Home   |  General Information    |   Gallery & Reference   |   History   |   News & Events   |  Community |  Contact Us 
 

How the Road was Won

The End of the Beginning or the Beginning of the End?

A Ban is Agreed

From Newsletter No 26 Autumn 1994

Dear Resident,

OPEN TOPPED BUSES

Representative Councillors of the relevant City and County report back to full City and County Committees met on 14th July and agreed unanimously that the Open topped Buses must be banned from this Crescent. They directed Officials to recommend practical and procedural means of implementing the ban to a further such ("Ad Hoc") meeting.

This is a major advance and a direct result of the Society's campaign, residents' traffic monitoring and petitioning and the Society's lobbying of Councillors and others.

There are several bridges yet to cross, though we can hope that, given the representatives' decision in principle, most will be matters of form. The next stages, as we understand them, are:

1. Officials recommend means of implementing the ban; this could include, as we have petitioned, closure to through traffic by some appropriate and sensitively designed demountable barrier at one end. 2. Further "Ad Hoe" Meeting debates and we hope, agree recommended means. 3. Representative Councillors report back to full City and County parent Committees. 4. Full Committees endorse recommendations, we hope. 5. County and City formally exchange views etc. 6. Draft legal/statutory instrument is formally advertised and objections invited.

It is at this point that matters will get more difficult. The Bus operators are virtually certain to render formal objections of their own and to orchestrate a chorus of others sufficient to force a Public Inquiry. This may attract more National attention.

This Society will continue to keep all Residents informed of developments and to lead the campaign. Besides residents' virtually unanimous support for a ban, we also have the backing of UNESCO, Bath Preservation Trust, Bath Society, all 3 political parties and others. Nevertheless the battle is not yet won and we must be seen to maintain our stamina and resolve over a long period.

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 3

And now for the Good and the Bad News…

From Newsletter No 27 Spring 1995

The Bad News

Avon& Bath Officials have continued to delay producing options for implementing the ban agreed by all parties at the Ad Hoc Councillor Meeting last July. Your Committee is deeply, suspicious that Officials are hopeful that the problem and the work will get lost in the revisions to the Local Government Structure. We are determined that that shall not happen and have again asked Councillors to press for action.

The Good News

Regency Tours (the blue tourist buses) are suddenly on our side! Their very courteous Managing Director, Guy Huntley Parlour, offered to throw down a challenge to the other bus operators to stop touring the Crescent. In doing so he neatly demolished most of the arguments Badgerline have used in defence of their traffic. The full text of our Joint Press Release which went to all the local media is reprinted below.

Joint Press Release February, 1995

Tourist Bus Operator Joins Fight To "Save The Crescent

Regency Bus Tours today announced that hey would stop their open topped tourist buses from going through The Royal Crescent immediately, contingent on other operators following suit.

In a statement issued today Regency Tours said: "We are very concerned at the damage that is being caused by vehicles in the Crescent. It is quite evident that the damage being done to the cobblestones is commensurate with the size of the vehicles that roll over them. We have one of the most classic examples of Georgian architecture in the country and it behoves us to both respect and preserve it.

"As a company we are prepared to reroute our vehicles to go below the Crescent through Victoria Park. The view from there is almost as good, and considerably better from a photographic point of view.

"From a commercial standpoint it is our experience that the great majority of passengers would pay little heed to such a change. Most people come to Bath to view the Roman Baths, but the fact that the baths are within a pedestrianised precinct does nothing to deter them from a tour of the city."

The move was warmly welcomed by residents in the Crescent. Michael Daw, Chairman of the Royal Crescent Society, said "This is a triumph of common sense. All the residents and others who love and respect The Royal Crescent will be grateful. Regency Tours have set a fine example and have vindicated our long campaign to ban these damaging buses from the Crescent. In view of this strong statement we look forward to the other two operators, Badgerline and Ryans, taking up the challenge and following suit. If they did, the public would be saved the expense of legislation which is being proceeded with. All three political parties supported our call for a bus ban and directed Avon and Bath officials to prepare ways and means six months ago."

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 3        

The Political wheels move slowly….

