Decision details

To make the trial schemes permanent.

In making this decision, the Cabinet Members have reviewed the recommended mitigations detailed in paras 3.10-3.12 of the SMD report. However, irrespective of whether or not the potential mitigations are introduced, the Cabinet Members’ decision is that the schemes will be made permanent.

The Cabinet Members confirm delegation on progressing any potential mitigations to the Director of Place Management.

The Cabinet Members support making the scheme permanent as soon as possible. This will be reflected within the formal statutory Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) decision-making process, noting that the final sign-off is via a delegated decision made by the Director of Place Management within which the Cabinet Member and ward members will have the opportunity to give formal comment.

The Cabinet members agree when noting and taking account of, as part of this decision, the information provided in Single Member Decision (SMD) E3667 together with the appendices and links in the report relating to:

(1)  public consultation responses

(2)  key stakeholder engagement including that with The Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) and Active Travel England (ATE)

(3)  traffic, air quality, and driver behaviour monitoring

(4)  the Public Sector Equality duty

(5)  duties under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and section 16 Traffic Management Act 2004 to secure the expeditious, convenient, and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians).

(6)  Recommended potential mitigations (detailed in paras 3.10-3.12) subject to their own individual statutory consultations and final decision on those potential mitigations

That the aim of the scheme, in line with the wider Liveable Neighbourhoods programme, is to support the local neighbourhood, enable more local trips by active travel (walking, wheeling, cycling) and to address excessive traffic on residential roads - often used as shortcuts to and from the A46/M4 north of Bath City Centre - by encouraging through traffic to remain on the main roads.

Key conclusions from the trials informing this decision to make the trials permanent are outlined below.

1.  Public Consultation Outcomes

·  The results of a six-month public consultation survey held from November 2024 to April 2025, and with the trials in place, were:

·  Winifred’s Lane: Out of 1,289 responses, 84% were in objection and 16% were in support. Support was higher among residents living in the trial area (26%) than those living outside (9%).

·  Catharine Place: Out of 50 responses, 62% were in objection and 34% were in support. Support was similar inside and outside the trial area.

·  Gay Street/The Circus: Out of 157 responses, 60% were in objection and 37% were in support. Support was significantly higher among residents living in the trial area (71%) than those living outside it (31%).

·  Supporters were more likely to walk or cycle, while objectors predominantly used motor vehicles.

·  Objectors were more likely to use motor vehicles and be travelling through the area.

·  A wide spectrum of views was submitted. People who supported the trials felt that the restrictions have had a positive impact on roads previously affected by motorists taking short cuts, and that it was quieter and safer to walk and cycle as a result.

·  People who objected mainly felt that traffic and congestion had increased elsewhere, especially on Sion Road, where more cars were passing the rear exit from Kingswood School, making the area more congested and less safe. Other key themes in objection were that the restrictions only benefited a few people while they inconvenienced many; and that they increased journey times on other routes making air quality worse.

·  Supporters and objectors also highlighted that drivers were ignoring the restrictions and displaying poor driver-behaviour.

·  Significant evidence and data on the impact of the trials on traffic, air quality and driver-behaviour was provided by council officers in the SMD report so that public consultation outcomes could be weighed up against the monitoring data and wider policy objectives.

·  It is acknowledged that there are some areas of concern that may be mitigated, including congestion on Sion Road due to the displacement of northbound vehicles from Winifred’s Lane. This congestion is primarily during term time at school pick-up and drop- off. More information on the potential mitigations proposed are outlined in Section 3.

·  Also acknowledged, and evidenced by traffic monitoring, is the non- compliance with the new turning restrictions at Winifred’s Lane into Sion Hill (East) and with the new restrictions on motor vehicles exiting Upper Gay Street. As a potential mitigation, it is proposed that ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) enforcement is introduced at these junctions following the necessary statutory consultation requirements. More information is provided in Section 3.

·  While the levels of objection are high, the evidence collected (and covered in in more detail in later sections of this decision notice) suggests that in some cases objectors have overstated the potential harm of the scheme in their responses and that, overall, the three trials have been successful in meeting the objectives of a Liveable Neighbourhood. In support of this, the following is noted in summary (and outlined in more detail in the original Single Member Decision reports and following sections):

·  There was an overall reduction in traffic volume across all roads in the three trial areas across all five in-trial monitoring periods.

