Agenda item

This report sets out the call-in by 13 Councillors of a Cabinet decision relating to the decision about bus priority measures in Dorchester St, Manvers St and Pierrepoint St, Bath.  The role of the Panel is to consider the issues raised by the call-in and to determine its response.

The Chairman asked the Lead Call-In Member, Councillor Tim Warren to address the Panel.

He stated that he wanted the Panel to send the ill thought out scheme back to the Cabinet to be reconsidered. He claimed that the proposal would cause major harm and disruption and that any easing of congestion around Dorchester Street would simply be moved elsewhere, not alleviating the problem, just moving it and exacerbating the problems in other places.

He said that the most obvious of these was Rossiter Road. The scheme proposed for this road is about the urban realm more so than a traffic scheme, it will improve the street scene and enable the public to sit outside and breathe more air and less exhaust fumes. The Rossiter Road is a major scheme and will undoubtedly cause traffic problems once the construction phase starts, this is inevitable, so why add to these problems.

He spoke of his concerns that the one way, restricted traffic flow in Dorchester Street will be confusing for pedestrians and cyclists alike. He said that he was afraid that they could be lulled into a false sense of security thinking that the road is less used than it actually will be.

One way will be barely affected and the other will still be subject to buses and taxis. Hardly a pedestrian paradise or cyclists haven.

He asked how easy it would be for the public to access the train station.

He asked what effect the proposal would have on visitors and traders. He said that a lot of the traders in the area sell consumable goods which have to be restocked regularly. The proposal makes it difficult for deliveries to happen outside of the restricted hours, which changed at the very last minute.

He stated that all of the consultation was done on the hours of between 10.00am and 4.00pm. Then at the Cabinet meeting 4.00pm was changed to 6.00pm! He said that this should be reason enough to send the idea back to where it came from as there had been no consultation whatsoever on the proposed times. 

Bath is a major world-wide tourist attraction, it is a beautiful city where people want to visit. Understandably this plays a major part in the region’s economy. In this difficult time businesses need all the help they can get, not some crazy scheme that someone wants to impose, without any thought on the effect this will have on individuals trying to run their business.

We don't want people spending their money on Bus gate fines rather than on enjoying their time here. That is not conducive for a return trip!

We cannot keep on coming up with traffic tinkering schemes without having an overall strategy. This is not only ineffectual but potentially dangerous.

He called for the proposal to be returned to the drawing board, for the Rossiter Road scheme to be completed and hoped that by then the Council would have at least the beginnings of a Transport Strategy. They then could look at this again, and see if it fits in.

He said that an East of Bath Park & Ride or even Park and Rail system was essential to a successful city centre scheme.

He said it would be fair to the incoming Cabinet Member for Transport to give her the opportunity to revisit this very unpopular decision, and quoted a poll in the Chronicle that showed 72% of respondents were against the decision.

Councillor Roger Symonds, Cabinet Member for Transport addressed the Panel. He said that the reasons given for the Call-In were pure speculation and cited a previous road closure, that of Churchill Bridge where the traffic flowed just as well, if not better while the road was closed.

He stated that four pedestrian crossings would be available to use in the area for the public to use. He also hoped to encourage people to walk more, cycle or use public transport.

He said that First would be undertaking a fare review within the area and that a Bus Improvement Panel had been set up.

He stated that the scheme was in line with existing Council plans and that the Liberal Democrats would produce a Transport Strategy within the next two years, which something the Conservatives had failed to do while in power.

He said that he had always had the operational hours of 10.00am – 6.00pm in mind as that would be in line with the current bus gate scheme. He added that these hours were supported by the bus operators First and Wessex Connect.

Councillor David Martin asked how the public would access the city centre for general activities.

Councillor Roger Symonds replied that all car parks would remain accessible. He added that the proposal was an attempt to stop people coming in and driving around in circles.

Councillor David Martin asked how the success of the scheme will be measured.

Councillor Roger Symonds replied that it would be measured by bus punctuality and whether businesses in the area were prospering.

Councillor Geoff Ward asked how many North East Somerset residents had access to regular, reliable bus service.

Councillor Roger Symonds replied by saying that First have agreed to hold a rural bus summit. He added that a Transport Strategy for Bath will be devised and then expanded over the wider area of the Council. He also said that keeping the supported bus services was vital.

Councillor Liz Richardson commented that the layout of the railway station was making it increasingly difficult to access and asked if any residents on the south side of the City would now attempt to access it.

Councillor Roger Symonds replied that he felt the site was a brilliant interchange for both train and bus. He said that he envisaged no hardship in accessing it as people could use the drop off point in Rossiter Road.

Councillor Geoff Ward asked if the Rossiter Road drop off point would be made safer.

Councillor Roger Symonds replied that some work would be done to it under the Rossiter Road scheme, but felt that it was not unsafe at the moment.

The Chairman commented that she believed the proposal was flawed and was concerned over the potential speed of east bound traffic when the measures were in place.

Councillor Roger Symonds replied that the flow of traffic in that direction would not be of a high speed as a 20mph zone for the City would be in place.

The Chairman asked how the cost of the scheme would be met and how would the loss in revenue at Manvers Street Car Park be covered.

Councillor Roger Symonds replied that there is no cost to the Council over the scheme as it comes under the Section 106 Agreement of the Southgate development. He added that the Manvers Street Car Park was still accessible and did not foresee a loss in revenue.

Mr David Redgewell addressed the Panel. He said that the scheme had support at the highest level from the local bus operators and that the original plan was to have minimal traffic in the area.

He added that managing the project would be key and said that First would work with the Council to ensure that adequate signage is provided.

He called for more spaces to be created so that the public can enjoy themselves within the City. He added that Network Rail were to encourage more use of retail outlets on site.