From Newsletter No 28 Summer 1995

Following the very strong expressions of outrage by your Committee over the failure of Bath and Avon Councils to make any progress on the July 1994 all party decision to ban the damaging buses from the Crescent Councillors sprang into action in the run up to the May Local Government Election. In particular Councillor David Hawkins and Councillor Maureen Wheadon reported progress at our 1995 AGM, and Councillor Hawkins has since held specific meetings with the relevant City Officials responsible for the next actions. So far this has still to bear real fruit and we shall soon again have to raise the profile of the matter. Meanwhile the incidence of buses has increased and the Voluntary Agreement (limiting the total to 9 per hour, with flexibilities at self declared peak periods) appears to have been set a side.

The very well attended AGM endorsed the Committee's actions so far, but directed that the time for politeness was fast evaporating. A proposal to get the message of damage over more vividly to a wider audience, especially tourists themselves, was approved unanimously. This is being implemented by your Committee and details will be communicated separately. (As this Newsletter has a wide circulation, it would be unwise to reveal the details here and risk dampening the impact of the action).

Meanwhile, the current, Director of Highways Transport & Engineering has issued an assurance that there is no chance of the ban being lost in the transfer of authority from Avon to Bath & NE Somerset; a specific Budget Item is in place to fund the cost of the action.

Media coverage of tile subject has been extensive. The local press gave prominence to your concerns over the delays above and this and most Letters to the Editor in the Bath Chronicle have been written in a tone of acceptance that the ban will happen. A notable exception was published in May, after our Chairman appeared briefly in "The Goldring Audit on TV Channel 4, in April. The writer clearly did not understand the issues involved and harked back to the old and discredited argument that we are all rich snobs who hate all tourists! He was roundly rebutted by Mr. John Walker of No 10 who covered all the relevant points so well that Chairman decided further reply was unnecessary despite the personal attack in the first letter.

The AGM passed a Formal Resolution ( reprinted below ) which was conveyed by Councillor Maureen Wheadon to Avon County Council and is now recorded in their official record.

That noting with indignation and deep concern the complete lack of substantive progress on both its own 1993 Petition and Councillors' July 1994 direction to Officials to save the Royal Crescent from further heavy Traffic damage by making it Access Only, the Royal Crescent Society calls on City and County Councils to take immediate action and to progress it to completion as a matter of continuing urgency."

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 3    

And the Debate Continues….

From Newsletter No 29 Winter 1995

Bath City Council continues to procrastinate over the actions given to them by Avon County Council to come up with ways and means of implementing the bus ban for the Crescent as directed by Councillors of all three political parties at the Ad Hoc meeting in July 1994. As reported in the last Newsletter Councillor David Hawkins stirred matters up at Election times in May, and further promises etc., were made. Still nothing happened.

Accordingly Chairman wrote to Head of Paid Service, Bath City Council (the virtual replacement post for the previous Chief Executive Office), in very strong terms. The letter rehearsed the sequence of non events since July 1994 and said that the failure of officials to act on the directions of the elected representatives was tantamount to a deliberate and conscious attempt to frustrate the democratic process. As such it is called into question the need to consider disciplinary action against the officers responsible. The letter was copied to Councillors.

The reply was another delaying tactic. Head of Paid Services decided that the letter constituted a Formal Complaint about his own officers and as such should be investigated by the Head of another Department, in this case the City Solicitor. On further enquiry he also declined to speed up the subject of the complaint (means of implementing the ban) until the investigation of the complaint was done which he promised would happen 'shortly'. We are still waiting, a further two months on.

Meanwhile, some of the officials concerned seem to have taken thinks into their own hands at last and have arranged a meeting to discuss the matter yet again with your Committee. We shall continue to press our points through this bureaucratic morass; compromise is not the order of the day.

Meanwhile a helpful feature on the subject appeared in the Travel Section of the Daily Telegraph (November 4th), and various articles in that paper and the Times show that other cities are also suffering from the 1980's legislation deregulating public transport, which opened the gate for the open topped buses everywhere. Oxford and other places are beginning to voice their concerns, though we were already aware of the private worries.

Regency Tours continue to be the only operator with a wider view. Members will recall their proposal to take the Crescent off their route if the other operators would follow suit which they declined to do. Regency have now proposed changes to the permitted waiting times down at the Main pick up points near Orange Grove whose effect would be to reduce the numbers of buses which sometimes go around merely to satisfy the published timetable. Whilst your Committee welcomes this in principle, it is not, of course, the final answer of a complete ban or of making the Crescent 'Access Only'.