·  Traffic has dispersed over a wider area.

·  The volume of vehicles using the junctions of Cavendish Road/Winifred’s Lane and Gay Street/A4 George Street has reduced.

·  Monitoring has not demonstrated a detrimental impact on air quality overall when compared with baseline data.

·  There has been an uplift in active travel in Winifred’s Lane and

Gay Street, and levels remain constant in Catharine Place.

·  The reductions of traffic across the trial area and the creation of quieter active travel routes are offering more travel choice to benefit those who do not have vehicles or who choose to walk and cycle.

·  During weekday-peak travel periods, increases in average travel times were minimal (up to 20 seconds more compared with baseline). During off-peak travel times, journeys were no more than eight seconds longer.

·  Reasonable access to premises on the trial streets is maintained, albeit some residents may have to take a different route.

·  For more information on public consultation outcomes see Annex A, B and C: Public Consultation Reports attached to the Single Member Decision Report.

2.  Active Travel outcomes

·  One of the aims of the Liveable Neighbourhoods programme is to help more people make short journeys by walking, wheeling, or cycling.

·  Active travel can improve people’s lives by contributing to better health and wellbeing. By reducing through traffic on unsuitable residential roads the schemes make active travel more appealing.

·  The trials support public health and sustainable transport goals and provide fair road space for those who don’t drive or can’t afford a vehicle. In these ways they support the council’s corporate strategy to improve people’s lives and reduce inequalities.

·  Looking at the active-travel monitoring data collected during five periods of in-trial monitoring, the following was noted and has informed the decision:

·  Active travel data collected during the trial confirms that the through-traffic restrictions have encouraged more people to use the routes for walking and cycling.

·  On Winifred’s Lane, the average number of people walking and cycling each day was higher than baseline during all five in-trial periods, with 65-75 more people travelling actively on the lane each day (85-185% uplift).

·  On Upper Gay Street, cycling was monitored. During baseline, 77 cyclists a day (on average) were recorded. More cyclists were recorded each day (on average) during each of the five in-trial periods (108, 89, 99, 87, 81 respectively).

·  It is acknowledged that Catharine Place saw fewer people walking than recorded during baseline monitoring. However, cycling remained constant or slightly up against baseline.

·  It is acknowledged that these initial results are good and show the trials have encouraged and enabled active travel. This is a desired outcome aligned with council policy.

·  For more information on active travel outcomes see Annex D: Traffic Monitoring Analysis Report attached to the Single Member Decision Report.

3.  Traffic monitoring outcomes

·  During earlier consultation, residents said they were concerned about motorists avoiding the main roads and instead using residential streets in the area to travel to and from the A46/M4. This included using upper Gay Street and The Circus area via Queen’s Square; and Cavendish Road into Winifred’s Lane. Winifred’s Lane is inappropriate for traffic and a lane where traffic speeds went unhindered due to a northbound one-way system.

·  It is noted from the report that the three linked trials have inhibited these direct short cuts, with minimal increases to traffic flow and travel times on the alternative routes. There are manageable exceptions where potential mitigations may help.

·  One exception where potential mitigations may help is Sion Road. Traffic monitoring and public feedback indicated increased traffic flows and congestion on Sion Road due to the Winifred’s Lane trial during the school run. Sion Road carried around 1,022 vehicles a day, on average, during baseline monitoring. During the trial, average daily traffic flow during term time increased by 87 to 115% (representing around 887 to 1174 more vehicles a day).

·  The SMD Report recommends that a revised parking scheme would allow for more visibility around the exit to Kingswood School and more passing spaces to reduce congestion. Other measures will also be considered under the Local Active Travel Scheme, and the council can work with the school to encourage more sustainable and active travel among its community, including staff. Footways on Sion Road lead to the School’s rear entrance.

