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

How the Road was Won

The Options - Abandon, Defer or PURSUE

From Newsletter No 34 Summer 1997

This report includes, for completeness, all the important developments since the last Newsletter, even though many points have been well aired in the local press sometimes accurately. Chairman also updated the AGM on April 20.

Council Progress 1

The most significant development was the outcome of the 18 April Council Transportation Sub Committee meeting at which Councillors had been invited to consider three options on the proposal to close the West end of the Crescent.

a) abandon the proposal;

b) defer for action for further consultation etc and look at banning traffic from a larger area; or

c) pursue the matter to full Public Inquiry.

Clearly, this was a crucial meeting with only one option for us option (c). Option (b) would be impossible and take years to accomplish. Chairman sought and obtained permission to address the meeting, with the essential moral support of Commander Titchen. He also wrote to all Councillors attending in advance and gave interviews to GWR, TV1, The Western Daily Press and persuaded the very supportive Editor of the Bath Chronicle to print a letter on the night before the meeting. All this had some impact and our long term supporters in the Conservative Party (the smallest group at the meeting) led by David Hawkins spoke heavily in our support. However, the Marlborough Lane Residents' Association also addressed the meeting against us, seeking instead a solution for the whole area from the Circus to Marlborough Lane (bigger than Option (b)). The Labour Members tended to sit on the fence mindful of costs and their duty to other Bath residents. At first the Liberal Democrats' team also appeared anti pathetic, but began to come around to our view with a sort of comprise proposal.

The day was saved however by David Hawkins who, in a summing up speech worthy of an American courtroom drama at its best, brushed aside all the arguments and counter suggestions and proposed that members press ahead to Public Inquiry for the Royal Crescent alone: this was a test case which could set a pattern for other areas.

This galvanised the Liberal Democrats who quickly made up their minds and said that this was an important Heritage versus Traffic issue, which if not grasped would be embarrassing and high profile; his actual words were "get on with it". Thus the decision in our favour was carried with only Labour out of the running though they did not vote against us, they abstained.

Officials expected to be ready for a Public Inquiry in October; we await confirmation of that timescale. They also warned that this would attract National attention, even suggesting at one point that Swampy might get involved! Meanwhile, we will be rallying our supporters and will issue a special flyer for residents' supporting action as soon as a date is announced. Already Jon Tham, Managing Director of The Royal Crescent Hotel, who is fully in support, has alerted some senior figures in the national heritage firmament and it is clear that B&NES officials are also on our side. Even the most cautious of Councillors at the meeting acknowledged the seriousness of the problem.

Council Progress 2

Despite the above, in mid July it seemed that an unheralded spanner was about to be thrown into the works. Without advance warning a Bath Chronicle report revealed that in two day's time Councillors were to be invited to "Consider starting work ... to restrict entry for public service vehicles to the whole heritage area surrounding the Circus and the Royal Crescent".

Alarm bells rang: this was the very essence of option (b) which we had got Councillors to reject, and what about the Public Inquiry scheduled for the Royal Crescent alone?

Many phone calls later, tracking down and getting the meeting papers from the Reference Library, gouging assurances out of Officials etc, it appeared that this might be a separate initiative following on from the Council's year old determination to tackle the impact of tourist buses city wide and their actions in response to Ministerial advice. Nevertheless, the meeting paper recommended that of several areas of the City to be tackled, efforts towards the restriction of public service vehicles in the heritage streets be directed as a priority. Chairman therefore thus saw a danger that work on the closure of the Royal Crescent on its own could be jeopardised by deployment of the Council's limited resources on the wider area. Accordingly, Councillors Hawkins and Cox arranged for that question to be put to the meeting and an assurance was obtained that our work was not put at risk in any way by the new initiative, Phew!

Other Support

Media coverage of the bus problem continued to be heavy throughout May July. Correspondents, all against the buses, had many letters published. They wrote from all over Bath: our friends from Catherine Place, the Circus, Leighton Road, Peasedown St John, Lower Bristol Road, Summerfield Road, Pierrepoint Place etc. Many were incensed by the advent of the fourth bus operator The Bath Bus Company and the obvious lack of existing controls. The Editor of the Bath Chronicle devoted three editorials and nine news articles to the general subject mainly unfavourable to the operators. Our MP Don Foster wrote to the Minister for Transport, Gavin Strang, urging him to act to solve the problems caused by the open top buses and calling for a review of a legal loophole (which we had spotted some time ago) allowing them to register as local services". He said "They should not (operate) at the expense of residents or of visitors who prefer to travel around the City on foot." We could not agree more! The Tourism Marketing Advisory Group stepped up its existing antipathy by stating that the buses "have a negative effect on the City's visitor trade". The TMAG is made up of representatives from the three main political parties, Bath guesthouses and hotels, leisure attractions and allegedly the City Chamber of commerce (although their CEO wrote later to say that it supported the buses as an "integral part of the City's tourist industry" a lone voice we hope).