The Residents' Association in the Circus has been re vitalised and we wish them well. They are achieving good publicity in their similar fight against the buses but your Committee has not joined forces with them. As the AGMs have endorsed, our situation is unique, our campaign is (though too slow) well advanced and solutions are within our grasp. Theirs is barely off the ground and, if allied with ours, can only make matters more complicated, thus providing officials with even more excuse for delay.

On an apparently separate front, our MP Don Foster responded to the last Newsletter by writing to Avon's Director of highways and Engineering about the general bus problem in Bath. The Director's reply mentioned almost as an aside that he was investigating a possible weight restriction on the Crescent as a means of "reducing the number of buses". Again we await his response to our request for a proper definition of what this means and have made clear that we continue to seek a full ban. Our MP is being kept informed as he kindly asked to be.

Finally (if only this were true!) the more vivid action on this topic called for at the AGM has regrettably been delayed for lack of time and resources; it is still planned however.

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 3

Almost There…

From Newsletter No 30 Spring 1996

The news on this topic, as we go to press, is in Chairman's view deeply depressing. The actions and inaction of County and City Officials and their refusal to respond to Councillors directions and to their and our pressures have set our campaign back several years.

Summary Briefly (and this article exposes the gory detail below), we had expected that with all the unnecessary delay Officials have caused to the July 1994 directive to work out ways and means of implementing the closure of the Crescent to through traffic, the task of implementation would have passed as a simple matter to the new local authority (B&NES). But officials have instead fabricated and obfuscated the case to the extent that the task will be passed over as a complicated and awkward mess allegedly requiring more investigation, more "work", etc., before the closure can even be formally advertised as a Traffic Regulation Order. This will give B&NES who will have a very difficult first year every excuse to take the view that it is all too difficult and to put it on the back burner; when it does emerge it seems highly likely that the whole case may need to be argued all over again. The timescale for action is thus unforecastable and meanwhile the buses and the damage and all their other bad impacts continue. The detail of events since the last Newsletter will follow.

Detail

We reported last time that City officials had at last begun the series of "consultations with interested parties", which they had been directed to do in July 1994. Your Chairman and Vice Chairman went to one on December 18th, chaired by David McLaughlin, Principal Conservation Officer, Bath City Council (BCC), and also attended by John Porter, BCC Traffic Engineer and Roger Witt, Avon County Council Traffic Manager, Environmental Control. We were shown detailed plans for the closure of the West end of the Crescent, told that the best legislative means of implementation had been decided and advised that this would all be presented to the relevant Avon Committee for endorsement at their last meeting in March, so that it could be passed to B&NES for action. Mr Witt proposed that it be recommended for B&NES to put it in for approval for their 1997/8 budget as the first year would be too crowded. We rejected this and insisted that it take its chances in the first year. Officials expressed their desire to see the matter through as positively as possible and said they believed it was essential action to preserve the Crescent.

It also emerged that in discussions of the detailed proposal, Badgerline had intimated that if the proposal were seen not to be directed solely at their buses but at stopping all through traffic, their Board might not press for a Public Inquiry. This is excellent news if followed through.

At this point and as reflected in Chairman's comments at the Festive Dinner matters seem to be progressing as well as could be hoped. We also knew that consultations had been held with the Bath Preservation Trust and the General Manager of the Royal Crescent Hotel, who were all in full support and who had all reported back very positively. The next step, eagerly awaited, was the formal written Report which officials would jointly prepare for tile Avon Traffic Sub Committee Meeting. By courtesy of our Councillor Maureen Wheadon, it arrived on the Friday before the Tuesday Meeting. You can read it for yourself, In full, below. Remember, this is the result of almost 2 years of work by City & County Officials.

COUNTY OF AVON

PLANNING, HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORT (HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORT) SUB COMMITTEE

12TH MARCH 1996

PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING COMMITTEE DECISIONS (DIVISIONS: BATH CENTRAL AND WEST

1 Purpose of Report

1.1 To enable Members to review progress in implementing decisions made at previous meetings and matters arising there from.

2. Latest Position

2.1 The following summaries reflect the latest position at tile time of' writing and where appropriate further updates will be given orally at file meeting.