Councillor Brian Webber addressed the Panel. He stated that he simply does not recognise the problem which the proposed bus-gate purports to tackle. He said that he is in his ward, often several times a day and observes that for much of the day the traffic in Manvers Street and Dorchester Street is light and free-flowing, with brief interruptions at the signals controlling the pedestrian crossings and the exit from the bus-station. 

He said that there is some congestion at the beginning of the working day – ironically before the proposed 10 am commencement time of the bus-gate – and at the end of the working day. But that is the situation on any street in this busy city.

He said that First contend that their buses are delayed by other vehicles, but First have not, as far as I am aware, provided any quantified evidence. 

He commented on the suggestion that the new bus-gate would eliminate through traffic. He asked what other eastbound through traffic in Dorchester Street can there be heading for Bathwick and the London Road? He said that the through traffic most likely to use the Dorchester Street/Manvers Street route comes from the Green Park area via Green Park Road or St James Parade. He added that if those vehicles are banned from entering Dorchester Street some will opt to head for Bathwick and the London Road via Queen Square, George Street and the Paragon – streets which are already congested and with unacceptable levels of air pollution. He said that the principal officer advising the Cabinet, had told him that no modelling of the diversion of traffic via Queen Square had been done.

He felt that residents who were returning to their homes in the city centre, visitors to the shops and hotels, worshippers at the Abbey and other central churches, and traders delivering to and from their shops would be forced to take a circuitous route via North Parade. He stated that this road was already busy. He asked why all of those vehicles bent on entirely legitimate and necessary journeys should be inconvenienced for no sufficient reason.

He asked the Panel not to overlook the decision to ban left turns out of Manvers Street car park. He added that if this was obeyed, it would force all exiting vehicles to cross the path of the unrestricted southbound traffic.  Vehicles which have been compelled by the proposed bus-gate to take a circuitous route via North Parade to reach the car park will have the inconvenience inflicted on them again for no good reason on their return journey. He called upon this element of the proposal to be dropped whatever else happens.

Mr Roger Houghton addressed the Panel. He informed them that he lived in New King Street and has at times driven via Dorchester Street to both the railway station and the sorting office. He stated that even though he would therefore be adversely affected by the proposal, he fully supported the plan. He added that his only objection would be that it does not go far enough.

He said that in 2011/12 the number of users of the railway station were 5.676 million (Office of Rail Regulation figures), an increase of 70% over the previous nine years. He added that the vast majority of those five-and-a-half million users will not have reached or left the station by private car. A significant proportion will be visitors, on foot, all of whom are likely to need to cross Dorchester Street.

He said that the document "Reclaiming city streets for people", details that after an initial period of adjustment, some of the traffic that was previously found in the vicinity of a scheme ‘disappears’ or ‘evaporates’ due to drivers changing their travel behaviour. He explained that this was most recently demonstrated with the lack of predicted chaos following the closure of Churchill Bridge. He added that despite this experience Highways is claiming that 160 of 170 displaced peak-time vehicles per hour will transfer to Rossiter Road. (Even so it should be borne in mind that this is fewer than one additional vehicle every 22.5 seconds.)

He said that in a consultation of local residents and traders only 88 out of around 450 made a formal objection; 51 were in favour while over 300 gave no opinion. Moreover this was in response to the Appendix E proposal of a 24 hour restriction in both directions. The scheme that has been called-in is merely for an eastbound restriction between 10am and 6pm.

He asked the panel not only to reject this call-in but to recommend the adoption of the full scheme as set out in Appendix E.

Mr Brook Whelan addressed the Panel. He said that he felt the proposed scheme was flawed and that the decision should apply on both directions of the road.

Councillor Anthony Clarke addressed the Panel. He called for a Transport Strategy for the City to be in place as soon as possible and commented that he was concerned over the lack of public support for the proposal.

Councillor Roger Symonds commented that he had received advice from the Council’s legal team not to pursue the option of imposing the restriction in both directions of Dorchester Street. He added that the Council as a whole needed to become more determined to improve air quality and congestion.

He said that the next two years represented a great opportunity to make Bath a more welcoming City to visit.

Councillor Tim Warren commented that rural bus services needed to be vastly improved and called for the Rossiter Road scheme to be implemented before this proposal.

Councillor Geoff Ward said that the City would suffer economically by not allowing car users more freedom as one was essential for moving between different sites. He added that he felt that the current administration was anti-car and that footfall would not increase under the current plans.

Councillor Ben Stevens commented that he was confused by the claims of the Conservative group that the non-existing traffic will be displaced elsewhere and did not understand why they felt that drivers entering the City from Twerton would avoid Avon Street car park.

He added that he was aware of the needs of Rossiter Road and that he felt that the proposal would be an improvement to the City.

Councillor Douglas Nicol commented that similar schemes in York and Chester had seen an increase in footfall of 27%.

Councillor David Martin commented that the City has a very good Park & Ride system. He also suggested that the Public Realm & Movement Strategy should be incorporated into the Transport Strategy for the City. He added that if the proposal went ahead the Panel should receive a report 1 year after implementation to analyse it.

He said that the economic base of the City would be improved by making it more user friendly.

Councillor Liz Richardson commented that the decision would drastically change the way in which residents were able to access their property. She then proposed that the Call-In be upheld and referred back to the Cabinet.

Councillor Geoff Ward seconded the proposal.

The Panel voted (3 for, 4 against and 0 abstentions).

Councillor Ben Stevens then proposed that the Call-In be dismissed.

Councillor Ian Gilchrist seconded the proposal.

The Panel voted (4 for, 3 against and 0 abstentions).

The majority of the Panel therefore voted to dismiss the Call-In and allow the Cabinet decision to be implemented.