The Next Stage

The next stage is now our preparation and gathering of our resources and supporters for our representations to the Public Inquiry. As soon as the date is announced you will receive a flyer asking for your help in various ways. Your Committee hopes you will feel able to join this last 'Big Push'.

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 2    

The Public Inquiry Preparation

From Newsletter No 35 Winter 1997

Last issue's long report ended on the optimistic note of the Council's undertaking to mount a Public Inquiry in October 1997, we assumed.... We should have known better. Rather than paraphrase subsequent non events reproduced here are the Society's letter to the Council's Chief Executive, a transcript of the only reaction to date (11 December) and for good measure the Society's media release on the matter, which received average cover in the press and on the Radio. TV ignored it.

Our Councillor, David Hawkins, said he would "let it run, and see what happens". Your Committee has considered on many occasions taking the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman but has concluded that the process would delay matters even further by taking the time of the same officials to answer the Ombudsman's enquiry and would thus not necessarily bring the Public Inquiry any earlier. Despite this we may have to resort to this even more tedious strategy.

The only consolation we have is reports from around the City, solicitors, FBRA and other representative groups, that they all face the same grinding and appalling inefficiency. Like us, when one speaks to officials and says things like "this is disgraceful, inefficient, unprofessional etc." they, at functionary level simply agree!!

12th November 1997

John Everitt Esq. Chief Executive Bath & North East Somerset Council Yr. Ref.. JE/ PJB Keynsham Bristol BS 18 1 LA

Dear Mr Everitt

Royal Crescent Closure Public Inquiry

1 draw your attention to the continuing lack of progress on this matter, despite even your own intervention, reflected in your letter of 14th October to Council Chairman David Hawkins, who had, 1 understand voiced his concern to you.

It is now seven months since Chief Engineer accepted (1) that he had funds and resources to mount a Public Inquiry (P1) in October this year. This includes a two month failure to fulfil his promises of 'no further delay' and to 'keep (me) informed', when he admitted in answer to our enquiry that nothing had been done (EDD/JKWH/102 of 8.9.97). It also includes his seven week failure to answer this Society's letter of 15.9.97 seeking more detail of the 'other priorities' which he said had intervened, but of which Councillors tell me they are unaware. The legal Services Officer also promised Councillor Cox on 3.10.97 to progress the P1 process. On no front is any action visible.

I am sure you will understand that this litany of inaction raises serious and justifiable public concern about the possibility that the democratic process is being frustrated in what looks like a deliberate, or at least conscious, way. It also calls into question the general accountability and professionalism of the officials concerned and their staffs.

It would be unreasonable to expect you to be aware of the whole history of this matter. However, residents here and our many supporters would be most grateful for your further personal intervention with a view to getting the PI mounted and effectively prosecuted immediately.

I look forward to bearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Michael G Daw Chairman

(1) Transportation Sub Committee, 18th April 1997

TRANSCRIPT OF TELE PHONE, MESSAGE LEFT ON CHAIRMAN'S ANSWERING SERVICE 20th NOVEMBER 1997

"This is Eddie Delaine, County Engineer. It's seven fifteen at night and 1 am working through my pile of mail. I've come across your letter about err.. closure of the err... Royal, err.. Crescent business. I thought you would be glad to bear the news I've just received today that contact has been made with an Inspector who should be able to convene a Public Inquiry sometime around March/April 1998. The Legal Section have had some difficulty sorting out the Department of Transport and Environment in the Regions and have had to chase up Inspectors themselves to find one available to do the work.

I am concerned that you say you have not been kept up to date and very surprised that answers to Questions in Committee have not been conveyed back if that was the case, because these are matters of public record.

Your suggestion of interference with the democratic process is far from truth. My reason for ringing now is to tell you that I am passing your letter to Julian House, the responsible official, who has to finish the Draft City Centre Report and then he needs to take two weeks off because of his wife's illness. 1 hope that you will understand that there will be a formal reply to your letter and that the reason for delay is not as you suggest. We have been extremely busy.

I hope this has been of some assistance; do call if you would like to discuss the matter anytime 1 am available. Good Night"!

CHAIRMAN'S COMMENT.

This fails to answer many of the points in my letter. It fails to be specific about the dates for a formal reply and above all it is still vague about the date for the Public Inquiry. Even with as charitable an attitude as one can muster, 1 find it a sad reflection on County Engineers ability to manage or to face up to valid criticism. We shall use it in a further letter to Chief Executive who has still not had the courtesy even to acknowledge our letter.

PRESS RELEASE 14th NOVEMBER 1997 Council OFFICIALS DOWN TOOLS!

B&NES officials are today accused of downing tools and refusing to do what they are told or to answer questions about it according to residents in Bath's famous Royal Crescent. They are now asking B&NES Chief Executive to sort matters out. Chairman of the Royal Crescent Society Michael Daw said today:

"It is now seven months since Engineering Chief Eddie Delaine accepted Councillors' orders to set up a Public Inquiry in October about closing one end of the Royal Crescent. In all that time he has done nothing. He says other priorities got in the way, but Councillors don't know what these are and he has refused for nearly two months to answer our questions about them. He and the Legal Services Officer Tony Bevin promised to speed things up weeks ago, but nothing has happened.