1 ROYAL Crescent, BATH (DIVISION: BATH CENTRAL)

2.2 This matter was last considered by this Sub Committee on 28th March 1995 (Minute No. 217 refers) and by Planning, Highways and Transport Committee on 11 the April 1995 when it was resolved:

that Bath City Council be asked to expedite as a matter of urgency the arrangements for further local consultation with interested local bodies" as set out in the report.

2.3 Arrangements were made by Bath City Council for consultation meetings to be held last December and January, these being held with Bath Preservation Trust, the Royal Crescent Society, the Royal Crescent Hotel and Marlborough Lane and Buildings Residents Association. Your officer was ill attendance at the meetings.

2.4 The Bath Preservation Trust and the Royal Crescent Society were in favour of the closure of Royal Crescent to through traffic. The Preservation Trust also suggested that full or partial pedestrianisation should be investigated. This could include the removal of all parking, thus opening up an uncluttered vista of Royal Crescent. These matters would require investigation.

2.5 The Royal Crescent Hotel, while not opposing the principle of the closure were concerned that access and turning facilities for vehicles serving the hotel would be maintained. They also drew attention to the fact that some of their guests arrive as coach parties and thus facilities for those coaches would also need to be maintained.

2.6 The Marlborough Lane and Buildings Residents Association opposed the closure of Royal Crescent to through traffic as this would cause increased problems at the northern end of Marlborough Buildings and at tile substandard junction with Weston Road. They considered that no action should on the closure until a comprehensive study of traffic movements in the area has been undertaken.

2.7 Arising from the consultation meeting, there is clearly further work to be undertaken before the closure of Royal Crescent can be formally advertised, particularly in respect of further environmental measures on Royal Crescent and the effect on surrounding roads. It will not be possible to complete this within the lifetime of this Council, given existing commitments and staff resources. Consequently it is proposed that the closure to through traffic of Royal Crescent be recommended to Bath and North East Somerset Council together with investigation of other environmental measures.

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 3

Some Loose Ends - Hold the Champagne Corks

From Newsletter No 31 Summer 1996

Chairman reported the great news to our widespread supporters and has had encouraging responses. Our three local Councillors, Maureen Wheadon, David Hawkins and lately but very helpfully Jerry Curran, have all been directly influential in getting its this far. Our MP, Don Foster has lent support and on hearing the news has assured us of more assistance should we need it. Our Vice President, Lord Stockton has been very helpful behind the scenes and always stood ready to ask a Question in the Upper House should we so wish it. UNESCO had consistently stood by us and taken effective action at crucial times We must all be grateful to them all at this stage but we'll hold the champagne Until the last bollard is in place!

Mrs Vivian Rae Ellis, leader of the Circus Residents' Association wrote Chairman a charming congratulatory letter on the great news. Given the riot too successful some would sly pointless and tasteless events ill her Own campaign this was a generous gesture; Chairman replied accordingly.

Those with long memories will recall (lie appalling delay by officials between Ally 1994 and late 1995 when they took 110 action 011 Councillors' directive to investigate ways and means of the Closure. This delay was (lie subject of all formal complaint to 1 lead or Paid Service, Bath City Council, ill October 1995 I He put (lie matter ill [lie hands of [lie City Solicitor and promised to report back. That report never arrived, though the delayed action was taken with (lie results above. Imagine Committee's surprise to receive a letter in May 1996 from the former City Solicitor, now the B&NES Head of Legal Services, apologising that Our original letter of complaint had been "lost or gone astray" in the chaos of the changeover of local authorities. And would we please send copies. We did, by return, hinting that the matter whilst technically outstanding had been overtaken by events but as an earnest of his regret would lie please speed up the current process? That was on May 27th. As we go to press (one month later) we still await his reaction.

The odd sometimes very odd long distance coach occasionally ambles through the Crescent in total disregard of the existing coach ban. Sterling residents often flag these down and remonstrate with the drivers, often making. their point very effectively. Phone calls to the Coach's operating company headquarters if there is time to catch the number of the bus and the other details can be even more effective. Chairman recently tackled the director of a company called "The Londoners", whose vehicle double parked outside No. 1 for well over half an hour, empty and with its engine running. Another resident had complained to the driver and the Bath Preservation trust staff had also taken action, all to no avail. The company Director, unfamiliar with tile Crescent Finally contacted the driver and got him to move but requested the details in writing. Yet another letter.... However this did elicit a worthwhile reply for once, reprinted below. As Dr. Monica Baly has said many times we shall only protect this place by "Constant Vigilance".

