value of the bus gates to central Bath.

3.7 Members confirmed that:

4. Northgate Busgate Impact Assessment

4.1 At the meeting of the Transportation Sub committee on 5^th October 1999 the interim report on the Northgate Busgate Impact Assessment was received. The sub committee resolved to note the report and to defer a decision on the implementation of the bus gate until the results of the public consultation exercise and the impact assessment were reported to the PT&E committee.

4.2 At its 20^th April 2000 meeting the PT&E committee received a major report on the Busgate including the progress of the Impact Assessment which it resolved to note and directed that the report to be presented on 15^th June 2000 should include:

4.3 The Impact Assessment consisted of:

5. Priority Access Point - In Principle Decision

5.1 At the meeting of a special PT&E committee of 15^th June 2000 members considered a report regarding the Impact Assessment and the options available for making an `in principle' decision. The committee was advised that the objectives for traffic reduction in the City Centre could be achieved by the introduction of a single priority access point in Northgate Street and to agree to remove the Manvers Street priority access point from consideration.

5.2 The options debated were as follows:

5.3 It was resolved that the matter be unresolved and be referred to the next ordinary meeting of the Council for decision.

5.4 At the 20^th July 2000 meeting of Full Council the report referred from the Special PT&E on 15^th June 2000 was considered and the Council resolved that:.

6. Details of the Priority Access Point Decided

6.1 At the meeting on 21^st September 2000 PT&E Committee agreed the categories of vehicles that would be permitted to pass through the priority access point, the hours of operation and associated traffic management measures and agreed the monitoring process. The issue of private (tour) coaches being allowed through was also considered.

6.2 Categories of vehicles allowed to pass through the access point:

6.3 PT&E committee on 29^th March 2001 considered representations made to amend the experimental order due to come into place on 30^th March 2001 to allow coach access through the priority access point. This request was rejected.

6.4 Three alternatives for the hours of operation of the restriction were considered:

6.5 The 24 hour restriction, operating 7 day a week, was favoured by the police and other emergency services as being easier for drivers to remember and more straightforward to police. However this was considered to be unnecessarily limiting for those using the city centre outside the peak travel hours although recognising that it would go further in fulfilling traffic reduction targets.

6.6 Traders groups preferred the minimum option covering the commuter peak hours with different timings at weekends. The benefit (and drawback) of this option was that the effect would be minimal. The restriction would have covered the main commuter hours but without benefiting pedestrians throughout the city centre during the day. The recommended design of the Northgate area, which was intended to give priority to pedestrians, would have created unacceptable congestion given that the volume of traffic would not have been appreciably reduced and the benefits to public transport would have been limited.

6.7 The middle option was therefore preferred as this offered the optimum restraint in terms of traffic reduction targets by operating at key times of city centre traffic congestion and during the peak pedestrian hours. It was acknowledged that the restrictions placed on some businesses could be regarded as onerous and consideration would be given to the issue of permitted use of the access point to ensure that, whilst legitimate business concerns were addressed, policing of the access point was not compromised.

6.8 The committee also considered the legal requirements and statutory process of introducing the experimental order:

7. Legal Requirements

7.1 Committee was advised that there was no legal requirement to exhibit the detailed design proposals for the scheme prior to making the experimental order as the first six months of the experiment are considered to be the statutory consultation period. The introduction of an experimental priority access point was to be achieved through a `prohibition of driving' Order with specified exemptions for certain vehicles and for vehicles being used under, and in accordance with a written authorisation given by the council. The order is an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order made under Section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

7.2 The grounds for making such an order are set out in Section 1 of the Act. The purpose of introducing the experimental priority access point at Northgate Street was to facilitate the passage of public transport vehicles and pedestrians throughout the city centre, to improve the amenity of the city centre and to improve the overall environmental quality within the city centre.

7.3 An Experimental Traffic Regulation Order can be made without prior advertisement, when the making of the order is authorised the order is then sealed. The order is then advertised within 14 days of sealing and relevant documents placed on public deposit. Not less than seven days after the Notice of Making is publicised, the Experimental Orders become operative.

7.4 After six months the Committee could consider the operation of the experimental order. These six months constitute the objection period during which members of the public can make their objections in writing. After this period the committee was able to decide either to:

7.5 Any variation to the order results in the process beginning again. After 12 months from the start of the Experimental period no more variations or modifications can be made. A revocation order would have been required to end the experiment unless the order is to be allowed to lapse at the end of the 18month period. The order cannot continue beyond 18 months.

7.6 The monitoring process was developed with consultants Savell, Bird and Axon who represented a traders group in the city centre and public transport operators.

7.7 The committee approved in principle the physical layout of the Priority Access Point authorising the Head of Transport Access and Waste Management to finalise all the remaining design details and any other related matters with spokespersons.

8. Associated Traffic Management Measures

8.1 At the Transportation Sub Committee meeting on 5^th December 2000 the making of the experimental traffic orders to reverse traffic flow on Upper Borough Walls was approved.

9. Monitoring Reports

9.1 At the meeting of the PT&E Committee on 20^th September 2001 the first quarters monitoring report was received and noted. An amendment that serious consideration should be given to the ceasing of the experiment was unsuccessful. Officers were requested to investigate and if possible vary the order to allow privately contracted school bus services exemption. Officers were also requested to report back in six months on the feasibility of exempting servicing vehicles.

9.2 At the meeting of the PT&E Committee on 13^th December 2001 the second quarters monitoring report was received and noted. Officers reported on the variation of the Experimental Order to allowing permitted vehicles exemption from the restriction. This had been implemented in order to allow privately contracted school buses services access. Officers also reported on the feasibility of allowing servicing vehicles through the priority access point and were instructed to report back on the possibilities of allowing home food delivery vehicles exemption.

9.3 At the meeting of the PT&E Committee on 31^st January 2001 Committee resolved to allow home food delivery vehicles through the priority access point subject to criteria to be agreed with spokespersons.

9.4 At the meeting of the PT&E Committee on 22^nd April 2002 the third quarters monitoring report was received and approved. It was determined that the fourth and final quarters monitoring report would be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel prior to its consideration by the executive.