This disgraceful conduct of official Council business calls into public question the whole democratic process. Officials are virtually putting up two fingers to Councillors and through them to the citizens who elected them. They keep trying to fob us all off with promises they don't keep. They are saying: We don't care what you want us to do, if we don't like it we won't do it."

Mr Daw went on to say that he had even beard rumours that the official Council file on the subject had been thrown into the archives. If true and deliberate, this was a case of gross misconduct for which disciplinary action would be justified. It would even raise more serious questions of accountability and professionalism than the known situation had already exposed.

Residents have now put the whole matter before Chief Executive John Everitt asking him to intervene personally.

Background Note

At Transportation Sub Committee on 18th April 1997, Councillors voiced such concern at the escalating damage to the Grade 1 Listed fabric and environment of the Royal Crescent by heavy vehicles, especially double deck open top buses, that they told officials to take objections to the closure to a Public Inquiry. Chief Engineer said he had funds and other resources to mount an Inquiry in October. Only when residents pursued the matter in September did he admit that nothing had been done, assuring us of "no further delay", promising more information and citing other priority tasks; neither Councillor Hawkins nor we have any idea what these are, and Chief Engineer has refused to answer our letter of 1 5th September asking for details. He has also not taken any action or kept us informed. Meanwhile the damage to the Crescent gets worse for all to see.

Contact: Michael Daw 01225 315529

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 2         

The Public Inquiry - Action Time Approaches

From Newsletter No 36 Spring 1998

Taking up the story following the report in the last Newsletter, the most significant event is the formal announcement of a date for the long Public Inquiry. This will be held on 1st June 1998 in the Guildhall, Bath.

This information came in two ways, first in answer to a question put to County Engineer by Councillor Cox, and relayed by our Councillor David Hawkins, and secondly in the form of a 'round robin' standard notification from B&NES Legal staff which is required to be sent out to all interested parties as part of the formal Public Inquiry process.

Whether this 'result' stemmed from the critical letter of complaint we sent to Chief Executive John Everitt (reprinted in the last Newsletter) and any hastening of action he may have set in motion is not clear. He has still not had either the wit to claim credit for so doing, nor the courtesy to reply formally himself or get County Engineer to do so (as the latter promised in his evening telephone call, also reported last issue). Even publication of parts of our letter in the Chronicle (independently and unprompted by Mrs Vivienne Rae Ellis of the Circus) seemed not to shame Mr Everitt. In the next day's issue (in relation to another matter) he wrote:

"...... this Council is committed to providing quality, value for money services that are accessible, responsive and relevant".

"...... our duty of accountability". "...... I think that we (are) constantly striving to improve the quality of Council services for the people who use them..."

All one can say is that our parsnips remain unbuttered. Your Committee decided not to waste further time pursuing the last 11 months of Council Officers' incompetence and failure, but to move forward on the hard won ground of the Public Inquiry date.

The next move in the game will be for the Council to write to all parties who have so far registered an interest in the matter, inviting written submissions and/or requests to make oral presentations. We shall of course be pursuing receipt of this letter, just in case it too should mysteriously be "overlooked".

Besides its normal business, which takes four or five meetings a year, your Committee is now meeting in special sessions to plan and organise the Society's approach to the Inquiry and to task Members and our other supporters with ways to help. Special fliers etc. will keep everyone informed.

For those unfamiliar with the Public Inquiry process, it is important to realise that it is the Council which must prosecute or defend the case for closure of one end of the Crescent and deal with the formally presented objections by the Bus Companies. We will be the leading supporters of the case, presenting our own arguments, and we may need to use, or seek, legal help to do this, either to tease out the legislative minutiae (though the Council should cope with this) and/or to speak with us. We shall also be alerting all those who can speak on our side, who have been so helpful over the years. We shall also c* on the help of residents in various ways e.g. further bus surveys, letter campaigns, petitions, etc. Members will be kept closely informed.

So far the Society's campaign has enjoyed the active, although in some cases silent, support of all residents. The Committee has neither received nor heard of any dissent from the general conduct of the Society's case. AGMs have regularly endorsed the Committee's actions. However one supporting resident's determined and very helpful activities has unearthed letters from two residents to the Council, in opposition to the closure. In a population of well over 100 this is to be expected, but it re enforces the need for the majority to act even more strongly.

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 2     

Topless Talking Buses…The Public Inquiry

From Newsletter No 37 Summer 1998

The long awaited Public Inquiry to hear arguments for and against B&NES Council's Application to close the West end of the Royal Crescent to through traffic, so as to save it from further damage, was held from on Monday 1st June to Friday 5th June 1998 in the Alkmaar Room of Guildhall. In this Special Section we look at your Committee's preparation of the Society's Submission to the Inquiry, some of the arguments deployed on both sides, the main participants and the surrounding events.