June 16th, 1996 Dear Mr. Daw,

Re: Incident it the Royal Crescent June 7th, 1996

Thank you very much for your letter dated June 10th with regards to the misconduct of one of out drivers.

We call assure you that we will be speaking to the driver concerned upon his return from touring, and lie will be disciplined accordingly. We \visit to stress that such behaviour from our drivers is riot [lie policy of' (his company and will not be tolerated. It is only from the good as well as the bad reports that we receive, can we judge flow well a driver is keeping to out. standards, and therefore we are grateful to you for taking the time to write to [is.

We do hope you will accept our sincere apologies and trust that this incident will riot be allowed to reflect on the service we strive to provide.

Yours sincerely,

Chantal J. McCausland Director The Londoners Ltd.

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 3

B&NES Traffic Order

From Newsletter No 32, Winter 1996

After the euphoria of the last issue, over Councillors' approval for Officials to start the formal process to make the Crescent 'access only' by advertising the Traffic Orders (T0s), the Society wrote immediately to the two Council Departments concerned and to Councillors asking for the job to be progressed urgently. After all, it was supported by all three political parties, was fully funded, the technicalities had been worked out by Avon 6 months earlier and it seemed an easy and short task to take the next step. In particular, Head of Legal Services was asked to use his personal influence as a vindication of his apology for the 199415 delays by the old Council (see 'Loose Ends' below); he replied expressing the hope that the TOs would be "in place by the Autumn". Given the long list of other tasks, e.g. Safety measures on his plate, this did not seem unreasonable. However, the Traffic Department replied that their intent was only to "advertise" the TOs "by late Autumn". Clearly the two Departments were as uncommunicative with each other as the two former Councils, Avon and Bath, had been.

Accordingly, the next month, September, we started chasing again, this time through our Councillors. Councillor David Hawkins could get only a promise to ''prioritise'' the matter from Mr Dillane, Head of Engineering Services (amongst much whining about limited resources); a similar response came from the legal department. Further chasing in October revealed that Councillor lan Dewey (not representing our Ward) had been forced to take up the general slowing down of all Council business by officials with the Chief Executive. Clearly we were not alone.

So with Councillor Hawkins we tried a pincer movement. Chairman wrote to the two Heads of Department highlighting the now three and half months delay, the deep concern of residents, the escalating damage and the risks of losing the funding for this Financial Year and of repeating the appalling delays of the former Council.

These letters were copied both to our own Ward Councillors and to the Conservative and Labour Group Leaders and to Councillor Dewey asking all to take up the matter with the Department Heads.

Councillor Dewey was the first to respond, both with action I) he had written to one of the Heads of Department seeking an explanation and ii) with Concern.

Both he and Councillor Cox raised the matter at a Committee Meeting Councillor Hawkins was in the Chair.

Suddenly although the Heads of Departments failed to reply to Chairman's letters, all this bore fruit and the traffic orders appeared.

A full copy is printed below.

We now wait to see whether the Bus companies do object and force a Public Enquiry. The Council intends to investigate re routing ideas as one ploy to try and deflect or deter this action.

(ROYAL Crescent, BATH) (PROHIBITION OF DRIVING) ORDER 199

The Council proposes to make an Order under sections 1(1) and 2(1) to (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1984 as amended, the effect of which will be to prohibit any motor vehicle entering, proceeding or waiting in the lengths of Royal Crescent, Bath specified in Part 1 and Part II of the Schedule of this Notice.

Exemptions in the Order permit any motor vehicle to enter, proceed or wait in the length of Royal Crescent referred to in Part II of the Schedule to this Notice in connection with building operations; the removal of obstruction to traffic, maintenance of the road; supply of gas, water or electricity; for any vehicle necessarily proceeding to or from any premises situated on or accessible only from that length of road; for the purpose of gaining access to residents' and card parking places situated in that length of road; the pursuance of statutory powers or duties and police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes in an emergency.

Full details of the proposal are contained in the draft Order, which together with a map and a Statement of the Council's Reasons for proposing to make the Order and a copy of the Order to be varied/suspended, may be inspected at the under mentioned offices (callers should report to Reception and ask for the Planning and Environmental Law Team) and at 9110 Bath Street, Bath (please telephone for an appointment, Bath (0 1225) 477172) during normal office hours.