·  Poor driver behaviour on Sion Road has been noted. Some users are not driving safely, and we will continue to work with the police to consider enforcement for any offences and provide evidence if necessary. The levels of congestion are not so significant that the highway (by design) is flawed, and most congestion is limited to school drop-off and pick-up times. Motorists are responsible for driving in accordance with license requirements and for adhering to the Highway Code.

·  Another exception where potential mitigations may help is non- compliance with some of the new restrictions, including:

·  The no-right-turn at the junction of Cavendish Road and Sion Hill (East)

·  The mandatory left-hand turn from Upper Gay Street into George Street

·  The non-entry signs at the northern end of Winifred’s Lane (by cyclists).

·  Potential mitigations put forward in the SMD report which include ANPR cameras installed at the Cavendish Road/Sion Hill junction and the Upper Gay Street/George Street junctions will support compliance and inhibit poor driver behaviour. The introduction of ANPR cameras is subject to the necessary statutory consultation procedures and the final decision following that consultation.

·  A review of signage at the northern end of Winifred’s Lane will reinforce the no-entry for motor vehicles and cyclists, and this can be monitored.

·  With reference to the Traffic Monitoring report, the following is noted and has contributed to this decision:

·  Winifred’s Lane carried an average of 1,303 vehicles a day before the trial. This is a narrow lane with no footway and vehicle speeds went unhindered due to the northbound one-way system. During the trial, traffic here reduced by 99-100%.

·  Cavendish Road, which fed vehicles into Winifred’s Lane, carried 3,248 vehicles a day during baseline monitoring. This fell by 16-25% during the trial’s term time monitoring (up to 729 fewer vehicles) and by up to 41% during the school holiday weeks.

·  The Cavendish Road/Winifred’s Lane/Sion Hill junction saw fewer vehicles during each of the trial periods compared with baseline counts.

·  Catharine Place carried 392 vehicles during baseline, supporting short cuts by drivers through the historic centre of Bath. Traffic here has reduced by 94-99%. Nearby Crescent Lane saw a 32 to 27% reduction, and Russell Street up to 60% reduction. However, Rivers Street saw up to 65 more vehicles a day, on average.

·  The restrictions on Gay Street and The Circus saw reductions in vehicles using this busy junction during each of the five in- trial periods.

·  Bennett Street (east of The Circus) carried 2,839 vehicles a day during baseline monitoring. It saw the greatest absolute reduction in traffic flows (between 1,484 and 1,755 fewer vehicles a day) which is a 66% reduction. Brock Street saw up to 22% fewer vehicles during five in-trial monitoring period.

·  Sion Hill East/Lansdown Crescent carried around 1502 vehicles a day during baseline monitoring and saw 661 to 769 fewer vehicles during the trial’s term-time monitoring periods and even fewer during the school holidays

·  Changes in travel times were minimal on all roads across the study period, with drivers experiencing an average increase of no more than 20 seconds during peak times and no more than eight seconds during off-peak times.

·  It is noted that Julian Road and Morford Street saw more traffic during the trial but that the increases are considered to be within normal variances for the road network. Julian Road is a main road and saw 1-9% more vehicles but also a reduction of vehicles during one of the monitoring periods.  Morford Street carried around 4,040 vehicles a day, on average, before the trial. During the three term- time monitoring periods it carried 9-12% more vehicles (369, 400, 505 respectively) and during the school holiday periods it saw 18% more (730) and 4% (170). There were, however, negligible impacts on air quality in these areas with all locations in the trial area well below the Government’s and the council’s strict limits.

·  Prior to the launch of the trial in November 2024, a Transport Planning Review completed by SLR Consulting on behalf of Heart of Lansdown Conservation Group (HOLCG) was submitted to the Council. On review of this report, officers took the decision that there was no reason not to conduct the trial. The HOLCG also submitted another traffic monitoring report during the trial which had been independently commissioned by themselves. An independent review of this report by the Council is published in Annex H. The review concluded that the analysis undertaken on behalf of HOLCG is limited in scope and scale; it cannot be validated or verified; and makes use of methods that are unrepresentative and inappropriate. On this basis, the analysis should not take precedence over the extensive traffic monitoring undertaken by the Council in determining the outcomes of the trial.