Your Committee's Preparation

As reported to and approved by the 1998 AGM, your Committee decided to pull out all the stops in preparing its written Submission to the Inquiry and in rallying support for the Council's Application which had, after all, been prompted by our ten year campaign.

Accordingly your committee set aside all but essential work and met fortnightly throughout the Spring some eight meetings to discuss only the closure issue. Almost all Committee Members also took an active role outside these meetings, and Society Members too were encouraged to participate. Amongst these activities were:

" combing the Society's news clippings archives for the past 5 years to identify all members of the public who had written against the buses; " sending a letter to each of these encouraging them to write again, this time to the Inspector presiding over the Inquiry; sending a similar, but separate, letter to all Society Members and Friends;

Special Section

" writing to all known conservation bodies, local and national; " devising and asking members to conduct a fresh Traffic Survey and analysing the results; " drafting, revising and developing our main written submission using our own knowledge and taking legal advice; " advising the Chief Constable of the self enforcing nature of the closure; " consulting leading structural engineers about the carriageway, " meeting with Senior Councillors and Senior Council Officials.

These actions all generated positive and healthy responses except the last, a meeting with Senior Council Officials. We were anxious not to duplicate, in our submission, the sort of evidence the Council was bound to produce. So President, Chairman and Treasurer, with Councillor Hawkins help, held a meeting with Chief Executive John Everitt and his Engineering and legal staff. To our great surprise Mr Everitt's reaction was one of offering "all support short of actual help". He claimed that the Council could not be seen to be too close to one group more than another even though that group us would be helping his Officials carry out Councillors' directives. Therefore all he could offer was advice on procedure. Virtual end of meeting! At the time we felt hurt, dismayed, and puzzled, but in fact it enabled us at the Inquiry to totally deflect an accusation that we had browbeaten the Council into action been given favourite treatment.

The Traffic Survey

11 residents (Mines. Kersley, Baly, Walker, Morgan, Meddins, Parker, McCullough and Titchen and Messrs Little, Stephens and Nesbitt) undertook nearly 45 hours of readings and produced some startling results. Analysis, by Vice Chairman Tim Forrester, and Chairman, showed that the incidence of buses had gone up by a third since the last survey in 1993 whilst occupancy had halved. This was good, hard, factual, current evidence to put to the Inquiry.

Engineering Advice

Owe had consulted them in the past and because of their prestigious position at the top of their profession, John Meddins arranged an on site meeting with the famous engineers Ove Arup, with a view to their producing a report on the structure of the carriageway and the causes of its current damaged state. Verbally, they were clear that the cause could only be the buses, but their fees to produce a formal report were way beyond our funds. They thus withdrew, but in doing so, very courteously provided, free, a copy of an official American study which revealed an astonishing but extremely useful statistic. This was that the impact of one (single deck) coach on a carriageway was the equivalent of 850 cars. This was more hard evidence.

Legal Advice

Firstly our solicitor Tom Shepherd associated with Thrings and Long put us in touch with the firm's traffic regulation expert, Jonathan Cheal. Chairman and Treasurer had a two hour discussion with him, receiving much useful advice. In particular he reviewed our draft submission, line by line and we adopted his important corrections. Do not be surprised to see him at our next dinner!

Secondly Chairman's cousin, a London barrister, also reviewed the final version of the submission and developed 30 of the worst possible questions he could think of. He then coached Chairman into how to answer them not factually of course but in terms of tone and attitude. Thank heaven for kind relations!

Requests for Letters of Support Residents and General Public

In response to some 160 requests for letters of support, some 60 odd materialised that the Committee know about: there were probably many more. They came from many other parts of the City and beyond, with a special batch from the guides at No 1. Many were deeply thoughtful and detailed, showing the writers' strength of feeling. One resident, pinned the Council's Legal Services Department to the wall and extracted, only by quoting the Freedom of Information Act etc, all the relevant Council papers from them: this file, proved very useful, and of course they are Public Documents to which the Public has right of access.

Conservation Bodies

UNESCO's representative, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) not only sent a written submission but its Secretary Dr Philip Whitbourn, OBE, (etc), came down specially to the Inquiry and spoke in support. Slightly disappointingly he was in favour only of a trial, or pilot scheme. However he was impressive and at least on the right side.

The Georgian Group, the National Amenity Society for the protection of Georgian Buildings and their settings, sent a brief, but potent statement of full support.

The Bath Preservation Trust and the Bath Society made very strong written submissions and their speakers were as usual erudite, witty, informative and, to our biased ears, very persuasive.

The Chief Constable

There seemed to be no comment from the Chief Constable in the official papers produced by the Inquiry process, so Chairman wrote to him, highlighting the fact that closure would be self enforcing and thus would incur zero resources. A most courteous and rather relieved reply was perceived in time for use at the Inquiry: he had been concerned about this, and having checked our statement with B&NES, would now be making no objection to the closure. "Now" may be significant; maybe he would have objected later on if he hadn't been so advised....