Objections to the proposal, together with the grounds on which they are made must be sent in writing to the Head of Legal Services at The Hollies, Midsomer Norton, Bath BA3 2DP, quoting reference DS/P/1/043 by 20 December 1996. Please note that all representations received may be considered in public by the Council and that the substance of any representation together with the name and address of the person making it, could become available for public inspection.

SCHEDULE PART 1

Royal Crescent from its junction with Marlborough Buildings eastwards for 3 metres

PART II

Royal Crescent from Brock Street/Upper Church Street to 3 metres cast of Marlborough Buildings

Contact Officer Dean Shepherd, Planning and Environmental Law Team, Resources Directorate, Telephone 01225 396682.

BA TH AND NOR TH EAST SOMERSET DISTRICT Council

(ROYA L Crescent, BATH) (PROHIBITION OF DRIVING) Order 199

The Bath and North East Somerset District Council (hereinafter referred to as "the Council") in exercise of its powers under sections 1(1) and 2(1) to (3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1984") and of all other enabling powers, after consultation with the chief officer of police in accordance with Part 111 of Schedule 9 to the Act of 1984, hereby makes the following Order:

1 This Order shall come into operation on the and may be cited as the Bath and North East Somerset District Council (Royal Crescent, Bath) (Prohibition of Driving) Order 199.

2 In this Order "residents' and card parking place" means a parking place designated by the County Council of Avon (Residents' and Card Controlled Parking, City of Bath) Order 1987 as varied.

3 No person shall cause or permit any motor vehicle to enter, proceed or wait in the length of road specified in Part 1 of the Schedule to this Order.

4 Save as provided in Article 5 of this Order no person shall cause any motor vehicle to enter, proceed or wait in the length of road specified in Part 11 of the Schedule to this Order.

5 (1) Nothing in Article 4 of this Order shall render it unlawful to cause or permit any motor vehicle to enter, proceed or wait in the length of road referred to therein if the vehicle is being used:

a) in connection with the carrying out on, or on premises situated on that length of road of any of the following operations, namely I) building, industrial or demolition operations; ii) the removal of any obstruction to traffic; iii) the maintenance, improvement or reconstruction of the road; iv) the laying, erection, alteration or repair in, or in land adjacent to the road of any sewer, or of any main, pipe or apparatus for the supply of gas, water or electricity or of any telecommunication apparatus as defined in the Telecommunications Act 1984;

b) in the service of a local authority, the Environment Agency, a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker in pursuance of statutory powers of duties.

(2) Noting in Article 4 of this Order shall apply to any vehicle being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes in an emergency.

(3) Nothing in Article 4 of this Order shall apply:

a) to any vehicle necessarily proceeding to or from any premises situated on or accessible only from the length of road referred to therein, or

b) to any vehicle necessarily proceeding to or from any residents' and card parking place in the length of road referred to therein.

Given under the Common Seal of the Bath and North East Somerset District Council the day of

The COMMON SEAL of the BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET DISTRICT Council was hereunto affixed in the presence of.

Head of Legal Services

SCHEDULE

Prohibition of Driving

Part I

That length of Royal Crescent, bath which extends from its junction with Marlborough Buildings in an easterly direction for a distance of 3 metres

Part II

(includes exemption for access purposes and to residents' and card parking places)

That length of Royal Crescent, Bath which extends from its junction with Brock Street/Upper Church Street to a point 3 metres east of its junction with Marlborough Buildings

2 Loose Ends

In the last issue we reported the sudden realisation in May 1996 by B&NES Head of Legal services that our Formal Complaint over Bath's 9415 delay in dealing with the bus issue had never been answered and that as the papers had been lost in the re organisation, "could we send copies"! After further to-ing and fro -ing, acknowledging that specific action had been overtaken by events, he issued a formal written apology. As noted above we are attempting to use this in the current stages.

3. Council's Other Action

The overall, City wide Open Topped Bus Service has come under general criticism from all three political parties. They have finally woken up to a factor we recorded and reported some years ago.