·  For more information on traffic monitoring outcomes see Annex D: Traffic monitoring analysis attached to the Single Member Decision Report.

4.  Air Quality monitoring outcomes

·  The air quality monitoring report provides nitrogen dioxide concentrations in terms of annual nitrogen dioxide concentrations (to align with the Government’s air quality objective of 40 µg/m3) and quarterly results (which are not directly comparable with the annual average objective).

·  25 sites were monitored. All the quarterly results show that the NO2 concentrations at all locations in the trial area are below 40 µg/m3 in 2024 and 2025.

·  It is noted that several sites show improved air quality.

·  It is also noted that during the first two months of the trial, five sites saw small increases against baseline as a quarterly average. The fluctuations are in line with regional trends and are not considered concerning in terms of its impact on health.

·  There are mixed results on Julian Road and Morford Street with small increases against baseline monitoring in some quarters but also improvements in others. The increased levels are small, and readings are well below legal limits.

·  For more information on air quality outcomes see Annex E: Air Quality Report and Annex G Driver Behaviour Analysis, attached to the Single Member Decision Report.

5.  Communications and stakeholder engagement outcomes

·  It is noted that officers conducted extensive communications and stakeholder engagement, outlined in detail in Annex F to the SMD report.

·  This included early engagement and consultation on the introduction of Liveable Neighbourhoods to elicit the types of issues experienced by residents on their streets, and the possible solutions. Engagement was conducted over several years (since 2021) and informed the decision to run the trials in November 2024.

·  During the trial, workshops were delivered by Sustrans (now The Walk, Wheel, and Cycle Trust) with Kingswood School pupils, at the Bath Spa University Campus, and with Curo residents living around Julian Road. Council officers held pop-up events on streets in the area to engage people who might not otherwise engage in consultations. It is noted that while the numbers choosing to engage was small, the comments received were valuable and insightful.

·  During the trial, officers maintained ongoing dialogue with residents and certain stakeholder groups to address their concerns; and the feedback and the evidence submitted by residents (such as videos) was fully considered and informed mitigation measures.

·  Prior to the decision, Cabinet Members and officers met, in person, with resident groups to hear about their experiences of the trials. These groups represented arguments both for and against making the trials permanent.

·  For more information on air quality outcomes see Annex F: Stakeholder Engagement Report attached to the Single Member Decision Report.

6.  Other issues raised and considered prior to the decision

Queries over Winifred’s Lane inclusion in the Movement Strategy.

·  More recently the council has been asked whether the inclusion of Winifred’s Lane within the Council’s Movement Strategy pre-judges the decision on whether the scheme should be made permanent.

·  The Movement Strategy for Bath aligns its active travel routes with those identified in the Active Travel Master Plan. Within this plan, Winifred’s Lane is designated as a quiet active travel route rather than a strategic route.

·  The decision to classify Winifred’s Lane as a quiet route is consistent with the broader objectives of the LN programme, which is to keep through traffic on main roads, disperse local traffic more evenly, and create better walking and cycling routes.

·  The Active Travel Master Plan was adopted in February 2025, however it is continually reviewed and updated. If a road’s status changes, the plan is updated.

·  The inclusion of trial scheme should not therefore be regarded as a predetermination on its future permanence.

·  Quiet routes enable a wider demographic to embrace active travel, addressing concerns from individuals who may feel apprehensive about cycling alongside vehicles on busy roads. Quiet routes are typically traffic-free paths, quiet roads and lanes, bridleways, and greenways, providing a more pleasant and peaceful experience.

Confirmation on whether Winifred’s Lane is required to meet

LTN 1/20 guidance.

·  Officers have been engaging with a residents’ group on whether the Winifred’s Road scheme should meet LTN 1/20 guidelines with regards to gradients. LTN 1/20 (Local Transport Note 1/20) is the UK Department for Transport guidance, published in July 2020, for creating high-quality, safe cycle infrastructure design.

·  It should be noted that the scheme is primarily a through-traffic restriction on an existing lane, which has created a quiet route for active travel. It is not an official cycle lane or track.