The Society's Written Submission

Chairman produced the first draft of the Society's written submission and, as has been partly described above, it was then vetted, amended, reconstructed and immeasurably improved in Committee, by President and by Thrings & Long. Thanks to Treasurers' skills and limitless patience at word processing the final version was produced bang on time and the requisite copies hand delivered to the Council offices on May 7th. Other copies went to principal supporters and our two Councillors. It was well received by all.

structure, in several sections, covered: the Society's history, composition, constitution and achievements (i.e. our credentials); descriptions of the Crescent and of the traffic using it; our reasons for supporting the closure; the impact on surrounding streets; tourism and bus operations; and previous options which had failed. This covered some 18 pages plus some 50 pages of Annexes including colour photographs. Spirally bound, it was after the Council's own input the largest and most comprehensive submission made to the Inquiry. The Executive Summary is reprinted overleaf.

THE ROYAL Crescent SOCIETY Submission to Public Inquiry on B&NES (District Council) (Royal Crescent) (Prohibition of Driving) Order 199

SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ref. Summary Section

2. The Society, formed in 1973, is fully representative of Residents. Its objectives and achievements have already preserved and enhanced the Royal Crescent and its setting. It fully supports the Order.

3. The Royal Crescent is unique and deserves very special treatment. After 200 years it is still principally residential, and the only significant "cobbled" residential street in Bath. Retention of even its current condition is now under further threat from heavy through traffic, which is many times more damaging than ace traffic.

4. The Royal Crescent is not a main thoroughfare. The Order will affect all through traffic, but mainly the principal and most damaging element: the open top buses. These run almost as frequently as the single deck coaches which were banned in 1989 for reasons similar to those which support the current Order. They have increased by a third since 1993 whilst occupancy has halved.

5 The Order:

a) would save the Crescent from further physical and environmental damage; b) could benefit and would have little or no adverse impact on other streets; c) preserves access, is self enforcing and would reduce repair and maintenance costs;

d) would positively "preserve and enhance" the Crescent;

e) would have little or no impact on Bath's tourism;

f) would have little or no impact on Bus operations or revenues.

g) is supported in principle by UNESCO, and both local conservation bodies.

6. Tourism would benefit and bus operations would not be impaired.

7. Various previous options have failed.

8. The Order is essential to safeguard the very special nature of the Royal Crescent.

[Comparisons are not to be encouraged, but the contrast with submissions by the objectors was marked. None had much factual or hard or current evidence. Only one bus operator produced statistics, most of which did not survive challenge. Most were expressions of opinion. None could adduce support for their view from any other body].

The Inquiry

Preparation

In theory all who had an interest in the matter should have attended a Pre Inquiry Meeting held some weeks before the Inquiry itself. This was presided over, like the Inquiry itself, by the Inspector from the L Lord Chancellor's Panel, who would be making the formal Report a

Recommendations to the Council. All Councillors, Officials, the two local conservation bodies, this Society and Circus and Marlborough Lane/Buildings reps, Sir John Barraclough and John Walker duly appeared and went through the necessary formalities.

None of the Bus Companies appeared or were represented even though it was they who had forced the event of the Inquiry and the associated public expense. This discourteous even contemptuous attitude was to characterise their performances at the Inquiry itself.

Again, in theory, participants were encouraged to produce any written evidence well before the Inquiry began, though Council Officials appeared unable to produce any legislative backing for this. We and the two other residents' groups complied. The Council did too, two working hours before the Inquiry, followed by one of the bus companies. Much midnight oil was burned over the weekend to be prepared for Inquiry's start at 10.00am on Monday I" June.

The Inquiry was held in the Alkmaar Room of Bath's Guildhall. The Inspector, a Mr J E Coyne from Plymouth, explained that whilst this was not a legal or judicial proceeding, the rules of natural justice would apply; his responsibility was to collect all the arguments. There would be a site visit, covering whatever areas participants wished. Many residents attended in the public gallery this gave a real boost to Chairman and Treasurer who jointly conducted our case.

Days 1 3

Proceedings opened with the Council's Counsel, a Mr Nardecchia, from Gray's Inn London, summarising the Council's case for closure and then leading his four witnesses, [Council Officials from Traffic and Safety, Transportation Planning, Conservation and Highway Maintenance] as they read their written evidence. As each finished they were cross examined in some detail by the Solicitor leading for Guide Friday and Badgerline, then by the other three bus operators and last by the other objectors. Counsel then summed up after each witness and again after the last.

This process took two and a half days and three of the witnesses stood up fairly well to cross examination. The fourth witness, on Transportation Planning, unfortunately succumbed himself to being tied in knots on his important figures by very aggressive cross questioning. Counsel proved his worth the next morning by conducting a rescue operation, but some damage had been done. Meanwhile some fascinating facts about the construction of the carriageway came out (and may feature in a separate article in a future Newsletter). Everything was conducted with almost oily courtesy, but the grinding of steely machinery was very perceptible!