That is, that there is no formal or official or legislative means of preventing or restricting the buses. Under the 1980's deregulation of Public Transport the only barriers to any Public Service are the needs to register a schedule with the Traffic Commissioners (part of the Department of the Environment) and to provide roadworthy vehicles and licensed drivers. We firmly believe that the original purpose of the legislation was with true public transport in mind: that is PT with people from A to B. That the wording was so loose that it allowed circular 'tourist services to emerge does not appear to have been foreseen. Shrewd opportunists of course saw the loophole and our misery ensued. Councillors, grasping this, approached the Minister for Local Transport, John Watts MP, asking for tougher powers to control what many seen in the City as resulting major contribution to traffic chaos. They have gone on record as saying the Buses are "dirty, noisy, too numerous (36 departures an hour from 7 locations), that they clog already congested streets, cause pollution and are damaging the City's tourist trade". Just what we have been saying for many years! The Minister's reply kicked the action back to the Council and they now have a 12 point plan for more control. Badgerline have already rejected one of these the use of disposable headphones on the grounds of cost, ignoring their successful use on similar tours in other Cities .... plus ca change!

4. Badgerline Change

Badgerline's General Manager, Martin Curtis, who has led the flight against us, has been promoted to Business Manager for Bristol Omnibus. His former Deputy, Alan Flinders has replaced him, so presumably no change in policy there.

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 3       

Buses The Saga Continues a Public Inquiry looms

From Newsletter No 33 Spring 1997

The last full issue of this Newsletter reported the publication of and set out in full the Traffic Order proposing closure of the West end of the Crescent. A Special Issue of the Newsletter distributed to all residents on 18 November asked for help, in the form of individual letters from residents to support a proposal.

By the closing date for representations a grand total of 9 residents had taken this action, out of some 120 living here and these are to be commended. Meanwhile, the silent some may say apathetic and lazy or perhaps just forgetful majority were reminded again in another Special Newsletter of the need to write in. Thankfully another 30 or so took action this time. This materially changed the balance of responses received by the Council from the original 2 1 against the proposal (they had had about 20 objections) to 2 1 in favour. Many of our letters demonstrated very careful thought and cogent and helpful argument.

This balance achieved two important aims. First it showed that a wide spread of individuals were concerned enough to take the time and trouble to write in. Secondly, it showed that this concern was current as opposed to the Society's other slightly hoary evidence, e.g. the 1994 Petition. In other words, the right climate was maintained and updated.

It did not could not of course, force the right decision. Despite earlier posturing, the Bus operators did make a formal objection on the grounds that closure would "stop local buses" from using the Crescent. That choice of words is of course careful and deliberate. The buses are only 'local' under the terms of the legislation and in the sense that they operate in one locality. They are not, as the phrase might suggest to those unfamiliar with the problem, local buses getting the general public from A to B, and therefore providing an essential Public Service.

The operators are the only potential objectors who are legally able to force a Public Inquiry and B&NES Officials jumped to the immediate conclusion that this was inevitable. However, Chairman pointed out that three further steps had to be taken before this was set in motion.

Perhaps this is too sophisticated, idealistic and naive an assessment; however, the die is now cast and the report is being prepared for the Transportation Sub Committee on 18 April 1997 (postponed from 10 March by one week's influenza for one Official .... ). Your Committee will lobby to try to ensure that Councillors do decide to press on and not abandon the matter as too difficult. All this means of course is that the £10,000 funding rapidly inserted in the 1996/1997 budget has now been lost and at a meeting in February Councillors approved that it be spent on another 1997/1998 project brought forward. They will also be asked to earmark a sum in the to 1997/1998 budget for our closure, in the hope that, if a PI is decided on it goes the right way.

So, summing up, the timetable looks something like this.

Currently: Committee pressure on Officials to include all evidence in report. About April 10 17 Report to Councillors issued. Committee study and react, lobbying Councillors and considering need to speak during Public Access time at meeting if permissible. April 18: Transportation Sub Committee meets and decides whether to face up to PI or not; it may also be invited to decide on earmarking 1997/1998 funds. During 97: Public Inquiry formally announced and Committee gathers support and representation to speak and write in. Later in 97: Public Inquiry held. Much later: PI Inspector issues decision.

Once the PI is announced if Councillors go ahead there will be an even stronger need for individual letters of support and volunteers to speak at it. These avenues are open to anyone and your Committee will coordinate and advise on the detail. It may also be necessary to engage legal advice and the Society's Solicitor, Thomas Shepherd of Thrings & Long has already indicated his willingness to help.

Aux barricades!

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 3