·  LTN 1/20 guidelines acknowledge that it is difficult to alter vertical dimensions on existing routes without major reconstruction (5.9.4) and that cycle routes along existing roads and paths usually must follow the existing gradient (5.9.8).

·  Prior to installation, following engagement with residents, the council made several improvements to the original design to better accommodate cyclists in response to concerns about the gradient.

·  The council has followed the guidance as far as possible and where it needs to.

·  It was recorded during the trial (via traffic monitoring) that some cyclists have ignored the no-entry signs at the top of Winifred’s Lane (southbound). These signs apply to cyclists as well as motor vehicles. Cyclists can only head south on Winifred’s Lane from the junction with Somerset Lane.  As outlined in the SMD report (3.13), a potential mitigation is to review the signage at the northern end of Winifred’s Lane to reinforce that cyclists should not enter at this point. They are free, however, to travel northbound along the length of the lane.

Engagement with Active Travel England

·  Council officers have also consulted and engaged with the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) and Active Travel England (ATE) to receive technical guidance on this trial, and other Liveable Neighbourhood schemes.

·  As part of this engagement, officers attended a Benefits Outcome Panel (BOP) convened by the MCA in February 2025. This is a normal and required process for all City Regional Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) funded projects.

·  At the Panel, it was jointly decided by the MCA and ATE that as the scheme was a trial, it would return to the BOP for endorsement if it was made permanent.

·  As this decision is yet to be made, the scheme has not yet returned to the BOP, however at the request of the BOP, officers have participated in a design surgery with an ATE Inspector where Liveable Neighbourhood schemes were discussed.

Linking of the three trials

·  The three interventions, while independent of each other, have been designed to work together to improve the Lower Lansdown and The Circus area in line with Liveable Neighbourhood objectives.

·  While it’s clear from public consultation feedback that the trial in Winifred’s Lane is less popular than the trial in Catharine Place and Gay Street, they are considered as a package and the decision to make them permanent relates to all three trials.

·  Traffic and air quality monitoring shows that there is less traffic across the LN area, with no detrimental impact on air quality. Potential mitigations as outlined may help to improve congestion on Sion Road as a result of the Winifred’s Lane trial.

Consideration of signage design on Gay Street and claims of reduced footfall on Margarets Buildings

·  Concerns regarding the impact of traffic restriction signs on Gay

Street’s heritage setting have been noted. Subject to this decision notice, these signs and their impact on the heritage setting will be reviewed.

·  Despite concerns raised by businesses about reduced footfall on Margarets Buildings due to the trials, the independent analysis shows a long-term downward trend prior to the trial and a short- term uplift after installation. Decision makers do not consider this a concern.

7.  Concluding comments

·  The decision to approve the scheme is based on clear evidence that the schemes deliver the objectives of the Liveable Neighbourhoods programme: reducing through traffic on unsuitable residential roads and enabling more everyday trips by walking, wheeling, and cycling.

·  The trials addressed long-standing issues with motorists cutting through streets not designed for high volumes of traffic, creating quieter and safer conditions for residents. Monitoring shows significant reductions in traffic on the restricted roads, minimal increases in travel times across the wider network, and air quality that remains well below legal limits.

·  The data also demonstrates that the scheme has encouraged more active travel, with substantial increases in walking and cycling on key routes such as Winifred’s Lane and Upper Gay Street. These outcomes support wider council objectives around improving health, reducing inequalities, and offering fairer access to safe, pleasant streets for people who do not drive or prefer to travel actively.

·  While public consultation showed strong views both for and against, many concerns about major congestion and associated safety issues were not supported by monitoring. At the same time, valid issues, particularly around congestion on Sion Road at school times and noncompliance with new restrictions, have been recognised, with potential mitigations proposed which are subject to statutory consultation and a final decision on those potential mitigations.

·  The potential mitigations include parking changes on Sion Road to improve visibility and flow, additional enforcement measures to support compliance at the junctions, and continued work with Kingswood School to promote more sustainable travel.