After Treasurer

.Fear lunch on the 3rd day the Society read its submission

Stephen Little taking the first half and Chairman Michael Daw the second. After the hard cross examination of Council witnesses, and after all our preparation, we were surprised and almost disappointed that uniquely, the Solicitor for two of the Bus Operators declined to ask us any questions at all. President judged that this was because the Solicitor could see the strength of our submission, and this was re enforced by Mr Nardecchia the Council's barrister who said that the lack of questioning meant that our evidence went into the record "unchallenged". This could only be good for the Council's case; he also commended the quality of the Society's submission.

Next up was Sir John Barraclough speaking as an independent resident of long standing. In typically trenchant, Olympian style, he injected the statesman's view of the matter as seen in the wider context. The gallery, rightly, applauded.

John Walker gave a vivid picture of life amidst the buses, highlighting the impacts of vibration and fumes a gap in the Society's submission which he filled well. He even offered a seven hour video of his own traffic survey, but this was declined!

There followed excellent submissions from Mr Ray Newbiggin of the Federation of Bath Residents' Associations (which was most telling despite unfortunate attempts by one resident's association publicly to impugn it), Dr Peter Woodward of the Bath Preservation Trust who had much constructive fun with the cross questioning and Major Anthony Crombie of the Bath Society, authoritative as always. All these inputs stood up well. Also Dr David Dunlop of the London Road Residents' Association spoke effectively in favour.

Day 4

This began with a long site visit covering the Crescent and all surrounding streets, the Circus and the Park.

After lunch the Solicitor presented the case for Badgerline and Guide Friday apparently two quite separate operations using the same fleet of Bristol Omnibus vehicles. So there are actually five operators, not four as commonly supposed. He led a Mr Leadbeater from Guide Friday's Stratford Office through his evidence peppered with unsubstantiated assertions. Cross examination by Mr Nardecchia whittled away at this and your Chairman scored at least one hit. Mr L had said that in the several hundred tourist dependent businesses in Bath, there was general opposition to the closure; he produced two letters to support this assertion. However he had to admit under Chairman's questioning that these represented only 31 businesses, one of which gave discounts to bus passengers!

His colleague from the Bristol Omnibus Company representing Badgerline also put his foot in it by asserting that the view of the Crescent from the alternative route through Royal Avenue was obscured all the time by "these huge flags" (i.e. the 1998 only Bath Festival ones). He retired hurt on that point. His only "evidence" to the Inquiry was an amateur 2 1/2 minute video and 24 photographs. A sign, we thought, of the contempt with which his multi million pound company viewed the whole proceedings. Indeed as soon as they had given their evidence they left, never to return.

The Bath Bus Company portrayed itself as reasonable and different the only ones to offer headphones to reduce noise. Ryans City Tours MD was a pugnacious, street wise, quick thinking, but illiterate speaker who assumed the role of victimised, honest business man being hounded out of business by snobbish elite trying to keep their precious Crescent to themselves. He stood up well to cross questioning.

The Circus Residents' Association, which wanted yet more studies and an "holistic" approach, was revealed by Mr Nardecchia as not formally acting to the Order, only "not supporting" it, and by your Chairman as seeing the debate not as one of conservation and preservation of the heritage, but as petty squabble between residents' groups; this seemed an unfortunate admission on their part and may have resulted from the heat of the moment.

Marlborough Lane/Buildings Association also wanted a wider area solution but, under questioning by Chairman, withdrew their repeated accusations that closure was a "knee jerk" action by the Council. They were convinced, despite hard evidence to the contrary that they would get increased traffic.

Day 5

After some very minor players spoke against the closure, Solicitor to Guide Friday and Badgerline summed up their case, at very tedious length, reading all the relevant, and some irrelevant, legislation line by line. He too then left. He was followed by Mr Nardecchia who answered all the Solicitor's points and made some important new emphases. He also neatly dealt with a question from the Inspector as to the statutory minimum length (18 months) of an experimental closure should he consider recommending one. Mr Nardecchia threw the ball straight back: "Sir may I say that in the Council's judgement, if the existing and continuing damage to this overwhelmingly important site justifies any form of closure, the argument is self fulfilling that it should be permanent".

The Inquiry closed at 3.15.

What Happens Next?

The Inspector said he would try to transmit his Report and Recommendations to B&NES (Legal Department) before he goes on holiday in mid August. As soon as Councillors have been notified, this then becomes Public Information and Members may rest assured that the result will be sought and publicised ASAP, if not sooner.

Councillors then have to meet to decide whether to accept the a Recommendations. If they do not, they can be subject to Judicial Review.

If we win, then Councillors will have to vote for funds in the Budget and space in the Works Programme for 1999/2000: we can call in their promises to do so.

If we lose (like the objectors) we can investigate what Appeals or other procedures are open to us. We shall certainly not give up.

Media Coverage

The local press kept low profile stories going, without prompting: they were mainly accurate and emphasised our side of the case. Local TV did their usual act, shooting hours of film and transmitting only a few seconds. Radio, too did two interviews with the Chairman.

However all were eclipsed by a largely very favourable piece with a six C column headline, plus photo of Chairman in the Times of June 1st the first day of the Inquiry. This set a very up beat tone.

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 2        

Victory Looms

From Newsletter No 38 Winter 1998

As the Bath Chronicle quaintly put it "Victory Looms" in residents' campaign to close one end of the Crescent and thus to stop the damaging Open Top Bus traffic.

Since the last Newsletter (Summer '98), the Lord Chancellor's Inspector, Mr LE. Coyne, has presented his Report on the June Public Inquiry with his Recommendation to B&NES Council that it should proceed with its proposed Traffic Order.

The Council has decided, unanimously, to accept the Recommendation. It has directed the Head of Engineering Services to try to implement the closure by the end of Financial Year 1998/9 (by using any unused funds), and if not, to do it in the next Financial Year,

Neither the bus operators nor any other objectors to the proposal attempted to raise any obstacles to this decision and there is now no further avenue for them to do so. The case is settled and closure will happen.

The question is: when? Well, certainly by April 2000. Possibly by April 1999. To be more precise is not possible. The steps on the way to the physical closure include much scope for bureaucratic delay, claims of other more urgent work, etc. In other words your Committee and your hard working Councillors will have to continue to keep up the pressure for the thing to actually happen.

The steps include: re advertising of the intention to proceed; design of the closure structure (pavement? bollards? other?); approval of the design by various departments: highways, legal, built heritage; costing; budget/funding provision; resource allocation in the works programme (or tendering and contracting if sub contracted). The recent record of the officials involved is not encouraging: vigilance by the Society will be essential.

THE BUSES THE INSPECTOR'S REPORT

The Inspector's Report runs to some 28 pages of text, two Annexes and 43 documents. No one could accuse him of not being thorough. Any member wishing to read the text may borrow a copy (call Chairman on 315529). Meanwhile a few salient points are quoted below:

The final words are worth quoting first:

"I am satisfied that the outstanding importance of the Royal Crescent .justifies the restrictions proposed in the Order" and, earlier: "I consider the Royal Crescent to be a special case ".

These sentences vindicate the whole of the Society's approach to the campaign. This was based on the uniqueness of this Crescent. Our refusal to join it with the causes of surrounding streets would clearly have ruined our case. Their battles must be fought, but separately. Though their solutions will be more difficult than for the Crescent, they will gain strength from the precedent set here. Your Committee will aim to support their campaigns providing residents there work hard themselves.

Further gems from the Report draw on the evidence your Committee presented:

"... I am in no doubt that the amount of Open Topped Bits traffic has now reached a level which is quite unacceptable ...."

"There is an abundance of evidence of the noise, exhaust emissions, visual intrusion, traffic congestion and loss of privacy the (buses) are creating, to convince me they are seriously damaging the amenities of Royal Crescent.... and the level of use is of a kind which is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of Royal Crescent, a road of international significance ".

"The significant enhancement... which the proposal will achieve h v removing the buses is something which will benefit all visitors to Bath ".

"... (bus travel) is not the only way or necessarily the best way to fully appreciate the Royal Crescent ".

"I do not believe it will deter visitors from coming to Bath

''There is no doubt that the buses are the main cause of environmental damage in the Royal Crescent ".

BUSES THE Council's DECISION

The Inspector's Report was produced very quickly on 15 July a mere five weeks after the Inquiry. Officials took much longer to digest it and present it, with their comments, to Councillors for decision another 14 weeks in fact! Even then the covering remarks were inaccurate and misleading details which Committee picked up and which Councillor Hawkins drew publicly to officials' attention in Council.

However officials were clear in advising Councillors to go ahead and with one last minute hiccup, rescued by Councillor Curran very effectively the proposal was carried through. All parties were in no doubt that it was the right way ahead. Let us hope they will see it through soon: it is, after all, as much a triumph for the Council as for the Society.

BBCtv2 climbed on the bandwagon too, delaying transmission of their "Close Up" programme on the city wide bus problem until the Inspector's Report was released. The half hour was very thoroughly researched and balanced, but and the BBC surely has no axe to grind came out in favour of even more restrictions. Chairman was interviewed for about 2 hours, filmed for 15 minutes and appeared on screen for 30 seconds!

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 2        

Topless Talking Buses…The Victory

From Newsletter No 39 Spring 1999

The Event

The last Newsletter included the Council's letter promising to implement their decision to close the West end of the Crescent on Monday 15th February 1999.

We all kept our fingers crossed, but Councillor David Hawkins was more pro active. He badgered officials right up to the magic date and as a result it actually happened. At 1 lam on the very day, workmen (who had started toiling earlier) put the last red and white barrier board in place and the road was closed.

Ten years of slog, disappointment, triumph, setback, negotiation, writing and debate had finally come to an end, with a victory for conservation over the combined forces of arrogant, contemptuous commercialism and greed.

Residents rubbed their eyes in disbelief. Champagne was opened (Councillor Hawkins even kindly brought his own!) and commemorative photographs were taken. BBCtv graced the occasion with two news reports and congratulatory letters flowed in. The saga was over at last.