·  A letter submitted from the Heart of Lansdown Conservation Group (HOLCG) during the decision-making period has been considered in detail and their points have been addressed as part of the decision-making process, in particular regarding adhering to LTN 1/20 guidance, consulting with Active Travel England, acknowledgement of displacement on Sion Road, driver behaviour/non-compliance and potential mitigations for this; and the inclusion of Winifred’s Lane in the Movement Strategy.

·  Taken together, the monitoring evidence, statutory duties, equalities considerations, and the programme’s wider objectives show that the trials have been successful overall. The benefits outweigh the manageable downsides and align with the council’s policy objectives. Due consideration has also been given to the Equalities Impact Assessment on the scheme, included as an appendix to the SMD Report.

Comments from Cllr Joel Hirst, Cabinet Member for Sustainable Transport Strategy:

“The consultation is interesting. There is clearly a gap between perception and what was evidenced by data, and inputs from objectors seem to overstate the potential harm from the scheme. While stakeholders did not always provide equalities data, it seems the opinions of younger residents under 55 are under-represented.”

“Active travel outcomes are encouraging and supportive of the trial’s objectives. It takes time to embed, but the data is clear that active travel has improved and enabled by the interventions.”

“While traffic volumes overall are reduced, and the objectives have been achieved, the scheme could be enhanced with the adoption of the potential recommended mitigations to reduce the impact on Sion Road during school term times which are subject to a separate statutory procedure. Otherwise, in terms of the overall network, traffic flow and travel times have not been materially impacted. Had we seen a significant impact on air quality this would have been a concern, but this has not materially changed.”

“Officers have gone above and beyond on the quality of communication with residents and stakeholders. There is no doubt that views were heard and presented clearly, and we would like to thank officers for their work and diligent approach. We also appreciate the feedback and interest we’ve received from residents which has brought some important issues to our attention during the trial.

“Significant traffic interventions are controversial, and we expect to hear some strong opinions, especially from those who oppose them. We hear the strong sentiment, but there is clear evidence that this LN has met its objectives. This is why evidence and public feedback needs to be considered together.”

“On balance, we believe the trial was successful in delivering the policy objective. We support the officer recommendations to provide additional mitigations to help manage congestion on Sion Road and to prevent non-compliance with the new turning restrictions.”

Comments from Cllr Manda Rigby, Cabinet Member for Communications and Community:

“The scheme can’t be viewed in isolation from the other elements of the programme. We have engaged and listened to a very wide range of views from many parties and from opposite ends of the spectrum, and we have reflected carefully on the points made.”

“In reaching the decision, we have balanced these competing views with consideration for the overall LN policy, the evidence, and the officer reports. This scheme aligns with the aspirations for the scheme, which is to create routes for walking and cycling and to minimise opportunities for motorists to short cut through residential areas. We saw active travel go up on the trial roads, and we are confident that we’ll see this trend continue as the schemes continue to bed in.”

“It is clear from the monitoring that there has been displacement onto Sion Road, but it’s also clear that the issues with congestion occur at school drop-off and pick-up. It’s good that the school has engaged with us, and we will support them to pursue schemes to encourage staff and families to use alternative modes of transport to get to school.

Given the video evidence we have seen, we are very keen to see those mitigations in place to improve the visibility of drivers exiting the school onto Sion Road.”

“Air quality monitoring showed fluctuations that were in line with regional trends and so not adversely affected by the trials.”

“There was a great effort to engage with all stakeholders, which is important and for which I am grateful. I received many messages from residents myself, which were all read and considered, before being added to officers’ records.”

“I have weighed up the many strong opposing views along with the evidence and monitoring data that was submitted. This scheme has been very widely consulted on and has met the criteria for the LN programme overall. Whilst we know the recommendation to make the scheme permanent will not please everyone, the potential mitigations recommended in the SMD report, which will be subject to their own independent statutory consultation and final decision, will address some of the issues raised in objection, including the congestion on Sion Road during school term times and the noncompliance with the new turning restrictions at the junctions.”

A decision on the permanency or otherwise of the scheme is required to be made within 18 months of the trial becoming operative which was in November 2024.

None, as a decision on the permanency or otherwise of the scheme is required to be made within 18 months of the trial becoming operative.