The Structure

The same day with even more commendable speed Council officials called a meeting to decide the design of the permanent closure structure. Chairman and resident David Brain attended for the Society and the meeting also included Dr Peter Woodward for the Bath Preservation Trust, David McLaughlin the Council's Built Heritage Senior Officer and representatives from Marlborough Lane and Buildings Residents' Association.

Here's to conservation! Councillor Hawkins and residents celebrate February 15th 1999.

It was all worth it! Chairman Michael Daws enjoys the sign of achievement!

Victory at Last the real thing!

A serious moment: now we believe it's really happening. Residents and Councillor Hawkins, as the road is closed. February 15th 1999.

The officials stated that their twin aims were to agree the design that day (so that it could be built by 31st March) and to achieve a quality of design which attuned with the sensitivity and importance of the site. David Brain proposed that it should as far as possible look as though it had always been there, consonant with traffic safety considerations. Dr Woodward proposed that the design solution should not be over-engineered and should be easily reversible. Both these proposals were readily agreed.

The officials proposed a row of bollards, using replicas of those at the end of Alfred Street near the Assembly Rooms. Although the date of these was uncertain, it was unanimously agreed that they were of the right scale and elegance. One of the existing ones would be taken up, a cast made and new ones produced for the Crescent. They will be placed 1.5 metres apart, with one or more central ones being removable by the Emergency Services as is common elsewhere in the City.

Much debate ensued on what pavement structure should be created to support the new bollards, until David Brain proposed an elegant solution which was, with a subtle embellishment by David McLaughlin, much applauded and adopted.

The concept is to lay a new kerb joining the two existing kerbs at either side of the opening, and then to gradually raise the level of the existing cobbles (setts) to meet the top of the new kerb. Thus the Crescent road surface will appear to be undisturbed, continuous and original, but clearly separate from the Marlborough Buildings road surface. The embellishment is to include two or three lines of larger setts in the pattern of a footway, just inside the new kerb stones. Again a continuity of level, texture and material. (A possible precedent for this embellishment can be seen, partially exposed, at the South West corner of Catharine Place just by the kerb corner adjacent to the Bridge Club.

Finally, officials had noted that the cobbled surface of the Crescent continues in a straight shape out to Marlborough Buildings. Between this and the widely curved North West corner of the Park the (large triangular) surface is tarmacadam. This could mean that the junction had originally been rectangular, but had later been curved to make the turn easier. Officials undertook to try, if the project budget permitted, to pave this area with setts. This would of course be a major environmental improvement. Longer term they will consider researching the history the curve/corner and restoring the original shape of the railings and park justified and affordable.

A very satisfactory meeting indeed: very ably and constructively conducted by the officials: Mr Keith Marsh, Area Traffic Engineer, helped by Mr Gary Peacock, Senior Project Manager, Engineering Consultancy.

Street Signage

It was wonderful to see a permanent sign go up at the Circus end of Brock Street: "Royal Crescent closed to through traffic" and, initially, opposite No 1: 'Road Ahead Closed until it was replaced with the permanent cul de sac (pictorial) sign David Brain's request for this post to be combined with the one for the Card Parking was apparently no, possible.

The Council's policy here is to keep signage to an absolute minimum and only to augment it if traffic experience dictates the need. Already a large sign opposite Marlborough Buildings has been dispensed with and others may go too: this all enhances the environment.

The Impacts

Of course the most immediate impact in the Crescent itself, besides the cessation of damage, has been the restoration of a standard of peace and tranquillity not experienced for twenty years, when in the 1970s (later banned) coaches began to proliferate. Many residents, bemused by the hordes of buses had perhaps not fully realised how much other traffic used the road as a "rat run", usually at high speed and noisily. This too has stopped and the number of vehicles whose drivers fail to see the cul de sac sign and confidently whiz through, only to have to turn back diminishes daily. They are, principally cars; commercial vehicle drivers seem more alert to the signs.

Three of the bus operators have chosen the Council's preferred (and the Society's forecast) new route. That is from Bennett Street, round one third of the Circus to Gay Street, round Queen Square, along the Upper Bristol Road, up Marlborough Lane and (as before) through Royal Avenue, etc. So Marlborough Buildings, Brock Street and the Circus all benefit from the closure, though Marlborough Lane will if this new route persists, suffer from an increase in bus traffic. The fourth operator, Bath Bus Company, is initially still using Brock Street and now going up Upper Church Street, around the back of the Crescent and down Marlborough Buildings to Royal Avenue. It remains to be seen whether this deeply unattractive and awkward route is kept; it seems unlikely. Brook Street and Upper Church Street residents have already begun their campaign to change it. The Bath Bus Company has only six vehicles.

Finally an unexpected beneficiary has been the Hotel's jolly, dapper and courteous Senior Doorman, Sean. No longer is he screamed at, cajoled and otherwise begged by bus passengers, to behave as he puts it "like a performing bloody monkey" and to doff his top hat. It's not as though most of those using the buses were amongst those most likely to be potential guests!

Top of Page  /  Go to Buses Part 1  /   Go to Buses Part 2